Follow Christ but not Christian

wil said:
I would also love to see a selection of modern scholars from a variety of denominations repeat the seminars expirement. It would fit both scientific method and the tradition of Rabbi arguing nuance of scripture.
Click to expand...
You're assuming they haven't?

No scholar of any repute would repeat the Seminar's methodology, because it's so thoroughly flawed.

Bart Ehrman was very critical of it. Paula Fredriksen – a Jewish scholar of early Christianity at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem likewise dismissed it.

Nevertheless, the Quest for the Historical Jesus continues – just on more scholarly, sober and less sensational criteria.
 
talib-al-kalim said:
Which experiment? Have you described it? I couldn't find it in the thread so far..
Click to expand...
The Jesus Seminar was basically another go at 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' – an attempt to 'extract' the man from the assumed 'mythical' and 'mystical' elements of Scripture. There have been a number of quests, generally broken down into three periods.

The First began slowly. It's usually dated from Hermann Samuel Reimarus (18th century), a Naturalist Philosopher and Deist who believed nothing was inaccessible to human reason. His Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, he denied mysteries and miracles, and regarded Christianity as an invention. It ends with William Wrede (died 1906) who regarded Jesus as a backwater Jewish sectarian, and that Paul, under the influence of Hellenic philosophy was completely separate from his Jewidh background and he invented Christianity.

Albert Schweitzer published his own book in 1906 which presented Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic, but critiqued Reimarus and Wrede for basically projecting their own image of Jesus onto history.

The Second Period happened largely within Germany in the 1950s. It was a reaction against the extreme existential viewpoint of Rudolf Bultmann. It's basic premise was:
An existentialist (inherited from Bultmann, but softened) worldview
A rejection of the supernatural
The “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” are completely different
The gospels are theological, not historical documents
The gospel writers were not eyewitnesses.

This never really gained traction, the world of philosophy had moved on from Bultmann and the German school was behind the curve. New methods were emerging.

The Third Quest began around the 1970's. This was heavily influenced by dialogue with Jewish scholars, the DSS and so forth, and a new and fresh insights into Palestinian Judaism.

Curiously, the Jesus Seminar does not figure in the scholastic record – it's too left field, too contemporary-culture-centric, and its claims are just not taken seriously by the majority of scholars.
 
Regarding the Jesus Seminar and the Beatitudes ...

The Seminar rated the beatitudes as:
red (Jesus said),
pink (He probably said not this but something like this),
gray (He did not say it, but might have thought it),
black (He neither said nor thought it – it's a later interpolation).

Of the four Lucan beatitudes (6:20-21), three are judged to be authentic, if 'paradoxical':

"Congratulations, you poor! God's domain belongs to you." (Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.)
"Congratulations, you hungry! You will have a feast." (Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.)
"Congratulations, you who weep now! You will laugh." (Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.)

The fourth, blessed are those persecuted in Jesus' name, was a grey rating – He did not say it, but might have thought it.

Matthew's version 'spiritualises' them, that being a later interpolation and not what Jesus said, and the four beatitudes in Matthew and not in Luke – 'Blessed are the meek, the merciful, the pure of heart, and the peace-makers – are all fictitious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
talib-al-kalim said:
As the creed is mostly containing disputed issues of belief, it opposes to a teaching that was already proposed by Christian scholars, which is confirmed in the Quran: "factus, non genitus".
Click to expand...
The creed mostly containing? I think that's something of an overstatement ;) .

And to clarify, you'd have to say which teaching, and what scholars.

I only say this, because some Muslims seem to champion Arius as opposed to what emerged as the orthodox position – and yet Arius' theology is effectively polytheistic – he poses two divine substances – whereas Nicaea insists there is One God.

Likewise, the assumption that Monarchianism and Subordinationism are anti-trinitarian is erroneous. They are both Trinitarian doctrines that propose a divine hierarchy, whereas again the orthodox idea is Divine Simplicity and thus equality.

+++

As an aside, as Islam accepts the Virgin Birth – is there any mention of why such a miracle was necessary in the first place?

I understand it's not for us to know the Mind of God, but usually when God does something, there's a reason for it ... ?

I regard miracles as in themselves a lesson, and not simply as gratuitous displays of power.

+++
 
Thomas said:
The creed mostly containing? I think that's something of an overstatement ;) .

And to clarify, you'd have to say which teaching, and what scholars.

I only say this, because some Muslims seem to champion Arius as opposed to what emerged as the orthodox position – and yet Arius' theology is effectively polytheistic – he poses two divine substances – whereas Nicaea insists there is One God..
Click to expand...
No .. that is purely a defence of trinitarian belief.
Forget Arius, and what trinitarians teach about him and "Arians"..
It is designed to put non-trinitarians down.
That is what sects do to each other .. it is satan's discourse.

One must examine non-trinitarian creed with a clean slate .. there is no such thing as "divine substance"..
..there is only G-d .. and He is One. :)
 
Thomas said:
The creed mostly containing? I think that's something of an overstatement ;) .

And to clarify, you'd have to say which teaching, and what scholars.
Click to expand...
To illustrate what I mean. I take the original Roman Catholic creed, as there are variants in English translations.

Credo in unum Deum,​

Ha Shem is One, the Jewish creed Opposing Greek polytheism.

Patrem omnipoténtem,​

denying dualism, declaring Shaitan an independent force.

