Old Question Revisited - Who is Jesus?

[Hermann]

I think we project onto Jesus what we think is most desirable in a human being. Whether the historical Jesus really was that way we'll never know for sure.

There is nothing wrong with having such an idealized archetype onto whom we project everything we think is good and great about a human being, and whose teachings or example we follow. Most people, religions and cultures have such an archetype, be it a kind and generous teacher whom we remember all our lives, a kindly and selfless grandma, Carl Sagan, Tommy Douglas, David Suzuki, Chris Hadfield, Bob McDonald, Gautama the Buddha or Jesus the Christ. Whether they really are or were the way we idealize them doesn't really matter. The ideal does matter, and that we emulate them and follow their example and teachings is important.

Jesus as an archetype for universal love and selfless compassion is very important to me.

 

[chansen]

I think we project onto Jesus what we think is most desirable in a human being. Whether the historical Jesus really was that way we'll never know for sure.

Hermann, I think that's an excellent way of putting it.

I think heroes are important. But heroes aren't perfect, and elevating any hero to "perfect" status is dangerous. It can result in you being blind to their faults, and refusing to improve on their examples because, hey, how can you improve on perfection? Right?

I don't think so. Any good hero, any good leader or mentor, doesn't want you to live up to their standard - he or she wants the next generations to do even better. Holding Jesus us as a perfect example doesn't allow for that.

 

[Waterfall]

Hermann, I think that's an excellent way of putting it.

I think heroes are important. But heroes aren't perfect, and elevating any hero to "perfect" status is dangerous. It can result in you being blind to their faults, and refusing to improve on their examples because, hey, how can you improve on perfection? Right?

I don't think so. Any good hero, any good leader or mentor, doesn't want you to live up to their standard - he or she wants the next generations to do even better. Holding Jesus us as a perfect example doesn't allow for that.

But here's the problem, whose standards? Yours, Hermanns, mine, Jesus, Buddha, etc.....? The world may move forward for some but others will see it as regression.

 

[Hermann]

Yes, chansen. Nobody's perfect. Perfection is a nebulous concept. All we can strive for is our personal best.

If we listen to our present day heroes, like Bob McDonald or David Suzuki, then we realize that they don't want to be admired, and they don't want us to be like them. They want us to do better! A good teacher is most pleased when the pupil surpasses him.

 

[Hermann]

But here's the problem, whose standards? Yours, Hermanns, mine, Jesus, Buddha, etc.....? The world may move forward for some but others will see it as regression.

I think everyone does best by their own standards. Which can, of course, include some of the standards of Jesus, or of the Buddha. My standards certainly include the teachings of both, as well as the teachings of other people. I wouldn't want my personal standards to be all-applicable. Not everyone loves going barefoot, or wearing overalls, or being on their knees in the dirt, and I don't expect them to.

 

[Waterfall]

Yes, chansen. Nobody's perfect. Perfection is a nebulous concept. All we can strive for is our personal best.

If we listen to our present day heroes, like Bob McDonald or David Suzuki, then we realize that they don't want to be admired, and they don't want us to be like them. They want us to do better! A good teacher is most pleased when the pupil surpasses him.

That's what Jim Jones thought too. Some people don't always follow what we determine to be good mentors and therein lies the problem for me. Whose standards? And if there isn't an ultimate "good" to strive towards that is outside of ourselves, then what?

We speak from a first world perspective, yet how would we hold our ideals if we became a third world? Who would become our heroes in our struggle for survival? What would keep us "good"? Lord of the Flies comes to mind.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@chansen: John 14:12 "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these because I am going to the Father."

So, that reads to me as though Jesus left room for improvement with actions (that are from his wisdom and inspiration), and that he was going to 'meet his maker' so he left it up to those who come after him. Also John 21:25. Also- the idea that we are in him, him in us means it's up to us.
Also, Jesus was challenged, by the Pheonecian woman (I like that story) and he admitted she was right and called her faithful.

 

[Hermann]

Hi Waterfall:

What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good?
And do we need anyone to tell us these things?

-from the Dialogues by Plato


"What is good?" and "Do we need someone else to tell us what is good?" are some of the existential questions of humanity.

I am a mystic, and for me the answer lies not in abiding by a moral code or following someone's moral teachings but in delving deeply into the pure experience of reality, and acting directly from there. From my experience, the pure experience is powerfully unitive, and the primary emotion arising from it is unitive love. This comes close to the teachings of Jesus or the Buddha.

I realize, of course, that the "pure experience" is not attainable for everyone. Then the teachings of our moral leaders apply. Those who experience the "ultimate reality" or the "kingdom within," which one is supposed to experience in the "pure experience," are not beyond these teachings. They abide by them, but out of an inner impulse rather than obedience to a code.


In the novel "Siddartha" by Hermann Hesse, Siddartha and his friend Govinda embark on a spiritual quest. Siddartha is looking for Nirvana, and Govinda for the right teachings. At the end of the story, Siddartha has found Nirvana, but Govinda is still looking for the right teachings.

