Mystical faith in Christianity while dismissing historical Jesus and Judaism

[public hermit]

Sorry, wrong thread.

 

[cloudyday2]

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

I guess there is the words of the historical Jesus, and there is what was added by oral storytelling and the gospel authors and later editors, and there is the message that some mystical Jesus or God might be trying to convey to contemporary readers.

In addition this is a confusing saying.
- sheep
- sheepfold
- gatekeeper
- gate
- shepherd recognized by his sheep
- fake shepherds not recognized by the sheep
- good shepherd who lays down his life for sheep and takes it up again
- sheep from another fold
- ...
Jesus claims to be both the gate and the shepherd who enters through the gate (himself entering through himself?) and is recognized by the gatekeeper and his sheep and the good shepherd too. A lot there to figure out.

 

[hedrick]

I guess there is the words of the historical Jesus, and there is what was added by oral storytelling and the gospel authors and later editors, and there is the message that some mystical Jesus or God might be trying to convey to contemporary readers.

In addition this is a confusing saying.
- sheep
- sheepfold
- gatekeeper
- gate
- shepherd recognized by his sheep
- fake shepherds not recognized by the sheep
- good shepherd who lays down his life for sheep and takes it up again
- sheep from another fold
- ...
Jesus claims to be both the gate and the shepherd who enters through the gate (himself entering through himself?) and is recognized by the gatekeeper and his sheep and the good shepherd too. A lot there to figure out.

I think there's more than one metaphor here, and if you try to turn the whole passage into a consistent allegory you're going to be in trouble.

 

[hedrick]

I'm trying to return to the question in the OP. Have you read anything from the left wing of Christianity? I've mentioned Spong. My preference would actually be Marcus Borg, though my own theology is more conventional than either.

For an approach that is still fairly radical but tries to make more sense out of traditional Christian resources, I would recommend Doug Ottati's "Theology for Liberal Protestants," of which unfortunately only the first volume is finished.

 

[Robban]

I guess there is the words of the historical Jesus, and there is what was added by oral storytelling and the gospel authors and later editors, and there is the message that some mystical Jesus or God might be trying to convey to contemporary readers.

In addition this is a confusing saying.
- sheep
- sheepfold
- gatekeeper
- gate
- shepherd recognized by his sheep
- fake shepherds not recognized by the sheep
- good shepherd who lays down his life for sheep and takes it up again
- sheep from another fold
- ...
Jesus claims to be both the gate and the shepherd who enters through the gate (himself entering through himself?) and is recognized by the gatekeeper and his sheep and the good shepherd too. A lot there to figure out.

Gate can be seen as mouth.
Gatekeeper can be seen as lips.
The tongue is behind teeth and lips,

yet, there is much gossip and slander.

How much more would there be if the tongue was hanging outside.

A fence, build a fence around Torah,
a fence around wisdom,
silence is a fence.

Yelling out far and wide was not the strategy of Jesus.

Just one perspective on fence, gate and gatekeeper.

for what it is worth.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm trying to return to the question in the OP. Have you read anything from the left wing of Christianity? I've mentioned Spong. My preference would actually be Marcus Borg, though my own theology is more conventional than either.

For an approach that is still fairly radical but tries to make more sense out of traditional Christian resources, I would recommend Doug Ottati's "Theology for Liberal Protestants," of which unfortunately only the first volume is finished.

I have not yet. I began watching a speech by Spong a few days ago but I didn't finish it. I also watched a video by a Catholic theologian on Bultmann after your mention of him.

Probably my thinking is a little different than some on the liberal wing, because I actually suspect there is a divine person Jesus/God/whatever who might involve himself with certain individuals occasionally and for unknown reasons. I certainly can't think of any reason that a divine being would answer questions and help me in rare instances while apparently not doing those things for others. That seems highly fishy and makes me suspect I am only imagining things. I probably should just accept that I am deluded and be an atheist.

Many liberal Christians speak of Jesus as a moral teacher, but I think that is not sufficient for me.

 

[cloudyday2]

Gate can be seen as mouth.
Gatekeeper can be seen as lips.
The tongue is behind teeth and lips,

yet, there is much gossip and slander.

How much more would there be if the tongue was hanging outside.

A fence, build a fence around Torah,
a fence around wisdom,
silence is a fence.

Yelling out far and wide was not the strategy of Jesus.

Just one perspective on fence, gate and gatekeeper.

for what it is worth.

When you read the gospels does it seem to you that Jesus says less about the Torah than we should expect from a Jew of that era? It seems to me that Jesus doesn't say much about the Torah, and that makes me wonder if the Gentile Christians who became dominant might not have preserved the Torah sayings.

Or maybe the Torah sayings are hidden in these parables and not obvious to people unfamiliar with the Torah like me.

