Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bartok · 03-16-2002, 10:07 PM

Well Toto, I have read a little Spong as well as a few others who may fit into the secular humanist category. Nothing wrong with a little humanism, is there?

Anyway, when one picks through the layers of interpretation and doctrine that has kind of caked up through the centuries and looks at the Biblical texts (maybe even past the interpretations of the writers sometimes), one may generally see the God that these writers experienced, the nature and core of the divine character the Israelites and the first century Christians experienced.

In Jesus, people saw God. What kind of a God? A God that paid attention to the lowest of society, a God who saw something in the nothings. This experience of Jesus' God transformed people, provided hope, and showed them that they were lovable.

In a way, this world does need redemption. While Adam and Eve may not have started the downward spiral, there is definitely more than enough evidence to show that this world is not perfect. Heck, creation isn't even finished yet. As long as there is war, oppression, hunger, tension, etc., there is a need for the God revealed through Jesus to transform people, to offer hope and to inspire a movement to do something, to act out this God's plan to others.

Is there a lot of humanism in that? Yes. But it begins for Christians in this transforming divine encounter.

In short, when it comes to the Bible, honesty to the texts themselves is key. And when one does that, one can still find truth...but not necessarily fact. I could expound on this more, but it's really late where I am. More later.

Toto · 03-16-2002, 11:04 PM

Bartok (love your music, by the way) -

It sounds like you are a liberal Christian, and a political liberal. I sympathize with your positions, but I just can't find any support for them in the Bible. A part of the New Testament is about ordinary people feeling loved, but much more is about terrible vengeance, punishing evil, rigid rules for behavior, upholding the authority of government, etc.

I'll be interested in seeing how you can find your truths in the Bible.

Bartok · 03-17-2002, 11:59 AM

Toto, a response is on the way. I just need an ample amount of time to construct it, and right now my attention is needed elsewhere. However, rest assured that it's coming. I just didn't want you to see me post elsewhere and wonder why I didn't respond here.

And FWIW, I'm glad I found this place. It's healthy to question and explore.

See y'all later today.

Kvalhion · 03-17-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

In a way, this world does need redemption. While Adam and Eve may not have started the downward spiral, there is definitely more than enough evidence to show that this world is not perfect

So what did start the downward spiral, Bartok? If the old testament is viewed as allegorial rather than literal, the idea that the earth is billions of years old should be examined. How did humanity survive for millions of years? How did homo sapiens sapiens live for hundreds of thousands of years without destroying the planet? How did the number of human beings grow from 10 million at the end of the neolithic age to over 6 billion just 10,000 years later?

I doubt you will find any of these answers in the bible. Both the old testament and the new testament were written by humans who had no idea that any other type of human culture existed before their own. Because of this, the Bible can only exist within the context of our culture, not humanity itself.

Quote:

As long as there is war, oppression, hunger, tension, etc., there is a need for the God revealed through Jesus to transform people, to offer hope and to inspire a movement to do something, to act out this God's plan to others.

Again, you assume that things like war, oppresion, hunger, tension, are inevitable conditions of humanity. Recent technology allows us to look much farther into the past than 10,000 years ago, and such knowledge shows that such assumptions are false.

Salvationist religion has existed for thousands of years, yet very little has changed. There is still war, oppression, hunger, and tension along with a multitutde of other symptoms.

You seem to believe that if only more people would be religious, if only more people would listen to "God's word", if only more people were kind, generous, giving, understanding, loving, etc, things would be just fine.

Unfortunately, the "movement to do something" will never prevent or cure the very symptoms that must exist for these movements to make sense. In other words, religion doesn't examine the conditions that require people to be starving and poor (it is assumed these conditions exist naturally), they simply offer programs to react to these conditions. While these programs to help those who need it are beneficial to some, they will never address the very conditions that cause them to exist. Thus, there will always be the "if only more people" fallacy, since no matter how many people do participate, the conditions will always exist.

