True Follower's Of Christ

[Antlerman]

The whole personification of Jesus was a misunderstanding. Jesus was never meant to be a real historical character, but he was to be the mythological hero that symbolizes your own path from what you were to what you are to become. The Hero's Journey.

That whole post was beautiful Hans! Wonderfully said!

[Ouroboros]

And this is how mythology also have to be viewed. Religious writings is nothing but art, giving a view hole into the ideas and thoughts about someone elses spiritual experience. (Not necessarily spiritual as metaphysical, but just as the emotional feeling of something "beyond" or unexplainable.)

 

If the Gospel story would be viewed the same as fictious movies, where the hero goes from one "kind of person" to another "kind of person", the transition or transformation, we don't view the movie as a real event, but we do view it as a depiction of something deeper inside us. Maybe it's the illustration of that we need of being "heros" in our own lifes, or the need of change in ourselves or the need of being "perfect" when we're not?

 

That whole post was beautiful Hans! Wonderfully said!

Thanks!

 

Just a personal note:

I've noticed the last couple of weeks that you and I have very similar thoughts. Very interesting.

[Amanda]

The same goes for the Gospels. They tell a story, but the story is not historically true, but a personal rendering of the feelings and ideas about how the salvation for us all comes through our change of heart. That I should kill my own desires and sins on the cross and get resurrected to a new being, a new person. It has nothing to do with a real or historical Jesus, but about that You are Jesus. When you walk the path, not Jesus, but you personally walk the emotional path of giving up your own selfish needs and wants, that's when you can become a new person. The story isn't anything more than a portrait of an idea. The Gospels are written art, your picture is a painted art. Both are portraits, true as reflections, but not true as photographs or history. Do you understand?

 

The whole personification of Jesus was a misunderstanding. Jesus was never meant to be a real historical character, but he was to be the mythological hero that symbolizes your own path from what you were to what you are to become. The Hero's Journey.

 

HanSolo, I'm wondering why you are you inclined to believe Jesus was not a real person, rather than Jesus was a type of sage and historical social revolutionist, who after his death, received wide spread recognition that got exaggerated much like St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Myths from other regions got superimposed on him to make him a hero for their culture also, on and on. Some people on here have even suggested that the character of Jesus is representative of more than one person. I'm just curious as to why you have chosen that particular inclination over these other ones.

[Antlerman]

Just a personal note:

I've noticed the last couple of weeks that you and I have very similar thoughts. Very interesting.

Yes, I am noticing that. Yes, God works in mysterious ways! Maybe it's just that us Leo's think a lot alike?

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, I'm wondering why you are you inclined to believe Jesus was not a real person, rather than Jesus was a type of sage and historical social revolutionist, who after his death, received wide spread recognition that got exaggerated much like St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Myths from other regions got superimposed on him to make him a hero for their culture also, on and on. Some people on here have even suggested that the character of Jesus is representative of more than one person. I'm just curious as to why you have chosen that particular inclination over these other ones.

I'm in a limbo between those two positions. I can imagine a person that was a teacher and had new philosophical views of the old time religion, Judaism. And it wouldn't surprise me if he was a disciple of Philo or some other Hellinistic philosopher. But I can also, just as easily imagine that Jesus was nothing but an idea that over time took form as a mythological story, a legend, and eventually got misunderstood to be a historical account. Over the last year, I've become more and more agnostic in many views, and this is one of them. I'm content with not being sure if there was a real teacher that later got turned into Jesus, or if he was just a complete fictious character. When I debate, I choose my angle, depending on who I'm talking to.

 

There is a reason though, why I'm inclined a little more to the complete "fictious character" idea. And it's that if Jesus is a merger between many historical people, then Jesus as one person is still a fictious character. Either way, the Miracle-doing-son-of-God Jesus of the Gospel, is mythological or legendarized (is that a word?), or in other words, embellished, rewritten from real events and given a new name.

 

Maybe it's just that us Leo's think a lot alike?

Yes. It must be the Leo. Leo is supposed to be creative (true), and a natural born leader (huh? I've yet to see that!).

 

Oh, and my year in Chinese Zodiac is the snake (viper).

 

Be aware, I'm a lion and a snake. Vicious, dangerous, pompous and very selfish.