​

factórem cæli et terræ,​

visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.​

Probably pronounced in the creed against Bardesanean Gnostic who claimed that there is a Demiurgos (handcrafter) who made this world, which is evil.

​

Et in unum Dóminum, Iesum Christum,​

Fílium Dei unigénitum,​

et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sǽcula.​

Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,​

génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri​

per quem ómnia facta sunt.​

The section I discussed above.

​

Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem descéndit de cælis.​

Derived from the Greek over-name Soter, Redeemer, which is derived from his given name Jeshuwa = Jehow shuwa, God redeems (mind the difference!), from where the early Christian dogma derives that Jesus has redeemed us through his sacrifice on the cross, which is at best Pauline teaching, but not really going along with the Message we received from Jesus. I have too little knowledge of the discussion in early Christianity to point out an opposing teaching.

Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto​

ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.​

Opposing Syrian and Judeo-Christian groups who ridiculed this thought, as the Holy Spirit is female in Semitic languages.

Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;​

passus et sepúltus est,​

Against Gnostic sects that fabricated the replacement theory, saying that another one was crucified in his place.

​

et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,​

He raised . Opposing the (remaining) Jews who deny this.

et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.​

Sitting at the right of the father is the privilege of the firstborn. The "firstborn" is a messianic title. Reference cited in Luke 20:42. Possibly not disputed.

Et íterum ventúrus est *** glória,​

iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,​

The statement that Jesus will judge, Mt 25:31

cuius regni non erit finis.​

Sets Jesus as the ruler of the eternal paradise. A teaching that contradicts the vision of John (Revelation 21:3)

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem, qui ex Patre Folique procedit.​

Double origin of the Holy Spirit, from the Father and Jesus. A compromise formula that may suffice both, those who see the Holy Spirit identical to the Rush ha Kodesh, and those who state she appeared first after ascension on Pentecost.

Qui *** Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:​

qui locútus est per prophétas.​

but finally prefers the first option.

Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.​

There's only one church, and this church is holy. There were already autokephal churches at the time this was formulated.

Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum.​

Common Christian (and Baptist Jewish and Samaritan) belief.

Et exspécto resurrectiónem mortuórum,​

et vitam ventúri sǽculi. Amen.​

Common even with Pharisee/Rabbinic Judaism
 
muhammad_isa said:
No .. that is purely a defence of trinitarian belief.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

muhammad_isa said:
Forget Arius, and what trinitarians teach about him and "Arians"..
Click to expand...
Why forget Arius? He's part of the debate.

Might I remind you that you have defended your ideas of what Arius believed ... so the discourse is as much yours as anybody's.

muhammad_isa said:
One must examine non-trinitarian creed with a clean slate .. there is no such thing as "divine substance"..
..there is only G-d .. and He is One. :)
Click to expand...
The One-ness of God is not disputed.

To discuss the idea of 'divine substance' would require a debate covering philosophical and theological terms such as 'being', 'substance', 'essence', 'nature' etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
To discuss the idea of 'divine substance' would require a debate covering philosophical and theological terms such as 'being', 'substance', 'essence', 'nature' etc.
Click to expand...
Mmm .. but what I would like to know, is whether Jesus taught us about "divine substance" ? :)

If not .. perhaps it is satan who is teaching us..
 
muhammad_isa said:
Mmm .. but what I would like to know, is whether Jesus taught us about "divine substance" ? :)

If not .. perhaps it is satan who is teaching us..
Click to expand...
First I would like to point out that we have no idea what Yeshua the Nazarene actually taught since we do not have one word directly written by him. Secondly, what do you mean by "divine substance"?
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
First I would like to point out that we have no idea what Yeshua the Nazarene actually taught since we do not have one word directly written by him. Secondly, what do you mean by "divine substance"?
Click to expand...
That's a vast exaggeration. There are five writings that tell what Yeshua did and taught written within about 60 years after ascension. They are for sure not free from secondary teachings (formulated or reformulated by the disciples, in particular John), legends (infancy and other), exaggerations (wonders) and imprecisions (also because they are translated into Greek, Thomas only available in Coptic), but they all aim to report the teachings of Jesus, and his teachings meant a lot to the respective authors. In spite of the uncertainties mentioned above, it is possible to get a good impression on the actual teachings of Jesus.
 
If you look at the records of Antiquity, we have precious little first hand material of much that we take for given. It's amazing how much actually is reconstructed from citations in other texts.

The fact that Jesus didn't leave a script is really a spurious argument. Same goes for Judaism, same for Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.

Say we did have a first-person account – would we all then believe without question? No ... so therefore it's a bit of a non-issue.

Islam can claim very early texts – but also, from the mouth of the Prophet (pbuh), that a text in the Quran can de read three different ways, all to some degree contradictory, and yet all be correct ... so go figure.
And what text do you rely on, @'Amir Alzzalam?
 
talib-al-kalim said:
That's a vast exaggeration. There are five writings that tell what Yeshua did and taught written within about 60 years after ascension. They are for sure not free from secondary teachings (formulated or reformulated by the disciples, in particular John), legends (infancy and other), exaggerations (wonders) and imprecisions (also because they are translated into Greek, Thomas only available in Coptic), but they all aim to report the teachings of Jesus, and his teachings meant a lot to the respective authors. In spite of the uncertainties mentioned above, it is possible to get a good impression on the actual teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Posthumous writing means nothing only text that was actually authored by Yeshua would count as HIs philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top