"Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" by Borg

[GreenPartyVoter]

Ok. I zipped through this book because it was from the library, so I think I ought to get a copy of my own and study it at a more leisurely pace in the future.

But here are the thoughts I came away with from the quick-read of this little book:

I am glad I read this book. I think it has helped to redirect my search for God and to help me rebuild my faith in Him, so that I move from a fearful relationship with an angry Supreme Master to one with a loving Supreme Parent.

I first read the Bible cover-to-cover on my own as a youngster. This was probably not a good thing, as I mostly came away with an impression of an Angry God. And I certainly was in no position to understand at the tender age of 11 the cultural background of the world of the Hebrews or Jesus.

The trouble is that in some ways reading about the life of Christ is a bit like reading a mystery. Sure you can read the book again, but you already know whodunit the next time you go back to it, and having that knowledge changes the way you see things from then on. "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" has clarified for me the difference between pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus. Before this when I reread the Gospels and looked over what Jesus said or did prior to his death and resurrection, I looked at it as though He was the post-Easter Godly Jesus the entire time, that He was always God right from the get-go. Now I am looking at Him more in the sense of His humanity as it was recorded in the first 3 gospels. When I stop to think about it, I expect He was a pretty normal kid, and I am not sure that He really saw Himself as God as that point waiting around to be worshipped. Rather I do think He was very much a man constantly in touch with His Father, so I am giving more consideration to the example He set where he showed me how to live and how to be in touch with the Father all the time. (Or at least try to be.)

Also, as a woman who was raised in a Baptist church, I was always hurt and angry at the way women seemed to be second class citizens, and folks always seemed to back up the reason for this with Scripture. But Borg's book showed me that there was a possibility that God has a feminine side (His Wisdom or Sophia) and that this idea of femininity was dropped in translations made from the Greek texts. Perhaps that does not mean much to some, but to a girl who heard most of her life how everything was Eve's (and therefore women in general) fault, it meant a lot to me.

I also appreciated Borg's information about purity codes and particularly about how Jesus confronted the Pharisees about their mile long lists of who was ok and who was not and how badly they treated those on the "not ok" list. I can see that this type of thinking is still present in many churches today, which is too bad. A relationship with God should not be about following rules, rules, and more rules but rather about his Grace. I wish I had known this years ago, so that I might have actually _felt_ God before now.

So I would recommend this book to people who feel that they are just going through the motions at church (or have given up on church altogether) but could use some fresh insight to get their search for God jumpstarted again. It's also good for folks who are just starting out on the path of Biblical scholarship. However, people who believe the Bible is inerrant may be uncomfortable with some of the ideas presented in this book. It doesn't mean they should not pick it up, but they should be forewarned that they may find their beliefs tested.

 

[Rocinante]

Yes, I believe Borg is the best of the current writers on Jesus, with Crossan a close second. Spong is wonderful, but takes things to extreme.....possibly just to make us think. Spong reminds me of Thoreau in that he states things in very exaggerated ways just to force people to think outside the box......WAY outside.

Ya know, I think if a lot of us had been forbidden to read the Bible or hear Bible stories until we were adults we would have been a lot better off. That early brainwashing is terribly hard to shake off.

(Did that statement get you outside the box?)

 

[brian78]

A relationship with God should not be about following rules, rules, and more rules but rather about his Grace. I wish I had known this years ago, so that I might have actually _felt_ God before now.

I totally agree, your relationship isn't following rules or how much better you are at following rules than other people around you ("holier than thou" attitude). We need to love each other, that's it!

It seems so easy, but it's hard to do. I like to think of myself as a pretty loving guy, but I'll find myself at church comparing other people's weaknesses to my strengths to make myself feel better, and I just gloss over my weaknesses.

I'll pick up the book.

 

[GreenPartyVoter]

Brian, let me know how you enjoy it? (Love your avatar. Too precious! Almost makes me want another one of my own, but the thought of getting up all hours to nurse just leaves me feeling exhausted already! *l*)

Rocinante,
I've been thinking of reading some Thoreau. Or rereading. Covered some of his stuff in school, but it didn't stick.

 

[September]

Thanks for your review. A friend recently loaned me this book, but I haven't started it yet. Based on her recommendation and your review, I look forward to reading it.

 

[wonder111]

I expect He was a pretty normal kid, and I am not sure that He really saw Himself as God as that point waiting around to be worshipped. Rather I do think He was very much a man constantly in touch with His Father, so I am giving more consideration to the example He set where he showed me how to live and how to be in touch with the Father all the time. (Or at least try to be.)

Last night someone mentioned that Jesus would have known that he was God if Mary had told him she was a virgin, (but this was a Spong discussion)

also, my minister mentioned that inerrancy came into being I think sometime in the 1800's? and did it come after the idea of the inerrancy of the pope? I think he said that the protestants sort of developed the 'inerrancy of the bible' claim.

 

[Rocinante]

also, my minister mentioned that inerrancy came into being I think sometime in the 1800's? and did it come after the idea of the inerrancy of the pope? I think he said that the protestants sort of developed the 'inerrancy of the bible' claim.

Roz sez:

Yes, the Fundamentalists felt they needed a pope, too.......therefore, they took the Bible as their pope.

The great advantage of this was--unlike a man--the Bible could be easily manipulated to support any evil that might benefit them financially (slavery, for example).

They still do it today, although now most of them call themselves Evangelicals instead of Fundamentalists and they are satisfied to exploit, oppress and abuse the poor rather than actually capturing them and bringing them home in chains to work in cottonfields.

Hello reality.