[Open_Minded]

I'm in a limbo between those two positions. I can imagine a person that was a teacher and had new philosophical views of the old time religion, Judaism. And it wouldn't surprise me if he was a disciple of Philo or some other Hellinistic philosopher. But I can also, just as easily imagine that Jesus was nothing but an idea that over time took form as a mythological story, a legend, and eventually got misunderstood to be a historical account. Over the last year, I've become more and more agnostic in many views, and this is one of them. I'm content with not being sure if there was a real teacher that later got turned into Jesus, or if he was just a complete fictious character. When I debate, I choose my angle, depending on who I'm talking to.

 

HanSolo ... your position is most reasonable - and surprisingly near my own

 

As I found myself returning to Christianity I had to work through this very issue. Although I have come to the conclusion that Jesus probably did live - and that a legendary, mythical narrative grew up around him - I also recognize the reality that one can never know for sure. That reasonable people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is a "complete fictious character".

 

What's important - really isn't whether he lived - or did not live. For myself, I've come to the conclusion that if "faith" is based on the physical body of Jesus, then it is lacking indeed. I can very easily see how someone would be agnostic about this issue - I was there once myself. And where I'm at now, isn't so far removed from that position. If someone found archeaological evidence tomorrow that proved Jesus was fictious it wouldn't change the core of my faith. The core of my faith is the belief in Alpha and Omega (beginning and end - ONENESS). The core of my faith is believing that this ONENESS is intimately connected with LOVE and WISDOM. I find this in the gospels. I believe that there was a man named Jesus in whom his followers saw this Divine Love and Wisdom manifested. But, I accept that my beliefs are not concrete, provable, physical fact.

[Ouroboros]

And that's a very good standpoint OM. One that I find just as reasonable as my own.

[Poonis]

Open Minded,

 

I owe you a big apology. I've been meaning to answer your question. Please forgive me for taking so long to get back to you.

 

Here's what I meant by the statement "True Follower of Christ." I grew up in the Church. I had a lot of "head knowledge" about Jesus, learned about Him, went throught all the rituals but I never experienced Him in a personal way until I was in my early teens. Up until then I was really going through the motions because I was made to go to Church, the Bible was a dead boring book, Christ didn't mean anything to me. I was just a "normal" teenager.

 

So because of my experience all that changed. Jesus is more than "head knowledge" to me now. I try to follow His teachings. I have successes and failures, times of doubts and uncertainty. So did the apostles. But I think that's what true Christianity is all about. Of course it takes a life time of "knowing" Him because there is so much I don't know.

 

" ...that Christ will live in you as you open the door and invite Him in. And I ask Him with both feet planted firmly on love, you'll be able to take in with all Christians the extravagant demensions of Christ's love. Reach out and experience the breadth! Test it's length! Plumb the depths! Rise to the heights! Live full lives, full in the fullness of God." The Message Bible, Ephesians 3:14-19

 

Well, this is the short version. If you would like I'll post more about my experience and how it happened. I appreciate the opportunity to share.

 

 

Wow, this is almost word-for-word the same diatribe I once used to declare myself a True Christian. I didn't just "believe Jesus Christ died for my sins", I "knew Jesus Jesus Christ died for my sins".

[Open_Minded]

I believe Jesus is an historical Person. He is not a myth. I would like to talk about this in more detail.

 

Amy Marie... following are some links that may give you some insight to the various points of view.

 

THE SEARCH FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcse.htm

 

INTERPRETING THE GOSPELS - GAINING INSIGHT INTO JESUS' MINISTRY:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcac.htm

 

DID JESUS OF NAZARETH ACTUALLY EXIST? - All sides to the question

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

 

These are very simple outlines and do not begin to cover the complexity of the debate. But, it's a starting point for discussion.

 

One other site you may want to check out for a more indepth look at scholarly consensus is: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...c/synopsis.html

 

As we've discussed in other threads, most scholars do feel Jesus lived and walked the earth. They did not come to this conclusion by pulling an opinion out of thin air. They came to their conclusions by study. But, Amy, if you are going to use the fact that most scholars feel Jesus lived as a defense of your position, you ought to understand the full breadth of scholarly consensus on the issues of Jesus' life and early Christianity. This site will help you get a better picture of the bigger issues.

 

The study of ancient history in ANY realm - not just Biblical ancient history - but all ancient history - is complicated by lack of physical evidence. Scholars must use a different methodology and trying to uncover what actually happened. Literary methodologies become extremely important and there is also a valid place for oral history. So, to understand what scholars conclude one must be willing to understand the methods by which they come to their conclusions. The links I've posted above will barely scratch the surface - but they will give us some excellent points to start a larger discussion.

