Jesus as philosopher

[FireDragon76]

I don't agree with Don Cupitt's views of Christology (he underestimates a high christology being present early on, especially in the writings of Paul), but I do think he has an interesting perspective on what makes Jesus' ethics different from Judaism or Islam. I also agree on many points about the imperial synthesis of Christianity based on hierarchical, authoritarian power structures. I think that's one of the things that Luther was reacting to, ultimately, and it's something that has only been more realized in the post-WWII era by certain theologians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't agree with Don Cupitt's views of Christology (he underestimates a high christology being present early on, especially in the writings of Paul), but I do think he has an interesting perspective on what makes Jesus' ethics different from Judaism or Islam. I also agree on many points about the imperial synthesis of Christianity based on hierarchical, authoritarian power structures. I think that's one of the things that Luther was reacting to, ultimately, and it's something that has only been more realized in the post-WWII era by certain theologians.

I've already been briefly introduced to Don Cupitt, and like you, I'm not much on Cupitt's view of more secularized Christology. Nevertheless, I do think there's something to his criticism that an 'imperial synthesis' has taken place on some level within the church over the last 2,000. My criticism of his criticism would be that I think the synthesis was of a different kind and level than the one he states that it has been.

 

[zephcom]

I don't agree with Don Cupitt's views of Christology (he underestimates a high christology being present early on, especially in the writings of Paul), but I do think he has an interesting perspective on what makes Jesus' ethics different from Judaism or Islam. I also agree on many points about the imperial synthesis of Christianity based on hierarchical, authoritarian power structures. I think that's one of the things that Luther was reacting to, ultimately, and it's something that has only been more realized in the post-WWII era by certain theologians.

First of all, a disclaimer. Listening to something is, for me, the worst way to learn and understand something. Reading is far better for me. However I did listen to the discussion linked in the post. I also did a small bit of research on the Cupitt.

I don't find his discussion of Jesus as a philosopher to be out of line at all. While my path from Christianity to a secular view of Jesus is not as extensive as Cupitt's, a lot of what he talks about became clear to me over the years.

One of the things I did once was to read the gospels in the order they were likely written instead of the order they are in the bible. The order I used was Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. One could argue Matthew before Luke but, as I understand it, they are considered to be written about the same time.

I also did the reading 'for pleasure'. By that I didn't attempt to analyze any of the passages. I read them like I would a novel. I also used The Message in my reading since it is better designed to be read as a novel.

As I reflected on the experiment, I realized the Bible is 'hiding' the beginning stages of the legend building which resulted in the Fourth Century's Deification of Jesus as God Himself. That final stage in the Fourth Century effectively locked Jesus away in Heaven and made room for human 'interpreters' to control the religion.

But the beginning of the process is recorded in the Gospels as, over time, Jesus appears to gain more and more aspects of a divine being. There is a reason why people who use the Bible to defend Jesus as God only seem to use the Gospel of John. It was the last to be written and was written at the very end of the First Century. That is some seventy years after Jesus lived on earth and represents seventy years of legend building as some three generations of Christians told and retold the stories of Jesus.

Mark, OTOH, doesn't include the divine, worshipful respect of John because it was written much earlier in the legend building process. In Mark, Jesus is far more human than divine.

 

[FireDragon76]

Mark, OTOH, doesn't include the divine, worshipful respect of John because it was written much earlier in the legend building process. In Mark, Jesus is far more human than divine.

That's neglecting Jesus' and his followers Jewish background and misunderstanding the context of Jesus divinity. Most of western culture has had too "high" of a view of God, in comparison, going all the way back to Aristotle. We've been dealing with a false notion of transcendence that in many ways is alien to the biblical text itself.

I don't see the Gospel of John as actually focusing on Jesus divinity so much as being a text of mysticism. It is a misunderstanding to see the Synoptics as necessitating a low Christology. Rather, the Synoptics focus on Jesus divinity through his actions in a way that would be understood by a predominantly Jewish audience. Issues of metaphysics come much later and are mostly a Greek concern.

I'm more interested in discussing Jesus a philosopher, without necessarily denying religious claims about him. As a Chalcedonian, I don't think discussing Jesus as a human being engaged in human activities like philosophy threatens my faith at all.

 

[zephcom]

That's neglecting Jesus' and his followers Jewish background and misunderstanding the context of Jesus divinity. Most of western culture has had too "high" of a view of God, in comparison, going all the way back to Aristotle. We've been dealing with a false notion of transcendence that in many ways is alien to the biblical text itself.

I don't see the Gospel of John as actually focusing on Jesus divinity so much as being a text of mysticism. It is a misunderstanding to see the Synoptics as necessitating a low Christology. Rather, the Synoptics focus on Jesus divinity through his actions in a way that would be understood by a predominantly Jewish audience. Issues of metaphysics come much later and are mostly a Greek concern.

I'm more interested in discussing Jesus a philosopher, without necessarily denying religious claims about him. As a Chalcedonian, I don't think discussing Jesus as a human being engaged in human activities like philosophy threatens my faith at all.