 

[Robban]

When you read the gospels does it seem to you that Jesus says less about the Torah than we should expect from a Jew of that era? It seems to me that Jesus doesn't say much about the Torah, and that makes me wonder if the Gentile Christians who became dominant might not have preserved the Torah sayings.

Or maybe the Torah sayings are hidden in these parables and not obvious to people unfamiliar with the Torah like me.

Well, you may have heard of Abrahams presents to the East.
It is about suspicion toward religions.
Rabbi Abba was on a trip to India with his disciples,

They met a group that showed them their books.

To cut a very long story short,
Rabbi Abba told his disciples;

"My sons, these are words simlar to those of the Torah".
Nevertheless you should stay well away from these books,
in order that you not be led astray by those forms of worship and all those negative forces that are mentioned there,
and stray away from worshipping the Holy One blessed be He.
All these books mislead a person.


So it is about religions in general.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, you may have heard of Abrahams presents to the East.
It is about suspicion toward religions.
Rabbi Abba was on a trip to India with his disciples,

They met a group that showed them their books.

To cut a very long story short,
Rabbi Abba told his disciples;

"My sons, these are words simlar to those of the Torah".
Nevertheless you should stay well away from these books,
in order that you not be led astray by those forms of worship and all those negative forces that are mentioned there,
and stray away from worshipping the Holy One blessed be He.
All these books mislead a person.


So it is about religions in general.

I found these two links:
Genesis 25:6 But while he was still alive, Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.
Abraham's Presents to the East - What one seeks in This World directs the path of his soul as it ascends the spiritual realms.

My thought is that we can't trust anybody including ourselves. If God exists then I suppose that is how he wants it to be.

 

[Robban]

I found these two links:
Genesis 25:6 But while he was still alive, Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east.
Abraham's Presents to the East - What one seeks in This World directs the path of his soul as it ascends the spiritual realms.

My thought is that we can't trust anybody including ourselves. If God exists then I suppose that is how he wants it to be.

Psalms 146:3-4,

3, Do not place your trust in nobles, nor mortal man
who has not the ability to bring deliverence.

4, When his spirit departs, he returns to his earth;
on that very day his plans come to naught.

 

[cloudyday2]

I stumbled on a link to a book that I wondered about reading on this topic. Has anybody read this?
"Christianity as Mystical Fact" by Rudolph Steiner
Christianity as Mystical Fact: And the Mysteries of Antiquity by Rudolf Steiner

I liked the following excerpt, and it made me curious about the book:

It is for the book itself to demonstrate that, by "mystical," I do not in any way imply a vague intuition rather than strict scientific argument. In many circles, mysticism is understood as just that, and therefore it is distinguished from the concerns of all 'genuine' science.

"In this book, however, I use the term to mean a 'presentation of spiritual reality'--a reality accessible only to a knowledge drawn from the sources of spiritual life itself.

 

[hedrick]

I have not yet. I began watching a speech by Spong a few days ago but I didn't finish it. I also watched a video by a Catholic theologian on Bultmann after your mention of him.

Probably my thinking is a little different than some on the liberal wing, because I actually suspect there is a divine person Jesus/God/whatever who might involve himself with certain individuals occasionally and for unknown reasons. I certainly can't think of any reason that a divine being would answer questions and help me in rare instances while apparently not doing those things for others. That seems highly fishy and makes me suspect I am only imagining things. I probably should just accept that I am deluded and be an atheist.

Many liberal Christians speak of Jesus as a moral teacher, but I think that is not sufficient for me.

I apologize for being late. I missed this response.

Borg does believe in the existence of the supernatural, with Jesus representing God. So that's not just a moral teacher. I'm not sure what you mean by liberal, but people I know in the PCUSA also think there's an actual God with Jesus as somehow his presence. We range from fairly traditional theology to something close to Borg, but I think most see Jesus as God's presence. That would make him more than a moral teacher. We tend to emphasize his teachings more than traditional Protestants do. Not just as morals but as a way of life. That's in part because he seems to have thought that God sent him to establish a community, and his teachings describe what it should mean to be a member of that community. I think that kind of Kingdom ethic has a focus slightly different from what most people mean by morals.

There are all kinds of ideas about the atonement. Again, we vary from penal substitution to a non-violent model. But just about everyone thinks he died to reconcile us to God. Or if you don't believe that sin is the primary problem, to bring us together with God.

The PCUSA is in some sense the heirs of John Calvin. The center of Calvin's theology was what he calls the "mystical union" with Christ, mediated by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Starcomet]

As a progressive Christian I believe Jesus is not only a moral teacher, but a true prophet and a Son of God, who was anointed by him (thus making him a messiah). He was purely human, but had a spiritual union with God that showed he had divine authority.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My motivation for asking is that my mother would like me to attend church, but I don't believe anything that I would be expected to say in a Divine Liturgy. There is also the communion issue.

I have tried to keep my lack of faith to myself, because I know it would bother my mother deeply. I hate that something so silly as a religion can divide people.