 

For all participants - as thread author - I would ask only one thing. If you are going to participate in the discussion about the historicity of Jesus, do your research. Back your opinions up with quality sources. Everyone here can spot a biased source - so please - for the sake of learning from each other have the decency to recognize that the historicity of Jesus is a major grey area in scholarship. There isn't a concrete answer one way or the other, and there probably never will be.

[Ouroboros]

I believe Jesus is an historical Person. He is not a myth. I would like to talk about this in more detail.

Then your pictures are real pictures of Jesus, and he could not have been white, and they don't look the same as other pictures of Jesus. The Gospels are just as "true" as you pictures. (You're a very good artist by the way. )

 

You don't understand that literature and paintings are just two different mediums for art. The Gospels are mythological stories. And I'm sorry that you can't see that.

[Antlerman]

For all participants - as thread author - I would ask only one thing. If you are going to participate in the discussion about the historicity of Jesus, do your research. Back your opinions up with quality sources. Everyone here can spot a biased source - so please - for the sake of learning from each other have the decency to recognize that the historicity of Jesus is a major grey area in scholarship. There isn't a concrete answer one way or the other, and there probably never will be.

I'm a little hesitant to see us get totally wrapped up in the spefics of this scholarly puzzle, since it may distract from the heart how someone "knows" they are a true Christian. This could become and endless discussion, but the real point of it I see, is this - does it matter?

 

-OM, you've already said it doesn't matter to you.

 

-ExC's, would it matter to you? If we had strong evidence that Jesus actaully was a preacher who got executed by the Roman, would it change your views?

 

-And now most importantly since this thread is a discussion with Amy, Amy, would it matter to you? Is what you have described you respond to in your heart, dependent an accurate historical record? I know many Christians, in fact probably most, who don't need it to be factually. What's important to them is that it gives them something in their lives. I think this is the puzzle that most of here on ExC don't really understand. Glib responses to self-delusion fail to provide a reasonable understanding of this. It is something much more that that. (BTW, my argument is with religious literalitsts, not Christians - of course that's going to be a topic in itself from me upcoming )

 

OM, this is your thread and you can take it where you want, but I wanted to throw my thoughts in here as an option for discussion since I know from history where arguing about a historical Jesus can go.

[Open_Minded]

I believe Jesus is an historical Person. He is not a myth. I would like to talk about this in more detail.

Then your pictures are real pictures of Jesus, and he could not have been white, and they don't look the same as other pictures of Jesus. The Gospels are just as "true" as you pictures. (You're a very good artist by the way. )

 

You don't understand that literature and paintings are just two different mediums for art. The Gospels are mythological stories. And I'm sorry that you can't see that.

 

HanSolo ... I do believe she is beginning to see that the gospels as literary works. I believe it because of Amy's statement, "I would like to talk about this in more detail".

 

The information you and I discuss - so casually - about early Christianity is not new to us. It may very well be new to Amy. That is why I asked participants to keep the information they provide as objective as possible. Amy can make up her own mind once she has the information - but as she said, "I would like to talk about this in more detail".

 

I would think it possible for all of us to provide objective unbiased detail for her to research. Then we may find that we all have a lot more in common than we may think at the outset.

 

 

-OM, you've already said it doesn't matter to you.

 

-ExC's, would it matter to you? If we had strong evidence that Jesus actaully was a preacher who got executed by the Roman, would it change your views?

 

-And now most importantly since this thread is a discussion with Amy, Amy, would it matter to you? Is what you have described you respond to in your heart, dependent an accurate historical record? I know many Christians, in fact probably most, who don't need it to be factually. What's important to them is that it gives them something in their lives. I think this is the puzzle that most of here on ExC don't really understand. Glib responses to self-delusion fail to provide a reasonable understanding of this. It is something much more that that. (BTW, my argument is with literalitsts)

 

OM, this is your thread and you can take it where you want, but I wanted to throw my thoughts in here as an option for discussion since I know from history where arguing about a historical Jesus can go.

 

I agree completely Antlerman. That is why I stated (as you were posting) that I would hope we could give Amy some unbiased, objective resources. She is a smart person. She can make up her own mind. And then we can proceed with the conversation from where Amy finds herself.

