----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 5:30 PM Subject: Re: Jesus-anity
> > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > But Paul never met Jesus (unless new scripts that > > I haven't heard about have emerged from somewhere); > > --I should have added that the last time I > semi-seriously studied the Bible (i.e. in a class with > an actual doctor of theology) was over 2 decades ago, > so unless it was earth-shaking news I wouldn't have > heard of new information-- The stuff I'm talking about has been pretty standard for >30-40 years among non-fundamentalists. > > I think I also wrote something here about 'not > actually knowing what Jesus (or others like Buddha) > actually said or did' -- this is extremely important, > as it renders most discussion of what *really* > occurred impossible to validate. I was also > apparently not clear on my opinion of the Bible in > general (although I do think I touched on that in > other posts previously): it is not literally true, and > much of what was included or excluded came out of the > hands of men who had an agenda, yet there are lessons > to be learned from its study. But I think you can see the agendas pretty clearly from what was written. Paul's was to proclaim the Lord Jesus, Christ until he comes again in glory. His writing is filled with the transforming power of Jesus, who died on the cross, in his life. That's all Christian cliché now, but it was new at the time. I agree that we do not have Jesus directly; we have the early church testifying to the meaning Jesus has in their life. I can give you multiple present day Christian sources on the community in relationship to Jesus coming first, and scriptures coming second. The gospels are redactions of the oral traditions concerning Jesus. Clearly the center of this was the Passion of Jesus. Indeed, the first gospel, Mark, is aptly described as the restless rush to the Passion. The epistles are letters written in the very early church; Acts is a redaction of the stories of the start of the church; and Revelations is an example of apocraphal literature. All testify to Jesus. So, Christianity is an apt phrase because what we have at the foundation is the testimony of people into how their lives were transformed by the Christ. Indeed, Christianity started as a movement within Judaism proclaiming that the Son of Man, the Christ, the Son of God had come. (Each title having its own importance, of course.) >I think it difficult to > be truly literate in Western culture without at least > a nodding acquaintance with the Bible and Shakespeare > [or works that purport to be his ;) ]. We agree here. > > > I see a middle ground between believing everything > > is in black and white in > > source X and believing that morality comes totally > > from within, and then > > looking for texts and people who agree with oneself. > > > > I see it more as being in dialog with the text. As > > my daughter Amy has > > pointed out, every Christian has a "cannon within > > the cannon." Mine is > > Jesus' discussion of the two greatest laws. I view > > other scripture through > > that lens. But, I do not use a scissors when I do > > it. I read and reflect > > on the entirety of scripture, even the parts that > > challenge my views. > > <very serious> I have state jokingly that I am a > "heretic Lutheran Deist," but that is in fact true. I > do _not_ believe that one must be Christian or indeed > of any particular faith to experience and love the > Divine. I am by definition not a true Christian, > since I do not acknowledge acceptance of Jesus as the > only Savior and means of experiencing the Divine > (ditto for the rest of the Nicene Creed). I think it depends on how you say that. For example, the Catholic church, which is the paradigm definition of orthodox Western Christianity, accepts the possibility of salvation for non-Christians. There is no denial that people of other faith can have a relationship with the Divine. To do so would put bounds on God's ability. What the Catholic church teaches is that people of faith outside of Christianity are really encountering the Holy Trinity when they pray. Their understanding is lesser than the full teaching of the Church, but that doesn't stop God from saving them through His grace. I am less certain of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church having the best understanding of God among humans than they are. :-) I think the real dividing line in being/not being a Christian is how one places Jesus in one's own spiritual life; not how one thinks that others must believe. Let me give a real world example. One of the 8th graders in my confirmation class could not be confirmed. We have a very small number of traditional questions we ask the confirmation class. The critical one is "Do you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior?" There are many ways to accept this. If you think that the Christ has also appeared in other guises; you can still answer in the affirmative. This young woman was very advanced theologically for an 8th grader; and she was at a point in her spiritual journey that is usually not reached till later. She accepted much, but she could not state that she accepted that Jesus was the Christ. I sat down and talked with her for a good while. The result was that we agreed that if she was going to be insistent on being honest spiritually; so were we. If she wasn't ready to say she would accept Jesus as Christ, then she really wasn't ready to be a full member of a Christian community. She was loved and respected by the community, but was not really ready to commit. So, she gave her statement of faith at the service, she stepped down during the questioning, and went back up for the blessing. If she feels ready next year, then she'll be confirmed then. So, I think the criterion for being Christian is accepting Jesus as the Christ. <attempt at humor> By the way, Lutheran heretic is redundant. <duck> <end attempt at humor> On another point, I think there is a balance to be struck between being open minded and having the courage of one's convictions. I really don't think all views are equally valid, but I accept that others have insight that I don't. I believe in Truth, but I don't believe there is a tautology between Truth and my opinion. > ***However, see below WRT discussion -- I have ceased > attempting to change minds already fixed in stone -- > you may choose to see this as a cop-out, failure or > lack of conviction in my own beliefs...I see it as > refusing to waste any more of my time or energy on the > deliberately ignorant. Not very nice, but that is > what I feel. Frex my response to the sock-puppet: > first observation, next a gentle reprimand (and test), > then flat refusal to 'feed the troll.' Not worth my > time or energy or effort. Both not-nice and > comtempuously arrogant. <shrug> Each to his/her own on this; I didn't take your viewpoint as arrogant; I was just offering