Given a God, why Jesus?

[Mendalla]

I think it's a human problem more than a religious one. A problem of power, oppression, xenophobia, and people developing a framework of some kind for justifying it. It's wrong regardless.

Largely my take on it as well. Religion can be, and has been, used to oppress. So can/have secular philosophies and ideologies. It is not a matter of trashing religion or other ideologies that have been used in this way; it is a matter of creating a society where people think before acting and do not become slaves to such ideologies. Alas, current events in many parts of the world suggest to me we have a long way to go.

 

[chansen]

Right, but secular ideologies that are detrimental are not following a code from "no gods". The evil bits of ideology are political in nature. The secular aspect helps to control organized dissent by doing away with religions that often vy for their own political power. The secular communism of Soviet Russia has been replaced today with a cozy relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church who gets considerable political clout and legislative protection from criticism. They've gone from churches being outlawed, to criticism of churches being outlawed.

The point to recognize is, it's not the secular people are suffering under. It's the ideology part that makes things intolerable. Whether political or religious in nature.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Right, but secular ideologies that are detrimental are not following a code from "no gods". The evil bits of ideology are political in nature. The secular aspect helps to control organized dissent by doing away with religions that often vy for their own political power. The secular communism of Soviet Russia has been replaced today with a cozy relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church who gets considerable political clout and legislative protection from criticism. They've gone from churches being outlawed, to criticism of churches being outlawed.

The point to recognize is, it's not the secular people are suffering under. It's the ideology part that makes things intolerable. Whether political or religious in nature.

So, we're in agreement. But I have faith in what Jesus taught and identify with it. You don't identify with it but I don't think that means we're on opposing sides. Those with an ideological bent, whether religious or secular, that supports xenophobia and oppression, are not supportive of those harmed by it whether religious or secular. It's not necessarily a matter of religious and secular being opposing sides - it's the values supported and upheld by either.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't believe the way to put an end to nasty is with more nasty, but with compassion. That doesn't mean I'm a perfect model of compassion at all - no human is, some have come close (Jesus is said to have been free of sin - is that as much to do with his pure vision being "not of this world but a (future) world to come"? We've come a long way in many respects) but I truly "believe" that if we got better at it we'd have a better world, even if we don't yet. It's harder to practice in a world that's not set up that way, to better enable it, but it can change. Whether or how much it will in our lifetime is unknown, but it can.

 

[Luce NDs]

The invisible and the non-existant and exactly the same, faith according to the dictionary is "strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." the imagination according to the dictionary is "Forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses."
What you want to believe is entirely your prerogative. However all to often what people believe imposes itself onto other people without there permission, and sometimes to there extreme detriment, I.E. Death.
This is why imagination should only be used as a tool, not as a belief system.

Like the words Noesi's, or Noetics ... a process of mind ... the mind primarily being a mental construct of imaginary nature that goes around in a spin ... brain-storm? In opposition it is just desires as set apart ... that's ID! (defined as the primal power ... the desire to imagine better?)

 

[Luce NDs]

In light of the situation as presented would Jesus have entered in as de light ova' it ... a simple personification of an enlightened imagination as a complex projection of what was previously simple?

There are personifications that would deny this as too imaginary (or complex) to ponder in depth!

 

[Pavlos Maros]

can you find fault in the potential outcome of "loving our neighbours and enemies, forgiveness"... If practiced by all (that would be the caveat that should be easier, but is not, to achieve - that has not happened, but "could" even though it is not yet a reality here), as a way to peace and fairness?

Only if it is followed! However with scriptures telling the so called righteous religious guy to kill. I cant see it ever happening.

I think it's a human problem more than a religious one. A problem of power, oppression, xenophobia, and people developing a framework of some kind for justifying it. It's wrong regardless.

Agreed! Accept for things like this. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." which are wholly religious.

 

[revsdd]

Does Christianity hinge on evidence, or does it not?

