CAFE LITE

There was a thread awhile ago about how we make God out of what we are not what God is.  I firmly believe that, I think that is why I tend to be kind of wishy washy in trying to pin Him down.  Anything that I have to state or believe true about God and Jesus only says things about me, not him, God and therefore Jesus is unknowable.  Add to that the Gospels were written long after his death out of memories and storys passed from person to person, add to that the spin of each author, all I can really hope for is glimpses of the divine.

I do try to take in the whole of the gospel but I can't help myself, some passages speak to me in ways that others don't.  I imagine that others are the same.  I guess that the best I can hope for is to recognize that in myself so that I can see that I'm doing it and try to correct for it.

Hi somegirl, really good point about making a God in our own image, or should we say making God the image of our needs. Jesus, on the other hand, I don't see as God and therefore I see him differently. As for the verbal transmission of the stories about Jesus, I believe you are also correct about that, but we shouldn't think that the "storytelling" of a bygone culture, is the same as our type of storytelling today. Storytelling cultures have safeguards to keep the story on the straight and narrow. If you are interested in an article on this I could locate one for you. Of course that doesn't cover the malevolent changes that might have taken place over the years, but that is a totally different subject, and these usually, are easier to detect. I think that Jesus became great by  struggling to die to his own will, and follow God's. And I believe that this is the path that he reccomends for us, and I would think that this is the only way to glimpse who/what God really is, i.e- no shortcuts. Maybe this the heart of what it means to be "born again"?

Now this is a topic I can connect with, and thanks for bringing in the idea of storytelling, onewman.

I agree with Somegirl that the story of Jesus is one that seems to invite projection, even with a careful, contextual reading of the Gospels.  Since I wasn't really raised as a Christian, my interpretations occurred later when I was more critical.  What I saw was Someone who wouldn't recognize the "religion" that emerged from His authentic teachings.

This is a subject I could spend a lot of time on, so I'll try not to ramble on too much, and I'll return to it later as well.  

----------------------------------------------------------

Much of the Jesus story is an overlayering of many stories.  If people are looking for veracity, they won't find it.  The story was built on other stories and myths of the time, and was recorded the same way that other stories were.  Our contemporary sensibilities couldn't begin to understand the "pop culture" of the times --  the context in which the gospels were written and the intent of the writers.  Much of the meaning of the heavy symbolism is lost to us. 

What I do know about it is that Hagiography was the popular way to present a remarkable holy person in the early church. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography

The hard facts weren't  particularily valued or considered essential -- the story was what was important at a time when entertainment and edification was the goal in a world that couldn't read, and only a few could write.  There was the agenda of conversion and persuasion.  People looked for miracles -- signs and wonders --  to identify a figure as holy, and they are plentiful in the Jesus story.

Those of my generation might see a similar treatment in the life of Elvis Presley.  Although he was a fine entertainer, he wasn't a hero or even a remarkably good person -- and he died an ignoble death from an overdose of pills --  but his personality and visibility invited projection of these qualities. and the rest is history.  As time went by, his legend grew to unprecedented proportions.  I figure it won't be too long before miracles are attributed to him, and people will be wearing microscopic pieces of the "true guitar" as amulets.

Having said all this, I believe the teachings of the Christ -- the Way -- was and is a most radical, timeless, and resonant movement, and a Divine story.  It points to "How Do I Live a Good Life" in a profoundly truthful way.

Was the "Christ" Jesus a real person or a zeitgiest?

More later.

Sorry for the long, self-absorbed and pedantic post.  It's just that I'm really enjoying this topic and am perhaps a bit too excited.  I"m hoping for actual diiscussion, all evidence to the contrary and will zip it up for awhile.

Who is the real Jesus to me?

He is the historical Jesus - in Marcus Borg terminology - the pre-Easter figure.

In my imagination I see me living in his time -walking over ancient land - following at a distance. His voice would beckon me onwards, no matter how weary I became.

I would sit on a hillside, transfixed, as he spoke of community and God's Kingdom. I would feel resentment towards the Roman invaders and the inflexibility of my Jewish religious leaders - and sense that this man truly understood faith.

I would be a Mary rather than a Martha - preferring just to sit and listen rather than busy myself getting the food and wine ready. (I've had the thought that Mary and Martha are metaphors for all women - we tend to be mainly one or the other!)

And, at the end of the day, I'd like to be the one to wash his feet -it seems both a religious ritual and a sensuous act.

To me, Jesus is a metaphor for all human life.

He was born, lived a brief life and then died. Well, that's the bare bones.

But like us, he had moments of happiness, moments of hopes and dreams, moments of suffering, moments of doubt, and yes, moments of love.

He also understood that there was more than existed within his own ego - this "more" he called God.

If I could be a time traveller, Jesus would be the man I'd most like to meet. There's so much I'd like to ask him - and I feel he'd have the answers.

