having read Robert M. Price’s book, The Da Vinci Fraud: Why the truth is stranger than fiction, I found this last statement at the end of the book very appealing:
"… There is one kind of satisfaction that critical New Testament research will not provide. It makes it pretty much impossible for the honest student to rest content with any conventional slate of beliefs. Once one approaches the questions of the historical Jesus and Christian origins, one is sentenced forever to carry the cross of tentativeness, of indecision. Dostoyevsky’s Jesus (in the Brothers Karamazov) came to set upon us the burden of freedom, free thought, and free choice. And it is a cross. One cannot slough off one’s responsibility to weigh all theories and to favour none beyond the strength of its evidence. Faithfulness to the truth entails a stubborn unwillingness to decide prematurely that you have it. This is the problem with conservative Christian apologists who use the tools of historical criticism cynically in order to vindicate dogmatic beliefs they hold on other, prior, grounds. They have sacrificed the sincere search for truth, ironically, in the name of Christ.
Matin Kähler, Wilhelm Herrmann, Paul Tillich, and other nineteenth and twentieth-century theologians saw things more clearly. They knew from experience what resulted if one based one’s faith squarely on ostensibly historical events. You can’t afford to admit even the possibility that it might turn out to be false! Since historical judgements are based on ever-new discoveries and reevaluations of the evidence, opinions about the past must always remain tentative and provisional. But faith, the commitment that guides one’s life, cannot be so tentative. Thus one is faced with two alternatives. First, like our apologists, one may secretly sacrifice the honest conscience of the impartial historian and become a mere propagandist. Second, one may keep an open mind on all historical questions and base faith elsewhere. And for this, I recommend a striking symbol: the Vitruvian Son of Man, a crucifix displaying Leonardo’s famous spread-eagled human figure … I like the way the figure simultaneously displays all the possible postures of the limbs. It speaks of the intellectual posture of the serious student of Christian origins: one must remain open to all possibilities, arms stretched wide to catch any new idea, feet nimble to cover new territory as it appears. Not a dogma, but a stance.
As Tillich said, faith will no longer be an arbitrary assent to a set of assertions held in place by sheer willpower (“I believe Jesus did this. I believe that Jesus said that. What a good Christian am I”). It becomes instead an existential risk, the risk of choosing a worthy path to follow. One sees the Jesus figure of the gospels (and it may differ in the eyes of different beholders, as in the Preaching of John!). One weighs the sayings ascribed to Jesus. Who knows how much the portrait of Jesus one sees is historical fact? Who knows who first said these words? It hardly matters. One remains faced with the call to discipleship as surely as the characters in those old stories were. We don’t know for sure who or what Jesus was, but we can get a pretty good idea of what discipleship would mean just by reading the gospels. And then it is ours to decide whether that path is for us. For my part, one aspect of that discipleship would be the unflinching courage to follow historical evidence wherever it leads. It would mean carrying that cross of chafing uncertainties when I would rather settle down with the security blanket of pleasant beliefs."
Having grown up with “the security blanket of pleasant beliefs” and then devoting the first 10 yrs of my adult life in fanaticism to them, I’ll take the “chafing uncertainties” any day.
Once you have accepted that there is doubt about the historicity of Jesus and that much of the doctrine therein is shared by other religions ("Who knows who first said these words?) and in so doing you tacitly admit that your “faith” is much broader-based and abstract, then why bother to continue to call yourself a “Christian”.
I know how you feel - I wasn’t exactly fanatical, but very outgoing and probably a little overbearing. My position today has mellowed with knowing that the “message” is really something universal, for example that the message of Easter is about the profane destroying the sacred, but the sacred won’t go away, and just like the seasons continue to return, so does the light follow the darkness, and the memories remain a source of strength and inspiration.
