Mystical faith in Christianity while dismissing historical Jesus and Judaism

[Halbhh]

I consider the historical Jesus to have been a misguided cult leader

Why precisely though? It's not for His emphasis on "Love your neighbor as yourself" I'd think. Or...is it?

 

[cloudyday2]

Why precisely though? It's not for His emphasis on "Love your neighbor as yourself" I'd think. Or...is it?

The earliest Christians expected Jesus to return at the head of an angelic army to defeat the Romans and sit on a throne in Jerusalem. They expected that within their lifetimes, because that is what Jesus promised.

 

[Halbhh]

The earliest Christians expected Jesus to return at the head of an angelic army to defeat the Romans and sit on a throne in Jerusalem. They expected that within their lifetimes, because that is what Jesus promised.

You must be referring to the (at first confusing) verse:
Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

But look at what happens next after 16:28. Look and see:

28“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 16:28-17:5

As you can see some (not all) of them witnessed Christ in His Kingdom, in Glory, and it happened 6 days after He said some would see this.

-------

Also, next, regarding the different aspect, the 2nd coming spoken of in other places (also before 16:28 in chapter 16 above) --> Peter, widely understood to be one of the main leaders among all the apostles, generally involved and central in their understandings and teachings, later would convey more via the spirit to all, on this question, to help them understand better:
2 Peter 3:8 Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

This fits perfectly to another key thing. A crucial thing, echoed in other places:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.

God isn't it appears then likely to end this current world while many are being saved each day it would then seem(!) -- so long as more are seeking Him, trying to find Him in faith, He would not close the door it appears!

That seeking itself might eventually end some day, which would be a dark time, and then this continuing conversions which would seem to hold back the end would then no longer hold it back. It's a full-scripture kind of reading, where instead of one passage or one book one reads the entirety of scripture, and then these things stand out.

For you, you should stop trusting these kinds of objections made up by non-believers. They are meant to attempt to paint a picture on top of scripture, to repaint it's landscape into a new, different picture that is unlike the real, full text.

 

[muichimotsu]

@HTacianas and @Hazelelponi , my beliefs are similar to skeptical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Wiliiam Devers, Geza Vermes, etc. I believe the historical Jesus was probably somebody more like David Koresh of the Branch Davidians (i.e. a typical charismatic cult leader and maybe a naive revolutionary).

On the other hand, I do think there might be a mystical reality that is either intentionally or coincidentally reflected in Christian/Jewish theology and fictional narratives. I have some curiosity and an open-minded attitude towards paranormal, UFOs, and a higher power.

Might be a bit hasty assessment on my part, but it sounds a lot like Gnosticism in the general sense of those kinds of mystic experiences that happen to correlate to leaders like Jesus as reflecting part of that reality

 

[cloudyday2]

You must be referring to the (at first confusing) verse:
Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

But look at what happens next after 16:28. Look and see:

28“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
Matthew 16:28-17:5

As you can see some (not all) of them witnessed Christ in His Kingdom, in Glory, and it happened 6 days after He said some would see this.

-------

Also, next, regarding the different aspect, the 2nd coming spoken of in other places (also before 16:28 in chapter 16 above) --> Peter, widely understood to be one of the main leaders among all the apostles, generally involved and central in their understandings and teachings, later would convey more via the spirit to all, on this question, to help them understand better:
2 Peter 3:8 Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

This fits perfectly to another key thing. A crucial thing, echoed in other places:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.

God isn't it appears then likely to end this current world while many are being saved each day it would then seem(!) -- so long as more are seeking Him, trying to find Him in faith, He would not close the door it appears!

That seeking itself might eventually end some day, which would be a dark time, and then this continuing conversions which would seem to hold back the end would then no longer hold it back. It's a full-scripture kind of reading, where instead of one passage or one book one reads the entirety of scripture, and then these things stand out.

For you, you should stop trusting these kinds of objections made up by non-believers. They are meant to attempt to paint a picture on top of scripture, to repaint it's landscape into a new, different picture that is unlike the real, full text.

That quote is only the most obvious. John the Baptist said "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near". Jesus continued that message and made the timing seem even more immediate.