While, I am sure a sense of accomplishment and a sense of hope is a good thing, in reality the "need for God" will do nothing other than help a few and appease the conscience of many.

Bartok · 03-17-2002, 01:43 PM

Well, my response to Toto will have to wait. But I feel that this one cannot.

"So what did start the downward spiral, Bartok? If the old testament is viewed as allegorial rather than literal, the idea that the earth is billions of years old should be examined. How did humanity survive for millions of years? How did homo sapiens sapiens live for hundreds of thousands of years without destroying the planet? How did the number of human beings grow from 10 million at the end of the neolithic age to over 6 billion just 10,000 years later?"

When I used the term "downward spiral," I was actually referring to the doctrine of the fall, which I don't believe. I guess I didn't make that explicit enough.

"I doubt you will find any of these answers in the bible. Both the old testament and the new testament were written by humans who had no idea that any other type of human culture existed before their own. Because of this, the Bible can only exist within the context of our culture, not humanity itself."

You're right and I never indicated that I believed otherwise. Thanks.

"Again, you assume that things like war, oppresion, hunger, tension, are inevitable conditions of humanity. Recent technology allows us to look much farther into the past than 10,000 years ago, and such knowledge shows that such assumptions are false."

This must come out of an assumption that I believe that the earth is 10,000 years old, which I don't. But war, oppression, etc. are inevitable conditions of humanity in the sense that we are creatures that at least in part look after our own interests. This can be both a positive and negative thing, the negative side played out in the list of things I mentioned.

"Salvationist religion has existed for thousands of years, yet very little has changed. There is still war, oppression, hunger, and tension along with a multitutde of other symptoms."

Like I said, the world isn't perfect and there isn't even a sign that creation is finished. The universe is in a constant flux of creation and destruction, of expansion and contraction, even of peace and conflict. While God may not swoop down and wisk us all away, there is certainly an imperative that one could take toward resolving conflicts. Certainly one could make our predicament a little more livable by doing so.

"You seem to believe that if only more people would be religious, if only more people would listen to "God's word", if only more people were kind, generous, giving, understanding, loving, etc, things would be just fine."

I never said the first two, and it would definitely be a plus if the others were considered. While it is somewhat absurd to think that every conflict in the world can be resolved through peace and love by understanding caring people, I once again state that we could at least take a stab at helping those around us even in the slightest rather than setting out to end world hunger.

"Unfortunately, the "movement to do something" will never prevent or cure the very symptoms that must exist for these movements to make sense. In other words, religion doesn't examine the conditions that require people to be starving and poor (it is assumed these conditions exist naturally), they simply offer programs to react to these conditions. While these programs to help those who need it are beneficial to some, they will never address the very conditions that cause them to exist. Thus, there will always be the "if only more people" fallacy, since no matter how many people do participate, the conditions will always exist."

Yes. I've already recognized and addressed this.

"While, I am sure a sense of accomplishment and a sense of hope is a good thing, in reality the "need for God" will do nothing other than help a few and appease the conscience of many."

Something that I've been thinking about and wrestling with in my own studies lately has been whether or not a belief in God is necessary for God to work in or among people. That is to say, do people need to know they are contributing to the kingdom of God to do so (By kingdom of God I mean what Jesus preached for this world, a kingdom of equality and power through weakness, but that's for another day)? I don't know that people necessarily do.

I feel that I need to clarify my position, because I don't want to be written off as an individualistic fanatic that pays no heed to science (although if you had read my post before the one you responded to, you hopefully would already get that impression). I am indeed a Christian. As Toto has pointed out, I am a liberal Christian and I suppose I'm also a political liberal.

I would appreciate it if when I say I am a Christian that you read what I have written and evaluate my beliefs from there, not so much your own impressions or assumptions based on experiences with fundamentalists or literalists. While I did need to clarify some of the terms I used and such, half the stuff that you wrote in your post I agree with and already know because I'm not the type of Christian you seem to think I am, namely one wrapped up so tightly in my own beliefs and ideals that I can't see beyond my own nose. Thanks.