The nature of Jesus, IMHO, does affect a discussion of Jesus as a philosopher. If Jesus actually is God Almighty, then He can not be considered -a- philosopher. That ranks Him among mere humans and reduces His 'philosophy' as something to be accepted or rejected by other mere humans.

A philosopher, by definition, can be wrong. And the fact that the world's best known philosophers can and do have differing philosophies indicate they don't have the perfect knowledge that God Almighty would be expected to have.

-I- accept that the teachings of Jesus have exceptional value to me without regard to the nature of Jesus or, even, if He qualifies as a 'philosopher'. It is the teachings which attract me, not the being.

If I held 'faith' in the divinity of Jesus then I would also be bound by that faith to not question the teachings and to obey them as a dog obeys its training. There would be no discussion about Jesus as yet another philosopher because no other philosopher is considered God Almighty Himself.

One really does need to work through the nature of Jesus before one considers Jesus' teachings as a philosophy and not a divine revelation.

 

[FireDragon76]

The nature of Jesus, IMHO, does affect a discussion of Jesus as a philosopher. If Jesus actually is God Almighty, then He can not be considered -a- philosopher. That ranks Him among mere humans and reduces His 'philosophy' as something to be accepted or rejected by other mere humans.

A philosopher, by definition, can be wrong. And the fact that the world's best known philosophers can and do have differing philosophies indicate they don't have the perfect knowledge that God Almighty would be expected to have.

-I- accept that the teachings of Jesus have exceptional value to me without regard to the nature of Jesus or, even, if He qualifies as a 'philosopher'. It is the teachings which attract me, not the being.

If I held 'faith' in the divinity of Jesus then I would also be bound by that faith to not question the teachings and to obey them as a dog obeys its training. There would be no discussion about Jesus as yet another philosopher because no other philosopher is considered God Almighty Himself.

One really does need to work through the nature of Jesus before one considers Jesus' teachings as a philosophy and not a divine revelation.

That's a vastly oversimplified caricature of Christian faith and teaching. The point of incarnational theology is that God chose to act within history in the person of Jesus Christ as a human being, and not an authority above the human condition. As a Lutheran I do not believe we can even know God apart from Christ's humanity.

 

[zephcom]

That's a vastly oversimplified caricature of Christian faith and teaching. The point of incarnational theology is that God chose to act within history in the person of Jesus Christ as a human being, and not an authority above the human condition. As a Lutheran I do not believe we can even know God apart from Christ's humanity.

Over simplifications are not...by themselves...considered wrong.

The idea that Jesus was human while still maintaining a Divine nature as God Himself is something I'm not necessarily opposed to. -My- caveat is that should Jesus be totally human while still maintaining this Divine nature as God Himself then we -all- have this Divine nature just as Jesus did.

That should mean we need not single Jesus out as an object of worship while ignoring our own status as being objects of worship. Jesus was EXACTLY like us or He wasn't really human.

I understand that my points can seem nit-picking. To give you a hint about me, I excelled in high school algebra so many decades ago because I quickly and easily grasp the concept that massive formulas can only be accepted as accurate if one has proven each and every one of the steps used in the formula as being true. One step which has not been proven to be true can render an otherwise elegant solution useless.

I've applied that idea to most portions of my life including religion. So when someone tells me that Jesus was human, I'm going to try find out how they arrived at that conclusion because the Bible records Him as doing things which are beyond the scope of what being human means. Should it be shown that describing Jesus as human is accurate without any of the steps in the 'proof' having, itself, not been proved, then I'm going to assume that humans have a long way to go before they demonstrate their 'humanity' completely.

As a Deist, I don't believe we can know God at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a Deist, I don't believe we can know God at all.

If we can't know God at all, then how do you even know God exists? What differences does your belief make in your life?

 

[Dave-W]

The idea that Jesus was human while still maintaining a Divine nature as God Himself is something I'm not necessarily opposed to. -My- caveat is that should Jesus be totally human while still maintaining this Divine nature as God Himself then we -all- have this Divine nature just as Jesus did.

That should mean we need not single Jesus out as an object of worship while ignoring our own status as being objects of worship. Jesus was EXACTLY like us or He wasn't really human.

That sounds like New Age theology rather than Deism.

 

[zephcom]

If we can't know God at all, then how do you even know God exists? What differences does your belief make in your life?

I don't 'know' God exists. There is a difference between knowing God and knowing God exists.

The first implies being able to identify God when one encounters Him. The second being sure there is a God regardless of whether one can identify Him.

In any case, I -like- the idea of God. But I'm fully aware that I am unable to demonstrate the existence of God so I am happy with my idea and don't insist that other share it. Personally, I really wish science wouldn't take such a 'hands off' approach the existence of God because I really think that a God which is able to interact with humans should be able to be discovered by humans. It would be comforting to have evidence to point to about God.

One of the differences my belief makes in my life is that I no longer have to go to the meetings on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. Another difference is that I am no longer restricted in my pursuit of spiritual advancement. I can like the teachings of Jesus without having to accept all the baggage the religion brings along.