I think you're mis-stating the question. The issue is not whether or not there's "evidence" for Christianity. The issue is "fact." Facts and evidence are not the same thing - not in faith, not in a court of law. Christianity, as faith, does not rely on "fact." It cannot be proven; I'd be willing to consider whether it can even be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt." However, just as different courts require different levels of proof which demand different grades of evidence, so different people respond differently to the same evidence. Subjective experience, for example, is sufficient evidence of faith for one person, but is derided as nonsense by others. A civil court found OJ Simpson liable for the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown; a criminal court found him not guilty for those deaths. Ultimately there's a point between "fact" and "evidence" that I'd suggest is truth - and "truth" largely comes down to what we believe.

How many failed attempts to impress me are required before I'm allowed to say that Christianity is complete crap?

All the evidence presented over the years suggests not very many!

 

[Luce NDs]

But then there's that false love thing ... if one isn't enlightened to the danger of a pure emotional situation!

 

[paradox3]

At the very least, Jesus works as a role model and a moral teacher.

As a believer in the existence of "something more" I say Jesus gives us a human example of a life lived in and with God.

@BetteTheRed

I am very curious about your Like of this post upthread today at 11:55 a.m.

You seem to be such a fan of Gretta Vosper . . . you do realize she has tossed Jesus out of her spiritual life, don't you? Of course she will tell you she is more or less in line with the values espoused by Jesus. And that some traditional believers are nurtured by the inclusive worship style at West Hill.

What they won't hear there are any hymns mentioning Jesus, any prayers in His name or any stories from the Bible.

When I left her congregation, Gretta said to me in a phone conversation, "You and I are not all that far apart in our theology. The major difference is my reluctance to call myself a follower of Jesus."

This may or may not be the case. I reject the understanding of God that Gretta rejects but I do not consider God to be a metaphor for values, relationships or anything else. I may be walking a path that some would call agnostic right now but I believe God to be "something more" than a human projection.

 

[paradox3]

Ultimately there's a point between "fact" and "evidence" that I'd suggest is truth - and "truth" largely comes down to what we believe.

With you on this 100% Rev Steven.

I would even go further and say what we believe is largely a matter of choice. I know that I am influenced in my faith by my upbringing, my experiences with organized religion, my reading and so on. But where I have ended up on the theological spectrum is primarily a decision I have made. As I see it, of course.

 

[revsdd]

With you on this 100% Rev Steven.

I would even go further and say what we believe is largely a matter of choice. I know that I am influenced in my faith by my upbringing, my experiences with organized religion, my reading and so on. But where I have ended up on the theological spectrum is primarily a decision I have made. As I see it, of course.

No argument at all on that. We choose what we believe to be true based on the facts and evidence before us - and our truth can shift over the course of time as we constantly interpret and re-interpret.

Above, there was some discussion of history, for example. History is a lot like faith. There are certain "facts" that can't be argued. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. No one will argue that because it would be ridiculous to argue that. But - why did Hitler rise to become Chancellor of Germany? That suddenly stops being fact, starts to be looked at in terms of evidence and leads us to our own interpretations which become, for us, truth - with which others might disagree.

History isn't only the recitation of facts and dates and events, it's the interpretation of those facts and dates and events and where the interpretation leads us that becomes truth to us.

Faith isn't only memorization of doctrines and creeds and Scriptures - it's the interpretation of those doctrines and creeds and Scriptures and where the interpretation leads us that becomes truth to us.

 

[Luce NDs]

@revsdd

If we live only in the present/presence ... what has the past got to do with anything of historical truth if authorities corrupt it?

 

[revsdd]

@revsdd

If we live only in the present/presence ... what has the past got to do with anything of historical truth if authorities corrupt it?

Do we "live only in the present"? Good question. Physically - yes, although some have pointed out that our bodies are a sort of time machine moving steadily from the past to the future, with the current point on the journey being the present. Emotionally and psychologically I'd say we live in all three - influenced by events of the past and hopes/fears for the future. Spiritually? Well, I believe that God is eternal - therefore God exists in the past, present and future. Indeed, God exists beyond past, present and future. God exists beyond time and beyond space. God simply exists. If past, present and future all belong to God and if we belong to God who is eternal then in some way we are also eternal. I believe that I have always been known to God and will always be known to God. So perhaps we don't live "only in the present" - but we do live always "in the presence" - the presence of God.