Toto, your reply is coming. Sorry.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bartok ]

Jayhawker Soule · 03-18-2002, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bartok:
Without the Old Testament, more broadly without the Jews, there is no Christianity. One may say "No, without Jesus there is no Christianity." True. And Jesus was a Jew.

I can't quite tell if this is an example of poetic license run astray or non sequitor run amok.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bartok:
The Old Testament is not primarily a historical text. It is a faith text. It is a theological text. It is making sense of Israel's world in terms of what Yahweh wanted and did. There is most likely some underlying history to some of the stories (exodus, conquest of the land, monarchy), but the OT was not primarily meant to be some factual historical document. [emphasis added - RD]

Really? By what scholarship did you come to ascertain this original intent?

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Bartok · 03-18-2002, 10:56 AM

ReasonableDoubt, I thank you for pointing that out. Looking back, I think I would rather have said "but the OT is not primarily a factual historical document" (italics where changes made).

Overall, I don't know that there was much of a worldview back then without some sort of theological framework. Pretty much every tribe/nation believed that different things happened because their god/s made it happen, and that affected views and recountings of historical events. That's what I was trying to get at.

As for my little non-sequitor, I interpreted this discussion as being at least in part about the OT's affects on Christianity, hence the reference to Jesus being a Jew.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-18-2002, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bartok:
ReasonableDoubt, I thank you for pointing that out. Looking back, I think I would rather have said "but the OT is not primarily a factual historical document" (italics where changes made).

Overall, I don't know that there was much of a worldview back then without some sort of theological framework. Pretty much every tribe/nation believed that different things happened because their god/s made it happen, and that affected views and recountings of historical events. That's what I was trying to get at.

So the Torah is not primarily a factual historical document, and people back then were a superstitious lot. But what should be viewed as history:

Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden?
Jonah and the whale?
Noah and the Flood?
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
the Patriarchs?
Moses and the Exodus?
the Promised Land?
the United Monarchy?

What do you select as historical, and what is your selection criteria? And what does all this suggest about the so-called prophesies of Jesus? Does it not become more likely that New Testament authors created/augmented Jesus to be compatible with a folklore that they mistakenly viewed as real? And what do you now do with the Old Testament references of Jesus?

More and more, it all seems to become a house of cards. Is there any reason whatsoever to conclude that the New Testament is any more factual than the Old? Is there, then, any reason whatsoever to select, for example, Christianity at the expense of Hinduism, or to worship Jesus over Kali?

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Bartok · 03-18-2002, 05:35 PM

Posted by Toto:
"It sounds like you are a liberal Christian, and a political liberal. I sympathize with your positions, but I just can't find any support for them in the Bible. A part of the New Testament is about ordinary people feeling loved, but much more is about terrible vengeance, punishing evil, rigid rules for behavior, upholding the authority of government, etc.

I'll be interested in seeing how you can find your truths in the Bible."

Before I head into (finally) answering you Toto, I was wondering if there were some particular passages in mind when you speak of a great deal of the NT being about vengeance. The obvious would be Revelation I'm guessing, but any others? It doesn't seem readily apparent to me that there is much else.

"What do you select as historical, and what is your selection criteria?"

What you have asked is no small feat to answer. This is also not really a black and white, "this story is either 100% true or false" type of thing, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't suggesting that. If you are, however, that's fine too, I suppose.

Here's the short answer to your question. Nowadays, scholars' methods of historical reconstruction do not set out to "prove" the historical accuracy of the OT so much as they try to reconstruct the world in which it was written, using artifacts (mainly pottery) and epigraphical evidence, mostly documents from surrounding cultures. By doing this, they try to reconstruct the world in which the OT was written. Along the way, theories have developed as to what history there actually is in the OT.

As I have already said, the prevailing theory is that the stories that now constitute the writings of the OT were originally oral traditions that were considered important enough by all those tribes that eventually made up Israel to keep and share as an entire people. Why? Because the messages contained therein were considered important by the entire people. This is typical of oral traditions: whatever history is contained may be glossed over by the addition of the theological explanation, which the people of Israel seemed to be much more interested in when compiling these stories. A good book that explains this better than I can is "The Quest for the Historical Israel" by George Ramsey.