Wow. What a great thread. I appreciate all your thoughts. My views are similar. I am not sure where to start. I guess one thing that shapes my view is the idea that the Gospels were not written for some time after the resurrection. I think of someone like Gandhi and wonder what would have happened if stories about him had not been written down until now. Would he have been elevated to a Messiah? Would there be people who had set up communities to worship him? Would there be people using him as an example of how to live a life and how to worship God? For me, it does not matter whether there is history to back up the "Jesus story". I think the message is more important. I do not think he is to be worshipped as a god. He shows us how to live and how to follow god.

I find the notion of a "chosen people" to be quite offensive. Who are we to determine if we are chosen or not? What gives us the right to decide that just because we have accepted a personal saviour, we will go to heaven or have eternal life.......I know there is biblical back up to that, but really, who are we to decide. That seem to me to be extremely arrogant. I read a book by Thich Nhat Hanh called Living Buddha, Living Christ (or something like that). I liked his view that Jesus is not to be worshipped per se. He is a model for us and we are called to be more Christ-like.  For me, that means recognizing that we are all interconnected, and that all life has value. How we treat the least of these is important. We also need to fight or challenge oppression. Etc.

I very much agree with the belief that Jesus "is a model for us and we called to be more Christ-like".  Jesus is, for me, the way to God because as I try to follow in his footsteps, I find myself more loving, more forgiving, stronger in the face of injustice, more fully open to the presence of the Spirit within and around me.  As a disciple of Christ, I am called to live my faith in ways that aren't always easy, but which bring me closer to God.  But I do not believe Jesus is the only way - there are many paths to God, Christianity is but one of them.

I believe the stories of Jesus contain much truth and wisdom.  In order to get to the deeper layers of meaning, I think it helps to have some understanding of the historical context in which they were written.  Not because I read the gospel in any literal sense, simply because knowing something of their history uncovers messages and metaphors I might have otherwise missed.  A phrase takes on a whole new meaning in consideration of what the language meant at the time, or for whom it was written.

An Anglican priest friend and I were discussing the idea of Jesus as Son of God just last night.  I said I am surprised that people in my UCC church still believe that is true in a literal sense.  He said "it depends on what is meant by literal.  If you just look at it this way: Jesus is of the same essence as God.  God is Love, Jesus is Love.  It is literally true."  An interesting and insightful comment, I thought.

Wow great comments, and not just because I agree with almost everything :)

I think I need to be a little more specific here about what I meant by the "real" Jesus. Now I know that there is debate about whether or not Jesus as a real person even existed, although I believe that he did, I don't see that to be the point, on the other hand I see the new testament as being for the most part, a congruent picture of the life and teachings of Jesus. I know that there has been much scholarly debate about the trustworthiness of this or that text, and so on, and I am fine with that too. It is simply sad for me to see that the Christian religious tradition has built up an image of who and what Jesus is and claims the biblical Jesus to be one and the same with their construct of him. I think their construct is way off base, and that it was built to strengthen the roman power system. It doesn't resemble the Jesus of the Gospels to me, nor the Jesus of Paul or other new testament writers. I don't think that the things that Jesus said nor the things said about him in the NT differ significantly from one another, but I do think that the new testament teachings have been distorted greatly by later tradition. When I hear someone state that we must believe in the deity of Jesus, because he, in no uncertain terms, claimed to be God, I wonder what New Testament it is that such people have been reading. Not only do I see a lack of written proof texts for such an idea, but also I can't even imagine the biblical Jesus being so arrogant and egotistical. The Jesus of Christian tradition has come to resemble a roman overlord demanding submission to his divine right to rule....I hate that!

Something that I read the other day in a Paul Tillich's "Dynamics of Faith" really struck a chord with me, he quoted the first half of John 12:44,

"He who believes in me, believes not in me".....

Wow! exactley! This is the paradoxical greatness of Jesus, his greatness is his lack of greatness. Kind of like when that guy came to Jesus and said "Good teacher what good thing should I do to get eternal life?" and Jesus replies with, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Is Jesus good? Yes, but only because he emphatically denies praises and distinguished titles. Is this not the Jesus of the bible? 

Yes.  It's the teachings vs the teacher.  The way Christianity has evolved (or devolved) puts emphasis on the external description of the Teacher -- the biography.  That just runs counter to what I believe the teachings were actually saying about how we deal with the ego.

I'm not saying that the story isn't a powerful metaphor for those of us who have internalized it through cultural transmission.   I have, however, recently been aware of how scary and repugnant the story appears to those who aren't steeped in Christian tradition.  The cruxifiction, if you step back is a grisly focus for a faith.  If it happened, it was simply a cruel routine execution for a rebel Jew.   The story was distorted to prove that Jesus was the prophetic Messiah and this was worked on a lot over the centuries.  It was necessary to provide OT provenance and fulfillment of prophecy.  This is what I meant when I brought up the subject of hagiography.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"  (Sheldon B. Kopp).  As weird as this sounds, it conveys that same idea of not mistaking the teacher for the teachings.

The Jesus I love and revere lives in the spaces between.  Those resonant ideas that can't be destroyed by rhetorical tactics.  'To love God, love your neighbour as yourself".   Who is your neighbour?  Everyone.  That alone can be a lifelong practice.

BTW, Oui has started a thread called "The Historical Jesus" in R&F, and embedded a fascinating video that I've started to watch.