I hate that something so silly as non religion can divide people.

 

[FireDragon76]

@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.

The historical Jesus was nothing like Koresh. The historical Jesus was more like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Koresh was a deluded egomaniac and a sex fiend, in comparison. Jesus was one of the first western humanists that believed in building a just society based on humanistic (rather than particularly religious) ethics, which he saw as the fulfillment of Torah.

I consider Jesus a highly emotionally intelligent, integrated human being, but also partly a product of his culture and its expectations. "Son of God" was a Semitic expression, it meant a holy person in the 1st century Jewish mind. Later Greek Christians tried to understand it metaphysically in philosophical terms, and the original meaning was obscured.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks. My mother is 77, and we are pretty close (although she can get on my nerves sometimes too). I try to spend time with her every evening, because I know that none of us lives forever. I imagine someday that she might be near death and bring-up all sorts of religious issues. Then I will be nodding my head, making false promises, etc. on Christian topics while she expires. I don't like that prospect. Her Christian beliefs are helpful psychologically, so I don't want to disrupt them. The dishonesty is unpleasant though.

You can be honest and respectful at the same time.

 

[cloudyday2]

The historical Jesus was nothing like Koresh. The historical Jesus was more like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Koresh was a deluded egomaniac and a sex fiend, in comparison. Jesus was one of the first western humanists that believed in building a just society based on humanistic (rather than particularly religious) ethics, which he saw as the fulfillment of Torah.

I consider Jesus a highly emotionally intelligent, integrated human being, but also partly a product of his culture and its expectations. "Son of God" was a Semitic expression, it meant a holy person in the 1st century Jewish mind. Later Greek Christians tried to understand it metaphysically in philosophical terms, and the original meaning was obscured.

That is one hypothesis about the historical Jesus. My theory is a little different, because I think Jesus was motivated by an expectation that there would be a climactic battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness followed by the triumphant Kingdom of Heaven. MLK gave the "I have a Dream" speech, and I think that is where there are similarities and differences between MLK and JC. Both leaders had a dream, but MLK hoped for his dream to become reality in this world whereas JC hoped for a new world. Jesus was trying to say "this is how things will be in the new world, so you need to repent and embrace these new things so you will be on the winning team when the sons of light fight the sons of darkness. The mission of Jesus was not to change the existing society but to make people ready to live in a new society of God's design.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is one hypothesis about the historical Jesus. My theory is a little different, because I think Jesus was motivated by an expectation that there would be a climactic battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness followed by the triumphant Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't think Jesus was an Essene. He seems to have more in common with the rabbinic sect, the "pharisees". I would be curious to know what scholarship you have read that convinces you he was an Essene.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't think Jesus was an Essene. He seems to have more in common with the rabbinic sect, the "pharisees". I would be curious to know what scholarship you have read that convinces you he was an Essene.

It depends how a person defines Essene. The teaching of Jesus that a person should help his oxen out of a ditch on the Sabbath was a direct confrontation with opposing Essene teachings. But there were all different kinds of sects at that time. Jesus and his followers were probably from a sect that had splintered from the Essenes, but who knows. John the Baptist sounds much closer to the Essenes that were recorded in history, and Jesus and his followers claimed to have arisen from that movement. On the other hand, the groups that later venerated John the Baptist thought that Jesus was a traitor of some kind. So probably Jesus and his followers splintered from John the Baptist's group.

 

[cloudyday2]

@FireDragon76 , maybe you or I should start a new thread topic on the issue you raised. It is interesting to me. I'm not certain how to compose an OP such that it gets others interested. If a person is trying to understand the historical Jesus and the earliest forms of Christianity then it is important to understand the religious background of the people. Most likely Christianity was a response to this religious background by agreeing with some things and disagreeing with other things, but the framework of thought was defined by the religious background.

Also, I was remembering that the book "Resurrection" by Geza Vermes had some thoughts on the demographics and beliefs of the various religious sects in the centuries before and after Jesus. Vermes said that most Jews didn't identify with any of the sects we know about. The people who belonged to sects tended to be elites.

There is another interesting detail from a Great Courses lecture on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Apparently a huge issue for the Qumran sect was purity of vessels. I can't remember the details but apparently there was concern that pouring from a pure vessel into an impure vessel rendered the pure vessel unclean too. The Essenes had one view and the Temple authorities had another view. This makes me think of the teaching on new wine and new wine skins. Maybe if "new" and "old" is replaced with "ritually pure" and "ritually impure" then the teaching might fit Jesus on one side or the other of this very important issue. The lecturer was pointing-out that the areas of disagreement at that time seem pretty abstruse to modern people.

Another area of strong disagreement was the calendar. The Essenes (or at least some sects of the Essenes) had a slightly different calendar. Comparing the Essene calendar with the calendar of early Christians might be helpful.