 

[chansen]

12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me[e] anything in my name, I will do it.

Kimmio, why do you quote mine the bible like that? Do you think no one will look beyond what you quoted? Did Jesus say, "Take mine words out of context and paste them on the Internet, so that thou will make more and better points than I ever did?!?"

This passage, in context, is about greater things being done because the petitioner believes in and asks Jesus for them. It's not about being a better person than Jesus.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@chansen : it was a verse that stood out in my memory that came to mind. I had to look up the numbers. And it fits what you were talking about. There's danger, I think in reading the stories and verses and taking them literally and not being able to think in abstracts. Ancient wisdom has a lot of abstracts. Basically, for me, it's like this - if you believe that Jesus works benefitted the people he touched when he walked the earth, and he believed that those works were divinely inspired, and then whoever is inspired by him is also divinely inspired - and we carry on doing good works - loving one another. It doesn't have to be some dogmatic affair, just simply doing good. I think Jesus provides a moral compass to look at when in doubt and ask whether or not what you're doing does any good in the overall picture or if it's selfishly motivated - but in a way, Jesus wisdom leads us away from dependence on religious dogma (however, it's been coopted). That's why I said the other day that being a Christian has been leading me back to being agnostic - or at least SBNR. The difference is that I can look at the Bible and it makes more sense.

 

[chansen]

There's danger, I think in reading the stories and verses and taking them literally and not being able to think in abstracts.

There is a lack of credibility in taking a passage that is quite clear and running it through a sanitizer so that what comes out miraculously means what you always wanted it to say.

Ancient wisdom has a lot of abstracts. Basically, for me, it's like this - if you believe that Jesus works benefitted the people he touched when he walked the earth, and he believed that those works were divinely inspired, and then whoever is inspired by him is also divinely inspired - and we carry on doing good works - loving one another. It doesn't have to be some dogmatic affair, just simply doing good.

As I've said before, you're presupposing. You start with the conclusion that Jesus was good. Anything that doesn't match that conclusion is "abstract".

Don't believe me? Test it. Think of some of the parts of the bible you think are real stories. How many of them would be considered moral by today's standards? Then think of some of the parts of the bible you think are metaphors or "abstract". How many of them would be considered moral by today's standards?

Don't take my word for it. See for yourself if you're whitewashing the dirty laundry.

I think Jesus provides a moral compass to look at when in doubt and ask whether or not what you're doing does any good in the overall picture or if it's selfishly motivated - but in a way, Jesus wisdom leads us away from dependence on religious dogma (however, it's been coopted). That's why I said the other day that being a Christian has been leading me back to being agnostic. The difference is that I can look at the Bible and it makes more sense.

If Jesus is a "moral compass", why does secular society so often have to drag Christianity, kicking and screaming, to moral positions?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Jesus teachings were coopted by those seeking power and control, right from the start. There's a paradox there - because in the stories, those are exactly the people he rebukes. That's why the Bible is such an awe inspiring book, or collection of books, when you look at how it has shaped civilization. It tells the human story.

 

[Hermann]

Look at the other two Abrahamic religions, slaughtering each other right now in Gaza. Where is their commandment of loving your neighbour?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So, you think people are whitewashing the dirty laundry (hey, there's a metaphor in there too). Maybe, instead of dogmatically, blindly, following the bad stuff, we have the responsibility to challenge the bad stuff if it leads to bad things (Jesus did, ironically).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Look at the other two Abrahamic religions, slaughtering each other right now in Gaza. Where is their commandment of loving your neighbour?

They are not loving their neighbours.


The extremists in this world are extremely fixated on dogma. They will justify killing with it. But that's coming from them, not from a God of peace. That said, the war in Gaza/ Israel is more about land and fears over safety, than religion.

 

[chansen]

So....neither side thinks it is doing as God or Allah would want?

 

[chansen]

So, you think people are whitewashing the dirty laundry (hey, there's a metaphor in there too). Maybe, instead of dogmatically, blindly, following the bad stuff, we have the responsibility to challenge the bad stuff if it leads to bad things (Jesus did, ironically).

By what authority do you tell another Christian that part of their bible, that claims to be divinely inspired, is wrong and needs to be discarded? How far are you realistically going to get with that? I know realism isn't your thing, but bear with me. Where does that conversation generally lead?

 

[chansen]

The extremists in this world are extremely fixated on dogma. They will justify killing with it. But that's coming from them, not from a God of peace. That said, the war in Gaza/ Israel is more about land and fears over safety, than religion.

How many people did your "God of peace" supposedly kill in the bible?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@chansen: can you take that verse that I quoted and find anything wrong with how I interpreted it? Basically, if anyone takes a verse that Jesus is said to have spoken and uses it to do harm to others, they are misusing it anyway, IMO - given that he commanded us to love our neighbours and our enemies.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

How many people did your "God of peace" supposedly kill in the bible?

Jesus didn't kill anybody. He came to show people that he was the human face of God - and he taught non-violence. He was about Peace. In Beatitudes, he said "blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God".