"And what does all this suggest about the so-called prophesies of Jesus? Does it not become more likely that New Testament authors created/augmented Jesus to be compatible with a folklore that they mistakenly viewed as real? And what do you now do with the Old Testament references of Jesus?"

When you say "prophesies of Jesus," I'm not sure if you mean prophesies in the OT that the Gospel writers believed were about Jesus or prophesies made by/attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. If we are speaking of the former, the majority of these are found in the Gospel of Matthew which also happens to be the most Jewish of the four contained in the canon. The writer of Matthew apparently wanted to get the point across to the community to which he was writing that Jesus was indeed the messiah that was awaited. Most of these references, however, are actually found to be speaking of other things. For instance, the story of Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt and coming back to Egypt comes with a reference to a verse in Hosea: "out of Egypt I have called my son." It has been found that the writer of Hosea was actually speaking about the part of Israel that went to Egypt during the Babylonian exile.

Now, if we are speaking about the prophecies attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, these were most likely redacted back in. For example, Jesus is said to predict the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE in more than one Gospel. A theory on this is that the Gospels were written after this event and because the Jesus movement did not see the return of Jesus happening any time soon, they'd better write some stuff down.

Your suggestion that Jesus was augmented by the Gospel writers would most likely be the case. Once again, this can be due in part to oral tradition as well, a borrowing from other outside cultures' stories and traditions, and a need to make a point to whatever community for which the writer wrote the Gospel. The work of the Jesus Seminar is very important in this because they have attempted to strip away everything else using different criteria such as repetition (does it show up in more than one text), embarrassment (if the words of Jesus were embarrassing to the writers, why would they put them in), etc. What they have come up with is a peasant/artisan who became an itinerant preacher, had some disciples, told stories and other teachings, caused an uproar in the temple, was seen as a troublemaker or threat by the Romans, and was crucified.

Now, as was the case with the oral stories passed down that comprise the OT, we have the same thing to some degree with the Gospels. People experienced God in some fashion in this man Jesus. They heard God's truth in what he preached and saw God's truth in what he did. They believed it so strongly that they decided to carry on his legacy after he died, which dealt a lot with the "throwaway" citizens of the Empire. Suddenly these churches began popping up that attempted to keep this radical idea of equality in the sight of God alive. Of course, it would not remain the case as the church eventually developed its own structure and boundaries. But the original premise on which the Jesus movement was founded seems to be a focus on hope for the hopeless, lines blurred, justice for all. This message experienced, this God experienced, is how the Jesus movement/Christianity began. Stephen Patterson's "The God of Jesus" speaks to this.

"More and more, it all seems to become a house of cards. Is there any reason whatsoever to conclude that the New Testament is any more factual than the Old? Is there, then, any reason whatsoever to select, for example, Christianity at the expense of Hinduism, or to worship Jesus over Kali?"

I believe I've already addressed the first question. There is a historical Jesus under there somewhere, it just takes a lot of patience and care to find him.

As for the second, I have recently discovered more and more the value of pluralism. I have experienced God through Christianity and can identify with this God. I respect the integrity and beliefs of other religions and don't know that I can say that Christianity is the one true faith with a straight face and a clear conscience. I think that others' religious experiences make interfaith and interdenominational dialogue very important to learning and a better understanding of other cultures and beliefs. To have a Christian and a Hindu, for instance, sit down and speak of one's own experiences and listen to each others' is important and should not be thrown away because one feels they already have all the truth they need.

I hope that through all this rambling I have made some sense and have at least in part put forth a coherent argument. I'm open to questions, clarification and expounding as I'm sure will be put forth.

Answerer · 03-18-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


Why should anyone not raised in the tradition want to become a Christian?