Another thing to consider: Papias wrote that the order of events in the synoptics was not chronological. Most scholars agree with that. Events are organized to give a theological message. So the fact that the Transfiguration follows this statement in the text does not indicate that it followed chronologically. Also the gospels have layers of composition written by different people with different motives.

We are still waiting on the Second Coming. If we could resurrect St. Paul to see that we are still waiting 2000 years later would he lose faith?

 

[cloudyday2]

In the Christian world there's a group who espouses the "Universal Christ". Some may use the term "Cosmic Christ". You will find it more in the realm of the Mystics and Wisdom traditions than main stream Christianity. A couple of the voices found within that spiritual trajectory are Richard Rohr and Matthew Fox. The Cosmic Christ is the only way that the Light of God makes any sense to me. Part of that is that I don't know how to limit God and the Cosmic Christ opens the whole of the universe to having God expressed within it. But because this is in the realm of the Mystics, who are not well understood. And you will find a lot of kickback from mainstream Christianity.

There's several Videos by Richard Rohr on the Cosmic Christ.
I've selected a shorter one here for viewing:

Richard Rohr - Cosmic Christ

I watched part of that link, but it seemed to me that Rohr believed that the historical Jesus and the cosmic Christ were the same person.

The Jesus of the gospels didn't exist IMO. There was a historical Jesus, but the character in the gospels is a fictional creation only loosely based on the real person IMO.

So imagine the historical Jesus was just a misguided apocalyptic Jewish extremist who hoped to instigate a revolution.

Now imagine there is a higher power who says "hmmm, I think I can build a fictional Jesus Christ with a fictional narrative that might teach billions of humans something about who I am and what I want. That's kind of what I'm wondering. Would that qualify as Christianity to believe that model?

 

[cloudyday2]

@dlamberth (and anybody else), I realized a more concise way of explaining my idea.

Ordinary Christians venerate the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and his teachings and the later church traditions. However, ordinary Christians believe these things were at least somewhat historically accurate and that the historical Jesus was inspired.

I would similarly venerate the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and his teachings and the later church traditions. I would differ in that I would recognize all of these things to be entirely fictional and I would see the historical Jesus as a typical misguided apocalyptic cult leader. I would see God's inspiration in the creation of the fictions of Christianity to reflect mystical truths.

It seems that the two positions are equivalent in practical terms and I could consider myself a Christian.

 

[Halbhh]

That quote is only the most obvious. John the Baptist said "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near". Jesus continued that message and made the timing seem even more immediate.

Another thing to consider: Papias wrote that the order of events in the synoptics was not chronological. Most scholars agree with that. Events are organized to give a theological message. So the fact that the Transfiguration follows this statement in the text does not indicate that it followed chronologically. Also the gospels have layers of composition written by different people with different motives.

We are still waiting on the Second Coming. If we could resurrect St. Paul to see that we are still waiting 2000 years later would he lose faith?

The kingdom of heaven was indeed very near when John the Baptist said that. He came to John one day.

How do we know? It's quite easy to see after full reading in the gospels actually:
Luke 17:21 Nor will people say, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.' For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Next, that the transfiguration is Christ in the glory of His kingdom comes across if you really believe in the details of that situation (and is one of the mainstream interpretations; years ago I wondered on this question, but then simply read commentaries on the 16:28 verse).
Perhaps I should have included another verse or more above. The next verse is:
Matthew 17:6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown in terror.

See, I believe this happened, so I don't discount it. (if a person does discount such details, then they are in effect substituting in a different story, or painting on top of the text something else. See? If you have a theory you insist on, it tends to reduce the ability to see details. This is why I tell people, even believers, to lay aside their theories and even doctrines, and just really listen, in order to hear.)

See why that matters? Now, really, this isn't where you could ever find out in my view whether God exists. It's starting at the end, instead of the beginning.

So, this is not one of the areas I'd try to look at first as a non believer -- and as you may have seen me write, it is not at all the kind of thing I looked at first.

I looked for a whole different thing entirely: Did Jesus say rules for how to live that are superior to other ways, other rules, for living life here and now.

That makes more sense to me as a place to look for something.

 

[cloudyday2]

The kingdom of heaven was indeed very near when John the Baptist said that. He came to John one day.

