Marcus Borg: Jesus, Uncovering the life Teachings, Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary

I've been slowly reading "Jesus, Uncovering the life Teachings, Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary" and I've been sum what surprised at the strength of Borg's emphasis about the "political-dominance" and how it implicates especially my understanding of the 'Kingdom of God'.

I suppose a crude way of understanding the 'political dominance' may be the Marxist revolution in Russia. The 'Political-dominance would be the equivalent of the ruling class the tzars and the aristocrats vs the peasants.
Jesus foresaw the new Kingdom of one of Justice and Compassion. I suppose that Marx's saw it in terms of some type of economic equality (I'm no expert on Marx so happy to be shown wrong).

Moving on I can see that Jesus 'Kingdom of God' is almost a template or archetype for most revolutions. It would seem to me that historical revolutions attempts at bringing in parts of 'The Kingdom of God', yet they eventually fail.

It makes me wonder even though Jesus spoke of the 'Kingdom of God' here and now. How did he see it running? I don't think he ever envisaged a democracy, communism or any other political system. I don't think it would have been some peace loving type hippy commune either; or maybe he did?

Why did, Jesus, the buddha, Mohammed cross the road, Brian Mclaren

Why did, Jesus, the buddha, Mohammed cross the road, Brian Mclaren

I like Brian Mclaren, but his books to me seem to be a hit and miss affair. His previous book 'A new Christianity' was a cracker. Not the the content isn't any good, rather sometimes he seems to repeat what has written in another book or his blog. (Not that I could pin point this directly)

The other issue may also be where I'm at. I don't need any convincing that we need a better theology on pluralism.

I like the start of the book the whole 'Why did the chicken cross the road' analogy, but from there, content and originality seemed thin on the ground.

2/5

 

 

A Way of life...

Fellow blog Bob Garbett wrote a quote on his blog lately ::

“Buddhism presents itself as a way of life, Christianity presents itself as a system of belief.” (Peter Senge)

Its interesting that Christina has been again examining Churches at Phillip island : They all have a 'What we believe'.

I think for people who are checking things out maybe : 'what we don't belive' would be better. Or If you don't believe in in the virgin birth, or miricles don't exist, or there is really no devil, or God character is closer to that of theism than we think then :: you will never be allowed to lead anything in our church or truely belong.

It is in many way difficult to have the freedom to grow other than by a narrow set of parameters. The whole idea of space to getting things wrong. I find it difficult to believe that 'Bam, someone can automatically give assent to a statment of believe' unless it is just a huge act of faith. Intellectually I find this dishonest in a way.

I suppose this is where I find the statment 'Buddhism presents itself as a way of life' as attactive. Living is emphasised. I think Jesus revealed this in the Gospels, and Paul set the path in narrowing Jesus life into a system beliefs.

It is very much orthopraxis verses othodoxy.

 

Mordechai Rosenbaum

With my continued reading of Elie Wiesel's All rivers run to the sea: Elie writes about his mentor "Shushani". His real name according to Wiesel is "Mordechai Rosenbaum". He is a mystery figure, nobody knows much about him, other than he looks like a tramp. Yet he is brilliant, a genuine polymath from science to mathematics but especially the Talmud; of the many Talmud texts he knows many of them off by heart. Elie believes that part of his brilliance was his ability to read and retain word for word what he read. (Interesting this is reminicent of the character Danny Saunders in Chaim Potock's "The Chosen") Yet Elie never seen Rosenbaum read a book!

Rosenbaum's influence was throughout the Jewish disporia after World War Two. Throughout professions scientists, authours, philosophers many professed to to have been touched in some way by him, according to Wiesel. Yet he never wrote or published anything!

He is an interesting character this Rosenbaum; I cannot help think there is an element of the messianic about him. He is undoubtedly 'mysterious', like I find in Jesus. He never spoke about himself, and actually shuned those who asked. He had a profound effect on those who he mentored, like Jesus and his disciples.

