Why I am not a Protestant (the dilemma)

Hi OMar,

Thats OK, but perhaps you could say what your purpose with our discourse - other than move in circles.

Shalom

Hello Bob.
I am not going in circles. At least, I don’t believe that I am. If you feel that way, please share why you feel so.
The purpose of our discourse is to understand what it means to be a follower of Christ.
Let me quote you a favourite passage of mine from Luke 14:
“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundations and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying ‘This fellow began to began to build and was not able to finish’.”
Many call themselves Christians and have little or no understanding of ALL that that implies-- many things of which I have been trying to inform you of. But what you reply is that it is metaphor and allegory, or outright legends!
You see Christianity in what it is not, and my purpose has been to show you what it is, what it claims to be, in it’s Scripture; what it MUST claim to be in order to be intelligible. That is, that when you say that you follow Christ, in any way, metaphorical or else, you already have agreed with immoral assumptions about the human condition. People find the idea of building a tower alluring but never consider the cost involved. Many want to follow Christ, not realizing the cost of doing so.
It is true that the advance of science has forced theology to admit that some of the words in the Bible are the stuff of legend, such as the virgin birth, or add on from a later time, or that Jesus died and rotted away, but resurrected in the hearts of his followers etc. But to accept that the claims once held by Paul as fact, are, and were, legend and myth, is to direct Christianity to the mortuary where Zeus and Jupiter now rest as myth and legend.

Hi Omar,

You quoted Luther in context with the original subject (why Sâmkhya is not a protestant). I had originally written: “I have often asked myself whether I did the right thing when I changed to Protestant from Anglican (although Anglicans seem to be a bit of both Protestant and Roman Catholic), especially since Mystics have the same amount of problems in both churches”, indicating that I am protestant, but not of the opinion that you can’t top that. This is generally based on the fact that Luther’s database wasn’t as big as ours today is, and consequently he may have missed some things.

To be a follower of Christ requires two pre-requisites to be fulfilled:
1.to understand what he was saying
2.to act on what he was saying
To some degree this has to do with what you believe Christ to be, but it needn’t be dominant.

Luther undoubtedly did a lot to help people understand what is written in the Bible, freeing it from the magical touch of Latin. All the same he was caught up in this idea of Magic that isn’t supported by the original but was very present in his time.

You have to differentiate between the emphasis that is made in the different books of the Bible, seeing as it isn’t like the Qu’ran and not suited for recital, but instead a number of letters, pseudo-letters and anthologies of stories and legends that have been smoothed out to seem to have a historical background. There is also nothing offensive about writing in this kind of fashion either – the reader must only take it into account when reading.

The words associated with Jesus are reported speech and sometimes presented in a different context, which shows that the varying evangelists had differing agendas. They were presenting a message in the way they saw fit. All things Jesus said can be found to be in keeping with rabbinic traditions of a later date, but this shows that he was not in dispute with all Pharisees, from who the rabbinic tradition developed. His dispute was with certain Pharisees who were very vocal and who restricted people with “heavy burdens,grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders - but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” and the Sadducee’s who served more their own interests than God’s or those of the people. The fact that Josef of Arimithea gave Jesus a grave is intended to show that not all Pharisees were part of the conspiration that cost Jesus his life.

You quote a favourite passage of yours from Luke 14:

I believe Luke is implying that there were churches who had faded with the rise of pressure. The building of the church requires a great degree of group obligation, discipline and devotion. The fruits are obvious, but only where people show devotion. This devotion requires faith in what Jesus was proclaiming, that the Realm of God is near, that the Time (Kairos) of Grace is here, and time to do the will of God. However, “The salt is good, but if the salt doth become tasteless, with what shall it be seasoned?”

It is a matter of obeying the will of God, “going forth to the ways and hedges”, and constrain to come in, “that his house may be filled” or if we “make a feast”, of calling the “poor, maimed, lame, blind”. It is a case of believing the promises of God and allowing them to happen. Anyone who wants to follow Christ but holds back is like salt that becomes tasteless, or someone who wants to build a tower but doesn’t have the stamina to finish it.

Now that is really interesting. You say you are not a Christian, but you want to tell me what Christianity is? Just because you say that scripture is intelligible in your sense doesn’t mean you are right. It is by it’s fruits that you judge the tree.

This is your translation of what I have said, or what others have said and you are serving me as my words. That isn’t the way to direct a dispute.

Shalom

Hello Bob. I want to clear up something. This, for me, is not a dispute. It is a conversation, an exchange of ideas. I am not trying to make you believe or disbelieve, but to clear up some assumptioms in your beliefs. Also, it is not because I am a hardcore atheist who never knew of any God or quotes only the evils of religion, or the damaged man of an over-religious upbringing, as may have been the case with Nietzsche. I come to you sympathetically. I feel great admiration for Jesus, as well as for Ghandi and Einstein; but I am not a christian; or more correct, I find little difference between that man and the other two. You might agree with me and add that the man Jesus was admirable and charismatic, and that you have to consider the development of the Jesus of the Gospels as later developments trying to fit the historical figure in the religious continuity of a people.
Or perhaps you won’t say a thing. Don’t take it as me trying to put words into your mouth, but since youhave consistently sought the poetic and mythic side rather than the literal, a flaw in Luther, according to you, leading to blind obedience and fundamentalism, I have said what I thought you would agree with-- as you call it:“translate”.
Like i said before you and I agree in many things, though you might not suspect it, but I long ago recognized that you cannot put new wine into old skins; that my views were unchristian. I am not saying that I am not a christian because I do not believe in God; only fools dare such freedom to their tongue; but that my ideas of God and on God differ greatly to those within the tradition of Christian thought and that it would be inaccurate to call me a Christian as it would also be in calling Plato or Aristotle one.
But let me comment on some of your comments:

— This is generally based on the fact that Luther’s database wasn’t as big as ours today is, and consequently he may have missed some things.
O- His database might have been greater than the one we have to-day, but either case is irrelevant, because to him, Luther, only one “database” was needed and that was and still is, the Bible. He may have indeed missed somethings, but he did not miss the Bible.

— To be a follower of Christ requires two pre-requisites to be fulfilled:
1.to understand what he was saying
2.to act on what he was saying
To some degree this has to do with what you believe Christ to be, but it needn’t be dominant.
O- I disagree. On what authority did Jesus say such and such? The second requisite is fulfilled when we believe what is the Christ, or think we do after being explained by another, and that this man, Jesus, is the Christ.
Let me elaborate.
The common mass for Prostestant (I am here going by my own experience, which I pressume to have been similar to yours) ends by the Pastor describing reality. Basically you are there because this life is not the only life and in the next life, if you want the next life, you are in danger of Hell, something unsavory if not downright painful.(You can describe it as aleination from God the Father but that is not wanted either; in the end, the next life contains a condition one wishes to avoid).
To be “saved” from this, and receive God’s favour at Judgment Day (this is central to the three major monotheistic religions and has to do with the complexity and development of these societies sense of justice) one must comply with your second requisite. By then however, you must have:

1. Accepted their narration of reality and believe in life after death and;
2. That there is a danger to be avoided and a blessing to be sought.
3. Thus, and predictably so, we seek the good and avoid the bad and act towards these goals, be it repentance, tithe, Eucharist etc (every religion’s rites is geared toward salvation basically. All other benefits are irrelevant, especifically in Christianity, where this world is passing away, hence the goal for moral behaviour is not for the betterment of this life or world, but the effects obtained in an afterlife).

— All the same he was caught up in this idea of Magic that isn’t supported by the original but was very present in his time.
O- So people in the 16th century were more superstitious than in the first and second centuries? Give me a break, Bob. Ok, Luther speaks constantly of Satan and how he has controlk of a sinner’s life and is the Prince of this world. When Peter suggests that Jesus should not go to Jerusalem, Jesus rebukes him by calling Satan, not Peter, to get behind him, or out of his way, as I understand it. Jesus exorcised a few demons and his temptation by the Devil does not speak to me as more reasoned than Luther, or less magical and fantastic but as fantastic and as magical. So I reject any notion that Luther was caught up in an idea absent from jesus time, or that Luther’s ideas have no support from the Bible.

— The words associated with Jesus are reported speech and sometimes presented in a different context, which shows that the varying evangelists had differing agendas.
O- D. Crossan would not have said it better. But I have no disagreement with you here. Neither those who are agnostic or hardcore atheist. This speaks to me about the human factor involved; the fact that we are dealing not with tablets written by the finger of God–struck by lighting. We have four Gospels but the intention of each was to be the only one. We have four Gospels because someone saw unity where none was intended. So what do we have in the Bible? Is it still the word of God or the wishes of men that it was so?

