"The Path"

[Saltmeister]

Obviously, this passage is open to interpretation. I don't think Jesus meant for people literally to trample or walk over his body like a path is trodden. That would be a serious problem for us late-comers; Jesus' physical body has been gone for some time now.

Or for those who see the eucharist as the actual body of Christ, I don't think they are meant to lay down a pathway of eucharist bread and wine to walk on. Nor can one literally enter Jesus' body to get to God. Thus, the whole thing is open to interpretation. To use the pattern of life Jesus set for us as our path would seem the most reasonable interpretation, in my opinion.

I like the idea about not putting the teacher on a pedestal for worship but to use his life and teachings as the way or path. Just worshipping does seem awfully much like the lazy man's way out. Perhaps it is possible for some people to both worship and use Jesus' life and teachings as the way.

All good points here, however (don't you hate that), there is one point that seems to have been ignored. Jesus may have come to blaze the trail and put us on the right path or way, but then He quite clearly stated that He WAS the way. If I recall correctly, it is something like "I am the light and the life and the way..."

Seems to me that He is saying He isn't pointing the way for us to go, He is the way for us to go...

In other words, not "go forth along the path I've pointed out", but rather "come to me", and "no one gets to the Father but through Me"...

Hello, everyone.

Nice thread!!!

Perhaps one point I thought I might put forth, rather like Quahom's, is that I think we tend to put more emphasis on Jesus' teachings than Jesus himself.

I think the whole point of the Christian faith is not the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus himself. A messenger becomes useless once he has delivered his message. A teacher becomes useless once he has taught his students everything. It's not that Jesus would hold anything back from us, but that he's the Messiah. He's special and that's why he's Messiah.

If we think the teachings are more important than the person who teaches them, then it's because we think nobody is special. On the other hand, I think the whole point of Christianity is a Messiah that is special. The teachings themselves are insignificant compared to the Messiah who teaches them. Good teachings come from someone's personality. That must mean that there's something special about Jesus' personality that's more important than his teachings.

But no, this isn't idolatry. God isn't telling us to worship anyone here. Jesus is a beacon.

I think many Christians today have allowed themselves to fall for the idea that no teacher is special, that it's the teachings that matter more, not the teacher himself. As a result, we have lost sight of the whole purpose of Christianity. We no longer know or understand what the Christian faith means and represents. The original purpose is lost to us. We can read the whole Bible from start to finish and not have a single clue where to begin contemplating Christianity's purpose.

However, a Messiah is not just a teacher -- he's a leader -- a spiritual leader. What's his aim? He leads us to God. This might perhaps explain why he calls himself "The Way, the Truth and the Life." There is something about his personality that's more important than his teachings. There is something about his personality, character and attitude that leads us to God. The teachings are just a sign of something greater, not the sum total of his glory.

This perhaps explains why in Christianity he's called "the Son of God" and "Son of Man." Christ is a concept, a symbol, a paradigm that somehow leads us to God. Maybe it's because we can't understand God's character, personality, plans and intentions without first understanding the Messiah himself.

In order words, the concept of Messiah is what allows us to understand God himself. If we don't understand the concept of the Messiah, we can't possibly comprehend and connect with God.

In addition, the Messiah can't be defined. We can't define who he is, though we can explain who he is. The moment you define the Messiah completely, in entirety and totality, he ceases to be Messiah. If we could define the Messiah, he becomes no more than an instrument that we use to manipulate ourselves and God (a great way to have a relationship, eh?). If we were able to define him, we wouldn't need the Messiah. All we would need is our definition of him. We would then be rationalising away our need of a Messiah.

But God doesn't manipulate us and we can't manipulate Him. As soon as we try and grab and take hold of our Christ he vanishes. He disappears. When we try and turn him into something concrete rather than abstract, it destroys our own concept of Christ.

We can explain but not define. I guess that means that we can't rest easy. Life goes on. We will never reach our full potential. Life is a constant process of change and re-alignment. We are constantly moving, shifting and changing direction. Continually moving on to something better. (But that's only if we're perpetually following Christ.) We know where we're going but we'll never get there, but that doesn't mean we'll not making progress. We are making progress. The sky's the limit.