 

I've stated many times that a debate about the historicity of Jesus is pointless. Let's provide Amy with the resources she needs to research and come to her own conclusion. Then we can proceed from there. Most likely Amy may have questions for us about how we came to our own conclusions (as varied as they are). If this is part of her own search we can help in objective and unbiased posts recognizing that two reasonable people can come to different conclusions. And that in the end there will be no concrete answer.

[KT45]

 

Hey amy I hope I'm not to off base with this but I have another question about your pictures. Many of your pictures of Jesus seem very well.....intimate or almost sexual in a way. How do see your relationship with christ? Are you married or do you feel that you don't need a man because you have Jesus in your life?

 

I'm not trying to be funny or anything. I used to go to black churches and many of the older women were single but they would say things like the only man I need in my life is Jesus or I'm going on a date with Jesus tonight. It made me sad for people to be this way so I'm just wondering if you think this way as well.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo ... I do believe she is beginning to see that the gospels as literary works. I believe it because of Amy's statement, "I would like to talk about this in more detail".

 

The information you and I discuss - so casually - about early Christianity is not new to us. It may very well be new to Amy. That is why I asked participants to keep the information they provide as objective as possible. Amy can make up her own mind once she has the information - but as she said, "I would like to talk about this in more detail".

 

I would think it possible for all of us to provide objective unbiased detail for her to research. Then we may find that we all have a lot more in common than we may think at the outset.

Fair enough. I posted my reply before I saw your next post. But didn't have time to rectify my response. I will provide a little more non-emotional, and more factual reasoning going forward.

 

And your point that most scholars believe Jesus to be a real person, is true, but there are scholars that have come to the conclusion that Jesus could have been a complete fabrication and mythology too.

 

Fabricated ideas are sometimes based on some core or grain of "truth". And of course there's a possibility that a human person, good teacher, with new ideas and a philosopher at heart, his name was Bob , started the whole religious movement. And since he was the leader and idea maker, he was called the Savior (Jesus), or The Anointed (Christ/Messiah), or Son of God (Bar Abbas, Son of the Father). Anyway, I don't hold it impossible for a physical person to have existed. (But not the legends surrounding this person)

 

 

 

-ExC's, would it matter to you? If we had strong evidence that Jesus actaully was a preacher who got executed by the Roman, would it change your views?

Definitely not. It wouldn't change anything. Because the stories surrounding Jesus are still embellished to make him into a legend and made to be "convincing" enough for the purpose of more easily converting other people. And the converted ones expanded the stories even more... and so on. But no, there's no problem if Jesus was a real person and a teacher.

[Antlerman]

-ExC's, would it matter to you? If we had strong evidence that Jesus actaully was a preacher who got executed by the Roman, would it change your views?

Definitely not. It wouldn't change anything. Because the stories surrounding Jesus are still embellished to make him into a legend and made to be "convincing" enough for the purpose of more easily converting other people. And the converted ones expanded the stories even more... and so on. But no, there's no problem if Jesus was a real person and a teacher.

I just had a thought to ask this question: If we came to the understanding about the embellishments, that they were not motivated by some disingenuous reasons of trying to better sell him in the marketplace of religions, but rather that the embellishments were human expressions of "faith" using the language of mythology, never really intended to be taken as a substitute for the real world, would those "beliefs" be more palatable as a religious system - allowing of course the flexiblity to be able discard outdated cultural values, such as roles of women, etc? If not, why not?

[Manta]

Possibly irrelevant point:

 

Jesus wasn't a white guy like in the Da Vinci paintings. He'd have looked middle eastern just like everyone else around there. The Bible makes no mention of Jesus looking markedly different from the common man. So those pictures of Jesus are are bit off, but its the symbology that matters.

[Ouroboros]

I just had a thought to ask this question: If we came to the understanding about the embellishments, that they were not motivated by some disingenuous reasons of trying to better sell him in the marketplace of religions, but rather that the embellishments were human expressions of "faith" using the language of mythology, never really intended to be taken as a substitute for the real world, would those "beliefs" be more palatable as a religious system - allowing of course the flexiblity to be able discard outdated cultural values, such as roles of women, etc? If not, why not?

It's compelling, but unfortunately the way I see it, people are too guillable and to easily attracted into the literal, fundamentalist view. I kind of understand why the Freemasons have all these secrets and mystery around them. If you wanted to teach a full understanding of a mythological view of spirituality, people have to grow into it, and learn to see it right over time. So you need those rings of knowledge, to only let someone in when they truly understand the ring they're in. Does it make sense?

