Liberal Jesusism Is Not Christianity

[florduh]

Anyone can claim to be a Christian. Anyone can claim to be a cat; two eyes, two ears, omnivore, mammal, etc. However, there are some generally accepted requirements for one to be considered a Christian or a cat. The discussion can get as silly as we want, but Christians follow Christ (as portrayed in the only text available) including what he purportedly said, and people aren't cats, though they may have some things in common.

[TrueFreedom]

Muslims believe that they follow Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught the law. Muslims rightly believe that Christians do not follow Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught a form of Judaism. Christianity teaches a form of Gnosticism.

[Adam5]

Muslims rightly believe that Christians do not follow Jesus' teachings.

 

Muslims cherry pick what they like from the gospels, just like Christians do. Its impossible to pin down what Jesus really believed, because the gospels are so contradictory. Thats one of the reasons for its sucess, is that people read into it what they want to believe.

[TrueFreedom]

I don't find the gospels contradictory. I notice more and more miraculous claims attributed to Jesus in the later gospels. The details of many of the stories are different, but the messages are mostly the same. It's just that by the time you get to the gospel of John they've made Jesus into God. The letters, on the other hand, teach a different gospel from what you find in the gospels.

[FeelHappy]

Well some sects of Gnostics were among the early Christians and they thought the Old Testament was from a different evil deity and Jesus didn't come to die for our sins but to show a select group of people how to rid themselves of this evil creation's mortal body and attain everlasting life. I mean the term Christian is very very broad. Being "Orthodox" narrows it down a bunch and maybe this OP means this form of christianity.

[TrueFreedom]

I apologize if I'm posting too much and hijacking this topic. The point that I haven't been making very well is that all Christianities are forms of Gnosticism: flesh vs. spirit, "saving knowledge of Jesus," "knowing" because the Holy Spirit provides "assurance"

 

Even in the gospel accounts which were preserved by Christians, their Christ never is reported to have taught these things. And Paul never once quotes anything that Jesus said in the gospels.

[mcdaddy]

I don't find the gospels contradictory. I notice more and more miraculous claims attributed to Jesus in the later gospels. The details of many of the stories are different, but the messages are mostly the same. It's just that by the time you get to the gospel of John they've made Jesus into God. The letters, on the other hand, teach a different gospel from what you find in the gospels.

 

The reason the Synoptics are the same is because they were copied from the original (mark). What's your best proof that mark was meant to be historical an not fictional ?

[TrueFreedom]

The reason the Synoptics are the same is because they were copied from the original (mark). What's your best proof that mark was meant to be historical an not fictional ?

 

Yes, Matthew and Luke either copied from Mark or worked with the same sources (Q). The early church fathers certainly didn't think that it was fictional, at least not what we think of as fiction today. On what basis would you conclude that it was not meant to be taken as a factual account of the life of Jesus?

[mcdaddy]

That mark wasn't written as historical accounts are written. It's a narrative. A story. Not "on this particular day, according to these witnesses, X happened....". It sounds like you're reading a story. Historical accounts of actual events aren't written in that manner.

 

This is a HUGE oversimplification though.

[TrueFreedom]

I haven't seen anybody claim that Mark was written by a historian. It's written like other holy books. I would compare it more to the narratives about Krishna. I'm not getting your point.

[mcdaddy]

Well the best way I could show you what I personally think would e to point you to some YouTube videos (don't laugh ). Of all I've read this "theory" that i hold to is the one that makes the most sense to me of all those that I've heard. Obviously I COULD be way off base but I don't see any gaping holes. It's not flawless, but hell, what is when talking about xian origins.

[TrueFreedom]

I'm willing to watch a few videos if they're not too long. If they are long, they had better be VERY interesting.

[FeelHappy]

I apologize if I'm posting too much and hijacking this topic. The point that I haven't been making very well is that all Christianities are forms of Gnosticism: flesh vs. spirit, "saving knowledge of Jesus," "knowing" because the Holy Spirit provides "assurance"

 

Even in the gospel accounts which were preserved by Christians, their Christ never is reported to have taught these things. And Paul never once quotes anything that Jesus said in the gospels.

 

I think this is expanding the word Gnosticism too much into something its not, this also might ignore some of the more works based versions of christianity like Pelagianism and especially the Ebionites who saw Jesus as the Jewish messiah and thought paul was a heretic.

 

Also while it was infrequent Paul DID quote Jesus at least once (although this might be the only place).