That is, perhaps what Christ is all about, he is the Son of God, the image of the invisible God, but at the same time he's the Son of Man, the image of man when he has reached his point of completion. The Son of God and Son of Man are merged into a single entity, a symbol/concept/paradigm of when God's eternal purpose is fulfilled and when Man reaches his full potential. He's also a symbol of how God becomes our home and we become God's home. We live in God and God lives in us.

 

[wil]

I think the whole point of the Christian faith is not the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus himself.

I read somewhere along the line that a common Christian failing is studying the life of Moses and the history of Jesus.

I wrote the above, I deleted it, I wrote it, I deleted it. I'm not wanting to piss anyone off, simply an observation by another that is fitting it seems to the current discussion.

 

[juantoo3]

'all prayers are answered....sometimes the answer is no.'

Be careful what you pray for...you might get it.

 

[Jeannot]

Chesterton, I think.

Hi, Aletheia. Yes, Chesterton said something like that.

It's also been said that the last Christian died on the cross. (which doesn't quite work, since Jesus wasn't a Christian)

 

[Saltmeister]

Sorry, double post. The CR web site seemed to have gone offline for a while.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

If we think the teachings are more important than the person who teaches them, then it's because we think nobody is special.

I would ask that you not judge me. You are in essence telling me that I don't like people because I find a person's teachings or inner thoughts to convey to me who that person is. I think you misunderstand.

Without the words a person communicates it is not possible to know who that person is. And the words of Jesus are never exhausted. The scriptures are new every morning. Jesus' teachings and life can be an inspiration long after one knows all his teachings off by heart, which I don't.

Besides, I don't believe in the need for a saviour so quite naturally I don't see the person of Jesus the way you do. I don't need a body hanging from a cross in order to feel at peace with God and myself. Nor do I need a resurrection to be sure of my faith. But that does not mean I don't like people. Jesus is special BECAUSE of his teachings.

You don't have to agree with me but I think you should not judge people who believe differently from you. I don't claim to be a Christian, though some people do classify me as such.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I don't see how there could be any other interpretation to a Christian. We follow Christ and His ways, and His examples, and we try to be like Him.

You may be right that there can be no other interpretation (that's not the argument here) but it is an interpretation all the same, just like I said.

 

[Saltmeister]

I would ask that you not judge me. You are in essence telling me that I don't like people because I find a person's teachings or inner thoughts to convey to me who that person is. I think you misunderstand.

No, no. That wasn't directed at you. That was a general response. I was commenting on a very commonly-held notion that the teachings are more important than the teacher himself. It's not that it's necessarily wrong, but just that people rarely explore the possibility of the opposite: that the personality of the teacher might have a special purpose.

Without the words a person communicates it is not possible to know who that person is. And the words of Jesus are never exhausted. The scriptures are new every morning. Jesus' teachings and life can be an inspiration long after one knows all his teachings off by heart, which I don't.

I was not saying Jesus had to be mute, that he should just sit there in front of a crowd of people and not say a word. It's just that life is so boundless that he would never run out of things to say. The idea, I suppose is to understand the role of a leader/teacher with inexhaustible teachings, messages and instructions and how such a person fits into the cosmos. As an example question, how might God be using such a person?

Besides, I don't believe in the need for a saviour so quite naturally I don't see the person of Jesus the way you do. I don't need a body hanging from a cross in order to feel at peace with God and myself. Nor do I need a resurrection to be sure of my faith. But that does not mean I don't like people. Jesus is special BECAUSE of his teachings.

That's ok with me!!!

You don't have to agree with me but I think you should not judge people who believe differently from you. I don't claim to be a Christian, though some people do classify me as such.

I'm not judging anyone. We all come from different walks of life and I suppose we see different things as important, or that the universe should be structured differently. My comments weren't directed at you or anyone in particular. I was thinking that maybe with the idea that teachings are more important than the teacher, we might possibly be missing the point of Christianity?