Although there is a lot about which I’m not happy about the church, the local parish provides a SPOT (special place of tranquility) to which we can return when in need, and our SPOT at home doesn’t suffice. I am also able to appreciate the analogies, the metaphers, the legends and the mythos in a way that I hadn’t been able before. I’m not quite sure, despite knowing what I do now, that I’m not a Christian.
I find your brand of “Christian” spirituality to be commendable. It would appear that you hold reason in high regard even though “faith” (in something you probably see as external, but I would characterize as internal) is still a major component. I think this is superior to the muddled thought seen amongst those who have jettisoned Christianity for the most part, only to replace the old dogmas with a myriad of new-age superstitions. And popular media only exacerbates the problem. Some of the crap I see on the Discovery channel should only be aired on Fox (if at all).
I like the way that Price points out that “faith [is the] the commitment that guides one’s life […] It becomes […] an existential risk, the risk of choosing a worthy path to follow. One sees the Jesus figure of the gospels (and it may differ in the eyes of different beholders, as in the Preaching of John!). One weighs the sayings ascribed to Jesus. Who knows how much the portrait of Jesus one sees is historical fact? Who knows who first said these words? It hardly matters. One remains faced with the call to discipleship as surely as the characters in those old stories were. We don’t know for sure who or what Jesus was, but we can get a pretty good idea of what discipleship would mean just by reading the gospels. And then it is ours to decide whether that path is for us.”
The more I have come to know other traditions and faiths, philosophies and ideologies, the more I have returned to this image of the Son of Man, realising that it is something which has played a large role in my life. I have argued here an understanding of the biblical message (as I have come to understand it) which encompasses the development of spirituality und awareness - something which is as much a personal development as it is a development of society. I feel at home amongst the stories of the Gospels, amidst the characters of the New Testament, and they speak to me above and beyond the speculation of whether any of it has been historical. In fact, this isn’t an issue at all. It is all down to whether it inspires us to follow that path and love God and Mankind in the way we see Christ loving, and feeling the sacrifice that such a love can be willing to bring.
Once we let go of the need to have the Gospels be historical evidence, we are free to have faith which doesn’t conflict with reason. Once we understand how early Christianity struggled with the story of a local man who was so inspiring that he was able to move the hearts of his listeners, but who became one of the nameless thousands who ended up on a cross, we begin to see that, although the story that arose out of the memories of those followers was a construction, it really became the story of the Son of Man. It became a proposition for a new beginning and a guideline for hope. Despite what has happened along the way, when we return to the original story, we see the mistakes we have made and we are inspired anew. There is something mysterious in the power of this story, in the power of these words to resurrect a longing and an ambition, which is unreasonable - but happens over and over again.
It would be a shame to leave it to the dogmatic propagandists who base their faith “squarely on ostensibly historical events” - and continually struggle against all evidence. I don’t intend to.
I can find little fault with your world view as presented here. Christianity could never do this for me, but I think, to some extent, we all need to derive inspiration from some source external to us. You have obviously found yours.
The spirit of Christ exists in many forms despite how the physical aspect of the being was uncertain.
Beliefs have shaped humanity and humanity has shaped its spirit.
Typically the older a spirit gets, the stronger it becomes.
Power is the basis of substantiality. The more powerful something is, the more substantial it is.
Hardly any of the experiences have been recorded and studied in finer details,
but at times when under demon-abuse calling upon Christ produced relief. Calling on “God” or the Creator has also at times helped.
Demons and angels are real. Christ is a high angel human splice, as far as i have seen, and he can hear our thoughts.
Manifestation is complex and difficult, but for some things, spirits are really good at doing them.
For other things, a spirit’s hands are tied.
One story I read in a near death experience a woman had got struck by lightning but when she died
she felt she met “God” and acquired healing abilities when she was resusitated or came back from the experience.
Jesus sightings in the spiritual planes near the earth are common enough for me to know that Christ exists.
I am not a christian by far, but, I consider the real Christ orders of angels and spirits as allies and friends.
