Rudolf Bultmann

[danchoo75]

I have recently come across the Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann and as someone who would have labelled himself a Theist rather than a Christian I found some of his ideas really fascinating and was curious if any other forum members had come across him. His project was to ‘de-mythologize’ Scripture and particularly the New Testament in order to access the truth of the Word of God. He believed it was necessary to interpret the mythical nature of the language of the New Testament to make it relevant to a modern audience with our understanding of science.(He did not accept miracles) He was more interested in the symbolic value of Jesus and the resurrection rather than its historical accuracy which he would have questioned. I found this surprising for someone calling himself a Christian theologian but I was also interested in his Existentialist approach. He was heavily influenced by Martin Heidegger and actually wrote "Heidegger’s existentialist analysis of human existence seems to be only a profane philosophical presentation of the New Testament view of who we are…” He developed his idea of kerygma, the preached message of the Church and the kerygmatic Christ as the path to salvation.
I was just interested if anyone had similar existentialist views but considered themselves Christians, perhaps a Christianity not rooted in scripture?

[danchoo75]

A link for anyone interested people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWild … ltmann.htm
check it out!

[felix_dakat]

@danchoo75

I have recently come across the Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann and as someone who would have labelled himself a Theist rather than a Christian I found some of his ideas really fascinating and was curious if any other forum members had come across him. His project was to ‘de-mythologize’ Scripture and particularly the New Testament in order to access the truth of the Word of God. He believed it was necessary to interpret the mythical nature of the language of the New Testament to make it relevant to a modern audience with our understanding of science.(He did not accept miracles) He was more interested in the symbolic value of Jesus and the resurrection rather than its historical accuracy which he would have questioned. I found this surprising for someone calling himself a Christian theologian but I was also interested in his Existentialist approach. He was heavily influenced by Martin Heidegger and actually wrote "Heidegger’s existentialist analysis of human existence seems to be only a profane philosophical presentation of the New Testament view of who we are…” He developed his idea of kerygma, the preached message of the Church and the kerygmatic Christ as the path to salvation.
I was just interested if anyone had similar existentialist views but considered themselves Christians, perhaps a Christianity not rooted in scripture?

I have read some of Bultmann. He was influencial in his time. His views are mainly of historical importance now, I think. I have read a number of the existentialists. What claim to Christ would a “christianity” not rooted in the Bible have?

[Liteninbolt]

I can’t envision being Christian while not believing in the New Testament. If anyone did and had no contact with the Bible in any fashion, faith would be their only link to God.

[danchoo75]

Thanks for replies, but possibly I should clarify. For Bultmann (and what intrigues me) Christianity is rooted in the New Testament but not in the historicity of the New Testament. Salvation is found through the Cross of Christ, not on its basis as a historical event but as an Existential event and the path through which we gain an example of authentic living. And yes faith was important.

I guess ultimately what I wanted to find out was whether there were ‘Christians’ out there who were indifferent to the historical fact of Jesus but look at Christianity more symbolically and yes from the foundation of an existentialist point of view.

[felix_dakat]

@danchoo75

Thanks for replies, but possibly I should clarify. For Bultmann (and what intrigues me) Christianity is rooted in the New Testament but not in the historicity of the New Testament. Salvation is found through the Cross of Christ, not on its basis as a historical event but as an Existential event and the path through which we gain an example of authentic living. And yes faith was important.

I guess ultimately what I wanted to find out was whether there were ‘Christians’ out there who were indifferent to the historical fact of Jesus but look at Christianity more symbolically and yes from the foundation of an existentialist point of view.

The Bible does have metaphorical or symbolic elements. But, since we are physical as well as psychological beings, I don’t see how we can be existentially “indifferent” to the historical fact of Jesus. How you can have a “Existential event” sans an historical one?

[danchoo75]

I think I understand your point but I disagree, it is possible to be existentially indifferent to the historical fact of Jesus. As you say there are symbolic elements in the Bible and I would argue that there are Christians who are existentially indifferent to the historical understanding of Creation for example. I think you would accept that not all Christians believe the Earth was created in six days. Equally but a lot more controversially it is possible to to be indifferent to the historical fact of the resurrection of the man Jesus of Nazareth but to still believe in what Bultmann calls the Christian kerygma or message. As quoted from the link above “For Bultmann the Christian gospel is that God has liberated humanity from “our factual fallenness in the world” so that we can live authentically as human beings” which he sees to be the existential framework of Heidegger.
I think what Bultmann means when he talks about the existential event of the Cross of Christ rather than the historical event is that the kerygma survives independent of the historic Jesus which I appreciate sounds a bit weird but the proclamation that the Christ is God’s act of salvation is more important than the actual man.

[felix_dakat]

I find this interesting. I remember from my reading that Bultmann believed in God. But I have some questions for you.

I think I understand your point but I disagree, it is possible to be existentially indifferent to the historical fact of Jesus.

I suppose it is. Maybe you are. But what does that mean?

As you say there are symbolic elements in the Bible and I would argue that there are Christians who are existentially indifferent to the historical understanding of Creation for example. I think you would accept that not all Christians believe the Earth was created in six days.

