 brazilnut72 says: The biblical Jesus as compared to the post-modern Jesus. But both descriptions are based on scripture and personal interpretation correct? So this really boils down to what kind of personal Jesus someone wants to believe in. Well the second Jesus makes a lot of sense. At least Thomas Jefferson thought as much. But doesn't it still boil down what a specific person thinks a good idea of Jesus should be? I guess I can't reconcile all the various versions of Christianity where each of them claims "this is the right way" and they are all based out of the same scriptures. "making alot of sense" really is a subjective opinion. There are some who claim Jesus was peaceful and loving, yet there are verses in the bible that show otherwise. The Westburrow Baptists idea of what "makes sense" certainly is different from what any one else would think of - yet they are probably the most accurate followers of the bible. Plus there is the whole problem of trusting scriptures when history doesn't support the stori... "making alot of sense" really is a subjective opinion.Never made a claim to the contrary. The above is not about belief. Its about whether Jesus was a good role model or not. If he was, then I should have the decency to listen. I need not believe in the Holy Trinity or his ascendancy to Heaven or anything like that. Myth is what it is, once you understand that, it makes everything that much simpler. I also quoted Jefferson to counter this "pots-modern thought" nonsense. Then there is Christ Consciousness, the mystical, not mythical, realization of spirituality. A purely personal relationship with the Godhead, if you can dig it. While human interpretations of scripture are bound to differ because of the fallible human intellect, there is a large and obvious difference between attempting to know Christ as he is presented in the Scripture, and trying to superimpose our idea of Christ on the Scripture. And--according to my understanding of such things--the idea that "the text is what we make it to be" is a very "post-modern" concept--Thomas Jefferson was simply ahead of his time. Actually he was very much of his time, as his ideas where not entirely unusual for the time. And when one reads anything, including scripture, one always superimposes our ideas, unless your 5 years old and have very little experience with life, and even then their is a bit of bias that seeps in. I guess I'm already amazed that people develop different ideas about what Christ is and what he says and represents and more often than not disagree with each other. Now there is a movement to compare Christ from a biblical standpoint and a modern standpoint. It seems a bit surreal to me. Considering that there is literally no real evidence of Christ's existence outside the bible then this whole thing seems kinda desperate to come up with a Jesus that fits the world. I guess that it seems to me that if Jesus was a real person/deity that the world would fit exactly with what he says with no confusion, contradiction, or conflict. In other words, his message would be universally understood. No... Good grief. We should focus on what Jesus SAID and what there was that was so threatening to the authorities of the domination system at his time, INSTEAD of this doctrine which says that Jesus was divine, he was God, but he was born a human, he was preordained by God to be born of a virgin, and even though he looked like us and seemed to be one of us, he was really God in human form (and thus not one of us). So familiar is this doctrine that many people ESPECIALLY the Christian right, take it for granted the it is orthodox Christian theology. But this view is actually one of the earliest Christian heresies, known as docetism coming from the Greek word meaning "to seem" or "to appear".... |
View the Top Clips from January 18, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