How do we know? It's quite easy to see after full reading in the gospels actually:
Luke 17:21 Nor will people say, 'Look, here it is,' or 'There it is.' For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Next, that the transfiguration is Christ in the glory of His kingdom comes across if you really believe in the details of that situation (and is one of the mainstream interpretations; years ago I wondered on this question, but then simply read commentaries on the 16:28 verse).
Perhaps I should have included another verse or more above. The next verse is:
Matthew 17:6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown in terror.

See, I believe this happened, so I don't discount it. (if a person does discount such details, then they are in effect substituting in a different story, or painting on top of the text something else. See? If you have a theory you insist on, it tends to reduce the ability to see details. This is why I tell people, even believers, to lay aside their theories and even doctrines, and just really listen, in order to hear.)

See why that matters? Now, really, this isn't where you could ever find out in my view whether God exists. It's starting at the end, instead of the beginning.

So, this is not one of the areas I'd try to look at first as a non believer -- and as you may have seen me write, it is not at all the kind of thing I looked at first.

I looked for a whole different thing entirely: Did Jesus say rules for how to live that are superior to other ways, other rules, for living life here and now.

That makes more sense to me as a place to look for something.

I guess I've heard all that before, so you aren't likely to change my view.

 

[Albion]

Ordinary Christians venerate the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and his teachings and the later church traditions. However, ordinary Christians believe these things were at least somewhat historically accurate and that the historical Jesus was inspired.

I would similarly venerate the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and his teachings and the later church traditions. I would differ in that I would recognize all of these things to be entirely fictional

Why would anyone venerate a purely mythical person...or a real person about whom everything that is known is fiction?

 

[cloudyday2]

Why would anyone venerate a purely mythical person...or a real person about whom everything that is known is fiction?

Christians worship Jesus Christ because the human Jesus was an incarnation of God the Son. So, the human Jesus is unnecessary. A fictional story and fictional religious tradition that evolved through the hidden hand of God might be considered an incarnation of God the Son too.

(NOTE: Just to clarify, I believe that there was an actual historical Jesus, but I don't think he had very much in common with the Jesus Christ of Christianity. I believe the historical Jesus was probably not worthy of anybody's admiration, but we can't be certain.)

 

[Halbhh]

I guess I've heard all that before, so you aren't likely to change my view.

Really the way to learn about Christ more accurately than any 2nd hand viewpoint from some non believer or even believer is to just read the accounts of his words.

You'd not go to Rush Limbaugh (talk show host that is very pro Trump) in order to learn accurately about Obama.

Right?

But even a better viewpoint, one with more accuracy, still isn't enough....

It's like how you could only really learn a poem or short book well by reading the poem or short book, instead of a some person's viewpoint about the book. If you read a viewpoint, you merely have someone else's notions/ideas.

Consider: If the gospel texts were full of excess wordings, verbose, wordy, then a brief representation might be useful.

But they are not full of excess words. The 2nd hand representations then are always leaving out valuable or meaningful things -- every time. A reduction isn't the same, just like a line from a poem isn't the same as the whole poem.

 

[Albion]

Christians worship Jesus Christ because the human Jesus was an incarnation of God the Son. So, the human Jesus is unnecessary.

Not according to our theology.

A fictional story and fictional religious tradition that evolved through the hidden hand of God might be considered an incarnation of God the Son too.

So God would have deceived everybody, but for a good purpose?? And what you describe wouldn't be an "incarnation" anyway, since the word means to take on flesh. That is an important part of the theology I referred to above.

(NOTE: Just to clarify, I believe that there was an actual historical Jesus,

Ah!

but I don't think he had very much in common with the Jesus Christ of Christianity. I believe the historical Jesus was probably not worthy of anybody's admiration, but we can't be certain.)

I guess I don't see how that carries out the concept I understood you to be outlining before ("I would similarly venerate the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and his teachings and the later church traditions.")

 

[cloudyday2]

I guess I don't see how that carries out the concept I understood you to be outlining before ("I would similarly venerate the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and his teachings and the later church traditions.")

I believe the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is fictional, but maybe the hidden hand of God guided the gradual evolution of the fiction to mirror cosmic/mystical realities.

