Confused Teaching? Or Correction? 2

By -
A new comment has gone up on my older post "Confused Teaching? Or Correction?"

Florian says I'm guilty of discriminating against my own religion by rejecting the exclusive claims of Christianity. He "cannot condone" rejecting orthodoxy while continuing to call oneself Christian. It's not up to Florian to "condone" it. Each of us has to take her or his own moral responsibility.

He is correct in stating that other sons and daughters of God do not claim unique divine status, but incorrect in implying that Jesus of Nazareth did. Belief that Jesus is God grew out of unique historical/cultural developments. The man who actually lived in history never made that claim, as I explain extensively in God Is Not Three Guys in the Sky.

This realization is growing among theologians but continues to be suppressed by the hierarchy.

Florian advises against discarding the claim to Christianity's unique status "so casually." I don't know anyone who has. I and those who respond with excitement to my book spent many hours in agonized reflection and prayer before concluding that the exclusive claims are wrong.
Jeanette

Comments

Anonymous said…
Yes, we do have to be morally responsible. But by continuing to call oneself Christian after having rejected it, one is presenting to others a false impression about what it means to be a Christian. No, I do not condone that.

Yes, in the book God is not Three Guys in the Sky, there is extensive argument that Jesus did not claim to be divine, but I did not find it conclusive; and, further, there is not a consensus among scholars on the matter. As for the scholars that disagree with your view, you always dismiss them as "evangelicals" or what-not who are trying to "suppress" the truth, instead of considering their arguments. I, for one, think that it is correct that the historical Jesus did make the claim. Regardless, it is at least correct to say that we have stories of Jesus claiming divine status. That in itself makes Jesus unique among the great religious founders.

There are many other arguments in the book that are presented as conclusive. But this is misleading (and even outrageous) since a lot of those arguments are not accepted by most scholars anyway. To mislead is not to be responsible.

-Florian
February 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Unknown said…
Rejecting Jesus' divine status does not mean you no longer follow him and his teachings. Why does he have to be a god in order for his words to have any value? Why can't he be an extremely wise prophet who's teachings people can still find meaning in, even those who aren't Christian or don't believe in his divinity?

Yes we have stories of Jesus claiming to be God or the Son of God. But in the book of John 10:34 he also said "Ye are all gods" quoting God in Psalms 82:6. Referring to himself as the Son of God, only means that God had sent apart from the rest of humanity to preach God's message. He was a prophet like Moses, Noah, Elijah, ect. They too were Sons of God. However somewhere along the line, the term became twisted to mean something totally different and downright blasphemous in regards to Jesus. And that is why it wasn't Jesus claim that he was divine in a way that sets him a higher rank from the rest of us mere mortals.

Jesus also states in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to destroy the old laws but to fulfill them. Why would he set himself up a second or third distinct person of a Triune God when Jewish Law commands that God is one and does not share his power?

It's because he didn't. You'd find the word Trinity no where in the Bible. It's a man-made concept that came later.
October 7, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goddess in the Bible

By -
Linguistic, archaeological, and scriptural studies reveal that the people of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) worshipped the Goddess. Their literature is suffused with female images of the Holy One. This information came to me primarily from Raphael Patai in The Hebrew Goddess , Asphodel Long in The Absent Mother , and Phyllis Trible in God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality . An exclusively male God-image does not meet the psychological needs of humanity, and—here’s the surprise—it does not fully reflect our Judaeo-Christian heritage. According to Patai, "historical scrutiny" shows that for centuries following the Law of Moses, sole worship of Yahweh by the Hebrews "remained a demand rather than a fact," because the people chosen by Yahweh also worshipped Canaanite deities. In light of the thundering Bible prophets, that did not surprise me. What dumbfounded me was the scope, the popularity, and the legitimacy of Goddess worship as revealed by researchers free of ma...
Read more

Grace & spirituality, Part 2 (Guest Post)

By -
Those of you familiar with my conversation with Jeanette know that I'm an atheist; I do not believe in an anthropomorphic, creative entity called "God." I think that all the universe is natural - there is no "supernatural." But I also think that there is spirit, human spirit being part of that. And to me, spirit is tangible, natural, a function of the universal matter, light. I experience it, I can hear it, see it, feel it. It is a matter of attention and perception. Scientists, even atheist scientists, will someday identify how it works. Carl Jung, many years ago, spoke of observing “synchronicity”. He also posited the notion of the “collective unconscious”. I happen to think that there also exists a "collective sub-conscience," a universal knowing of yin and yang that connects us all to each other and everything else. It is in those places, I believe, that we find spirituality. I don't think that believing these things are molecular and sub-atomi...
Read more

Eckhart's Trinity

By -
The nexus of divinity and humanity lies not in one man but in the inner core of all creation . . . The only-through-Jesus stance violates the Nazarene’s message, but the image of Jesus Christ helps our human minds to recognize the divine-human connection. God Is Not Three Guys in the Sky Language about the Trinity confuses people because meanings of words change. “Hypostatic union” is indeed defined as two natures, divine and human, in one person—Florian was correct about that. And “Trinity” refers to three persons in one God. The center of confusion is the word “person.” We moderns envision persons as individuals, but that’s not what the theologians who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity had in mind. When the word "person" first entered the doctrinal debate, it meant a mask or role—what an actor on the Greek stage put on—and it did not mean a distinct personality or a separate "I" as it does today. Persona may be closer to the original meaning than “person.” T...
Read more