You will most likely be able to find and understand Jesus when you die and pass on to the realm which he more naturally governs.
And no this isn’t all baseless yap.
I’ve heard reports from many trust-able people whom never lie.
No, in that case it is hearsay. Someone else’s revelation is equivalent to a purported miracle. As Hume stated, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”.
What you say is not written in scripture and I will not take your word for it.
Very well put.
I think that people lose confidence in Christianity without necessarily losing faith in Jesus. Thus they continue to call themselves something that means something entirely different to the traditional signified. But this is tied to a belief in dichotomy, often if not always, positing a better or true version of X. What is traditionally held is seen by those that have overcome it as corrupted and they claim to either discern the pure version of X or that it can be known and they either have found it or seek it. They no longer follow Christ in the traditional sense because it is corrupted, but they still follow after him. In this sense maybe it is still appropriate, in the most basic sense, to consider oneself a “Christian”.
Hi Bob. That’s what I am trying to do. Schweitzer apparently did that until he gave up the search due to lack of evidence. Following Schweitzer, a number of prominent 20th century theologians gave up on the historical Jesus, Bultmann and Tillich among them. Borg continues to follow the evidence and continues to have faith albeit somewhat unorthodox. There seem to be a number of issues for which there is simply a lack of evidence. To follow the evidence is to find the answers that are there, sometimes to questions one hasn’t even asked. Not only the historical Jesus but also the nature of the early Jesus movement/church is mysterious due to lack of evidence during the period where oral history and traditioning were the primary modes of transmission. The search isn’t helped by the fact that Christians liked to destroy manuscripts that did not agree with their viewpoint. Their destruction of the library at Alexandria was a great travesty against knowledge. Fortunately they were less than 100% successful in their book burning fervor. Thus, we have the productive accidental and illuminating Nag Hammadi. If you are into praying, pray for more of those would ya?
Felix: I have read a number of books by Bart D. Ehrman and have found them all to be fascinating. By his own account, his work as a biblical scholar led him from a basically fundamentalist, inerrant word-of-God position to one of agnosticism, but he still strongly defends the historical existence of Jesus. You appear to be knowledgable in this area, what is your opinion of Ehrman?
The book by Robert Price was quite unsuspecting really, and I loaded it onto my Kindle for a vacation read, but it was very informative for readers who didn’t suspect how intriguing the reality about the biblical sources is. I haven’t given up on Jesus, I’ve just come to accept that the person named Jesus perhaps has been built up by inclusion of some material from popular stories in circulation.
The point that I would make, however, is that our modern assumption that truth is historical overlooks the fact that most of what moves us aren’t facts but ideas. Concepts and inspiration make a difference once there is someone consquent enough to live the concept and gain wind from inspiration. The Dhammapada says,
What we are is the result of what we have thought,
is built by our thoughts, is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with an impure thought,
suffering follows one,
like the wheel of the cart follows the foot of the ox.
What we are is the result of what we have thought,
is built by our thoughts, is made up of our thoughts.
If one speaks or acts with a pure thought,
happiness follows one,
like a shadow that never leaves.
The energy that grows out of inspiration and follows concepts is guided by our intentions, less by the detail. This is a mystery but also a law of existence. That is probably what the disciples discovered when the concept of resurrection became a reality for them. I believe that there was more than only a pious hope, but exactly what happened is hard to define because of the methods of the “dogmatic propagandists” who, as you said, were keen to destroy anything that might be regarded as not orthodox.
The importance of critical New Testament research lies in the uncovering of evidence and getting to the bottom of what actually happened. The problem for the church is that anything that doesn’t prove the historicity of the Bible is destructive for the survival of the church.
Bob is not Christian, If I remember correctly he is Islamic (Or was last time I was in a large debate with him if I remember right, though I could be wrong so bob, feel free to correct me).
And Islam is a much broader open faith then Christianity, both Philosophically, and Logically.