I hope I didn't make you feel unwelcome here. Sorry if I did. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I wasn't defining Christianity, just explaining what I thought it's purpose was. My view is fairly abstract, as I believe Christianity does have boundaries, but these boundaries aren't the same for everyone. The boundaries are personal.

The Christian world is so divided, not just with so different groups, but so many different views. Many of us are driven by ideology and group think. Many of these groups are exclusivist, or think their views are special. I was thinking, however, that if we were all focused on understanding our own concept of the Messiah, we wouldn't have so many divisions. Many of us put so much emphasis on the teachings rather than the personality of Jesus. I think if we put more emphasis into understanding Jesus' personality that all these divisions would disappear, as we'd be focused on one concept. We would have more unity. The factions and divisions are not disagreements over Jesus' personality, but his teachings. I reckon if Jesus' teachings come from his personality, and we focus on his personality first and foremost, rather than his teachings, we'd have no problems.

But this doesn't just go for Jesus: what about Paul, Peter, James and John? We tend to focus too much on their teachings too. We pay little attention to their personalities. They were our apostles. They're special because they explained who the Messiah was. The problem is our focus on their teachings, not their personalities. Their teachings, once again, come from their personalities. Paul was a man of ideology, John was driven by love, Peter by hope and James by faith.

I'm not saying we should "ditch the teachings" -- but that we'd understand them better if we looked at their personalities first and foremost. The divisions are over the teachings, not the personalities. I guess the reason why the personalities are more important is so that we can work out what Christianity means for us. That's the point: Christian Truth is personal. If we focus on the teachings, "Christian Truth" is impersonal, but if we look at their personalities, "Christian Truth" becomes personal.

Personal Truth is more "true" than impersonal truth as personal truth resonates with our inner being. We can't find personal truth in the teachings except if we look at the personalities that generated them. That's because the personal truths are not part of the teachings themselves but come from the people who possess those personal truths. That's why I was saying that we should look at the personalities of Jesus, Paul, Peter, James and John because the Christian Truth is not found in their teachings but the personal truths that generate them.

I suppose my comments were more about something practical rather than just about the concepts of Christianity. We'd understand Christianity much better if we focused on the right things. My post might not have made you feel so unwelcome if Christians were more focused on the personality of Jesus and his apostles rather than their teachings. There wouldn't be so much bickering and finger-pointing.

The gist of my post was, "how could we approach our Christianity better?" rather than "you're doing it wrong."

 

[RubySera_Martin]

No, no. That wasn't directed at you. That was a general response. I was commenting on a very commonly-held notion that the teachings are more important than the teacher himself. It's not that it's necessarily wrong, but just that people rarely explore the possibility of the opposite: that the personality of the teacher might have a special purpose.

****************

I was thinking that maybe with the idea that teachings are more important than the teacher, we might possibly be missing the point of Christianity?

************
Many of us put so much emphasis on the teachings rather than the personality of Jesus. I think if we put more emphasis into understanding Jesus' personality that all these divisions would disappear, as we'd be focused on one concept. We would have more unity. The factions and divisions are not disagreements over Jesus' personality, but his teachings. I reckon if Jesus' teachings come from his personality, and we focus on his personality first and foremost, rather than his teachings, we'd have no problems.

******************

The gist of my post was, "how could we approach our Christianity better?" rather than "you're doing it wrong."

Thank you for explaining. I think I see your point now. And we're probably not so far apart in our thinking as I thought. Or at least not where it regards the person and his teachings--the teachings are all we have of the person but the person shaped the teachings.

As for your argument that Christianity would be less divided if it built on the person rather than on the teachings, I don't know. I've never thought of it from that perspective. Post 14 in this thread shows another side of the argument i.e what happens when a community builds only on the person (or memory of the person) and disregards the teachings. Perhaps that might be called a personality cult?

