Was Jesus 'just a philosopher'?

[Thomas]

If the text is the Word of God then this is a problem.

But we don't say that, so it's a problem people like to assume and impose.

If the text is writ by the hand of man then is it not therefore fallible?

And we are aware of that, too. The traditions are quite precise on how we read Scripture.

Wil blows his trumpet as if his argument was reasonable, rational and infallible. It's not, it's totally partisan.

Is a text beyond question because the writer is devout?

Not at all ...

The point is Wil can produce no sound reasoning of his deductions about which bits of the text are reliable, and which are not, but sees himself as superior to challenge and therefore he does not need to answer that question.

I would further argue that, if we compare Catholic philosophy on the approach to Scripture, and Wil's philosophy on the approach to Scripture, it's his philosophy that will be shown to be self-serving and fundamentally illogical.

No-one argues that Christianity is just a philosophy — so arguing that there's more top philosophy than 'just' is a false argument. It's trying to get your point in by the back door.

I don't think nor say I am a better Christian than Wil, I do say the more Christian way is to not knock those less fortunate then yourself, and certainly not to declare your superiority by mocking (as you see it) their simplicity, their naivety and their fidelity.

I challenge not for my sake, but for theirs. Personally, I would trade my sophisticated theological education for their simple faith, any day of the week.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I am so blessed...how would I know what I think if I didn't have Thomas to tell me?

 

[iBrian]

The point is Wil can produce no sound reasoning of his deductions about which bits of the text are reliable, and which are not, but sees himself as superior to challenge and therefore he does not need to answer that question.

But aren't there a lot of presumptions in Roman Catholicism to begin with? (I don't want to change this to a critique of the RC, but I would rather not use "traditional Christianity" because it implies a degree of superiority - which involves a lot of presumptions!").

To wit, on both points, the idea that you stick a bunch of men together, and whatever they agree upon is Divine Will, because it has settled on them and made their decision for them. This occurs as an argument in the Arius vs Athanasius dispute, and the process of canonisation.

But ... it's pure and simple political expedience. It's impossible to dress up as anything else without making the argument obvious propaganda.

Just thinking aloud.

ADDED: No, let's also add that you berate Wil for not holding to the texts as you do. However, isn't this a major theme in the Gospels as well? Something about Pharisees trying to convict Jesus for "breaking the Law"? Haven't so many Christians become Pharisees in themselves?

Again, just thinking aloud.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

In his own time, to call him a philosopher would have been correct enough, for it means a lover of wisdom. Today, there is very little wisdom in philosophy though, and certainly few go quite as deep.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Thomas, you say it is wrong to mix and match what you uphold of scripture, let us see if you are willing to do the same. Now, Jesus has said not a letter of the law is to be changed, and further the very prophecy that gives him validity is based on the authors of the law.

I give you Deuteronomy 22:28,29

These verses basically say a man should be rewarded with a cheap wife if he rapes a woman, since he has humbled her.

Please don't give me any crap about how times were different back then, for Christians are supposed to still uphold all laws, not to mention these are given by a benevolent God who is timeless and all knowing. Now I ask you, if I raped your daughter, is it right that I get to do it for the rest of her life?

If you suggest this is perfectly good, you show the true ethical value of the Bible, if you have a problem with it then you agree we should take only what is useful in our journey.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Thomas, you say it is wrong to mix and match what you uphold of scripture, let us see if you are willing to do the same. Now, Jesus has said not a letter of the law is to be changed, and further the very prophecy that gives him validity is based on the authors of the law.

I give you Deuteronomy 22:28,29

These verses basically say a man should be rewarded with a cheap wife if he rapes a woman, since he has humbled her.

Please don't give me any crap about how times were different back then, for Christians are supposed to still uphold all laws, not to mention these are given by a benevolent God who is timeless and all knowing. Now I ask you, if I raped your daughter, is it right that I get to do it for the rest of her life?

If you suggest this is perfectly good, you show the true ethical value of the Bible, if you have a problem with it then you agree we should take only what is useful in our journey.

hope you dont mind if I step in here as well,

the Old Testament law was for Old Testament Jews not for todays Gentile Christians, so it never applied anyway, thats my view anyway.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

hope you dont mind if I step in here as well,

the Old Testament law was for Old Testament Jews not for todays Gentile Christians, so it never applied anyway, thats my view anyway.