 

My gut feeling is that it was like that at first. I believe that's how Christianity started. By understanding the spiritual by mythos and symbols. But someone slipped the stories to someone unintroduced of the correct thinking, and took it literal instead. That's the built in danger of it. Someone could possible put the wrong spin on it.

[Antlerman]

It's compelling, but unfortunately the way I see it, people are too guillable and to easily attracted into the literal, fundamentalist view. I kind of understand why the Freemasons have all these secrets and mystery around them. If you wanted to teach a full understanding of a mythological view of spirituality, people have to grow into it, and learn to see it right over time. So you need those rings of knowledge, to only let someone in when they truly understand the ring they're in. Does it make sense?

 

My gut feeling is that it was like that at first. I believe that's how Christianity started. By understanding the spiritual by mythos and symbols. But someone slipped the stories to someone unintroduced of the correct thinking, and took it literal instead. That's the built in danger of it. Someone could possible put the wrong spin on it.

This is sort of like the story of a man in an Eastern religion who begins his journey as a religious student and is asked, "When you look at the world, what do you see?" He answers "I see rocks, waters, and trees". After years of instruction he is asked again what he sees and answers, "Beyond the rocks, waters and trees I now see there's a deeper meaning, a more profound reality than what I merely saw with my eyes". Still after many more years of study he is asked the question and answers, "I now see that that deeper reality I thought I saw was an illusion of my own thoughts. There really is only rocks, waters, and trees." So in this sense, I can see levels of knowledge being protected. You almost have to come to that place of understanding through a process.

 

But still, not all people are prone to take myth as unquestionable fact. It is a natural tendency to take one's own mythology seriously as reflective of reality, but then I think most people when asked "did Jesus really walk on water” would say they don't believe it "really happened", but that's not important. I don't find that unhealthy. The thing I see is that the vast majority of people in the center of culture don't take these mythologies as literal and that fundamentalists, though currently growing in numbers, will always be the minority. They are the ones who are missing the value of the mythologies, by trying to force the myth to own the culture, rather than allowing a two-way relationship between the culture and the myth.

 

I'm loosing my original thought here and will have to come back to it, but will post this for now.

[dibby]

Beautiful art work Amy. The pictures speak a language beyond words to me.

 

Antlerman you hit the nail on the head about myths. To take them in a literal sense misses the whole point, I feel. The beauty in them, as in art such as Amy's, is that they lead to a deeper understanding of life. A literal interpretation locks you out of that deeper insight.

 

Myths are only "alive" in so far as people can uncover more and more insights from them. The great thing about mythologies is that they can speak to different people in different ways. A purely literal interpretation though kills the whole thing. This is what I believe has happened to much of Christianity. The beauty remains buried because of the literalist view...it becomes crass and banal and people end up arguing about pointless things.

 

True spirituality, I feel, is always beyond our concepts and words. The beauty of myth and art is the ability of it to take us beyond mere words to that which is inexpressible and can only be experienced for ourselves.

[Ouroboros]

If I had grown up in a more "liberal" or more "mythical" understanding of the Bible (basically mystical and spiritual, more than historical) I might still have been Christian today. I'm certain that most of my faith was based on the wrong understanding. In essence, I wasn't a true Christian, since I interpreted the Bible literally. So here's a word to you OM, if anything or anyone can be a "True" Christian... *tag*, you're it!

[Open_Minded]

If I had grown up in a more "libera" or more "mythical" understanding of the Bible (basically mystical and spiritual, more than historical) I might still have been Christian today. I'm certain that most of my faith was based on the wrong understanding. In essence, I wasn't a true Christian, since I interpreted the Bible literally. So here's a word to you OM, if anything or anyone can be a "True" Christian... *tag*, you're it!

 

Tears

 

Wow go away for a few hours and look what happens, Thanks HanSolo - that is high praise indeed. But, I'll probably never use the label - I don't like the connotations.

 

Anyway .... back to the discussion....

 

Fabricated ideas are sometimes based on some core or grain of "truth". And of course there's a possibility that a human person, good teacher, with new ideas and a philosopher at heart, his name was Bob , started the whole religious movement. And since he was the leader and idea maker, he was called the Savior (Jesus), or The Anointed (Christ/Messiah), or Son of God (Bar Abbas, Son of the Father).

 

We are very close in our thinking - Add in the following....