 

[taijasi]

Saltmeister (Ruby, et al),

At first, I wanted to argue that my own belief and philosophy is just about 180 degrees from the idea that the person (in this case, the Messiah) matters more than the Teachings themselves. And still, in the end, this is where I will arrive, no matter how I slice it, no matter which or whose perspective I consider.

And yet, rather than even try to build or argue a case, I think I might just skip ahead - and ask, but why, if one does believe in a historical Jesus of Nazareth ... in his life & works ... why would one not accept all that we know and believe about his earthly personality as influencing our reception of (or receptivity toward) his Teachings? Or to put it another way - could we even imagine contemplating the Living Ethics that Christ taught apart from our beliefs about Christ - whether these beliefs are personal & eclectic, or are rooted in & affirmed by a religious Community to which we belong?

So I can acknowledge your point, Saltmeister, in recognizing that Christ Himself embodied and expressed somethinig to & for Humanity which had perhaps not been so well or so perfectly expressed until ~2000 years ago. There are some who focus on the transcendence of Christ's Love, observing that in such a perfect expression, we are witnessing an (literal) Aspect of the Divine (`God' "Himself"!). And imho, this is both valid and accurate!

However, there are others who - while acknowledging that Christ expressed for us the very Heart of the Lord our God - choose to see Him as the Ultimate role model. And therefore, to this type of Christian, it is actually the Teachings which matter, even moreso than the man. Why is that? Because of what they tell us. Because of what Christ told us. And because of what He Himself said we could all become! "Greater things than this, ye shall do - for I go unto the Father."

I don't find that these two types of Christian followers are at odds with one another. Rather, they represent two of perhaps many different ways of finding inspiration in the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth. The one group of followers are swept up into the perfect Love of God as revealed to us and expressed through Christ ... while the other group responds much more so by a philosophical, an intellectual, or even a scientific approach, in their efforts to emulate the Master. Both groups accept Christ as their ultimate Guide, and in a very real sense, He is Messiah to both.

Love and Light,

taijasi

 

[Saltmeister]

Thank you for explaining. I think I see your point now. And we're probably not so far apart in our thinking as I thought. Or at least not where it regards the person and his teachings--the teachings are all we have of the person but the person shaped the teachings.

As for your argument that Christianity would be less divided if it built on the person rather than on the teachings, I don't know. I've never thought of it from that perspective. Post 14 in this thread shows another side of the argument i.e what happens when a community builds only on the person (or memory of the person) and disregards the teachings. Perhaps that might be called a personality cult?

I don't think it would be a cult if it was done properly.

A cult contains elements of mind control. It's where people align themselves to a common goal, the same principles and tenets. People who don't conform are ostracised and disdained.

Devotion to a personality doesn't have to be like that. It could be personal. You do it your way, I do it my way. If people are constantly reminded that it's something personal, that you do it your own way, then it wouldn't be a cult. You're not attached to some chain of command or hierarchy. You make your own baby steps, your own progress. It doesn't compromise or undermine your individuality or personality.

You could have magazines dedicated to it. There are magazines dedicated to Buddhism, mysticism and New Age that discuss the common goals of those religions. but that doesn't mean Buddhism, mysticism and New Age are cults. Common goals don't mean a religion is a cult. Likewise, devotion to a personality wouldn't be a cult. Cults have a group think element. Devotion to a personality could be personal without that group think element to it. Conformity is not enforced. You invited to participate but not urged to do it the way others do.

This sort of reminds me of the medieval practice of the devotion to the saints. These people were condemned as heretics because their devotion to the saints was seen as a kind of idolatry -- that it compromised and undermined the concept of the Messiah/Christ. I'm starting to think that it was more of a devotion to a personality -- that devotion to their deceased friends and relatives was really a devotion to Christ. The Messiah lived in their deceased friends and relatives. They had seen Christ in their deceased relations.