Hi Toto, I think I can answer that. The christians in my country are led astray by missionaries who make them think that christinity is one and only 'true' faith in the world. Well, actually, we can't blame those being converted for many of them are very young when those missionaries come to them, so how do we expect them to know what christinity is truly about?

03-17-2002, 01:43 PM	#15
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	Well, my response to Toto will have to wait. But I feel that this one cannot. "So what did start the downward spiral, Bartok? If the old testament is viewed as allegorial rather than literal, the idea that the earth is billions of years old should be examined. How did humanity survive for millions of years? How did homo sapiens sapiens live for hundreds of thousands of years without destroying the planet? How did the number of human beings grow from 10 million at the end of the neolithic age to over 6 billion just 10,000 years later?" When I used the term "downward spiral," I was actually referring to the doctrine of the fall, which I don't believe. I guess I didn't make that explicit enough. "I doubt you will find any of these answers in the bible. Both the old testament and the new testament were written by humans who had no idea that any other type of human culture existed before their own. Because of this, the Bible can only exist within the context of our culture, not humanity itself." You're right and I never indicated that I believed otherwise. Thanks. "Again, you assume that things like war, oppresion, hunger, tension, are inevitable conditions of humanity. Recent technology allows us to look much farther into the past than 10,000 years ago, and such knowledge shows that such assumptions are false." This must come out of an assumption that I believe that the earth is 10,000 years old, which I don't. But war, oppression, etc. are inevitable conditions of humanity in the sense that we are creatures that at least in part look after our own interests. This can be both a positive and negative thing, the negative side played out in the list of things I mentioned. "Salvationist religion has existed for thousands of years, yet very little has changed. There is still war, oppression, hunger, and tension along with a multitutde of other symptoms." Like I said, the world isn't perfect and there isn't even a sign that creation is finished. The universe is in a constant flux of creation and destruction, of expansion and contraction, even of peace and conflict. While God may not swoop down and wisk us all away, there is certainly an imperative that one could take toward resolving conflicts. Certainly one could make our predicament a little more livable by doing so. "You seem to believe that if only more people would be religious, if only more people would listen to "God's word", if only more people were kind, generous, giving, understanding, loving, etc, things would be just fine." I never said the first two, and it would definitely be a plus if the others were considered. While it is somewhat absurd to think that every conflict in the world can be resolved through peace and love by understanding caring people, I once again state that we could at least take a stab at helping those around us even in the slightest rather than setting out to end world hunger. "Unfortunately, the "movement to do something" will never prevent or cure the very symptoms that must exist for these movements to make sense. In other words, religion doesn't examine the conditions that require people to be starving and poor (it is assumed these conditions exist naturally), they simply offer programs to react to these conditions. While these programs to help those who need it are beneficial to some, they will never address the very conditions that cause them to exist. Thus, there will always be the "if only more people" fallacy, since no matter how many people do participate, the conditions will always exist." Yes. I've already recognized and addressed this. "While, I am sure a sense of accomplishment and a sense of hope is a good thing, in reality the "need for God" will do nothing other than help a few and appease the conscience of many." Something that I've been thinking about and wrestling with in my own studies lately has been whether or not a belief in God is necessary for God to work in or among people. That is to say, do people need to know they are contributing to the kingdom of God to do so (By kingdom of God I mean what Jesus preached for this world, a kingdom of equality and power through weakness, but that's for another day)? I don't know that people necessarily do. I feel that I need to clarify my position, because I don't want to be written off as an individualistic fanatic that pays no heed to science (although if you had read my post before the one you responded to, you hopefully would already get that impression). I am indeed a Christian. As Toto has pointed out, I am a liberal Christian and I suppose I'm also a political liberal. I would appreciate it if when I say I am a Christian that you read what I have written and evaluate my beliefs from there, not so much your own impressions or assumptions based on experiences with fundamentalists or literalists. While I did need to clarify some of the terms I used and such, half the stuff that you wrote in your post I agree with and already know because I'm not the type of Christian you seem to think I am, namely one wrapped up so tightly in my own beliefs and ideals that I can't see beyond my own nose. Thanks. Toto, your reply is coming. Sorry. [ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bartok ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2002, 10:07 PM	#11
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	Well Toto, I have read a little Spong as well as a few others who may fit into the secular humanist category. Nothing wrong with a little humanism, is there? Anyway, when one picks through the layers of interpretation and doctrine that has kind of caked up through the centuries and looks at the Biblical texts (maybe even past the interpretations of the writers sometimes), one may generally see the God that these writers experienced, the nature and core of the divine character the Israelites and the first century Christians experienced. In Jesus, people saw God. What kind of a God? A God that paid attention to the lowest of society, a God who saw something in the nothings. This experience of Jesus' God transformed people, provided hope, and showed them that they were lovable. In a way, this world does need redemption. While Adam and Eve may not have started the downward spiral, there is definitely more than enough evidence to show that this world is not perfect. Heck, creation isn't even finished yet. As long as there is war, oppression, hunger, tension, etc., there is a need for the God revealed through Jesus to transform people, to offer hope and to inspire a movement to do something, to act out this God's plan to others. Is there a lot of humanism in that? Yes. But it begins for Christians in this transforming divine encounter. In short, when it comes to the Bible, honesty to the texts themselves is key. And when one does that, one can still find truth...but not necessarily fact. I could expound on this more, but it's really late where I am. More later.