This is what we're told, but where is it said? It seems to me it is just what people later decided, others have decided otherwise and use these laws to justify their prejudices still. I do not accept his statement 'behold, I give you the law' as an answer either, for he has just restated the 10 commandments in a condensed form. The only law he explicitly changed was that divorce would not be acceptable anymore.

Further, why did an all knowing and good God call rape a humiliation, to my reading it is almost a condoning, like rape is the woman's fault, like it is a victory for the guy. Yet, still this is from the same source we are supposed to accept Jesus by. For me, you simply have to question it all if you have any understanding of the Bible, but instead there are just a bunch of excuses.

For me, the entire text has to be perused and anything you find valuable should be taken in and applied in your life, everything else should be thrown away as myth. It points to something valuable, so I don't say be done with it, but there is so much that is disgusting too. It is hardly surprising how screwed up society is if you understand the influence these words have had on it. People eventually have to see the world from a 21st century perspective, so little of what people actually take from the Bible is even applicable to modern life.

 

[Thomas]

And how more misguided would we be if we didn't have you to point it out to us all the time?

If you can't take it, Wil, don't dish it out.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

This is what we're told, but where is it said? It seems to me it is just what people later decided, others have decided otherwise and use these laws to justify their prejudices still. I do not accept his statement 'behold, I give you the law' as an answer either, for he has just restated the 10 commandments in a condensed form. The only law he explicitly changed was that divorce would not be acceptable anymore.

not at all, its obvious really, the laws from Deuteronomy were given to the Jews not to Gentiles, seems so obvious to me.

Further, why did an all knowing and good God call rape a humiliation, to my reading it is almost a condoning, like rape is the woman's fault, like it is a victory for the guy. Yet, still this is from the same source we are supposed to accept Jesus by. For me, you simply have to question it all if you have any understanding of the Bible, but instead there are just a bunch of excuses.

the Old Testament is pretty full on, you can make of it what you like.

For me, the entire text has to be perused and anything you find valuable should be taken in and applied in your life, everything else should be thrown away as myth. It points to something valuable, so I don't say be done with it, but there is so much that is disgusting too. It is hardly surprising how screwed up society is if you understand the influence these words have had on it. People eventually have to see the world from a 21st century perspective, so little of what people actually take from the Bible is even applicable to modern life.

my understanding of the Law in in Christianity, is that Jesus fulfilled the Law he did not abolish it.

Matthew 22:37-40

37 He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.[a]

38 This is the greatest and most important command.

39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.[c]

40 All the Law and the Prophets depend[d] on these two commands.”

So for Christians Love God, Love People and Love Yourself that is the Law.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

And how more misguided would we be if we didn't have you to point it out to us all the time?

If you can't take it, Wil, don't dish it out.

Your error, Thomas, is that you believe scripture is required for us to know.

In fact, scriptures role is to remind us of something we already know innately. It is only necessary to bring it back to the surface, and anything can trigger that.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

not at all, its obvious really, the laws from Deuteronomy were given to the Jews not to Gentiles, seems so obvious to me.




the Old Testament is pretty full on, you can make of it what you like.



my understanding of the Law in in Christianity, is that Jesus fulfilled the Law he did not abolish it.



So for Christians Love God, Love People and Love Yourself that is the Law.

I do not see any abolishment here, and further, why would the laws not apply to gentiles? Jesus is a Jew, he is from the tribe of Judah and a prophet thereof. The division has arisen because of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. Indeed, Ben Massada or whatever has presented evidence Jesus never intended to convert the gentiles at all. Yet, if you become a follower of a prophet of Judah, you cannot then say you remain a gentile just to ignore the laws. Let us not forget that many converts in the Bible become accepted as Jewish through conversion. The chief example is the egyptian princess who could not marry a Jew until she converted, indeed until she experienced what Christians call grace.

Also, to say the Bible is pretty full on is laughable, try reading Dattatreyas Song of Avadhut sometime, the bible barely looks spiritual by comparison, just babble.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I do not see any abolishment here, and further, why would the laws not apply to gentiles?

not sure where my post went,

fulfilled not abolished,

the Laws were given to Jews not to Gentiles.

