Mystical faith in Christianity while dismissing historical Jesus and Judaism

[cloudyday2]

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.

Which things did you see as parallel? I have read the gospels several times over the years. I am sure the gospels have embedded themselves in my world view and the parallels may result from that. Just curious.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

I guess I am a weirdo, because liturgy has never appealed to me. I was diagnosed with social anxiety, and I think that was accurate. So I think it is all the people. Occasionally our Orthodox church would have special services on weekdays that almost nobody attended, and those were my favorites. When I was young, our Episcopal church had morning prayer services that I greatly preferred because they were brief and empty.

When I was a Christian my dream was to live as a hermit monk in a cave (with my cat of course LOL).

 

[Albion]

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.

All I can say in response is that I do not personally believe that the idea works--not with the Bible as the sacred book of the religion. On the other hand, if we were speaking of Buddhism or some other faiths which are mainly advice on successful living, teaching a discipline that can overcome the ills and shortcoming of material existence...or something like that..well then it would work.

The Koran is largely a set of principles for how to perform almost every function we face in daily living, and the verses aren't even in chronological order.

But with Christianity, guided and defined by the Holy Bible, we have the saga of a people's journey through time, with a Savior who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, no matter how enlightened of "good" we may be. And the payoff, eternal life, is not conditioned upon how successful we are in discerning the secrets of the cosmos, etc.

If it's all just a morality play, entirely an analogy for some supernatural reality, we have all been deceived.

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.

I don't see why that would be.

That said, and in closing, if a person becomes convinced that the Bible is true, then he must believe. If he is convinced that its story and its hero is not genuine, then I cannot imagine any reason for being a Christian.

My judgment is that it is true. The books have been scrutinized and second-guessed more than any other writing in world history, and it still holds up.

 

[TheOldWays]

our Episcopal church had morning prayer services that I greatly preferred because they were brief and empty.

I hear ya. I hit the early mass on Sunday. 7:30am. Quiet. I get a whole pew to myself.

 

[Halbhh]

Which things did you see as parallel? I have read the gospels several times over the years. I am sure the gospels have embedded themselves in my world view and the parallels may result from that. Just curious.

What i learned to my considerable surprise is that the 4th time through reading gospels like Matthew and John, I learned entirely new things. It was just not what i expected. I'm a pretty good reader and seem to remember things I read unusually well. I was sure I had learned it all by the 3rd time.

What happened?

Here's the key thing, as I realized when even the fifth time I was learning entirely new things...i had begun to truly listen.

To do that, I was intentionally laying aside every preconception.

Every view, every idea, every doctrine. To just put them away and really listen.

I feel if I pointed out things parallel to some things you said, specifics, that's yet another idea, abstraction, viewpoint. I

Just another impediment even.

Just another type of thing I found I need to forget, in order to hear better.

We ideally want to learn, as we read. The change that helped me is to expect I could learn more, deeper things, from the words. That's how i was able to lay aside previous ideas and truly listen.

 

[hedrick]

Bultmann and some liberal Christianity during that period thought Jesus existed, but didn’t base their faith on his historical teaching very directly. There were also people who felt we’d never know much about what Jesus actually said and did. Some people did make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith.

That’s become less common in the last few decades because most people think we know at least some of what Jesus actually taught. However the very liberal end (e.g. Spong) probably don’t accept much that a typical American generic theist wouldn’t accept. They would generally consider themselves Christian, not because they think that’s the only acceptable way to live, or even that Jesus is unique (Spong denies that) but because they have chosen to understand themselves using that particular set of traditions and symbols.

I understand about being a hermit. Did you see 2001? There's a scene near the end with one of the astronauts living in an alien environment completely alone. There was times growing up (and to be honest, even now) when I thought that's how I wanted to live.

 

[cloudyday2]

I understand about being a hermit. Did you see 2001? There's a scene near the end with one of the astronauts living in an alien environment completely alone. There was times growing up (and to be honest, even now) when I thought that's how I wanted to live.

I remember that scene now. The astronaut lives and eventually dies of old age.

I was thinking that I need a bank account full of money and an internet connection to make my hermit life work.

 

[Starcomet]

I am both mystical and historical when it comes to Christianity.