 

[Mystic]

Mendalla agrees that a self-authenticating mystical encounter with Christ is needed to warrant a satisfying Christian faith. But how can such an encounter be successfully pursued? In a future post, I will respond to that question. But first, I want to do 2 things: (1) demonstrate in 3 separate posts part of the case for tracing Gospel accounts to eyewitness testimony. (2) outline a fresh vision of NT teaching that, I hope, will surprise and intrigue Mendalla. But in this post, I will offer just the first of 3 ways to defend the Gospel's eyewitness connections.

(1) Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore on eyewitness testimony. Mark is criticized by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronologically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."


The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences.

 

[Mystic]

(2) In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul lists the sequence of resurrection appearances that he "in turn had received." Received from whom? Well, the answer can be found in Galatians 1:11-17 and 2:1-10. There Paul makes it clear that he made 2 trips to Jerusalem to consult first with Peter and Jesus' brother James, and then with Peter, James, and John, to validate His Jesus' story with eyewitness testimony. Paul notes that they made no corrections in his version of the Gospel. We can safely assume that the series of Easter appearances that Paul reports found confirmation in their testimony. More importantly, Paul is the last witness of the Risen Jesus and his resurrection appearance transforms him from a guilt-free hitman for the Pharisees into the greatest and most effective apostle. 3 times Paul celebrates his life-changing resurrection appearance, thus giving support to his travel companion, Dr. Luke's accounts in the Book of Acts.

 

[Mystic]

(3) Acts 16 begins the famous "we" passages in which Luke was an eyewitness to events recorded. Luke is present with Paul when Paul'scompanions meet with Jesus' brother James and the Jerusalem "elders," including the surviving eyewitnesses (see Acts 21). It is during these encounters that Luke evidently gains eyewitness sources for his own Gospel. Luke discusses his access to eyewitness testimony in the prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). It is during this trip to Jerusalem that Luke gains access to Mark's Gospel, Q, and unique materials originally in Aramaic (called L by scholars).
Most intriguing is Luke's reference to "several" earlier Gospels. We can only be sure that uses Mark and Q. He apparently does not use Matthew or John. His allusion suggests the existence of other Gospels from eyewitnesses that got lost and might yet be discovered by archaeologists. This prospect is in my view the most exciting possibility for modern archaeological digs and searches.

For 25 years, I have mounted a case for Jesus' brother James as the identity of "the Disciple whom Jesus loved," the primary source used by the Gospel of John. Because my case is unpublished, it would take far too long to present it here.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

(1) Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore on eyewitness testimony. Mark is criticized by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronologically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."

Firstly the elephant in the room is Mark is not an eyewitness. because eyewitnesses write in the first person and Mark writes in the 3rd person.

It is laughable that you are using Papias as your claim for eyewitness accounts. Really!

Papias of Hierapolis from around 112CE wrote that Mark wrote what Peter told him but didn't get it in the right order. Papias isn't considered very accurate about anything.
Papias makes some unclear comments which refer to writings by Mark, However his comments do not match our modern Gospels, and he does not use the word “Gospel”, and he makes it clear he holds such writings in low regard.
Christians eventually came to agree that Mark was the companion of Peter mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, who is supposedly the same man known as “John Mark” in Acts (12:12,25; 13:5-13; 15:37-39) as well as the “Mark” in some of Paul's letters (Philemon 24, Colossians 4:10, and 2 Timothy 4:1). But where does this tradition come from? We first hear it from Eusebius (4th century) who tells us he got it from Papias (2nd century), who supposedly heard it second-hand from a "presbyter." And yet Eusebius also tells us that Papias was an unreliable source! The traditional attributions rest on some very shaky foundations.

So not an eye witness account. Sorry! Not even close.

 

[Mystic]

You dance around the only points that matter: Papias derives his information from eyewitnesses and those trained by eyewitnesses. What Papias learns from eyewitnesses about Mark's role with Peter in Rome is confirmed in Rome by Justin Martyr. So your objection need not be taken seriously. Plus, you ignore examples (2) and (3) and the signs of authentic testimony in Mark itself.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Only if it is followed! However with scriptures telling the so called righteous religious guy to kill. I cant see it ever happening.

Agreed! Accept for things like this. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." which are wholly religious.

The title of the OP is "If God, why Jesus?" I'm trying to answer what I believe is the "why".