i've seen some say he's christian, others say otherwise. what's the scoop?

also, did he believe jesus existed, or not?

He was definitely a Christian, but probably (in my opinion) much more a follower of Jesus. After getting a medical degree he spent his life in the African jungle as a doctor.

He believed Jesus did exist, but saw him as an apocalyptic prophet who excpected the immanent final "eschaton," the end of the world with God's final trumpet, etc. When he was hauled up on the cross the truth began to dawn on him, thought Schweitzer, and so Jesus died a failure.

Schweitzer's momumental "Quest for the Historical Jesus" in the early 1900s was an extensive summing up of all existing historical scholarship concerning Jesus, ending with his (Schweitzer's} own conclusions (awkwardly and certainly incompletely grasped by myself written above in the previous paragraph).

There is a great passage toward the end of his book which I really like:

"He comes to us as one unkown, without a name, as of old, beside the lakeside. He came to those who knew him not. He speaks
to us the same words: "Follow thou me" and sets us to the tasks which he has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey him, whether they be wise or simple, he will reveal himself in the toils, the conflicts and the sufferings which they shall pass through in his fellowhip and, as an ieffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He Is."

You people have some funny notions of who Christians are.

You say Albert Schweitzer was a Christian and in the same paragraph you say: "When he was hauled up on the cross the truth began to dawn on him, thought Schweitzer, and so Jesus died a failure."

How is this Christian? Apparently there are many definitions of who and what a Christian is today. From pretty early on in history, belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus has been a necessary component of Christianity.

Perhaps he was a modernized gnostic Christian? Perhaps he simply agreed with Jesus' philosophical statements? This sounds like John Dominic Crossan's Christianity, but not the belief in the risen Jesus that most Christians throughout history have adhered to...

Ish

There are as many different sets of beliefs as there are people nowadays, since we've begun to stress tolerance and imaginations are allowed to run wild.

I think Bertrand Russel defined it as having to believe at least that Jesus was the best and greatest of men. Or something like that.

"Christian" doesn't mean much anymore, in my opinion, other than something you can call yourself to immediately get support from millions of people.

You'll be especially popular if you tell them you can prove their faith is reasonable...

-Nick

Schweitzer was interested in the religion OF Jesus, not the relgion ABOUT Jesus.

Jesus was a man: that is a statement of FACT.
Jesus was the Son of God: that is a statement of FAITH.

Christianity is FAITH in the man Jesus AS a manifestation of the divine. In this respect I can safely call Albert Schweitzer a Christian--and a devout one at that. He was a Christian who embodied the social gospel in the New Testament. But he still saw Jesus as "God." In other words, if God was to come down to earth in human form, what would he be doing? What would he be saying?

I have not read Schweitzer for years, but I suspect that he certainly believed in the resurrection, but--unlike fundamentalists' notions of "resucitation"--saw resurrection as having nothing to do with Jesus' body.

Schweitzer saw Jesus as expecting the immanent end of the world coming in his lifetime (as do many Christians today). The world did not end, so, in his view, Jesus as an eschatoglical prophet failed.

After his death, however, Jesus and his abiding closeness did not go away to his earliest followers. What was available to any follower of Jesus when he was alive was still available after the crucifixion. That, I submit, it close to the way Schweitzer saw the resurrection.

Really? We don't know that for sure.

Buck, are you familiar with Aesop's Fables?

Does that mean that animals were able to talk in the ancient world? Or does it show us that there was a stupid Greek named Aesop who thought so?

I guess I am going along with mainline biblical scholarship--secular and theological--which looks at evidence, data and sources and then concludes that Jesus did in fact exist.

Of course we do not have ALL sources: a peasant digging in his field tomorrow might uncover a text which may prove us all wrong. Of course none of us now were alive and present then during the first century in Palestine.

I realize there are some who claim Jesus never existed (G. Wells, etc), but I feel I take a more reasonable approach.

Let's just conclude that you and I have a difference of opinion on this.

aikido7