 

[hedrick]

I remember that scene now. The astronaut lives and eventually dies of old age.

I was thinking that I need a bank account full of money and an internet connection to make my hermit life work.

We see him age, but I’m not sure we see him die. The following movie makes it look like he moves on to an incorporeal form.

 

[dlamberth]

I am both mystical and historical when it comes to Christianity.

Which Christian Mystics are you drawn to?
And how do you bring in the mystical aspect into your Christian life?

 

[muichimotsu]

=

But with Christianity, guided and defined by the Holy Bible, we have the saga of a people's journey through time, with a Savior who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, no matter how enlightened of "good" we may be. And the payoff, eternal life, is not conditioned upon how successful we are in discerning the secrets of the cosmos, etc.

If it's all just a morality play, entirely an analogy for some supernatural reality, we have all been deceived.

This assumes that it's an either/or with those two options. Also, are we really meant to take Christianity's valuing of credulity in the guise of "faith" as something virtuous when it basically tells you to "follow your heart" and go with what amounts to faulty reasoning based on experience and your likely false inferences of the cause?


I don't see why that would be.

That said, and in closing, if a person becomes convinced that the Bible is true, then he must believe. If he is convinced that its story and its hero is not genuine, then I cannot imagine any reason for being a Christian.

My judgment is that it is true. The books have been scrutinized and second-guessed more than any other writing in world history, and it still holds up.

You don't become convinced in an immutable fashion, we can be deceived by your own admission, so merely believing it at one point is no guarantee you will always believe, especially if you have the intellectual honesty to consider that your standards may be mistaken that led you to be convinced at first

 

[Starcomet]

Which Christian Mystics are you drawn to?
And how do you bring in the mystical aspect into your Christian life?

There are no particular Christian mystics that draw me, but I do take inspiration from many hermetic/esoteric Christian writings such as the Gospel of Thomas. I often try my best to lead a more contemplative lifestyle of prayer, study, and spiritual practices but life makes it difficult with so many obligations. I would become a monk if I truly could.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was just rereading the quote of @Albion in the post of @muichimotsu
Albion wrote: "If it's all just a morality play, entirely an analogy for some supernatural reality, we have all been deceived."

I thought of a more succinct explanation of my idea. The crucifixion of a human cannot redeem the world. We must imagine a spiritual dimension to give the passion narrative any spiritual utility. Rather than the crucifixion of a human we need to imagine the crucifixion and resurrection of a divine being. The historical events become only a method of informing us about the mystical events.

So it is only one more step to ask why we need the historical dimension at all. The historical Jesus may have been a wacko cult leader or a xenophobic revolutionary, but he was irrelevant. Maybe the mystical truth is revealed in the legend rather than the historical events.

(And of course I am not claiming to know anything for certain about the historical Jesus. I only have my guesses.)

 

[Albion]

I thought of a more succinct explanation of my idea. The crucifixion of a human cannot redeem the world. We must imagine a spiritual dimension to give the passion narrative any spiritual utility. Rather than the crucifixion of a human we need to imagine the crucifixion and resurrection of a divine being. The historical events become only a method of informing us about the mystical events.

So it is only one more step to ask why we need the historical dimension at all.

I actually appreciate the point you are trying to make, and my answer would be to focus on the part of your post that I highlighted. In short, it is this--

You can make the point about mystical analogies all right, and I am not put off by that, except that there is far too much in the Bible that is not essential to that analogy or whatever we call it.

If it takes a god to effect the redemption of the world, for example, that leaves 98% of the Bible talking about historical events, moral principles, etc. etc. for no reason at all.

 

[muichimotsu]

I was just rereading the quote of @Albion in the post of @muichimotsu
Albion wrote: "If it's all just a morality play, entirely an analogy for some supernatural reality, we have all been deceived."

I thought of a more succinct explanation of my idea. The crucifixion of a human cannot redeem the world. We must imagine a spiritual dimension to give the passion narrative any spiritual utility. Rather than the crucifixion of a human we need to imagine the crucifixion and resurrection of a divine being. The historical events become only a method of informing us about the mystical events.