Jesus is a Jew, he is from the tribe of Judah and a prophet thereof. The division has arisen because of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. Indeed, Ben Massada or whatever has presented evidence Jesus never intended to convert the gentiles at all. Yet, if you become a follower of a prophet of Judah, you cannot then say you remain a gentile just to ignore the laws. Let us not forget that many converts in the Bible become accepted as Jewish through conversion. The chief example is the egyptian princess who could not marry a Jew until she converted, indeed until she experienced what Christians call grace.

you should read the New Testament its quite good, Paul talks a lot about the law and its application to Gentile Christians.

Also, to say the Bible is pretty full on is laughable, try reading Dattatreyas Song of Avadhut sometime, the bible barely looks spiritual by comparison, just babble.

is that the Bagavad Gita ? i have a copy somewhere.

as for the Bible being spiritual, well thats subjective really.

 

[Thomas]

Your error, Thomas, is that you believe scripture is required for us to know.

No, that would be ridiculous. Scripture is required to know Christ, but that is something else.

In fact, scriptures role is to remind us of something we already know innately. It is only necessary to bring it back to the surface, and anything can trigger that.

Superficially, yes, as all sacra doctrina address, to some degree, the inner nature of man, but outside the tradition, one can only be provisionally aware of its interior dimension (which in the case of the Christian Scriptures is not a matter of knowledge, but being) — see Acts 8 and the dialogue between Philip and the Ethiopian.

The Christian Scriptures were collated to explain the Liturgy. The Church was a liturgical body before it was a scriptural body.

Scripture then reveals three things: the subsistent nature of man (and all being); the Immanent presence of the Divine; and the absolute Transcendence of God.

All three can be posited through philosophical speculation, and one can arrive at a relative and philosophical certitude (or enlightenment), such as is evident regarding theories of evolution or cosmology.

The first, man's ephemerality and contingency is, of course, self-evident, but not his subsistence. The immanence and transcendence of God can only be arrived at with absolute certitude by participation, being beyond knowledge:
"the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness" (St Denys: The Mystical Theology)(St Denys was one of the influences on Eckhart, by the way.)

The knower, as Eriugena argues, is infinitely more than all that he knows (cf Eckhart's assertion that when he is in the Urgrund, all distinction, even that between man and God, disappears. In some respects, the greater mystery still is that, having 'sunk' into the Urgrund ... one returns ... in a very real sense this is an ex nihilo act)

(By-the-by, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite (c6th century), Johannes Scottus Eriugena (9th century) and Nicholas of Cusa (15th century) are regarded as in the same class as Meister Eckhart (13th century) when it comes to talking of authentic Christian gnosis — St Denys (as the Orthodox know him) informed Eriugena, and Eckhart read both in his studies (Eriugena was under suspicion of heresy but his works were still circulated in monastic circles.)

The Urgrund of Eckhart is the fourth and final division of nature Eriugena speaks of in his Periphyseon, "that which is not created and does not create". (Nature having a much broader remit in Eriugena than it does in common understanding.)

+++

Scripture, as Paul Ricoeur notes, is not philosophy. For the (traditional) Christian, the reading of Scripture is a liturgical rite. The Corpus Verbum is a presentation of the Corpus Eucharisticum, Christ having given Himself up for us in word as well as deed.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

you should read the New Testament its quite good, Paul talks a lot about the law and its application to Gentile Christians.

I have read it, I find it to be poorly written. Also, Paul is not Jesus, he is a man selling a product.

is that the Bagavad Gita ? i have a copy somewhere.

as for the Bible being spiritual, well thats subjective really.

If it were, I would have said so. What I have linked to is an extensive expression of direct insight, it is not concerned with the events in someone's life. The Upanishads are all of this flavor, Hinduism is not so poor that it revolves around a single text. Indeed, Krishna himself references Upanishadic figures as the source of his understanding.

 

[wil]

This is the deal. One can't use a book to prove the book is right. Circular reasoning simply doesn't fly. But this does not mean Jesus didn't do or say various things. Scholars however...folks that spent their lives studying the history, the words, the languages, the times, the agendas....not as a hobby, but as a calling, as a profession....I've got to look at all the thought and concepts put forth by them.

Heck, I lived, drank, worked, partied, raised a family, coached soccer, scout leader, camp outs, vacations, laid around the pool....I haven't spent 1/100th of the tme these guys did....so I have to gie them some credit....and believe that while they all have their agendas, they know more about it than I.