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:23-25

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

1 Corthinians 7:

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

[TrueFreedom]

I agree 100%, FeelHappy. Nice find on the Jesus quotations! As far as Gnosticism is concerned, I'm trying to demonstrate the Gnostic influence on all Christianities currently practiced. Of course the actual followers of Jesus were quite different. As I've been saying, they were Jews. Jesus did not establish a new religion, nor did James or Peter. Paul did. Jesus was likely becoming known as a messiah king and was likely crucified for sedition.

[FeelHappy]

Jesus did not establish a new religion, nor did James or Peter. Paul did. Jesus was likely becoming known as a messiah king and was likely crucified for sedition.

 

While we don't have any unbiased accounts and have to use speculation, I also think this is most likely correct.

[mcdaddy]

I'm willing to watch a few videos if they're not too long. If they are long, they had better be VERY interesting.

 

It's just basically your typical mythicist stuff, at least if there is such a thing as a typical mythicist position. But they are long, 2 series each consisting of 10+ 8 minute videos, give or take. The youtuber is TruthSurge. Just search him out and you'll see it.

[TrueFreedom]

We should probably start or continue another topic if we want to debate mythicism, but here's a link to get you started on responses to common mythicist claims. I think James McGrath makes some pretty good points:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/04/a-menu-of-answers-to-mythicists.html

 

Earl Doherty's responses are pretty snarky as well:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/an-earl-doherty-stomach-relief-for-a-james-mcgrath-menu/

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Believing he's a prophet and following his teachings are two separate things. I'll leave it up to the Muslims or someone who is more expert on the subject to determine if they are xian. I'd say they don't meet several criteria that liberal xians do, but that's just a swag.

They do follow his teachings, as they follow the teachings they say was handed down to them by all the prophets, its just that Muhammad was the best prophet to them.

[Paine]

Just before the parade at pride last sunday, I had an interesting talk with a friend of a friend who is a lutheran pastor. I found alot of what he said knowledgeable and interesting, something I never thought I would've said regarding a pastor or religious leader of any stripe. However, despite how much I respect his beliefs, and how preaches, its simply not christianity, at least not in the way the religion is meant in the Bible. It's well meaning and respectable, but not Christianity. Universalism? To a large extent.

 

Not all lutherans hold his beliefs, he is a part of the northeastern branch that accepts homosexuality, sees truths in all religions as being earlier expressions of what is a consistent message also preached by Jesus. He doesn't accept biblical literalism (or so it seemed), but instead looks to the positive messages he finds in the Bible.

 

But my claim is here, that without guilt for what Adam and Eve did, and without worshipping one God and asking him for salvation, or burning forever in hell for following false beliefs, what you believe isn't based in the Bible, nor Christianity nor its foundations. Debate.

 

Social Justice by any other name stinks as much....

[Akheia]

Just before the parade at pride last sunday, I had an interesting talk with a friend of a friend who is a lutheran pastor. I found alot of what he said knowledgeable and interesting, something I never thought I would've said regarding a pastor or religious leader of any stripe. However, despite how much I respect his beliefs, and how preaches, its simply not christianity, at least not in the way the religion is meant in the Bible. It's well meaning and respectable, but not Christianity. Universalism? To a large extent.

 

Not all lutherans hold his beliefs, he is a part of the northeastern branch that accepts homosexuality, sees truths in all religions as being earlier expressions of what is a consistent message also preached by Jesus. He doesn't accept biblical literalism (or so it seemed), but instead looks to the positive messages he finds in the Bible.

 

But my claim is here, that without guilt for what Adam and Eve did, and without worshipping one God and asking him for salvation, or burning forever in hell for following false beliefs, what you believe isn't based in the Bible, nor Christianity nor its foundations. Debate.

 

I just wrote a blog post about something similar The only way to make the Abrahimic religions morally palatable is to distance oneself entirely from the source material. At that point I don't see the point in following it at all. But people just like the label, I guess, and that chameleon nature is part of what makes Christianity so pervasive and powerful. The Bible's lack of clear guidance regarding just what Christians are supposed to do and believe is one reason I know it can't possibly be the inspired word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God.

 

That said, I can tell you one label I'd slap on your pastor acquaintance--pagans would call him a "fluffybunny," and they'd be right to do so. He cherry-picks the stuff that feels good, ignores the humongous pile of stuff that he finds jarring in his happy, fuzzy, rose-tinted view of Christianity, flat-out denies the volumes of proof contradicting Jesus' very existence, and then tries to shoehorn "all" the other religions in the world into his bizarre one-size-fits-all worldview. I find the attitude condescending in the extreme.