So it is only one more step to ask why we need the historical dimension at all. The historical Jesus may have been a wacko cult leader or a xenophobic revolutionary, but he was irrelevant. Maybe the mystical truth is revealed in the legend rather than the historical events.

(And of course I am not claiming to know anything for certain about the historical Jesus. I only have my guesses.)

So much of Christianity in particular relies on a narrative structure where you assume some long epic story that requires Judaism to also have been true in the events it conveys, but NOT the interpretation that modern religious Jews hold to in regards to the one major thing they commonly disagree on, among some other points, and that is the prophecy from the OT (NT has no real prophecy of that nature that isn't circular in appealing back to other prophecies supposedly fulfilled, like John's Revelation, which isn't even universally agreed to be prophecy)

 

[muichimotsu]

I actually appreciate the point you are trying to make, and my answer would be to focus on the part of your post that I highlighted. In short, it is this--

You can make the point about mystical analogies all right, and I am not put off by that, except that there is far too much in the Bible that is not essential to that analogy or whatever we call it.

If it takes a god to effect the redemption of the world, for example, that leaves 98% of the Bible talking about historical events, moral principles, etc. etc. for no reason at all.

The question becomes why the biblical canon is as large as it is, unless the people canonizing it really thought we needed all those books when the essential parts would probably require under half of the books in the Bible if you're just getting the basic points of the prophecy and fulfillment thereof. Maybe the epistles for some extra aspects, but how much of the Jewish canon does a Christian necessarily need? The problem is there isn't agreement on that, in terms of the importance ascribed more to the Pentateuch than, say, Proverbs or Psalms, which are more flowery and adages than substantive things regarding Jesus and such

 

[cloudyday2]

I actually appreciate the point you are trying to make, and my answer would be to focus on the part of your post that I highlighted. In short, it is this--

You can make the point about mystical analogies all right, and I am not put off by that, except that there is far too much in the Bible that is not essential to that analogy or whatever we call it.

If it takes a god to effect the redemption of the world, for example, that leaves 98% of the Bible talking about historical events, moral principles, etc. etc. for no reason at all.

Also, the Bible seems to present discordant points of view in addition to presenting unnecessary details. Furthermore, our understanding of the Bible changes as Christianity and society changes. The world seems that way too. There are discordant points of view and unnecessary details along with constant changes.

Maybe it is like where Jesus says that his sheep will recognize his voice among the impostors. So there is noise in the Bible, in Christianity, and in society, but there is also a voice with a mystical truth that we can recognize due to some seed of the divine with us.

 

[Albion]

Also, the Bible seems to present discordant points of view in addition to presenting unnecessary details. Furthermore, our understanding of the Bible changes as Christianity and society changes. The world seems that way too. There are discordant points of view and unnecessary details along with constant changes.

I wouldn't flatly dismiss those thoughts, but I would have to point out that most of the so-called contradictions people think the Bible contains are not actually contradictions at all. It does take some time to properly understand things, just as is the case with most other fields of study.

As for the changing perspectives, occasioned by society's changing attitudes, I am not sure that this is something to be taken for granted or accepted. Change for the sake of change...or change so that the church will remain "relevant," as some activists will say, strikes me as a mistake.

Maybe it is like where Jesus says that his sheep will recognize his voice among the impostors.

What's wrong with this statement? It appears to be mainly a statement of fact. Aren't there true believers and also phonies or opportunists in almost every institution?

 

[cloudyday2]

What's wrong with this statement? It appears to be mainly a statement of fact. Aren't there true believers and also phonies or opportunists in almost every institution?

To be certain we are discussing the same saying, I am referring to John 10:1-17 ( John 10 )

I understand this to be speaking about false teachers or false messiahs rather than false Christians. So we sheep should be able to distinguish the voice of God with his mystical truths from the clutter of other voices (hopefully).

This saying is confusing to me, because Jesus compares himself to the shepherd and also to the gate of the sheep pen.

 

[hedrick]

I understand this to be speaking about false teachers or false messiahs rather than false Christians. So we sheep should be able to distinguish the voice of God with his mystical truths from the clutter of other voices (hopefully).

In the original context he was probably speaking of the Pharisees. But more broadly I agree with you