03-16-2002, 11:04 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bartok (love your music, by the way) - It sounds like you are a liberal Christian, and a political liberal. I sympathize with your positions, but I just can't find any support for them in the Bible. A part of the New Testament is about ordinary people feeling loved, but much more is about terrible vengeance, punishing evil, rigid rules for behavior, upholding the authority of government, etc. I'll be interested in seeing how you can find your truths in the Bible.

03-17-2002, 11:59 AM	#13
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	Toto, a response is on the way. I just need an ample amount of time to construct it, and right now my attention is needed elsewhere. However, rest assured that it's coming. I just didn't want you to see me post elsewhere and wonder why I didn't respond here. And FWIW, I'm glad I found this place. It's healthy to question and explore. See y'all later today.

03-18-2002, 10:56 AM	#17
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	ReasonableDoubt, I thank you for pointing that out. Looking back, I think I would rather have said "but the OT is not primarily a factual historical document" (italics where changes made). Overall, I don't know that there was much of a worldview back then without some sort of theological framework. Pretty much every tribe/nation believed that different things happened because their god/s made it happen, and that affected views and recountings of historical events. That's what I was trying to get at. As for my little non-sequitor, I interpreted this discussion as being at least in part about the OT's affects on Christianity, hence the reference to Jesus being a Jew.