 

Humanism I'm all for. I don't think there's anything religious about "don't be a dick" sort of guidelines. Most religions contain something like that in their source materials--as do most non-religious groups' sources. But what constitutes dickishness in one place may look really different in another--and how one approaches the divine, one's relationship to that divinity, one's obligations toward that divinity, and what that divinity wants and expects from humanity vary so vastly from society to society that if I hear someone trying to go with that ecumenical shit, it tells me he doesn't know a hell of a lot about other religions.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Thank you Akheia, and I agree. Without a basis in the source (the Bible, Tanakh or Quran), what's the point? You're a fluffy bunny taking on a label at that point. Just like pagans who say that their given path never had morally repugnant beliefs. Like a sumerian I once talked to, who tried argueing it was a paradise before Islam. When in reality, it was alot like the abrahamic religions in most respects.

[Antlerman]

That said, I can tell you one label I'd slap on your pastor acquaintance--pagans would call him a "fluffybunny," and they'd be right to do so. He cherry-picks the stuff that feels good, ignores the humongous pile of stuff that he finds jarring in his happy, fuzzy, rose-tinted view of Christianity, flat-out denies the volumes of proof contradicting Jesus' very existence, and then tries to shoehorn "all" the other religions in the world into his bizarre one-size-fits-all worldview. I find the attitude condescending in the extreme.

I've said this many times over the years, and will have to again since there is a popular misconception of what cherry picking is. Cherry picking is calling everything good and truth, while selectively ignoring the bad bits and claiming the good only. This is what the fundamentalist does in saying the Bible is God's infallible and innerrant word, words of God himself. They have no choice but to deny or rationalize away the bad parts as good, because their basic premise about the Bible will fail if they don't.

 

This is not what liberals do. They do not selectively ignore the bad parts, nor rationalize them as somehow good. They understand contextually that they are historical artifacts, reflective of those humans in their place in history in how they conceived of God. That is not ignoring or rationalizing them as 'good', it is acknowlging them as bad. It is saying that's how they thought then, but we don't know. That's not cherry picking at all. It's really exactly what you or I would do.

 

So what about them using the good bits while discarding those artifacts as some sort of truth to live by? Don't you and I do that as well every day with everything? I can acknowledge "love your neighbor as yourself" as quite valid and true, and a positive goal everyone should hope to realize for themselves and others. Does this qualify me as a "cherry picker"? I would say emphatically no. It is simply using insight and discrimination to adopt what is positive while rejecting what is not. It is not calling everything good, and selectively, and dishonestly ignoring the bad parts and only embracing what I consider good. Instead I openly say it sucks and reject it.

 

If that is considered "cherry picking", then the term has no meaning whatsoever. Why use it at all then? Everyone alive does this. It's only the hypocrites who says it's all cherries. Not those who say only some are cherries, while the rest are pieces of petrified wood.

 

 

As for liberal Lutherans calling themselves Christians, why not? Christianity is defined by its diversity these days. In all honesty, historically speaking what become defined Christianity through its early formation, it is really only the Catholic church itself who are "True Christians". Protestants are not that, so in reality all of them jumping up and down in their little cults of personality saying we're the real ones, are full of shit. They are in fact the offspring of the Roman Church, and if Rome is wrong, they all collapse. Rome made them. Rome created what is called Christianity today.

[Spectrox]

"A tree is known by it's fruit."

 

Maybe Jesus was a cherry-picker as well?!

[Akheia]

AM - so how much does a liberal Christian have to reject before he's not really a Christian at all anymore? How much morally reprehensible stuff does he have to discard before he gets to the bare bones of his faith? How far must he rebuild his spiritual outlook before its made-up Messiah vanishes? The basic "don't be a dick" rules aren't unique to that religion at all, or even to any religion. With a thousand thousand religions out there, it seems to me that after rejecting some 99% of the Bible's claims, demands, and outright fabrications that one might do better to find a religious system without quite so many things to reject. Or go with none at all.

[Vigile]

The fact that they need a framework to identify with and follow says a lot. If you buy the paradigm that's one thing. If you create your own paradigm, but limit it to one book and one fictional character, IMO you're just playing games with yourself and are severely stunted in terms of the wealth of ideas out there.