You quote a favourite passage of yours from Luke 14:

— I believe Luke is implying that there were churches who had faded with the rise of pressure.
O- But the reason it is my favourite is because those churches, to follow your lead, were made by men and women. So we could also say that Men and women, their faith, had faded with the rise of pressure. Perhaps the pressure then was simply Nero and Dominitian. But for me, my experience has been that people’s faith has faded under the pressure science, knowledge and also the evolution of moral sentiments absent in the Bible’s Deuteronomy and even in Paul.
It is interesting that in another post, someone was discussing the distinction between “servant” and “partner”, feeling in this modern (democratic) times the yoke of such a word as “servant”.
The Bible has not changed and nor have the minds of men in general. Fear (Pain) is still the beginning of “wisdom”. While the world of men has changed, the physiology of men has stayed the same. We die just the same. So what has changed? Our ideas on justice and human rights. We no longer tolerate a King, but desire a “partner”.
What has not changed? Our pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Our reason has changed, but our passions and instincts have stayed the same.
Our problem, as humans have become that while we still seek salvation and personal enhancement, we no longer pursue it at all cost. Meaning, that while for Luther and others the omnipotency of God was the most important quality of God, even at the price of making divine justice a matter for another day…another life, for us to-day, we have sought other bricks with which to finish that tower; a tower not just for our ascendance but for the ascendance of our sentiments as well; we long for a God that is omnipotent, righteous, just and good (really all the same), but while we do find evidence of his omnipotency in the Bible-- He created ALL, we find that it can only claim His righteousness and justice-- This, is the Problem of Evil. Some like Luther finish the tower, rough looking as it might be, perhaps not pretty to the eye, it remains a unified view of a tower as he understands it and is supported by the pages of scripture.
Others begin to build that tower, but stop construction when they realize that it looks ugly to their eye. They rather leave it unfinished or chip the stone in such a way that it becomes smooth and pretty in their eyes, but you can’t hide away the chips of stone bricks at it’s base.

— Now that is really interesting. You say you are not a Christian, but you want to tell me what Christianity is?
O- I used to be a follower of Christ and remained one until I began to disagree with all that Christians must pressume.

Hi Omar,

I think that Jesus did more than that, but it is a question of whether you can place your faith in something that isn’t graspable. I think we have to accept that truth doesn’t come to us like a rock in the hand, but like a starlight at night. A moment of revelation is gradually faded out by the daylight, and we have to wait to glimpse its beauty again. All the same it has it’s effect on us and soon you could find hoards of people waiting for the star to shine again.

Jesus is a light, to Christians he is the light of the world – to others perhaps just one of a few or one of many. He brought about a change in this world, despite an early death. But it is clear that his Name stands for a programmatic stance, for a certain behaviour, which spread out from Jerusalem. Besides this, having faith in life after death isn’t new, and based upon the Psalms and Prophets, followers of Christ took the prophecy regarding the resurrection and the son of man to be true – something that was clearly supported by visions, sightings and dramatic conversions like that of Paul. But the Bible makes it clear that this is something we have to believe without proof – for there is no proof. Blessed is he who can hear this and can accept it.

The problem with that quote is that Jesus was talking to Pharisees who were progressive, whilst he was conservative in his views. Today, if you like, today’s conservatives are the progressives of old. It has turned around and you would find Jesus in the company of those we today call progressive, because they are calling supposedly for a renewal of tradition, which is fact a return to old values and the old understanding of scripture.

The rabbinical tradition evolved from the Pharisees and took on that melancholic/ ironic touch that has been source of much amusement. There was a touch of resentment in their prayers, a longing for God to “rip open the skies and come down” and raise up the “poor” scribes and Pharisees who had been faithful in an unfaithful world – after all, they gave their tenth down to the last ounce of herbs and spices. Jesus laughed at them and ridiculed their taking the law so literally that they would help a donkey out of a cistern, but not a fellow human being.

Through waiting for God to do something in the literal sense of the Torah, they oversaw the fact that they could act and start changing things straight away. Faith in the promises of God means to act on them, since it is the declared will of God. It is like sitting in front of a computer and expecting it to work without pushing the “ON” Button. Of course God blesses us, but he isn’t the Father who spoils his children. The prodigal son had to get up from the pig troughs and make his way home to be reinstated.

Scripture, simply that.

Elaboration doesn’t make it any better. Faith isn’t belief “in” some statement, but belief that following that statement is our destiny and the will of God. It isn’t belief “in” Jesus, but believing Jesus that makes us Christians.

Does he? In Germany he speaks the aaronite blessing (The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face towards you and give you peace).

Hell, rather than Heaven is a place on earth. Hell is a place where God is not present or felt, it is as easy as that – despite the associations made with that word. To be “saved” means being brought back to what is thought to be our destiny and within the Realm of God. “Judgement Day” is a rhetorical tool with pedagogical intentions.

More so, it was a superstition that was terribly omnipresent and still has its offshoots in our present time.

Satan simply means ‘adversary’ and isn’t associated with hoofs and horns like it was with Luther, but instead more with squandering, dissipating or diffusing something. I think it was clear that Peter was opposing him and endangering the movement by not wanting to accept that the inevitable must happen. Jesus obviously saw Peter as an antagonist in this situation – remember, he had just said that Jesus was the Messiah, bearing in mind what hopes were associated with that title. Jesus didn’t want to just become ‘another’ messianic Fanatic.

The archaic language can of course throw us off the scent, but Jesus was addressing people who were clearly confused, often through lack of fluid, hunger, exhaustion, phobias of different kinds and through expulsion. His miracles with “spirits” was often his ability to sort a confused mind, feed the body and give people purpose and direction. It was the Pharisees he accused of exorcising people into a dependency that was unhealthy, supposedly freeing them from one imprisonment and thereby forcing them into another.

If to you the word of God can only be tablets of Stone, written by a magical finger, then we will disagree. If the word of God can be inspirational insights, based on the traditions, then we would fare better.

I have to break off here, I’m off to England for a few days.

Shalom

I wish you a dry stay in England. For the meantime here are some of my thoughts on what you’ve written so far:

— I think that Jesus did more than that, but it is a question of whether you can place your faith in something that isn’t graspable.
O- That is not graspable? What is not graspable? Define that for me. If you mean to say something that goes against experience, then I echo you and respond:“If you read something in the Bible that goes against your experience of reality (that which is “graspable”, in my opinion), it is often wise to ask whether what has been said or what you heard was meant in a different way than literally. I have found that it often makes more sense as a metaphor, an allegory or legend.”
Now all of the sudden you remind me of Luther, calling for faith once again, when not long ago you were going with what made sense.

— Jesus is a light, to Christians he is the light of the world – to others perhaps just one of a few or one of many. He brought about a change in this world, despite an early death.
O- Now that is taken on faith because it certainly is not seen. Greed, envy, hate, contempt and murder and rape and wars… he brought a change, you say; just how different was the change Jesus brought from the change brought about by Mohammed or the Buddha? No change was brought, except to the closest generations to him. Even to-day, the largest truth against Christianity is that it does not do what Jesus spoke of:“Love thy enemy”, yet the world of Christianity has never abandoned war or beaten their swords into plowshares… but you claim that he brought a change…Now that is Faith!
But let me tell you why that is so.
Charismatic leaders can emerge from time to time, specially around difficult times, but the change they bring is truly evident within their century. Go into Acts and you say a community that is deeply affected by his words, or what they still remember of his words. Go to New Orleans and you find that that changed has long faded among the “Christians” of to-day. I am not saying that churches have stopped raising money and giving shelter to homeless people and those in need but that, in America at least, where three quarters claim to be of Christ and where in every five blocks, in the places i’ve been, at least 2 churches are to be found, you should not be able to see a single hungry child or family without a roof.
Jesus did not change the nature of mankind. Maybe the minds of those closest to him, but our nature and our world, our circumstances, everything that precceded jesus remained after. there were no hills flowing with milk and honey and mercy remained constrained to the in-group. You need only read Revelation to understand that.

— But it is clear that his Name stands for a programmatic stance, for a certain behaviour, which spread out from Jerusalem.
O- Nazareth perhaps, but the intinerary of Jesus hardly crossed into Jerusalem. As for pragmatic, I would have to say that he was as pragmatic, as practical as a Hasidic teacher.

— Besides this, having faith in life after death isn’t new, and based upon the Psalms and Prophets, followers of Christ took the prophecy regarding the resurrection and the son of man to be true – something that was clearly supported by visions, sightings and dramatic conversions like that of Paul.
O- Clearly supported by what? How clear is the case against a fellon when all the evidence recovered are visions? How real are aliens and sasquascht when all we have are sightings? How real and clear is Allah, simply because certain men, like Cat Stevens, have had “dramatic” conversions?
Besides, you might not believe it but life after death is a later addition to the thought of Israel.
Consider Solomon who lamented that: “This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: the same destiny overtakes them all…and afterwards they join the dead.” Some have taken this to refer to only the wicked and the unrepentant sinners, but notice that he also says:“All share a common destiny- the righteous and the wicked.” Also this idea of afterlife is associated with reward and punishment, things that to Moses were accomplished in this life and so he never thought of an afterlife; he never had need of it and neither did the Israelites who were witness to God’s works, miracles, in their minds, and justice in this world. He says:“Walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you so that you may live and prosper and prolong your daysin the land that you will possess.” And as we both know, it is not Heaven spoken about here, but a land in the Jordan valley. In Acts 23 it is also explained that while the Pharisees were believers in the resurrection, thye Sadducees denied such fate. So I reject the notion that the idea of an afterlife is clearly present at all times in the Hebrew Bible, or even in Jesus time. It is more sensical to say that it was a later development in hebrew thought, clearly defined after the israelite exile to Babylon.