03-18-2002, 05:35 PM	#19
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	Posted by Toto: "It sounds like you are a liberal Christian, and a political liberal. I sympathize with your positions, but I just can't find any support for them in the Bible. A part of the New Testament is about ordinary people feeling loved, but much more is about terrible vengeance, punishing evil, rigid rules for behavior, upholding the authority of government, etc. I'll be interested in seeing how you can find your truths in the Bible." Before I head into (finally) answering you Toto, I was wondering if there were some particular passages in mind when you speak of a great deal of the NT being about vengeance. The obvious would be Revelation I'm guessing, but any others? It doesn't seem readily apparent to me that there is much else. "What do you select as historical, and what is your selection criteria?" What you have asked is no small feat to answer. This is also not really a black and white, "this story is either 100% true or false" type of thing, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't suggesting that. If you are, however, that's fine too, I suppose. Here's the short answer to your question. Nowadays, scholars' methods of historical reconstruction do not set out to "prove" the historical accuracy of the OT so much as they try to reconstruct the world in which it was written, using artifacts (mainly pottery) and epigraphical evidence, mostly documents from surrounding cultures. By doing this, they try to reconstruct the world in which the OT was written. Along the way, theories have developed as to what history there actually is in the OT. As I have already said, the prevailing theory is that the stories that now constitute the writings of the OT were originally oral traditions that were considered important enough by all those tribes that eventually made up Israel to keep and share as an entire people. Why? Because the messages contained therein were considered important by the entire people. This is typical of oral traditions: whatever history is contained may be glossed over by the addition of the theological explanation, which the people of Israel seemed to be much more interested in when compiling these stories. A good book that explains this better than I can is "The Quest for the Historical Israel" by George Ramsey. "And what does all this suggest about the so-called prophesies of Jesus? Does it not become more likely that New Testament authors created/augmented Jesus to be compatible with a folklore that they mistakenly viewed as real? And what do you now do with the Old Testament references of Jesus?" When you say "prophesies of Jesus," I'm not sure if you mean prophesies in the OT that the Gospel writers believed were about Jesus or prophesies made by/attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. If we are speaking of the former, the majority of these are found in the Gospel of Matthew which also happens to be the most Jewish of the four contained in the canon. The writer of Matthew apparently wanted to get the point across to the community to which he was writing that Jesus was indeed the messiah that was awaited. Most of these references, however, are actually found to be speaking of other things. For instance, the story of Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt and coming back to Egypt comes with a reference to a verse in Hosea: "out of Egypt I have called my son." It has been found that the writer of Hosea was actually speaking about the part of Israel that went to Egypt during the Babylonian exile. Now, if we are speaking about the prophecies attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, these were most likely redacted back in. For example, Jesus is said to predict the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE in more than one Gospel. A theory on this is that the Gospels were written after this event and because the Jesus movement did not see the return of Jesus happening any time soon, they'd better write some stuff down. Your suggestion that Jesus was augmented by the Gospel writers would most likely be the case. Once again, this can be due in part to oral tradition as well, a borrowing from other outside cultures' stories and traditions, and a need to make a point to whatever community for which the writer wrote the Gospel. The work of the Jesus Seminar is very important in this because they have attempted to strip away everything else using different criteria such as repetition (does it show up in more than one text), embarrassment (if the words of Jesus were embarrassing to the writers, why would they put them in), etc. What they have come up with is a peasant/artisan who became an itinerant preacher, had some disciples, told stories and other teachings, caused an uproar in the temple, was seen as a troublemaker or threat by the Romans, and was crucified. Now, as was the case with the oral stories passed down that comprise the OT, we have the same thing to some degree with the Gospels. People experienced God in some fashion in this man Jesus. They heard God's truth in what he preached and saw God's truth in what he did. They believed it so strongly that they decided to carry on his legacy after he died, which dealt a lot with the "throwaway" citizens of the Empire. Suddenly these churches began popping up that attempted to keep this radical idea of equality in the sight of God alive. Of course, it would not remain the case as the church eventually developed its own structure and boundaries. But the original premise on which the Jesus movement was founded seems to be a focus on hope for the hopeless, lines blurred, justice for all. This message experienced, this God experienced, is how the Jesus movement/Christianity began. Stephen Patterson's "The God of Jesus" speaks to this. "More and more, it all seems to become a house of cards. Is there any reason whatsoever to conclude that the New Testament is any more factual than the Old? Is there, then, any reason whatsoever to select, for example, Christianity at the expense of Hinduism, or to worship Jesus over Kali?" I believe I've already addressed the first question. There is a historical Jesus under there somewhere, it just takes a lot of patience and care to find him. As for the second, I have recently discovered more and more the value of pluralism. I have experienced God through Christianity and can identify with this God. I respect the integrity and beliefs of other religions and don't know that I can say that Christianity is the one true faith with a straight face and a clear conscience. I think that others' religious experiences make interfaith and interdenominational dialogue very important to learning and a better understanding of other cultures and beliefs. To have a Christian and a Hindu, for instance, sit down and speak of one's own experiences and listen to each others' is important and should not be thrown away because one feels they already have all the truth they need. I hope that through all this rambling I have made some sense and have at least in part put forth a coherent argument. I'm open to questions, clarification and expounding as I'm sure will be put forth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.