Yeah, I've taken some classes, but it doesn't add up to a hill of beans... So we've got some sort of bell curve somewhere between it is all correct and it is all made up. I believe neither extreme to be true...so it is somewhere in the middle...I just don't know exactly where.

And as indicated I take many of the words and actions purported to him to heart...and utilize them in my life....

and that is wrong?

 

[taijasi]

As a Christian who knows how to think outside the box ... and one who greatly deplores the dripping-red icon which Roman Catholics especially love to hang about their place as an effigy ... I see Christ Jesus the way most people of other religions in the world see Him:

Like so many, I regard Him as one of the greatest {or by some counts THE Greatest of the Sons of God} who came into HIS OWN by experiencing all the trials & all the challenges of `the flesh' ~ meaning that he incarnated through the Human Kingdom and worked his way TO PERFECTION, as shall we all [Ephesians 4:13, Rev 3:12} in time.

The future of these two Souls, Christed Jesus and the World Teacher {which He Himself taught us, as evidenced in such passages as John 10:16}, is that of further enlightenment here upon our planet and increased Service to the Sons of Men, which they themselves SINGLY taught 2100 years ago as the WAY, the PATH, which leads us all to Salvation, Perfection and Liberation from `Earth's Schoolroom.'

Until our lessons are well-learned, aptly practiced and in *just such a manner* brought verily TO PERFECTION ... so too shall WE return, grade after grade ~ even occasionally repeating a term, when we royally screw up and refuse to master the lessons ~ until finally, our degree shall be attained, and the long-sought-after goal of graduation be reached. Then, it is to New Vistas we shall all travel ... thought not necessarily en masse, nor all to the same exact future, or identical paths of Higher Service.

Thus were the Teachings of the Great Ones, including the Nazarene Adept, the Great One Whom Christians call the Christ, and all the Buddhas before or since. There have *been no Buddhas* since, for that matter, as Maitreya Buddha is the next to come ... and his present whereabouts?

Maitreya Bodhisattva ... the Saoshyant of Zoroastrianism, the Imam Mahdi of Islam, the Messiah of Judiasm, the Christ of Christianity, the World Teacher of esotericists, Kalki Avatara of Hinduism, and so on.

Beware the ignorance of one who would verily ABSCOND with Him Who was promised to US ALL ... and him who would IF HE COULD, deny the very LOVE and Inclusiveness, the Inclusivity of Brotherly Love as taught and practiced by the Christ Himself. For though this co-opting cannot truly occur, the blind can be misguided by the blind, often enough where the latter are most convinced of their purity, the altruism and the earnestness of their motive.

Thus did the Teacher of Teachers proclaim, "Father, please forgive them ... for THEY KNOW NOT what they do."

If you would like to hear many of the `Dark Sayings' of the Nazarene Adept, speaking today as the High Adept He has become, telling precisely what the Christ was about 2100 years ago ... consider reading The Vision of the Nazarene which may be obtained via Amazon.com. In this book you will also find two sketches, of Jesus of Nazareth in that incarnation, and of the same when/as overshadowed by the Christ, as was the case more or less consistently from the Baptism forward {as history attests}.

Would that you find all the Wisdom, all the insight, all the answers and all of the motivation to further practice The Way ... from the encouragement and clarification which will come to you even the *first* time you read this little book, written last century by a Server, as shown to him by the Man Himself.

I stake my very Soul on it ... on the authenticity & legitimacy of the text, and that it originates where it purports, of the Galilean Adept, and none other.

Namaskar,
AndrewX/Taijasi/Ecumenist

 

[Thomas]

As a Christian who knows how to think outside the box

As soon as I hear this, I see a box coming along

 

[wil]

We know full well the box...tis a house of cards who's walls and fortifications are crumbling...

there will be a day when it is history and folks will realize oneness, not talk of divisiveness and only read about the box increduously like we do about slavery and whites only water fountains...

 

[taijasi]

So ... how about a link, then, to some sort of Laotian dolphin from the Pleiades?

"Let none ignorant of geometry enter here. ~ Plato​

Jesus was hip to Plato. And he knew the S*N outside of the Cave, too.

Strange, how only some of us believe him!