— Through waiting for God to do something in the literal sense of the Torah, they oversaw the fact that they could act and start changing things straight away.
O- They all saw things in that literal sense, if we go by scripture. Let’s us consider (again) the episode of jesus before the Sanhedrin. In Mark we hear them say:“Are you the Christ?” Just what exactly did he mean? he meant God’s annointed and by reading of others who later claimed the same title, we find that the title was reserved for Israel’s kings, annointed, appointed, by God himself. Now here comes Jesus a poor carpenter from Bethlehem, who claims to be Christ. I imagine the top priest reasoning that “surely this fellow, indoctrined in our Law, will recognize the error of his way, that he will understand the fact that his claim (of being Christ) does not agree with prophecy”. Later Messiahs like Bar Kokbah, were more of what they expected:
“a descendant of King David, gain sovereignty over the land of Israel, gather the Jews there from the four corners of the earth, restore them to full observance of Torah law, and, as a grand finale, bring peace to the whole world.”
As Joseph Telushkin tells it.
How was this peasant going to bring world peace? How was he going to deliver them from the Romans? Now, if it was as you say, that they were literalist in reading the Scripture and that Jesus was reading the Scripture in it’s true form, then Jesus should have corrected them in the meaning of the word Christ and told them “that they could act and start changing things straight away.”
But That is not Jesus answer. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and comming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew, a more jewish writer says even more in that answer:“But I say to all of you: in the future you shall…”
It is not that they are wrong to expect power and glory from the Messiah but that this will happen at a later time. They don’t disagree on what is the meaning of the Messiah, or what that Messiah is to do, and jesus makes no mention on what these Judges should do now, but what he, Jesus, will be doing in the future. That story is completed in Revelation.

Scripture, simply that.
O- Just like Luther? C’mon Bob. He spoke the mind of God. He is Scripture!

— Elaboration doesn’t make it any better.
O- if you don’t grasp the elaboration. What is the Christ to you? Does it differ with what the Jews thought the Christ to be? Is Jesus the jewish Christ or a version of a Christ that had a different mission, for example, that excluded world peace?

— Hell, rather than Heaven is a place on earth. Hell is a place where God is not present or felt, it is as easy as that – despite the associations made with that word.
O- If you feel that to be the case, that is one thing, but it is quite another to assume that has always been the case or the general opinion or that the other’s opinion was wrong and yours is right regarding the interpretation of what Hell is. If hell is a place on earth, then what is so dreadful about it? People suffer on earth, but even in the most dreadful situations, we have time to laugh and that is why we even suffer and laugh because neither is eternal.
Hell has to do with God’s justice and it stands as an answer to what I quoted earlier in Ecclesiastes. It is the answer to the problem of God’s justice.
Moreover, Paul in Romans refers to some men as pottery created for “destruction”. Whatever hell may be or heaven for that matter, the motivation stays the same, a motivation that is explained by the critter reasoning.

— To be “saved” means being brought back to what is thought to be our destiny and within the Realm of God. “Judgement Day” is a rhetorical tool with pedagogical intentions.
O- Maybe to you Hell stands as a rhetorical tool, but again, you are not the majority of what I call “Christians”, and in fact the Bible does not use it with pedagogical intentions but with a vengance. Hell is an unwanted thing, place or condition and it sits as an opposite to Heaven. it is refered to in the Bible also as Hades, and going by the myth, it is a place. This has been and probably remains, despite your unorthodox opinion, the accepted view as it is the most reasonable and also solves the Problem of Evil…or at least is the best try.
The wicked do not truly prosper, for they will receive their punishment (as in the old days would occur on this life) in hell. Those who suffer today should rejoice for they will be rewarded in heaven. And that is Christian thought.

— Satan simply means ‘adversary’ and isn’t associated with hoofs and horns like it was with Luther, but instead more with squandering, dissipating or diffusing something.
O- Then how about associated with snakes and dragons? Luther did not create the horns or the hooves, Bob. That was done long before by turning a greek deity into Satan. Yet long before Pan became Satan, he already had been a snake and translated into a dragon in the Apocalypse.
Satan is defined throughout the Bible athropomorphically, and not at all as “squandering, dissipating or diffusing something.”
God spoke in Job with someone called Satan, not with verbs called satan.

— I think it was clear that Peter was opposing him and endangering the movement by not wanting to accept that the inevitable must happen. Jesus obviously saw Peter as an antagonist in this situation
O- No one questions that. But Jesus implied that it was not Peter’s own doing, but, as his experiebce with demons had been, that Satan had entered him. This is the view in which much of the NT is written. This is how it understood the world 2,000 years ago.

— His miracles with “spirits” was often his ability to sort a confused mind, feed the body and give people purpose and direction.
O- Like a primitive Dr. Phil. If that was all he did, then why even call it a “miracle”? What you are telling mke is that most of his miracles were not miracles.

— If to you the word of God can only be tablets of Stone, written by a magical finger, then we will disagree.
O- No. Either it is tablets or every scrap of paper, if claimed as scripture, shoulod then be considered scripture. That means that for example Johann Fitche should be considered gospel as well as Luther and others. Either the Bible becomes an object or becomes a subject, but not what we have to-day, a subject treated as an object for the implementation of dogma.
And the funny thing is that not long ago you were against fundamentalism, against blind obedience and just a like irked at authoritative claims. Yet I see that soon you will defend the cannon as the word of God and not the words and opinions of simple men; m,en who although inspired by the writtings of others before them, still, as you said, had an agenda.
Bob, I find myself sharing a lot of opinions with you, but we differ in that my opinions led me to admit an incapacity to believe, to have faith.

I wish you good fortune in your travels. Should you wish to continue this tread, I shall be waiting.

Hi Omar,

thanks for the good wishes …

This thread is getting too far off topic and far too long. What you obviously have is a background of fundamentalist belief that you have shunned. Now you are trying out the answers you have formed out on me – assuming that I too, in areas where we agree, should no longer believe. But I think there are aspects to this faith that have been lost in the course of church history with which we should reconnect.

If we allow Origen to speak, the most powerful mind of early Christianity (185-254), you will see what I have meant about the ancients not sharing the ignorance of the middle ages:
“If you try to reduce the divine meaning to the purely external significance of the words, the Word will have no reason to come down to you. It will return to its secret dwelling, which is contemplation that is worthy of it. For it has wings, this divine meaning, given to it by the Holy Spirit who is its guide … But to be unwilling ever to rise above the letter, never to give up feeding on the literal sense, is the mark of falsehood.” (Origen, Commentary on Proverbs, 23)

By quoting this to you, I want to show that the Church Fathers were further than many believers a thousand years later (and more). The idea that Christianity only makes positive developments is a fallacy and a result of believing that the Church superseded Judaism. Divinity is known to be a mystery in the first two hundred years and Scripture (then OT Scripture) is even compared to a bitter Almond by Origen, needing a probe through the bitter rind of the surface (the words), even through the protective shell (of morality) until believers reach the spiritual kernel (the mysteries of divine wisdom). If the “tower” you are talking about isn’t built from this blueprint, it is wrong anyway.

Shalom

Hello Bob.

thanks for the good wishes …

This thread is getting too far off topic and far too long. What you obviously have is a background of fundamentalist belief that you have shunned. Now you are trying out the answers you have formed out on me – assuming that I too, in areas where we agree, should no longer believe.

O- Sorry if you feel the thread to be lost in itself.
My background has dealt with many modes of Christianity, but what I have found in my studies is that christianity has been evolving through the ages as society itself has evolved and this evolution has rested in language, in the interpretation prowess of apologetics. But regardless of the teacher, christianity has certain fundamentals that are set, because it takes one book as authoritative. Whether you like Paradise Lost by Milton, he is not considered inspired by God or to be speaking the mind of God. He is no prophet. So you see that a certain limit has been set to the speculations of men.
If it was a matter ofr simply disagreeing with Paterson and Falwell and LaHaye then my answer would simply have been found in Crossan or Marcus Borg. But I refused that temptation to simply let another chew the Bible for me and offer it to me digested for my convenience. I wished to find out what was said in Scripture itself. So I read the book itself and then it hit me that that is a rare occurence amongst christians. That the ususal course is to accept Jesus at your saviour, or simply to recognize him as a saviour period. But to be saved from what? And regardless of what you write, that is the state of affairs; that this book presents a case which is immoral in my opinion and while some like Luther at least recognized it and were openly immoral as their book suggests, others altered the meaning of words to make the inhuman, human.
I simply disagree with this because as a christian the first questiobn I ask of one is ‘why did Jesus have to die?’ If you wish to bring Origen into the equation then you propose as him perhaps that he die as a an act of self-sacrifice. Yet Origen strays from scripture here and was deemed heretical after his death when the world of the Greeks had lost it’s impetus inthe world now dominated by the Roman way. Jesus death is unnecessary if all he needed was to instruct the world about the mind of the Father. And also then Jesus becomes a prophet, much as Muhammed sees him in the Koran. By then I see no reason why to call this christianity, since Jesus is just another enlightened person, but who was to instruct. Therefore do not call him ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ but as he is called in most of Mark, ‘teacher’ and that is enough.

— But I think there are aspects to this faith that have been lost in the course of church history with which we should reconnect.
O- Yet I wonder if this is real or just speculations and presumptions made by you and those like you. Again, having read the Bible and the Bible having been preserved since shortly after Nicea, I do not see where this disconnection occured. If anything the one disconnection has always been that most people regard what the pastor teaches and do not take the time for thinking about these matters themselves.

— If we allow Origen to speak, the most powerful mind of early Christianity (185-254), you will see what I have meant about the ancients not sharing the ignorance of the middle ages:
“If you try to reduce the divine meaning to the purely external significance of the words, the Word will have no reason to come down to you. It will return to its secret dwelling, which is contemplation that is worthy of it. For it has wings, this divine meaning, given to it by the Holy Spirit who is its guide … But to be unwilling ever to rise above the letter, never to give up feeding on the literal sense, is the mark of falsehood.” (Origen, Commentary on Proverbs, 23)
O- We can allow Origen to speak, but he is not authoritative in the Church as we know it and was a marginal thought, an aspect of plato nism and it’s influence in that time and in that world. But I wish one answer from you. In your opinion, is it true that Origen castrated himself?