possibilities. I actually enjoy engaging fundamentalists. Part of the challenge in discussing things with them is getting them to actually listen. Part of how I do this is affirming the parts of faith we agree upon while arguing that the I view how the bible speaks to us in a manner different than what may be thought of at first glance. Since I almost always know a lot more about scripture than they do, I'm usually on firm footing. Even if they study; since they are fundamentalists, they are much less likely than I am to do in depth historical critical/literary analysis of scripture. This helps keep their attention; while the fact that I am proclaiming my faith in a manner that is comfortable to evangelicals keeps them from turning me off because I am not a real Christian. But, enjoying that type of discussion is an acquired taste, and I don't fault you for simply not engaging in it. > > You have an advantage in discussing anything with a > fundamentalist -- you are a man. As a woman, my views > are *automatically* dismissed by fundamentalists as > those of a lesser creature. I know a lot of fundamentalists who really don't think of women as a lesser creature. That would be a Greek scholar. They think that women have a different role than men; and a number think that the men are called to be leaders. But just about every one who does takes pains to discuss that the women are equal, but just have a different role. Now, I obviously don't agree with those who think women need to be followers. Also, a number that I know do have women in leadership positions. BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) is a fundamentalist covenant group/bible study movement that has women as leaders. Some of the strongest fundamentalists I've discussed things with are women. In many cases, it was clear to me that they were the dominant partner in their relationship too. :-) Its true that those who are that sexist would listen to me more than you. But, my daughter, Amy, has had some success discussing theology with fundamentalists, too. She has tremendous advantages, reading Greek and Hebrew, and taking her Old Testament from someone a Jewish scripture scholar I talked to after a synagogue service called "the dean of Old Testament scholars." But, she's done a fine job overcome the bias against women. So, while I'll agree that your being a women is one factor; its not the only one. >I have previously posted > (in snippets) some of my problems with nearly all > organized religions WRT being a woman. I will be > happy to get into that again, but it deserves a > separate post. Attitude toward women is one of the > major reasons I became a non-Christian. It would be worth talking about. There is, of course, a lot of misunderstanding about the early church's position with regard to women...particularly Paul's. > >Let me give an example. > > > > There is the passage in Paul that states that women > > should be quiet in > > church. It seems pretty definite. Yet, right above > > that passage is one > > that describes the appropriate attire for women to > > wear while prophesizing > > in church. The most plausible explanation I've seen > > is that a redactor of > > Paul added this; when there was a conflict involving > > women speaking in > > church. There are a number of ways this can be > > read; one of which is that > > there was an active dialog concerning the roll of > > women...and the validity > > of the radical departure shown by Christians from > > Judaism. Given the fact > > this was most likely written before the name > > Christian was used, and that > > Paul wrote before following Jesus was seen as a > > different religion from > > Judaism...which did not even have men and women > > worshiping together, you > > can get a feel for the dynamics. > > Yes, that is a passage I distinctly remember being > discussed vis-a-vis Paul's attitude towards women. But, that passage is 180 degrees from what his writings lead us to believe his real attitude towards women is. :-) > Quasi-ditto Lot, his daughters and the > strangers/angels. As I wrote before, I did not > consciously realize until I was a full adult how the > constant, yet often exquisitely subtle, denigration of > women by the Church has impacted devastatingly on > impressionable young girls. In my view, it is a form > of spiritual vampirism. >:/ Then the scripture was not told in its proper context. > > This brings in Peter Gomes suggestion that we use > > biblical principals, not > > biblical practices as a guide. Indeed, I'd argue > > strongly he is taking his > > lead in the interpretation of scripture from the > > gospels and from Paul in arguing for this. > > <no smile> The 'do as I say, not as I do' argument? No, not at all. He started the discussion of this with temperance. He gave convincing arguments that Jesus really did drink wine. But, he argued how it was quite reasonable to preach temperance from Christian principals. Since we now know how addicting alcohol is; since we have a much better understanding of what addiction is; a Christian could argue it would be best if no one drank alcohol, so those of us who are genetically predisposed to alcoholism would not have to feel different because they need to abstain. He didn't argue for temperance, he argued for the validity of using biblical principals, instead of just seeing if something was done in the bible. He then went on to slavery, women preachers, and homosexuality. His discussion of slavery was particularly worthwhile. Practices change. The particular right thing to do can change with circumstances. While it would have been mistaken for Christian slaves to revolt in 60 CE, the Abolitionists were true to the gospel when they worked in the 1800s. > > > But, if you read Paul, he is the first strong source > > for Jesus being the center of our religion. > > <blinks> So, if as you noted above, we have no > verifiable eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said or > did, we are left with what _Paul_ says as the basis of > Christianity...? > It seems to me that you are agreeing with the position > that we _don't_ have 'Jesus-anity,' although you > disagree firmly with my viewpoints on why this is so > --and I daresay you are far more up-to-date on > Biblical scholasticism (sp?!) than I, so I accept your > reasons as better than mine. No, we don't really have Jesus-anity...we have _Christ_anity. We certainly don't have Paul-anity. > I stand by my statement that what is and has been > practiced/believed is far more Paul-anity than > Jesus-anity. But, Paul was a convert. He persecuted the church before he became a follower of Jesus. He had a life changing vision of Jesus on the right hand of God. We are not following him; we are following the one he had at the center of his life. The quote I gave was him quoting an early work. That is the oldest Christian writing. You can already see the kerygma developed there. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