One common idea in mysticism is that the spiritual is the ultimate reality and the physical only reflects the spiritual. An analogy is an icon.

So a historical human might reflect truths about a spiritual being (the cosmic Christ for example), but a fictional human could serve the same purpose just as effectively. Today all we have is a character in the gospel stories. Some think that character is more historically accurate than others.

 

[Albion]

I believe the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is fictional, but maybe the hidden hand of God guided the gradual evolution of the fiction to mirror cosmic/mystical realities.

Okay. I get the point there, but it makes God a trickster and Jesus a downright liar, as well as 90% of the Bible narrative.

 

[cloudyday2]

Okay. I get the point there, but it makes God a trickster and Jesus a downright liar, as well as 90% of the Bible narrative.

That's not the case with my idea. God is trying to teach humans something about himself and his will by guiding the mutations in the oral tradition and the eventual composition and editing and scribal errors of the gospels and epistles. God then guided the church traditions in following centuries down to modern times.

I wouldn't call that trickery or lying. We could just as easily claim that incarnating as an unimpressive Jewish peasant is trickery and lying. The important thing is the mystical truths and guidance rather than the particular mechanism of conveying them.

 

[Halbhh]

That's not the case with my idea. God is trying to teach humans something about himself and his will by guiding the mutations in the oral tradition and the eventual composition and editing and scribal errors of the gospels and epistles. God then guided the church traditions in following centuries down to modern times.

I woudn't call that trickery or lying. We could just as easily claim that incarnating as an unimpressive Jewish peasant is trickery and lying. It's just a way of communicating mystical truths and guidance.

Could be. But entirely unconnected and totally apart from such questions or possibilities, it's also possible to just try doing the instructions for living in the gospel accounts and find out what happens.

That was my approach, because I didn't believe. See?

I was merely trying to see if there were any gold nuggets in the river.

See, to me, the speculative views from various people seem to beg the question: 'Why speculate when you can just find out?'

I don't need to do theorizing or speculating for or against whether loving the random neighbors next door is a good idea (pays off in a very beneficial way, or does not).

I can just do it and find out.

Consider: would it have made sense to hold a viewpoint based on speculating about whether General Relativity would work for a long time after tests became possible?
Answer: No, speculations wouldn't be nearly as interesting compared to being able to test it!
'

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't need to do theorizing or speculating for or against whether loving the random neighbors next door is a good idea (pays off in a very beneficial way, or does not).

There are lots of possibilities where loving our neighbors might be the wrong choice. Let's say the material world is not real and we are supposed to shape our lives to make interesting stories without being inhibited by the phony morality forced on us by the blind phony society around us. Maybe the goal is to behave outrageously to show our contempt for all this phoniness.

See? It's not so obvious (at least to me). We all wake up here and have no idea what this is all about. We can't just take a random book and follow it to see if the instructions achieve some purpose, because we don't know the purpose. Fat and happy humans is not necessarily the purpose of life.

Maybe part of the purpose of life is to see how we react in the face of all this apparent pointlessness and uncertainty. Maybe our lives are a psychological test or something.

 

[Halbhh]

There are lots of possibilities where loving our neighbors might be the wrong choice. Let's say the material world is not real and we are supposed to shape our lives to make interesting stories without being inhibited by the phony morality forced on us by the blind phony society around us. Maybe the goal is to behave outrageously to show our contempt for all this phoniness.

See? It's not so obvious (at least to me). We all wake up here and have no idea what this is all about. We can't just take a random book and follow it to see if the instructions achieve some purpose, because we don't know the purpose. Fat and happy humans is not necessarily the purpose of life.

Maybe part of the purpose of life is to see how we react in the face of all this apparent pointlessness and uncertainty. Maybe our lives are a psychological test or something.

Actually, you've said several things just here that parallel several things Christ said in the accounts (the 4 gospels). I think that means you'd...find it interesting if you simply read through the accounts, without trying to decide things, but just to listen to hear the full senses of meaning and significance.

 

[TheOldWays]

Don't overthink it cloudy. Just go to mass or divine liturgy to experience it. Don't worry about what you believe. Just experience it. That's the beauty of the mass or divine liturgy compared to a regular protestant sunday service.