— By quoting this to you, I want to show that the Church Fathers were further than many believers a thousand years later (and more).
O- Yet Origen is not a ‘Chruch Father’ or a pillar and certainly cannot stand next to Paul in importance. His views might be heard with Milton and Luther, but as authority we must return again to what they all took as authoritative and back to my theme.

— The idea that Christianity only makes positive developments is a fallacy and a result of believing that the Church superseded Judaism.
O- In fact I agree with you here. It has not been an upward or progressive trend, but then I would also consider Origen to be a conservative moralist, thus, a jew with the pretensions of a christian.

— Divinity is known to be a mystery in the first two hundred years and Scripture (then OT Scripture) is even compared to a bitter Almond by Origen, needing a probe through the bitter rind of the surface (the words), even through the protective shell (of morality) until believers reach the spiritual kernel (the mysteries of divine wisdom). If the “tower” you are talking about isn’t built from this blueprint, it is wrong anyway.
O- If all that is needed is reason and proper choice for universal salvation, then why did Jesus have to die? This is a question that Luther asked Erasmus and which Paul too would have asked. Do we gain salvation through his death or through his life? That is the question I would like you to answer in your next message.

Hello Omar,

The cornerstones are really set by the sacraments and the high festivals. These are special experiences in our corporate life as Christians when the perception of God’s presence and actions is heightened and celebrated. Traditionally, the Sacraments have been known as Mysteries in the Church. In these special events of the Church, God is disclosed through the prayers and actions of His people. Protestants accept only baptism and the Eucharist as being instituted by Christ. Some churches, however, accept the other ceremonies as sacramental rites that evolved in the church or at least as ecclesiastical ceremonies.

The Holy Eucharist, which is also known as the Divine Liturgy, Holy Communion and the Lord’s Supper, is often referred to as the “Sacrament of Sacraments”, it is the Church’s celebration of the Death and Resurrection of Christ by re-enacting the Last Supper. All the other Sacraments of the Church lead toward and flow from the Eucharist, which is at the centre of the life of the Church.

By the Sacrament of Baptism we are incorporated into the Body of Christ, and is our introduction to the life of the Trinity. Originally, through the three-fold immersion in the waters of Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity, one was said to die to the old ways of sin and be born to a new life in Christ. Baptism was a person’s public identification with Christ Death and victorious Resurrection. Parishes now mostly encourage the baptism of infants. Those who do that believe that the Sacrament is bearing witness to the action of God who chooses a child to be an important member of His people. From the day of their baptism, it is hoped that children mature through their family and the Church to a life of the Spirit. The Baptism of adults is still practised when there has been no previous baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity.

I value confession as a sacramental rite through which those things that disturb our piety and integrity can be removed, and our relationship to God and to others can be restored and strengthened. Through this rite, Christ continues to heal those broken in spirit and restore the Father’s love the prodigal son’s through his followers. The Counsellor is a therapeutician or guide, or perhaps the representative of the loving Father, but not a judge.

I have come to know the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, or Holy Unction as it is also known through my work in Roman Catholic Care Homes. I value this rite highly, since it helps us experience that when we are in pain, either physical, emotional, or spiritual, Christ is present with us through the ministry of his Church. He is among us to offer strength to meet the challenges of life, and even the approach of death. Oil is used in this Sacrament as a sign of God’s presence, strength, and forgiveness.

Although I am a Protestant I have often taken part in Roman Catholic Sacraments, which expresses what I had written at the beginning of this thread. We can learn from each other. If you consider the fact that I am well versed in Scripture, but that since taking up my vocation as a care nurse, I found the sacraments and sacramental rites more expressive of my belief, you may say that I move away from Dogma, but what is Dogma without love? All of what I do along these lines is inspired by Scripture, even if I do not take the Bible literally.

You forget the duality of his nature, expressed in the name “Christ Jesus”. He was probably called “Rabbi” more than anything, and the change came after his followers released their hopes of a political Messiah and grasped the understanding that he was the Redeemer. Your question assumes the plan of God, but this wasn’t obvious when it happened. It wasn’t something that “any sensible disciple” could have seen if he had only opened his eyes. Jews couldn’t have foreseen this happening and ironically it was Jesus who was telling them that they had to review their understanding of Scripture. This, however, was precisely why his followers saw more in him than a prophet. John the Baptist was a prophet, but Jesus was more.

The disconnection came about when Gospels accused “the Jews” of collectively rejecting Jesus forgetting that this movement was Jewish, and that the Apostles were Jews.

Origen was a theologian, philosopher, and devoted Christian of the Alexandrian school who risked his life countless times in counselling martyrs. He himself was tortured under Decius as an old man and died a short time later. Origen’s controversial views eventually caused him to be labeled a heretic, yet his teachings were highly influential and today he is regarded as one of the most important early church fathers.

He is said to have castrated himself so that he could tutor women without suspicion, and the practice was well established in Europe among the Greeks and Romans. In late Rome, emperors such as Constantine were surrounded by eunuchs for such functions as bathing, hair cutting, dressing, and bureaucratic functions, in effect acting as a shield between the emperor and his administrators from physical contact. As strange as it may appear to you and me, there seems to be a certain amount of normality about it then.

Romans 6:23 says, “for the wages of the sin - death, and the gift of God - life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This is a statement of faith that the execution of Jesus by the Romans was within the plan of God that Jesus himself told his followers they should put their faith in. They followed his examples and discovered the act of redemption brought now to a cosmic dimension. In addition to this, the message thrived outside of Judea and persuaded Christians to believe that faith in this redeeming death was the entrance to a life under the Grace of God.

Shalom

Hello Bob.

— The cornerstones are really set by the sacraments and the high festivals.
O- The sacraments, in specific the eucharist and baptism, are set by the Bible and never independently of it.

— Protestants accept only baptism and the Eucharist as being instituted by Christ.
O- And take these to come from Christ due to their acceptance of the Bible as an authority on what Jesus did or said, or ordered…

—… Those who do that believe that the Sacrament is bearing witness to the action of God who chooses a child to be an important member of His people. From the day of their baptism, it is hoped that children mature through their family and the Church to a life of the Spirit. The Baptism of adults is still practised when there has been no previous baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity.
O- Bob, I appreciate the explanation, but these are things with which I have been familiar with. I have no problem with the rites, but the implications they make of our condition.

— The Counsellor is a therapeutician or guide, or perhaps the representative of the loving Father, but not a judge.
O- The Bible, which sets the eucharist and baptism also sets Jesus as having been granted the honor to be our judge.

— If you consider the fact that I am well versed in Scripture, but that since taking up my vocation as a care nurse, I found the sacraments and sacramental rites more expressive of my belief, you may say that I move away from Dogma, but what is Dogma without love?
O- Can “Dogma” be said to be without love? Love is often quite subjective and you or I may see as cruel, for someone like Luther is the most perfect love. Let’s us not forget Hebrews.

— All of what I do along these lines is inspired by Scripture, even if I do not take the Bible literally.
O- Bob, just because you take a passage here or there for inspiration and do this in a metaphorical way (a feat shared by every baptist priest in america who seeks to make the Gospel “speak” to his congregation about the issues afflicting it) you still must take certain things in the Bible as literal or else Jesus is rotting away in a cave somewhere or he is not even human. These, as you know, were early heresies men like Origen had to battle; and why? because as I say, not everything is in play.

— The disconnection came about when Gospels accused “the Jews” of collectively rejecting Jesus forgetting that this movement was Jewish, and that the Apostles were Jews.
O- This comes from the very jewish idea of God’s remnant, his true chosen people. There lies the division between jew and christian, in yet another link.

— He is said to have castrated himself so that he could tutor women without suspicion, and the practice was well established in Europe among the Greeks and Romans.
O- But it always made me wonder if he simply did not end up taking Jesus too seriously in his youth and if this action permeated his later, more mature thought which embraced a more profound reading of Scripture.

— Romans 6:23 says, “for the wages of the sin - death, and the gift of God - life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This is a statement of faith
O- And interestingly enough, this is also christian dogma.

Hello Omar,

Only from your perspective. The Apostles “acted” before the Bible became what it is. Admittedly, you and I weren’t around at that point in time, but it happened nonetheless. The New Testament actually records those things that happened, names people and places, speculates on why it had to come the way it did, and tries to give direction for the future. The early Christians followed “the Way” of Christ, based on an intuitive understanding of the Tanakh, and were very much in the “here and now”.

Pauls scripture was the Septuaginta, a Canon of old and new Testaments took a long time to come, Sola fide, sola gratia and sola scriptura were a gigantic way after that. In effect, the rise of Dogma stifled much of the intuitive teaching of the early days. Maintaining the stuffy authority of Paul in comparison to the inspirational rhetoric of Apollos was important to stop the church bursting apart, but we mustn’t forget how inspirational and unorthodox Paul had been – so much so that he was thrown out of the Temple.

The Lamb of God is our Judge. What we have done for “the least of his brethren” is his measure. If feel that my case is safe.

If “dogmatics” in the colloquial are known to be characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles, you can see that love is only coincidental.

You fail to understand what the Angel says, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” The resurrection is amongst other things, a rejection of graves and shrines of holy men, like Jesus rejected the ceremonial honouring of dead Prophets, because he said that those doing this took on the likeness of the shrines – brightly painted on the outside, but full of mouldiness on the inside.

