Let's admit it. There's something about Jesus. Something about him which makes people--certain people at least--do things, think things not normally done in what I'll wistfully call "polite society." By that I mean a society in which people for the most part mind their own business, don't make spectacles of themselves, and leave other people alone. They don't ecstatically heal others or claimed to be healed themselves, don't do handsprings down the aisle at church or at meetings, don't hector other people walking down the street or knock on their doors to ask them if they've been saved or accept Jesus as their savior. They don't travel to distant lands to convert the heathens. — Ciceronianus
This is the case even with philosophers, or kinds of philosophers. I'm now reading (or trying to read) something called Panentheism--the Other God of the Philosophers by John Cooper. Mr. Cooper is a "philosopher theologian" at the forebodingly called Calvin Theological Seminary. It's an occasionally interesting summary of the history of what he believes to be thinkers who were panentheists or contributed to panentheism, starting with Plato, moving through the various Neo-Platonists, glancing at the Stoics, touching upon Bruno and Duns Scotus, scanning Renaissance thinkers, moving along to Whitehead and Hartshorne. He then criticizes panentheism, because...Jesus. Somehow, Jesus and classical theism is better, truer to scripture, includes Jesus, and can be just as neo-platonic and philosophical and osmos and evolution respecting as one might want. — Ciceronianus
My guess is they struggle to, and do whatever may be required to, incorporate Jesus into their explanation of the universe and God, despite what evidence we have of him, which doesn't amount to much. The rabbi, the wonder-worker must be transformed into something more worthy of philosophical thought and speculation; more of a universal God. This has probably been going on since the early Church when the Founders sought to merge pagan philosophy and Christianity. — Ciceronianus
Or, perhaps they make a freak of Jesus. — Ciceronianus
You clearly need to eat more special brownies. — frank
Since the establishment of Christianity as Roman religion, it has informed every single intellectual pursuit thereafter until the past 100 years. — Garrett Travers
It's remarkable, no doubt about it. What it's "achieved" is amazing. It's success is in part, I think, due to its tendency to assimilate so well. — Ciceronianus
I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious. — Ciceronianus
I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious.
Gospel of John
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him,(and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it...
...He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.
14 The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
Does it work? I don't think so. But it may make these theologians Jesus Freaks of a different kind, worshiping an abnormal, unusual, unexpected Jesus. Or perhaps they make a freak of Jesus. — Ciceronianus
The number of highly qualified people in the field of theology, biblical study etc who now say there never was a historical Jesus, continue's to grow and grow.
Prof Bart Ehrman — universeness
I started this thread by indicating that the majority of my 30-minute talk was devoted to explaining the positive evidence that I think shows beyond reasonable doubt that there was indeed a man Jesus of Nazareth.
I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. — Ciceronianus
The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious. — Ciceronianus
I think what you're not seeing is Jesus as archetype. I also think you need a bit more philosophical theology - that book you mention seems a good source for the same. — Wayfarer
You have added to that list of atrocities doing handstands in church and pestering people in the streets. — T Clark
So, the reason a traditional theistic reader obtains such unusual results from scripture (whether it be through the midrashim of the Jew or the exegesis of the Christian) is because their fundamental assumptions vary greatly from your own. — Hanover
You see, this is my point. I'm quite certain that Christian philosophers theologians see Jesus differently than I do. I suggest, though, that they see Jesus differently than most Christians do, differently from how he is described in the Gospels. — Ciceronianus
You see, this is my point. I'm quite certain that Christian philosophers theologians see Jesus differently than I do. I suggest, though, that they see Jesus differently than most Christians do, differently from how he is described in the Gospels. — Ciceronianus
I have a friend who is a Catholic priest and he sees Jesus as a metaphor and an invitation for contemplative prayer. He has almost no interest in the story as fact - it is a teaching aid, like most holy books. The issue is people hold different levels of understanding - a shallow or deep faith. The same could be said for science, with its dogmatic materialists and more nuanced naturalists. — Tom Storm
As if there were a single uniform interpretation of the Christian gospel. — Wayfarer
The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question. — Ciceronianus
'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. — Ciceronianus
I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding. — Tom Storm
That seems to me to be a serious problem. — Ciceronianus
Well, I wouldn't call them atrocities. — Ciceronianus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.