 

I just had a thought to ask this question: If we came to the understanding about the embellishments, that they were not motivated by some disingenuous reasons of trying to better sell him in the marketplace of religions, but rather that the embellishments were human expressions of "faith" using the language of mythology, never really intended to be taken as a substitute for the real world, would those "beliefs" be more palatable as a religious system - allowing of course the flexiblity to be able discard outdated cultural values, such as roles of women, etc?

 

And we are separated by very thin and obscure lines. I do believe a man named Jesus lived and his followers saw something in him that they labeled Christ/Messiah - Bar Abbas - etc.... I also believe legends and mythology grew up around this figure.

 

And the discussion about levels of understanding and "rings of knowledge" reminds me of statements I've made in the past about Gnostic literature. So many people seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of Gnosticsm. But, they are not thinking through the long-term implications of what can happen if this literature is treated loosely and without regard to where it came from, how it came to be, it's place in the overall story. Gnostic literature is full of mythology and imagery that (in the wrong hands) could do as much damage as literalism around the Bible or the Koran or anything else.

 

The key is widespread education. That is the ONLY way fundamentalism, literalism will fade into history.

 

And on that note, I've been wondering where Amy is at with all of this? Did we hit you with too much information, Amy? Do you have questions of any one of us? We will try to answer as objectively as possible.

[Antlerman]

Possibly irrelevant point:

 

Jesus wasn't a white guy like in the Da Vinci paintings. He'd have looked middle eastern just like everyone else around there. The Bible makes no mention of Jesus looking markedly different from the common man. So those pictures of Jesus are are bit off, but its the symbology that matters.

God also has many human attributes, such as logic and reason, plus the ideological social values of the cultures that create him. As a myth symbol for man, man needs God to look like us in order to relate to him, and hence why Jesus became a human, to connect even better with than to a fully transcendent Deity; "He was tempted like us in all manner". Accuracy in detail can destroy the power of the symbol unless you are able to connect to it culturally.

 

Sorry if I keep coming back to this, but art and mythology is a language that is not about accurate detail. Is this image below "accurate"?

 

 

 

Is it beautiful? Do you feel anything? Does it speak to you? (Rhetorical questions)

 

BTW, where is Amy in this thread? Are you still there Amy? Look what thoughts you have spawned!

[Open_Minded]

Someone asked me if I would believe in Jesus if there was no proof of His exsistance? No. No more than I would believe in fairies or the Easter Bunny.

 

Yes I do agree that there are arguments on both sides of the issue but according to much of what I have seen on documentaries on the History channel and the discovery channel and other sources that I have read most historians believe that Jesus existed. I have a very hard time believing there was no such a person named Jesus or in Hebrew, Yeshua.

 

Amy Marie .... I've only time for a short response before I must be off to work. I appreciate your position. As you know, I too believe Jesus was actual historical person. You are a reasonable person - and I don't think it's necessary to go back and forth over the historicity of Jesus. I would like to make one point though, before we move onto other issues you brought up.

 

You are right, "most historians believe that Jesus existed". You seem to be somewhat of a history buff, (you actually know what the history channel is and watch it).

 

I am a history buff as well. My favorite area of history - bar none - is ancient history. Specifically ancient middle eastern history, although ancient american history runs a close second. I am fascinated with ancient history because it's all about putting puzzle pieces together. And the thing is - humanity will NEVER have all the puzzle pieces. One has to use different methodologies in ancient history, since (across the board) there is so little physical evidence. Literary analysis and oral histories take on more importance with ancient history than they do with more recent history.

 

So.... here's my point, Amy. You trust that most historians feel Jesus probably did exist. I agree with you. But, it is also important to recognize that the greatest majority - not just most - but something near 90-99% feel that an oral tradition preceeded the writing of the gospels. Of the historians that believed Jesus did walk the earth the overwhelming majority believe that stories, legends, mythologies grew up around the existence of this person. Oral traditions are just simply that way - across all areas of ancient history. At the core of the oral tradition is rememberance of factual truth (maybe around 40%). The rest of the oral tradition is embellishment. This is not to say the embellishment is sinister - it's just the nature of the beast, that's all.

 

On to your interest in the mystic dimension of Christianity. I too follow that dimension of the church.

 

May I ask what works you've read?

 

John of the Cross?

Therease of Avila?

Julian of Norwich?

Cloud of Unknowing?

 

More contemporary authors....