His movement was full of life, dynamic and powerful. Consequently, his resurrection also has these attributes. His hope was abounding and the scriptures gave assurance that the holy one of God would not be left in his grave to rot. This is all figurative speech, but speech that provides a direction. And, of course, after all has been said and done, there remains the hope that something follows the “valley of the shadow of death”.

Shalom

Hello Bob:

— Only from your perspective. The Apostles “acted” before the Bible became what it is.
O- Acted in what way? We see in Galatians that there was no single way. But, I admit that they were acting on their memory of Jesus and what he had told them to do. That memory is what is hopefully recreated in the Bible’s new testament; so in a sense, we agree, because essentially, that memory that lived on was scripture before it was pressed with ink on parchment.

— The New Testament actually records those things that happened, names people and places, speculates on why it had to come the way it did, and tries to give direction for the future.
O- Words that are not spoken by a christian about their NT-- that it ever “speculates”, or “tries”.

— In effect, the rise of Dogma stifled much of the intuitive teaching of the early days.
O- Yes it did, but we misrepresent it by simply seeing it as “dogma”, with so much negative connotations and hang-ups, instead of seeing it as some call “christian thought”, because dogma was not set since the beginning but evolved into a prefered meaning. That is, thoughts like docetism and gnosticism were marginalized by a more popular, and thus simpler, version, narration of the meaning of Jesus. The Trinity for example is a later dogma. So was Nicean Creed, but these came, as you know, as responses to divisions. Yet, what we must remember is that the success of the dogma came from the compatibility with the social majority.

— Maintaining the stuffy authority of Paul in comparison to the inspirational rhetoric of Apollos was important to stop the church bursting apart, but we mustn’t forget how inspirational and unorthodox Paul had been – so much so that he was thrown out of the Temple.
O- First you call Paul “stuffy”, in comparing him to someone with “inspirational rhetoric”. Then you flip and Paul is again “inspirational and unorthodox”, so what is it?!

— The Lamb of God is our Judge. What we have done for “the least of his brethren” is his measure. If feel that my case is safe.
O- You first said: “The Counsellor is a therapeutician or guide, or perhaps the representative of the loving Father, but not a judge.”
Is the “Counselor” a different being from “The Lamb of God”?? Or is it the same being who is a judge while at the same time is not a judge???

— You fail to understand what the Angel says, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” The resurrection is amongst other things, a rejection of graves and shrines of holy men, like Jesus rejected the ceremonial honouring of dead Prophets, because he said that those doing this took on the likeness of the shrines – brightly painted on the outside, but full of mouldiness on the inside.
O- So is the body of the man called “Jesus” a pile of bones just like all men who died before and after him?

— His movement was full of life, dynamic and powerful. Consequently, his resurrection also has these attributes. His hope was abounding and the scriptures gave assurance that the holy one of God would not be left in his grave to rot.
O- Was his hope that his memory would not die or that his body would be restored so that he might indeed walk, drink and eat again just like before? Was his hope, whatever it was, fulfilled?

— This is all figurative speech, but speech that provides a direction. And, of course, after all has been said and done, there remains the hope that something follows the “valley of the shadow of death”.
O- What if I told you that you would never cease to be. That you are neither created nor destroyed but simply transformed?
But does that fill with hope the dying person.
You point to your experiences as a nurse. I had the painful experience of seeing a granparent die and seeing his mate go on. What gave her joy and hope? Figurative speech? No, but that irrational speech that becomes orthodoxy and stuffy…it is also the inspiration others seek.

Hello Omar,

I understand you wanting knowledge of the things you are supposed to trust, but I’m afraid that knowledge isn’t what Christianity has to offer – only Hope, Faith and Love.

By an honest one perhaps …

No, it became more and more complicated, not easier, even if it became more definable by negation of other things. That is what Dogma does, it discriminates things that authorities choose to reject.

I’d like to believe that, but many heretics had to suffer under the church authorities would disagree with you.

Paul became stuffy after starting out unorthodox – at least, the poor guy who fell asleep and then fell off of the window ledge didn’t find his rhetoric particularly inspirational.

I am a spiritual counsellor, for example. But I am not “the Lamb of God”.

Do you see how you assume that physical=real and non-physical=unreal? If the Spirit of God is real, although non-corporeal, why should the resurrection of souls necessitate flesh and bones? Essentially, we don’t know what will be of us when we die. We hope and we act in faith – but we don’t know. By concentrating on the grave, you miss the new life that is abounding.

Now, if I say this as a young man, and my body is restored in that youth, this might be interesting. If I am old and have arthritis, I might hope that the “body” of the resurrection is a new one.

The nurse who takes on this task doesn’t console with his/her own hope, but rather they console with the hope of the patient. I would read Islamic prayers at the bed of a Muslim, not Christian ones.

Shalom

Hello Bob:

— I understand you wanting knowledge of the things you are supposed to trust, but I’m afraid that knowledge isn’t what Christianity has to offer – only Hope, Faith and Love.
O- But isn’t it amazing, we must note, how incongruent views can give Hope, Faith and inspire that called “Love”?

Quote:
Words that are not spoken by a christian about their NT-- that it ever “speculates”, or “tries”.
— By an honest one perhaps …
O- Honest is one way of looking at it. Or perhaps it is because one prefers to not see that his faith by being faith and not doubt affirms and does. Just like when you say that your faith is based on metaphor and allegory, you now see speculation and trial, but in fact you, by virtue of being a christian and not something else affirm what you think you speculate about, and believe --have faith-- on what has been done, not what has been tried.

Quote:
… we misrepresent it by simply seeing it as “dogma”, with so much negative connotations and hang-ups, instead of seeing it as some call “christian thought”, because dogma was not set since the beginning but evolved into a prefered meaning. That is, thoughts like docetism and gnosticism were marginalized by a more popular, and thus simpler, version, narration of the meaning of Jesus.

— No, it became more and more complicated, not easier, even if it became more definable by negation of other things.
O- Bob, what is more definable, in my book, is the most simple, not that which is complicated. Now, anything when seen as allegory and metaphor is by that attribute naturally complicated, but that is not the development of Christianity. As it became more defined, more streamlined and simple, some felt trapped in it’s web and sought escape through speculations and re-interpretations and even, as Nietzsche might say, revaluation. That has been the case ever since, but while the writers evolve their theology, the laity, the simple man in the country held strong to that Body of Christ, that Church and it’s dogma. And why did they hold on so dramatically through millenia? Because of that hope that is in vain if it is not literal and carnal, not metaphysical.

— That is what Dogma does, it discriminates things that authorities choose to reject.
O- Just like the Bible canon rejected many writers. The Bible discriminates yet it is your authority as a christian.

Quote:
The Trinity for example is a later dogma. So was Nicean Creed, but these came, as you know, as responses to divisions. Yet, what we must remember is that the success of the dogma came from the compatibility with the social majority.

— I’d like to believe that, but many heretics had to suffer under the church authorities would disagree with you.
O- Many heretics had to suffer because more often than not, as previous martyrs in the early church, such as Polycarp, they choose that fate rather than be allegorical or metaphorical. But even though many died, their numbers hardly compare to those that lived. And it is interesting what those martyrs thought. For example, Ignatious did not consider his condition as “suffering”. In fact, he saw it as an opportunity to imitate Christ and His passion! The day of his martydom, Ignatious’, was remebered as his celestial birthday! What happiness and what literalism!!

— Paul became stuffy after starting out unorthodox
O- What?! He persecuted christians, Bob, what is more orthodox that persecution? And in his letters, were do we find this unorthodoxy?!

Quote:
You first said: “The Counsellor is a therapeutician or guide, or perhaps the representative of the loving Father, but not a judge.”
Is the “Counselor” a different being from “The Lamb of God”?? Or is it the same being who is a judge while at the same time is not a judge???

— I am a spiritual counsellor, for example. But I am not “the Lamb of God”.
O- But you wrote “The Counsellor”, not “a counselor”. Are we talking about Jesus of two different beings?

Quote:
So is the body of the man called “Jesus” a pile of bones just like all men who died before and after him?

— Do you see how you assume that physical=real and non-physical=unreal?
O- No Bob. I use logic to draw evident conclusions and then ask you if that was your end.

— If the Spirit of God is real, although non-corporeal, why should the resurrection of souls necessitate flesh and bones?
O- Where is Jesus Body then? Just answer the question Bob and see where the rabbit hole goes…

— By concentrating on the grave, you miss the new life that is abounding.
O- The Gospel writers placed a great enphasis on the location of Jesus body, going as far as describing the rumor started by jews that christians had stolen His body. They, not me, begin this focus on the empty grave of Jesus.

— The nurse who takes on this task doesn’t console with his/her own hope, but rather they console with the hope of the patient. I would read Islamic prayers at the bed of a Muslim, not Christian ones.
O- This is interesting. What happens to their souls after they die, in your opinion? If a person dies without accepting Jesus as their mediator, as their saviour, as the one and only light and truth, what becomes of them? If they die muslims, will they be saved? And if it does not matter what they are, whether jew or muslim or christian, when they die, then what does it matter what they are at all. What is the point of one’s faith? To inspire moral feelings? Wherefore? For this life? Even an atheist is gentle and ethical. Why did Jesus, I ask again, had to die?
If you read muslim verses at their bedside then the cross is fruitless and his death…inconsequential.

I want to add, Bob, that I applaud your bedside manners, but I must point to you that they are unchristian.

Hello Omar,

What in your mind is not in agreement, in harmony, in conformity, or not corresponding? Hope, faith and love are essentially attitudes that I choose to have. Just because people talk about “falling in love”, I doubt whether they “fall in faith” or “fall in hope”. I have the congruence with scripture in my interpretation. That is enough for me. You haven’t convinced me yet.