Their friends and relatives were a reminder of the Christ who had died and resurrected long ago. It was not a practice that undermined and compromised Christ, but one that acknowledged that he was a living, active entity, spiritually present in their loved ones. I would think that their practice wasn't heretical to Christianity, but actually reinforced their concept of Christianity. They saw personal truth in their dead relations. Jesus passed on his personal truths to his apostles. The apostles passed on their personal truths to their followers. Christians through the ages were supposed to pass on their personal truths through the generations. These "personal truths," passed on and shared from person to person were perhaps what was supposed to preserve Christianity. The Medieval Catholic Church turned Christianity into an "institutionalised" and "systematised" religion by condemning this practice.

I think maybe we've somehow condemned these people for an otherwise valid and legitimate practice. What Christians needed most was what we foolishly destroyed. We've been taught to despise and reject these people for what they did. I guess it's easy to tear down something we don't understand. When we finally understand it, it's too late. The damage has been done!!! That's why I think all the divisions and factions in today's Christian world would be solved by devotion to a personality rather than teachings.

This is just an idea I came up with while I was writing all this. I might be wrong about its legitimacy, but what if this was the way Christianity was always meant to be practiced/exercised/followed/passed on?

 

[Jeannot]

I don't think it would be a cult if it was done properly.

A cult contains elements of mind control. It's where people align themselves to a common goal, the same principles and tenets. People who don't conform are ostracised and disdained.

Devotion to a personality doesn't have to be like that. It could be personal. You do it your way, I do it my way. If people are constantly reminded that it's something personal, that you do it your own way, then it wouldn't be a cult. You're not attached to some chain of command or hierarchy. You make your own baby steps, your own progress. It doesn't compromise or undermine your individuality or personality.

You could have magazines dedicated to it. There are magazines dedicated to Buddhism, mysticism and New Age that discuss the common goals of those religions. but that doesn't mean Buddhism, mysticism and New Age are cults. Common goals don't mean a religion is a cult. Likewise, devotion to a personality wouldn't be a cult. Cults have a group think element. Devotion to a personality could be personal without that group think element to it. Conformity is not enforced. You invited to participate but not urged to do it the way others do.

This sort of reminds me of the medieval practice of the devotion to the saints. These people were condemned as heretics because their devotion to the saints was seen as a kind of idolatry -- that it compromised and undermined the concept of the Messiah/Christ. I'm starting to think that it was more of a devotion to a personality -- that devotion to their deceased friends and relatives was really a devotion to Christ. The Messiah lived in their deceased friends and relatives. They had seen Christ in their deceased relations.

Their friends and relatives were a reminder of the Christ who had died and resurrected long ago. It was not a practice that undermined and compromised Christ, but one that acknowledged that he was a living, active entity, spiritually present in their loved ones. I would think that their practice wasn't heretical to Christianity, but actually reinforced their concept of Christianity. They saw personal truth in their dead relations. Jesus passed on his personal truths to his apostles. The apostles passed on their personal truths to their followers. Christians through the ages were supposed to pass on their personal truths through the generations. These "personal truths," passed on and shared from person to person were perhaps what was supposed to preserve Christianity. The Medieval Catholic Church turned Christianity into an "institutionalised" and "systematised" religion by condemning this practice.

I think maybe we've somehow condemned these people for an otherwise valid and legitimate practice. What Christians needed most was what we foolishly destroyed. We've been taught to despise and reject these people for what they did. I guess it's easy to tear down something we don't understand. When we finally understand it, it's too late. The damage has been done!!! That's why I think all the divisions and factions in today's Christian world would be solved by devotion to a personality rather than teachings.

This is just an idea I came up with while I was writing all this. I might be wrong about its legitimacy, but what if this was the way Christianity was always meant to be practiced/exercised/followed/passed on?

I think you have a point, but at the same time, I don't think you can separate the person from his teachings.

 

[enton]

Will you keep to the old path that evil men have trod? JOB 22:15 (NIV)

Who asked that kind of question? It was Eliphaz.
Now I am not Job, but let me answer!!! I will keep to the old path and this path is not the path trodden by the evil men. Why? Because Jeremiah 6:16 says so:

This is what the LORD says:"Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Those evil who hear that statement of the LORD will surely reject the old path.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Enton, welcome to CR!