Yes, some of them believe the universe came into being 14 billion years ago.

As quoted from the link above “For Bultmann the Christian gospel is that God has liberated humanity from “our factual fallenness in the world” so that we can live authentically as human beings” which he sees to be the existential framework of Heidegger.

How has God done that? What does it mean to live authentically?

I think what Bultmann means when he talks about the existential event of the Cross of Christ rather than the historical event is that the kerygma survives independent of the historic Jesus which I appreciate sounds a bit weird but the proclamation that the Christ is God’s act of salvation is more important than the actual man.

How has the cross of Christ survived independent of the historic Jesus? How is the proclamation that Christ is God’s salvation more important than the actual man?

[danchoo75]

Felix, I will try to answer each of your questions but before things go too far, I just want to say I am more interested in debating Bultmann rather than becoming a mouthpiece for him. He’s just someone I’ve come across recently and found interesting, I don’t want to be seen as his defender. To be honest I dont know enough of his material to be that. But yeah I think a lot of the answers to your questions can be found by reading the material in the link I gave in an earlier post.

But here goes,

it is possible to be existentially indifferent to the historical fact of Jesus.

But what does that mean?

In simple terms the religion of Christianity survives independently of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, ultimately he just doesn’t matter. Sounds crazy but I hope I’ve explained why Bultmann thinks this, if not the link above will do a better job.

“For Bultmann the Christian gospel is that God has liberated humanity from “our factual fallenness in the world” so that we can live authentically as human beings” which he sees to be the existential framework of Heidegger.

How has God done that? What does it mean to live authentically?

I will let Bultmann answer this question with a quote from his work Kerygma and Myth

St. Paul sees that the life of man is weighed down by anxiety (1 Cor. 7:32ff.). Every man focuses his anxiety upon some particular object. The natural man focuses it upon security, and in proportion to his opportunities and his success in the visible sphere he places his “confidence” in the “flesh” (Phil. 3:3f.), and the consciousness of security finds its expression in “glorying”.
Such a pursuit is, however, incongruous with man’s real situation, for the fact is that he is not secure at all. Indeed, this is the way in which he loses his true life and becomes the slave of that very sphere which he had hoped to master, and which he hoped would give him security. Whereas hitherto he might have enjoyed the world as God’s creation, it has now become “this world”, the world in revolt against God. This is the way in which the “powers” which dominate human life come into being, and as such they acquire the character of mythical entities. (Terms like “the spirit of the age” or “the spirit of technology” provide some sort of modern analogy.) Since the visible and tangible sphere is essentially transitory, the man who bases his life on it becomes the prisoner and slave of corruption. An illustration of this may be seen in the way our attempts to secure visible security for ourselves bring us into collision with others; we can seek security for ourselves only at their expense. Thus on the one hand we get envy, anger, jealousy, and the like, and on the other compromise, bargainings, and adjustments of conflicting interests. This creates an all-pervasive atmosphere which controls all our judgments; we all pay homage to it and take it for granted. Thus man becomes the slave of anxiety (Rom. 8:15). Everybody tries to hold fast to his own life and property, because he has a secret feeling that it is all slipping away from him.
The authentic life, on the other hand, would be a life based on unseen, intangible realities. Such a life means the abandonment of all self-contrived security. This is what the New Testament means by “life after the Spirit” or “life in faith”.
For this life we must have faith in the grace of God. It means faith that the unseen, intangible reality actually confronts us as love, opening up our future and signifying not death but life.
The grace of God means the forgiveness of sin, and brings deliverance from the bondage of the past. The old quest for visible security, the hankering after tangible realities, and the clinging to transitory objects, is sin, for by it we shut out invisible reality from our lives and refuse God’s future which comes to us as a gift. But once we open our hearts to the grace of God, our sins are forgiven; we are released from the past. This is what is meant by “faith”: to open ourselves freely to the future. But at the same time faith involves obedience, for faith means turning our backs on self and abandoning all security. It means giving up every attempt to carve out a niche in life for ourselves, surrendering all our self-confidence, and resolving to trust in God alone, in the God who raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:9) and who calls the things that are not into being (Rom. 4:17). It means radical self-commitment to God in the expectation that everything will come from him and nothing from ourselves. Such a life spells deliverance from all worldly, tangible objects, leading to complete detachment from the world and thus to freedom

The word ‘authentic’ comes from existentialist terminology and is used in reference to Heidegger. I think you can find more background here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentici … losophy%29,

Finally

How has the cross of Christ survived independent of the historic Jesus? How is the proclamation that Christ is God’s salvation more important than the actual man?

Well! This is the fundamental basis of Bultmann’s theology and I guess if I havent explained yet why this is the case, you just have to read him. Bultmann attempts to ‘demythologize’ the New Testament in order to retain God’s message but do away with the mythical stuff. He believes in the Christian ‘kerygma’, and through what Bultmann calls the saving efficacy of the Cross, authentic life becomes a possibility. It is essentially an existentialist theology with the kerygmatic Christ being of symbolic value. Well that’s my take.