Thomas Merton?

Father Keating - Centering Prayer?

How about Wayne Teasdale?

Evelyn Underhill?

 

Others, I'm not mentioning?

 

What form of meditation do you practice?

[Antlerman]

Here I am! Thanks for being so nice to me everyone. I hope you pick up the same thing from me. I REALLY appreciate the generous comments about my art. I don't mind anyone posting it here at all.

 

I've been spending a lot of my time in the Lion's Den as some of you already know. I've come away with a few bruises and cuts but that's what happens when you jump in a Lion's Den.

 

Boy! There's so many places I could start from here.

 

Someone asked me if I would believe in Jesus if there was no proof of His exsistance? No. No more than I would believe in fairies or the Easter Bunny.

 

Yes I do agree that there are arguments on both sides of the issue but according to much of what I have seen on documentaries on the History channel and the discovery channel and other sources that I have read most historians believe that Jesus existed. I have a very hard time believing there was no such a person named Jesus or in Hebrew, Yeshua.

 

I know you don't like spaming but I am one of those two finger typest and it would take me forever to type this out and I just don't h ave the patience tonight.

 

Since there has been so much arguing back in forth as to the literal existance of Jesus, (especially in the Lions Den) I would like to pick this up from the point to view of the existance of the Apostles and what they taught about Yeshua.

 

Continue in the next post...

The Apostle did exist:

Hi Amy. Welcome back from the whipping den.

 

I don't want to dwell on the historical or mythical Jesus too much, but since you posted my post from the other thread, my response to the above is here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=182310

 

Again, very briefly, the point that if Jesus didn't exist then neither would the apostles, you seemed to have missed in my post. One has nothing to do with the other. Why couldn't they be apostles of a Heavenly Christ, just like Isaiah was a prophet of a Heavenly God? I see no difference. They could be considered simply as disciples of a movement.

 

As I said though I think it is a valid "possibility ", as is the historical Jesus view. The real issue is what you answered above , "Someone asked me if I would believe in Jesus if there was no proof of His existence? No. No more than I would believe in fairies or the Easter Bunny". (BTW that was me who asked).

 

That's an interesting response. I want to add another layer to that question. If you learned that the Gospel accounts weren't 100% God's perfect word, that they were also very human with mistakes and ideas that weren't 100% reflective of actual events and words that were said, would you still feel you would no longer embrace the belief?

 

What I'm getting at is this: Is your experience of Christ dependent upon a rational understanding? In other words, do you personally need to be able to look to something external for corroboration to validate your feelings?

 

Consider OM's response: "If someone found archeaological evidence tomorrow that proved Jesus was fictious it wouldn't change the core of my faith." I'm curious how you feel about that response from her?

 

As always, I look forward to your responses.

[KT45]

Taylork,

 

Much of my art is about spiritual myticism commonly referred to as that spiritual union between Christ and the Soul, or Christ and the Bride. The woman in my pictures represents my soul or the Bride of Christ as a whole. She can be your soul as well. One can also find in art pictures of Saint John the Apostle leaning on the bosom of Christ. Christian mystics have written much on this subject drawing from The Song of Solomon. Especially in Medieval times there were some who sang songs about Jesus being the Lover-Knight. (I would love to do an entire thread about that. Some of the poetry is breathtakingly beautiful.)

 

Here is another one of my paintings with an explaination underneath.

 

You just reminded me of something funny about church. The idea of Jesus as a lover, lover knight, or christians being the bride of christ was always very comfortable subject for women. To most christian men however this idea didn't go over to well so they interpret the scripture for themselves different than the women!!!!

 

But anyway back to my original question. So you don't feel like all those other women I knew in church that view christ as the man (husband) in their life? How do see your relationship with christ? Are you married to someone or do you feel that you don't need a man because you have Jesus in your life? Again I'm asking this seriously because many women I knew were like this. They would say things like the only man I need in my life is Jesus or I'm going on a date with Jesus tonight. I think it was because many women waited for so long to God to provide them with a husband but never got the godly man the seeked or they had relationships that didn't work out in the end. But they still tried hard to live life right and abstain from temptations and sex so that God will bless them. Over time they approached their late 40's early 50's and couldn't find anyone so they just gave up on the idea of marriage. So they just start saying the only man I need is Jesus. I'm not sure why but something about that is just really sad to me. I just want to know if you live this way as well. If you don't live this way how do you feel about those who do?