Although I feel a certain affinity to the Sufi, I am not a Moslem. I have been an orthodox Christian, but I have since been looking at many traditions, especially Buddhism, and strangely always returned to Christianity. It is the fascination with the Christfigur that has always drawn me back, but also the underlying mystery which brought forth the Christian Mystics who have destinctly echoed Buddhism, especially Zen.
I find that it is interesting though, that you bring up Islam, especially in view of the nature of the Qu’ran. Here too we see literature inspiring people to follow a path. The book from Karen Armstrong is a refreshing look at Mohammed and his “jihad” - and shows a figure who is quite distant to the imaginations of his followers. We definately need more research like that done by talented writers like Armstrong.
I read Karen Armstrong’s book on The Buddha. It was good in many ways but I really thought she tried too hard to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity. Some of her efforts to portray Buddhist thought as equivalent to “popular” Judeao-Christian concepts was over-reaching (if not just plain wrong). But she definitely portrayed the Buddha in a good light.
Another great book (in my opinion) that I have read on this general subject is “With or Without God: Why the Way We Live Is More Important Than What We Believe” by Gretta Vosper (founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and a minister in Toronto). She basically advocates a change in how the church views scripture, similar to what Bob is advocating: that the church cannot expect anyone to continue to view scripture as TAWOGFAT (“The Absolute Word Of God For All Time”, her term). Instead, the Bible may be seen as inspiring and useful metaphor (at best). And, for the Church to remain relevant, a certain portion of scripture(and Christian Dogma) must be relegated to the time period is comes from - seen in a light that uses it as an example of how much society and culture has changed for the better.
I’ve probably read more of Ehrman’s textual criticism then I have anyone in that sub-discipline of Bible criticism. He makes some points that have become significant for me. For example he has pointed out that the gospels were written to be complete independent texts. They were not written to be integrated with the other gospels to form a single gospel story. That seems logical, and once seen, and accepted as a principle, it changes the way one understands the gospels. Differences between them pop out, their respective theological viewpoints become distinct.
I haven’t read that one, so I can’t comment, but of course we can’t simply claim that A is B. The way in which the Mystics echo Buddhist thought has especially been in the area of monastic life and practise. Monastic contemplation and prayer has become more like meditation than what contemporary Christians regard as prayer, and that is probably where the line is drawn. There is no way in which conservative Christians could identify with buddhist teachings, or vice-versa. However, “progressive Christians”, perhaps like Gretta Vosper, seem to reach out to the spiritual experience of other traditions and recognise that, although the route may be a different one, the destination seems to be the same.
My point is that, although the Bible is inspiring, it is “canned” and requires opening up into the present time. It is also a compilation from very differing sources, but the subjects are universal. It is just that the concepts differ according to the influences of nature and culture in varying areas of the world. Every preacher who is able to inspire listeners is able to draw from a variety of symbols and themes, with which their listeners can identify. That is always the way it goes and is especially seen in secular advertising. We can’t expect every human being to identify with one concept, because our brains are keyed to symbols, shapes, stories and sounds which influence us during our childhood and youth. I grew up in an asian environment when I was most impressionable, so it isn’t a wonder that I can identify with asian culture better than others - and am more open to those things which may be regarded as heretical by others.
So it is with many people, now that the world has become a global village. Add to that the fact that the Bible grew amongst various cultures, or at least in a part of the world which was pushed and pulled by various cultural influences, then it becomes clear why the Bible is in actual fact very diverse in its origins and has been edited in such a way as to provide some form of homogenity. Not least of all the New Testament. When we consider the possibility, which is being discussed, that the Gospel of John was very possibly a gnostic Gospel to begin with, but was edited in such a way as to provide an argument against Gnosticism, then we perhaps begin to see that orthodox Christianity has had an agenda, and it wasn’t an innocent collecting of scriptures which led to the NT. This needn’t be a problem for itself, but it is a problem when we come across attempts to conceal that.