I believe God and I believe Jesus. I do not doubt them. The Bible “tries” to inspire faith – but doesn’t always. The Bible speculates on why things had to come about they way it did, and tries to give direction for the future – for those prepared to listen.

You forget that Mankind has a need to tell or hear stories of all kinds, whether allegorical or metaphorical. When the intuitive ability to understand or tell stories hasn’t been damaged by society, such stories are quickly understood. The hypothetical assumption that all people want to have a scientific definition is something I loudly disagree with. Therefore, especially in so called “humane disciplines”, something can be definable without it being easier to understand.

It is a question whether understanding what a definition implies, or whether understanding what a story is telling me feeds my spiritual needs. The latter is often connected with experience, memories, feelings, tastes or smells. But a Dogma about God doesn’t have these factors, whereas inspiration does. The “simple man in the country” who has had a mystical experience isn’t necessarily better off just because a Theologian has told him what his experience can’t have been.

If you think that Christian theology is defined, streamlined and simple, then you don’t know much about it. The Church went through many ups and downs. Just think about John Wyclife who even found that his students of theology couldn’t even read the Bible (the Bible was in the Vulgata Latin version) let alone preach from it. Martin Luther (400 years later!) translated the Bible into the vernacular and discovered things that he hadn’t been taught. These are only the more prominent examples. A method of historical criticism was initiated by Richard Simon in 1678 and developed later (after 1850) by Albert Eichhorn, Abraham Geiger, Hermann Gunkel, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, and a host of other writers, and now in use among Christian exegetes with various modifications of their own choosing. There have been numerous developments that were reliant upon the so-called auxiliary sciences of history, i. e. palæography, diplomatics, epigraphy, numismatics, sigillography, or sphragistics, which provide means that to determine approximately how old a manuscript is.

The passion of Christ is a real and important part of my understanding too. You can’t whitewash everything, just because I have said that the Bible is often metaphorical or allegorical. It is an appreciation of the diversity of the Bible that I am calling for, not to a case of either literal or metaphorical.

He was an orthodox Pharisee when he persecuted Christians, he became an unorthodox Jew when he preached Christ – so much so that Peter, James and John had difficulty following him.

Here you have a problem with literalism. The sentence started with “The Counsellor …” and admittedly could have begun with “A Counsellor …” but your assumption jumps the mark.

I don’t know where the body is, I believe in the resurrection, but I don’t know whether it would be a bodily resurrection – both are as miraculous as each other to me. I only think that the body is secondary – the Roman or Syrian authorities could have taken it, the Christians might have taken it, the Jews probably didn’t, he might have been resuscitated, he might have been brought back to life – but the important thing is, that he didn’t go down to the market place and present himself to the crowds. That means to me that the whole issue is more than these superficial aspects. There is more going on than what is told on the surface.

Just think about the style in which the story of the women at the grave is told in John’s Gospel. Mary Magdalene turns, and turns again when her name is spoken – not 360 degrees, but inwards. It is an inner voice that speaks to her, not the gardener, which tells her not to hold on to Jesus, but to let him go to his father. Instead, she should go to the brothers and tell them. She is infatuated with the teacher, not his teaching. She is holding on to the past, but must move forward.

Only to emphasise that Jesus will have no shrine, no whitewashed grave, like the scribes kept for the Prophets. Where two or three gather in his name, he is there amongst them.

The cross is fruitful in my life – that is the most important thing. It isn’t the place for spiritual blackmail, telling them to convert or be lost. You obviously don’t know what Muslims pray in that kind of a situation. It sounds very similar to most other religious person. In the end, we are all only wretches struggling through an existence, holding on to the last straw, looking for guidance and direction.

I believe the important thing in life is to find a direction, a way and to go down that path consequently. I believe that the way of Christ is the most promising, although a difficult road to go down.

Shalom

Hello Bob.
Let me begin from the end, because I believe that this way I can better express my reaction.

My quote: The Gospel writers placed a great enphasis on the location of Jesus body, going as far as describing the rumor started by jews that christians had stolen His body. They, not me, begin this focus on the empty grave of Jesus.

— Only to emphasise that Jesus will have no shrine, no whitewashed grave, like the scribes kept for the Prophets. Where two or three gather in his name, he is there amongst them.
O- He shall have no grave because he was raised, like Enoch, body and soul up to be with his Father. The myth is not trying to demarcate between jewish thought and christian thought. As Paul tells us, withing the very temple already were there two versions in conflict within judaism at Paul’s time. The Pharisees believing in the resurrection of the dead and the Saducees, who deny such events. Paul’s entire point before Festus and Agrippa is not to that where two or three gather there Jesus is between. Their world view would not have been challenged by this. If this was the case, they would have thought of Jesus as they probably thought of Socrates: an inspiring teacher and would have enjoyed the ‘paideia’ of Christ instead of calling into question Paul’s very sanity.
The resurrection of the dead is the issue, and if you find an enphasis in the story it is because it wishes to contrast it with Enoch, vivid in the Septugiant at their time. It proves that Jesus was resurrected, not in minds and hearts but in body and soul.
Look at Lazarus. He came back from the death by Jesus own hand! And what came out of that tomb? Was it his soul? No. Lazarus serves, or served as a prototype of the last day. Like Lazarus, the christian expectation of the time had the idea of a body and soul, a body, of course, perfected and made imprevious to disease and age.
That was the hope.
Jesus was to have no tomb…he simply did not need it for he was alive in heaven and had defeated death.

— The cross is fruitful in my life – that is the most important thing.
O- What about that Divine call, christians feel that was given to them to preach the Gospel?

— It isn’t the place for spiritual blackmail, telling them to convert or be lost.
O- Yet that is exactly the message of the Lord himself; His “good news”.

— You obviously don’t know what Muslims pray in that kind of a situation. It sounds very similar to most other religious person.
O- But of course. I would expect no less. I have read the Koran and find it fundamentally a combination of Jewish and christian ideas. Another point is that all religions speak of a common human need. A thought that has been in the minds of philosophers since before Jesus.

— In the end, we are all only wretches struggling through an existence, holding on to the last straw, looking for guidance and direction.
O- Yes we are. But that is not a christian thought.

— I believe the important thing in life is to find a direction, a way and to go down that path consequently. I believe that the way of Christ is the most promising, although a difficult road to go down.
O- That says briefly what your entire position has been as of now. But the christian ideal that you speak of is more jewish than christian. This view sees Jesus as an interesting teacher of a new philosophy, proper instruction, a greek ideal. The disagreement I have with it is that it adds it own touches to the canvas and then marvels at it, as if he had discovered it rather than made it. For example, you mentioned earlier the reason there is no body in the Bible narrative is to assert that Jesus was to “have no shrine, no whitewashed grave, like the scribes kept for the Prophets.”
When did Jesus say this? Where does Paul? I have already quoted what Paul did say about the resurrection of the dead in another post within this tread. What you have here is a gnostic-like statement that is expressed as if divinely revealed, for it quotes, it reflects nothing in the teachings of Paul and misuses Jesus words.
Jesus spoke, according to christians, the mind of God. He was a vessel of that Spirit. In that sense, I take that he meant that that was a message from the Father. It did not mean that the resurrection was not to be or that it would be spiritual rather than physical as well.

One last thing.

— The passion of Christ is a real and important part of my understanding too. You can’t whitewash everything, just because I have said that the Bible is often metaphorical or allegorical. It is an appreciation of the diversity of the Bible that I am calling for, not to a case of either literal or metaphorical.
O- I wanted to remind you that I said as much earlier. The Bible is allegorical and metaphorical at times but not all the times, and while it would be nice to think without bounds, christianity takes the Bible as the word of God and thus sets bounds to itself…as you have clearly shown here.

Hi Omar,

I disagree, since the subversive effect of Christianity, albeit in a paradoxical way, was indeed disturbing for the Romans and their vassals, and threatened to disturb the order that they valued highly. The movement that has a martyr as its figurehead is always more dangerous than when the leader was alive – especially if you can’t prove that they are militant. Public opinion sways if you make martyrs out of respected citizens. This is one of the concerns that made Pliny write to Trajan, asking if his dealing with the Christians had been agreeable to his Caesar.

I have no doubt that the early Christians believed that Christ had been resurrected, and some may have believed that he had been taken up in the flesh, but (1.Cor.15:50) “flesh and blood is not able to inherit the reign of God.” The transformation described here is a description of incorruptible immortality, a series of superlatives rowed together describing a hope, appealing to believers to remain faithful. It was C.S.Lewis who said that the outlook of such transformation would require some kind of purgatory, since the corruptible has no part with the incorruptible. Obviously, this letter to the Corinthians has theological problems in it.

The problems of literalism are like that, you find yourself caught up in all manner of speculations if you take the fundamentalist attitude, which is clearly not necessary. Your example of Lazarus is also something that belongs to the seven miracles of the Gospel of John, of which some are not found in the Synoptics. The miracle of the wine at Cana (chapter 2), and the raising of Lazarus (chapter 11) are examples of this. Besides this, the first two miracles are actually numbered (in 2:11 we read “This is the first sign that Jesus did”; and then in 4:54 “This was now the second sign that Jesus did”) and suggest a clear intent.

