Of Jesus, not About Jesus

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
GordW said:
Hough the Love God, Love Neighbour which Christianity proclaims as coming from Jesus is really very JEwish in origin. Not only is it based on two passages from Torah (Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19) but there are reports of other Rabbis over the centuries using the same language to encapsulate the Law.
Click to expand...
Which takes us back to "of Jesus" vs. "about Jesus". The faith/religion "of Jesus" seems to have been just a prophetic form of Judaism and he was largely an observant first century Jew, if a radical one. What we ended up with, due to the success of Paul's mission to the Gentiles and then the development of the church hierarchy later on, is the religion "about Jesus".
 
Mendalla said:
Which takes us back to "of Jesus" vs. "about Jesus". The faith/religion "of Jesus" seems to have been just a prophetic form of Judaism and he was largely an observant first century Jew, if a radical one. What we ended up with, due to the success of Paul's mission to the Gentiles and then the development of the church hierarchy later on, is the religion "about Jesus".
Click to expand...
It is easy to blame Paul alone for that (and not a new idea by any means) but reading Acts I am not sure it is quite that simple. In the early chapters of Acts Peter's sermons tend to focus more on the death/resurrection piece than the moral teaching "how you should live" piece. It is almost as if the Easter experience changed things for how the story would be told? THe Gospels call us to follow Jesus, Christianity (all to often) calls us to believe in Jesus and slides over the "follow me" or "live like this" pieces. IS it because it is an easier sell to many?

I think this is also linked to the choice of many to make Christianity/following Jesus all about being saved for afterlife and less about living as people of God's Kingdom in the here and now. JEsus, however, was all about the latter. In that he stands with the ancient prophets who condemned religiosity that failed to care for the neighbour.
 
GordW said:
It is easy to blame Paul alone for that (and not a new idea by any means) but reading Acts I am not sure it is quite that simple.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't blame Paul. He wrote some amazing stuff. But I do think that Christians need to recognize that he is probably more the founder of the church than Jesus, esp. given that the Gospels were all written after he and other early leaders like Peter began their missions. The picture of Jesus they present and even some of the teachings are likely heavily coloured by the apostles' and church fathers' teachings as opposed to being as a straight, accurate representation of Jesus. They are not really any less biased than, say, the Gnostic gospels, it's just they represent the Christology that won.

Which is what I mean when I say that the church we have is the church "about Jesus" than "of Jesus". That's just historical reality. And, to be honest, what we have in the 21st century is more the church of Constantine, the Popes, the Patriarchs, and Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin than it is even the church of Paul. We can, I would argue, no longer separate the "real" teachings of Jesus and Paul from the traditions and interpretations that have shaped modern theology and praxis, esp. Jesus given the nature of the sources per above. We can certainly try to get back to the original scriptures in Paul's case, but it is very hard to completely shake the environment in which we are doing that interpreting, which is the modern church with its 1500-1600 year history.
 
Last edited:
How funny is it that we followers of Jesus don't know exactly what we're following?
 
paradox3 said:
How funny is it that we followers of Jesus don't know exactly what we're following?
Click to expand...
Well.. the originals followed a Way (of life)... not a governing institution. Jesus scrapped with the religious institutions.
 
timothyu said:
Well.. the originals followed a Way (of life)... not a governing institution. Jesus scrapped with the religious institutions.
Click to expand...
Are you sure he wanted to scrap the institutions? He did say he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

In some cases he advocated for a firmer application of the law.
 
paradox3 said:
Or did you mean he argued with the institution? @timothyu
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's how I would read "scrapped with". And boy did he ever. I am not sure he really planned to get rid of institutional religion as a whole, but he clearly believed that the religious leaders of his time were badly offside and the institution was badly in need of reform, if not a good butt-kicking.
 
GordW said:
It is easy to blame Paul alone for that (and not a new idea by any means) but reading Acts I am not sure it is quite that simple. In the early chapters of Acts Peter's sermons tend to focus more on the death/resurrection piece than the moral teaching "how you should live" piece. It is almost as if the Easter experience changed things for how the story would be told? THe Gospels call us to follow Jesus, Christianity (all to often) calls us to believe in Jesus and slides over the "follow me" or "live like this" pieces. IS it because it is an easier sell to many?

I think this is also linked to the choice of many to make Christianity/following Jesus all about being saved for afterlife and less about living as people of God's Kingdom in the here and now. JEsus, however, was all about the latter. In that he stands with the ancient prophets who condemned religiosity that failed to care for the neighbour.
Click to expand...

It is like a Pall line forming on the horizon ... denoting uncertainty about what comes next ... even if some will swear they know exactly.

I worked with professionals that told me to say no more about experiences ... for they learned all they needed to know from professionals ... it led me to study amateurs and labor ... these folk worked with the troubles, bother, worry and concerns about what would fail if it was possible for things to break!

My etude goes on ultimately as multi-etudes ... a polyamorous study ... love can be toxic. Just do some studies on atropine and its relative eprine usually expressed as ephrin and many genetically active compounds that interfere with energy processes in cells (ADP-ATP, etc.).

I find there is a large class of people that despise the chemistry of their own existence. Thus it is easily abused ... or substance abuse as lo' qui ... materialistic?

It is said that such thing are like "thought" ... all for sale! You know what thought ... thought? Perhaps not!

It do add to the poetry however ... and the dance of icons in the dark ... to keep them dividing ... ultimately is enigma of gene's proportion ... they spin off in wild vectors ... like that round display of obscure gold 'n ... chare? Maybe char as in a roasted Charlemagne? magnetic or just a' phalli Ation ...

No end to the joust about images. Did you see the one about daguerreotypes on CNN this AM? Them's pictures ... images ... question them also!

What were they all doing as kewed down there ...? Kew is said to be a landing place ...

Then there is the qua and qui ... scopolamine and deadly night shade ... suggesting you sleep on it a bit ...

Those root materials play havoc with drooling and drying up ... lic or ace it ... in good ration ... bridge to afar spot? Off he went ...

Then what do we really know of autonomous systems if they are unconscious? Moor to look intuit ... goth rests with that image of the swirling overhead ...
 
Last edited:
chansen said:
That observation forms a good portion of my posting history.
Click to expand...

The materials that we know little about are extensive ... to the extent that sometimes one might question whether we know anything whatsoever in the infinite condition ... that should nail it down!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top