Dr. James Moffatt was very suspicious about silence of the other Gospels regarding “so stupendous and critical an episode”; and he says, “The miracle . . . is an illustration of the profound truth that Jesus is the source of life eternal in a dead world, and that the resurrection is not, as the popular faith of the Church imagined (John xi. 24), something which takes place at the last day, but the reception of Christ’s living Spirit. . . . Whether more than this religious motive, operating on the Lucan material, is necessary to explain the story, remains one of the historical problems of the Gospel.”

What Dr. Moffatt is telling us in the quote, is that the resurrection is something which takes place at the reception of Christ’s living Spirit, not something which takes place at the end of days, and that this Spirit was available then and there – therefore the whole story could be seen to be an analogy. Curiously, in Luke 17, Jesus tells a story about someone called Lazarus who died and went to the “bosom of Abraham”.

Shalom

Hello Bob:

Quote:
He shall have no grave because he was raised, like Enoch, body and soul up to be with his Father. The myth is not trying to demarcate between jewish thought and christian thought. As Paul tells us, withing the very temple already were there two versions in conflict within judaism at Paul’s time. The Pharisees believing in the resurrection of the dead and the Saducees, who deny such events. Paul’s entire point before Festus and Agrippa is not to that where two or three gather there Jesus is between. Their world view would not have been challenged by this. If this was the case, they would have thought of Jesus as they probably thought of Socrates: an inspiring teacher and would have enjoyed the ‘paideia’ of Christ instead of calling into question Paul’s very sanity.

— I have no doubt that the early Christians believed that Christ had been resurrected, and some may have believed that he had been taken up in the flesh
O- They still do believe that and many other things you might consider gross or primitive.

— but (1.Cor.15:50) “flesh and blood is not able to inherit the reign of God.” The transformation described here is a description of incorruptible immortality, a series of superlatives rowed together describing a hope, appealing to believers to remain faithful.
O- The description of the process of what occurs after death and the final judgment inspires hope, or at least inspired, by the very description taken literally, as I believe was the case.

— It was C.S.Lewis who said that the outlook of such transformation would require some kind of purgatory, since the corruptible has no part with the incorruptible. Obviously, this letter to the Corinthians has theological problems in it.
O- Perhaps it contains theological problems for C.S. Lewis and yourself, but let’s not go beyond and say that even St Paul too had “theological problems”.
I keep getting back to this point with you that if we question Paul, if we begin to see “problems “ with his message, then that message, which of course doubles as the Christian Bible, becomes problematic and the Word of God seems to stand more for the words of Paul. When thyat becomes the case, then we lose that faith in the Bible and that puts into question our entire religious choice. At least, that is, when you are honest about it.

— The problems of literalism are like that, you find yourself caught up in all manner of speculations if you take the fundamentalist attitude, which is clearly not necessary.
O- No one here has said that a literal reading is necessary but that sometimes it is and often is not. In discussing Paul and the other writers in the NT, we have less and less that flair for poetry. These are men of the greek world, and they string together arguments to link Scripture to Jesus. To deny this and impose metaphor and allegory, would be just as wrong as the alternative. The point is not whether we can but whether we should. Is a statement meant to be taken literally or allegorically? Before we go beyond the proper use of language and search for secret teachings that perhaps are not there but we project them there, we should study if the text itself demands one or the other. In the case of the resurrection, because of the context, I go for a literal intention.

— Your example of Lazarus is also something that belongs to the seven miracles of the Gospel of John, of which some are not found in the Synoptics. The miracle of the wine at Cana (chapter 2), and the raising of Lazarus (chapter 11) are examples of this. Besides this, the first two miracles are actually numbered (in 2:11 we read “This is the first sign that Jesus did”; and then in 4:54 “This was now the second sign that Jesus did”) and suggest a clear intent.
O- An intent that goes along with the scholar opinion that John is a theological treatise. It took the previous sources and gave it a very Roman view. But be it synoptic or not, it is a Biblical and “holy” source. In the context of the Bible and not just John, you find the other instances that support the view of a corporeal resurrection. Jesus for example, in Luke I believe, takes the time to explain that he is not a Ghost. And He should not be since the tomb is empty. See the logic here? It is quite easy and, you might accuse me of, literal, but it is consistent and flows naturally from the pages of the Bible and does not seem as forced as the revelations of non-biblical theologians. Going with the rest of the NT, not just John, we arrive again at a corporeal view of the resurrection.

— Dr. James Moffatt was very suspicious about silence of the other Gospels regarding “so stupendous and critical an episode”; and he says, “The miracle . . . is an illustration of the profound truth that Jesus is the source of life eternal in a dead world, and that the resurrection is not, as the popular faith of the Church imagined (John xi. 24), something which takes place at the last day, but the reception of Christ’s living Spirit. . . . Whether more than this religious motive, operating on the Lucan material, is necessary to explain the story, remains one of the historical problems of the Gospel.”

What Dr. Moffatt is telling us in the quote, is that the resurrection is something which takes place at the reception of Christ’s living Spirit, not something which takes place at the end of days, and that this Spirit was available then and there – therefore the whole story could be seen to be an analogy. Curiously, in Luke 17, Jesus tells a story about someone called Lazarus who died and went to the “bosom of Abraham”.
O- Here is what I want to tell you and what I wish I could say to Dr. Moffatt:

1. Mark leaves out the Virgin Birth story. What should we make of this? Why is Mark “silent” about “so stupendous and critical an episode”? Gentlemen, what we are dealing with is a telling of a tale that was originally an oral tradition. I am sure you know of other books that were written and did make the cannon that speak of other stories of Jesus of which the Gospels are silent. That some events are not contained in all 4 gospels is due less to the special meaning Moffatt and others might find but because the 4 accounts are independent of one another and take liberties in telling a story. A well-travelled tale includes what is important to it’s author or to the audience of the author. The story of Lazarus might just have been a creation of that author, an expansion of the initial account, meant to give hope to his reader at his time.
2. How extraordinary is Lazarus resurrection? Already in Mark Jesus has resurrected another, said to be dead, but declared by Jesus to be simply “asleep”. How often afterwards, have Christian refered to their brethren who have died as those who are “asleep”?
3. The material, taken together, speaks more of a simple hope that loved ones were not gone forever, but would be seen and felt again, not as ghost, but as they were in life. It speaks of the hope that death is only a deeper sleep. Dr Moffatt might prefer to impose on the scripture a message that is easier for his analytical mind, the reception of Christ Living Spirit, but what is baptism then? What is meant then to be “Born Again”?

Hello Omar,

Perhaps you will have to come to terms with the fact that I may not be a Christian by Maine standards, but I am according to European standards.

It is less the problems with Paul’s message than taking it literally that is a problem. My indication that other Christian personalities have pointed to these problems only show me that I am in good company. What isn’t satisfactorily taken into account to my mind is the fact that the movement from Jewish to Greek thought, from the Semitic to the Hellenistic, from the Oriental to the European, is a jump that few people can make without breaking something.

Neil Douglas-Klotz writes, “In the Christian Church, especially as it evolved in the West, it became more important to determine what Jesus represented as “Christ” or “Messiah” than to look at his sayings in a Middle Eastern sense. In addition, up until the last fifty years, most Western Christian churches blamed the people they identified with “the Jews” of the Gospels for the death of Jesus. So for the Western Christian church at least, facing the question of Jesus’ own Jewishness was definitely off the agenda.
At the same time, in scholarly circles over the past hundred years, researchers began to look at Western textual or historical evidence for who Jesus was and what he said. In some extreme viewpoints, the factual existence of Jesus was considered a myth and presumed to have no reality outside the text. In others, presuppositions about the nature of early Christianity prejudiced the opinions of scholars about which strands of text were the oldest and so the most historically accurate. In addition, since the primary Western and Orthodox church texts were in Greek, scholars saw no point in looking at Aramaic or Hebrew versions. To do so would have underlined Jesus’ Jewishness. Most often, scholars interpreted Jesus according to Greek or Hellenistic influences of his time, rather than Middle Eastern ones. The “historical Jesus” emerged as a multitude of conflicting figures, varying according to the disposition of the scholar and the facts she or he selected.”
I think we have broken the valuable impetus of the Christian Church as Paul knew it. Whilst he was translating his middle-east understanding to the Greeks and Romans, something new and volatile was growing. It was something unheard of before. After the death of the Apostles, this growth was seen to be a problem. The many movements that spread out from Jesus had to be formed into one teaching. The council of Nicea of 325 A.D. marks the beginning of western Christendom, which is rooted in that council and the influence of Constantine and his mother, but it is isn’t the Church that Paul was “planting” in the 1st century.

The Faith in “Christ Jesus” would not take away Paul’s basic Jewish understanding. This would include at least:
1)the oneness of God,
2)the election of Israel at Sinai, and
3)Torah as the principle of relationship between God and Israel
The second two, election and Torah, are the subjects of Paul’s questions: “Has God rejected his people?” (Romans 11:1) and “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” (Romans 3:31). I would understand a positive answer to either of these questions to represent fundamental Christianity-Judaism. Paul answers both with an indignant “No!” This seems to be quite clear to me.

But at the beginning you have actually said what I mean: “…they string together arguments to link Scripture to Jesus…” Exactly, it is Exegesis. Please understand that exegesis, accepting all of the good things that can come out of it, isn’t about buying eggs in the marketplace. It isn’t about securing an existence for your family. It isn’t about the physical world. It is about spiritual composure, the way we do things, our deportment when we buy eggs, our attitude when we secure an existence, our hopes and what we do for them. It is a meta-physical approach to life, looking down from a distance.

This again is only recorded in Luke and seems to answer criticism that the churches had faced – that they believe in a “ghost”. John has Jesus “spirit in” and “spirit out”. Luke also records the resurrected Jesus being in several places at once, moving great distances in a short time, and suddenly disappearing from view after having been recognised. There are more things going on amongst the words than you are prepared to accept.

The virgin birth is legend, a fitting beginning for a man of Jesus stature, thinks “Luke”. He writes more than any other biblical author because he is compiling an account of Jesus that he wants to stand alongside other important personalities – perhaps even more so because of the cosmic dimension. It is no secret that followers of the Way saw Jesus compared to Moses, but they also saw him changing the basis of world order. No longer would a despotic and decadent Caesar rule the fortune of the world, but step by step the Realm of God would envelop, where the will of God is done.

The “liberties” of the Evangelists are precisely what I am saying is the same as the “liberties” I allow myself, guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. The proof of the legitimacy (of the Spirit) is to be seen, as in all cases, when you see the will of God being done. Hope is when you do something for what you hope for, and hoping for the realisation of God’s promises requires us to do what he promised would happen. The “virgin” birth is an indication that this man wasn’t just engendered by the lust of man and woman, but was product of the mysterious will of God. That means that Jesus at sometime answered his calling by believing what God promised and doing the same intuitively. As Mother Teresa once said: “Make sure that you let God’s grace work in your souls by accepting whatever He gives you, and giving Him whatever He takes from you. True holiness consists in doing God’s work with a smile.”

I performed a last benediction this morning, blessing a resident who had died. The skin of that person had a sallow yellowy-grey colour to it, she had begun to get stiff. Her face was relaxed with none of the strain that she had borne during her time in the care home, slowly forgetting yesterday and slipping into a past long since gone. This lady was never overbearing and had a quiet faith, but her faith was seen in her composure and in her peace, despite dementia. This “sleep” was permanent for the body, but do we know where the soul ends up?

Lazarus was a sign, as was the young man who’s mother mourned for her only son. Signs don’t have to be taken literally, just like when Jesus asked whether the disciples have knives of swords with them didn’t mean he wanted to fight it out. He was performing signs that, according to rabbinical tradition, could not be ignored. Had the pious of his time not been so stubborn, they could have welcomed the Kairos of the moment and recognised the good news.

When they are seen again, will they be as they were as children, as adults, as old people? Will they be healthy or sick?

Baptism is the symbolic drowning of the old man, and resurrection of the new.

Being born again means to be born “from above” and relates to a contemplative process of returning to the primeval beginning, entering the darkness and bringing light. In Aramaic, min d’rish means to be born from the beginning and the references to Spirit and water indicate that the creation (Gen.1:2) has to occur within mankind, so that out of the chaos a structure becomes apparent, with which the Church is able to be guided.

Shalom

Hello Bob:

— Perhaps you will have to come to terms with the fact that I may not be a Christian by Maine standards, but I am according to European standards.
O- Bob, it has nothing to do with the continent, for I have lived in Europe as well, and though there are differences, they do not include the ones I have been discussing.

— It is less the problems with Paul’s message than taking it literally that is a problem.
O- When the book in question is the Apocalypse, or Daniel, we know that the message is to be interpreted metaphorically. But if we are talking of the epitle to the Corinthians then you are going to have to prove that such methods apply here as well. In fact, you have yet to explain when exactly do you see allegory and metaphor and when and how do you accept the words literally. The problems you see with Corinthians, to you, are theological, but perhaps they have nothing to do with the “theo” and they are instead just “logical” problems.

— My indication that other Christian personalities have pointed to these problems only show me that I am in good company.
O- Moffatt, Origen and Gregory? Their company cannot substitute the Bible, Bob. Smart people all of them, but heretics of different ages have been a treath to the Church by being able to come up with intelligent heresies.

— What isn’t satisfactorily taken into account to my mind is the fact that the movement from Jewish to Greek thought, from the Semitic to the Hellenistic, from the Oriental to the European, is a jump that few people can make without breaking something.

Neil Douglas-Klotz writes, “In the Christian Church, especially as it evolved in the West, it became more important to determine what Jesus represented as “Christ” or “Messiah” than to look at his sayings in a Middle Eastern sense.
O- Let’s not forget the reason why Jesus is believed to have been crucified was not his peaceful teachings, but his claims to Christ.

— In addition, up until the last fifty years, most Western Christian churches blamed the people they identified with “the Jews” of the Gospels for the death of Jesus. So for the Western Christian church at least, facing the question of Jesus’ own Jewishness was definitely off the agenda.
O- He fails to consider the writings of Paul and how Paul understood the “jews”. In his mind, all the jews would be saved.
And also, it is not so much due to the evolusion but lack of it, because the Bible itself is the basis for the later anti-semitism, most of it written after the Roman-jewish war; The circumstances under which these books were written, and not so much what others did with them later is the true issue. Once the anti-semitic thoughts of the greek diaspora was set as divinely inspired, not much further development is needed; is there? Try Werner Jaeger’s “Christianity and Greek Paideia” for more on this.

— In addition, since the primary Western and Orthodox church texts were in Greek, scholars saw no point in looking at Aramaic or Hebrew versions. To do so would have underlined Jesus’ Jewishness.
O- I disagree. The audience of Paul is greek and most of the NT is written in that language. I would like to know what sources that speak of Jesus favourably have been found in hebrew or aramaic. I am not saying that these scholars did not have a prejudice, but that it was not all of it (their results) the product of this prejudice.

— Most often, scholars interpreted Jesus according to Greek or Hellenistic influences of his time, rather than Middle Eastern ones.
O- He might as well say the same about Paul and all the Gospels specially John. But interesting to me is the fact that there is a certain assumption in all of this that there is a clear distiction that could be found in 1st century palestive of an eastern and a western way when in fact no such division existed and the writers of the time, such as Philo of Alexandria, demonstrate a syncretism in Jesus times. In the Gospels, not just in Paul, there is no Eastern way that we can point.

— The “historical Jesus” emerged as a multitude of conflicting figures, varying according to the disposition of the scholar and the facts she or he selected.”
O- Seriously Bob, change “historical Jesus” for “Biblical Jesus” and retype the above and you have lost no facts.

— I think we have broken the valuable impetus of the Christian Church as Paul knew it. Whilst he was translating his middle-east understanding to the Greeks and Romans, something new and volatile was growing.
O- Or to be all things to all people. Jesus could not be understood properly outside of the greek matrix. Paul had a larger need of the greeks than of the jews to tool his thought. The Jesus he knew was in no need of translation. This was the reason that he had to translate more to the jews than to the greeks. Eastern thought, or Hebrew thought, as found in the OT was a long gone memory, barbarous and had been the object of translation since before Christ, just as Hesiod and Homer had been translated to fit the new mind of the greeks.

— It was something unheard of before. After the death of the Apostles, this growth was seen to be a problem. The many movements that spread out from Jesus had to be formed into one teaching. The council of Nicea of 325 A.D. marks the beginning of western Christendom, which is rooted in that council and the influence of Constantine and his mother, but it is isn’t the Church that Paul was “planting” in the 1st century.
O- Paul’s epistles are meant to instruct and correct the beliefs of the early church. He might have disagreed with Constantine on just which view was declared heretical, but not in that there was only one right way, one gospel, one body under Christ Jesus.

— The Faith in “Christ Jesus” would not take away Paul’s basic Jewish understanding. This would include at least:
1)the oneness of God,
O- There is not just one “jewish understanding” but we could say that Paul represents a Pharisee’s understanding.

— This again is only recorded in Luke and seems to answer criticism that the churches had faced – that they believe in a “ghost”. John has Jesus “spirit in” and “spirit out”. Luke also records the resurrected Jesus being in several places at once, moving great distances in a short time, and suddenly disappearing from view after having been recognised. There are more things going on amongst the words than you are prepared to accept.
O- Moving out of places, going through doors etc seems as impossible to soilid-matter as walking on water. A miracle can explain both.

— The virgin birth is legend, a fitting beginning for a man of Jesus stature, thinks “Luke”.
O- Along with Matthew. But perhaps the critic here says: The resurrection too could be explained as legend. If Luke found it a proper beginning to such a man as Jesus to be born of a virging, would not also have seemed proper to have Jesus, as other heroes of lore, defeat death itself, or as a morality tale, due to his nobility and conduct, earned a just reward?

— When they are seen again, will they be as they were as children, as adults, as old people? Will they be healthy or sick?
O- For those seeing a lost love, or simply a loved one, will their age matter? Their appearance?

— Baptism is the symbolic drowning of the old man, and resurrection of the new.
O- And is this done without Christ Living Spirit?

— Being born again means to be born “from above” and relates to a contemplative process of returning to the primeval beginning, entering the darkness and bringing light. In Aramaic, min d’rish means to be born from the beginning and the references to Spirit and water indicate that the creation (Gen.1:2) has to occur within mankind, so that out of the chaos a structure becomes apparent, with which the Church is able to be guided.
O- In understanding the resurrection I have followed the examples of early christians in seeing the life of Jesus as a template of their own. The resurrection of their bodies was to be like the resurrection of Christ and so now with Baptism. It is to be born of the Spirit and in Jesus case, as it is believed by others of themselves after him, this is literally the case as the Spirit descends upon Jesus like a dove and the voice he hears tells him that he is the Son with whom God is well pleased.
The reception of Christ Living Spirit then occurs at Baptism, but this is not what Paul has in mind in regards to the resurrection, for Paul has been baptised (Acts 9:18), that is, has received God’s Holy Spirit. To him, the resurrection will happen at a future time, not as Moffatt would conclude something that has already happened.