Posted with Blogsy

Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, Ch 5, Jesus the Heart of Reality

Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, Ch 5, Jesus the Heart of Reality (Part 1)

One of Borg central tenants of been a Christian is Jesus. But how he understands Jesus is quite different from a typical Evangelical/Pentecostal understanding. 

Borg makes the claim that Christianity is unique in that it reveals God through a person Jesus. While in other religions this is found in the Torah or Qur'an.

Borg has five reasons why he believes seeing Jesus with a new paradigm matters.

1. The historical-metaphorical approach matters because a Jesus and the Christian life based on literalism are 'unpersuasive' to  many many people.  The historical older paradigm emphasizes the literal and the unbelievable which goes with it.
2. The importance of a Pre-Easter and Post-Easter Jesus. 
1. Pre-Easter is before Jesus Death
2. Post-Easter is after his death or 'what Jesus became' after his death. This is important and something which I hadn't really thought about before. Post-Easter his disciple and ourselves continue to experience Jesus even after his death.
3.  One you get your head around the pre and post Easter Jesus they have a profound effect on how you understand the Gospels.  Some of Borgs conclusions are::
• The Gospels are a continuation of the Post Jesus Tradition witten decades after Jesus actual death.
• Gospels have two stories, the pre Easter Jesus and then other traditions and understanding of the community afterwards.
4. The historical-metaphorical approach matters because it helps with our understanding of Christological language. 
5. The last and fifth reason the historical-metaphorical study of Jesus matter is because in Jesus we get a glimpse of what a full life of God is like. Borg gives us what he thinks with a fair bit of certainty to be what we know of Jesus Pre-Easter. (Much of what Borg writes about the historical Jesus can also be read in Dominic Crossan's book 'The Historical Jesus', both have very similar ideas even if the terms they use are different)
   

• He was a Jesus Mystic, who had 'vivid and typical frequent experiences of God.
• He was a healer. Healers were also found in Jewish history.
• He was a wisdom teacher, 'they teach a way, a path, a life'
• He was a social prophet, much like many of the Old Testement historical figures
• He was a movment initiator, a movment came about because of his life.

Stay tuned for part 2....

Women and Jesus

Yesterdays 26th December's 'The Age' had an interesting piece by Lesle Cannold called 'The Da Vinci Sisters'. In it she explored Jesus relationship with women and how it was counter cultural to a degree. A couple of things of note::

• 'Joshua' was probably Jesus name. Funny I've never heard of this before, I wonder where she got this information from? Interestingly she uses this name throughout the article, I wonder why?
• Quotes from the book of Thomas, always interesting when 'non-canonical' sources are used. But Thomas is a good one, it been one of the older documents around.
• A good point made, Jesus brothers are mentioned but not his sister, out of good probability there would have been at least one. How he related to his sisters would have been of real interest.
• Writing a book which will be published in April, 'The book of Rachael', presumably about Jesus sister'. I think there is a lot to gain by imagining what Jesus would have been like.
• What sources did she use? Crosson? Borg? Albert Schweitzer? As I've come to understand the understanding of the 'Historical Jesus' is of up most importance of what you believe, and in Leslie Cannold's case what you write and want people to take in.

If I remember I'll try to pick up a copy of the book. Great to read a thought provoking article in 'The Age'.

Related articles

• Crossan's absolute certainty in the historicity of Christ Crucified (vridar.wordpress.com)
• Christianity, Jesus- an Islamic Perspective (xeniagreekmuslimah.wordpress.com)
• John Dominic Crossan the Theologian Explaining the Historicity of Jesus (vridar.wordpress.com)

Paul

Image via Wikipedia

One of the characters in the Bible which I struggle with the most is Paul. I've through a long process decided to elevate the 'Gospels' above Paul's writing. If the Gosples are a revelation of Jesus. I see Pauls writing as a reflection on the Gosples for the culture of his day. Sure there are God inspired insights which are God breathed.
Yet Paul claimed and was claimed as an apostle. No, I can't figure that. He was not like the other disciples who lived, breathed and where part of Jesus life. First account witnesses.
I often wonder if Paul's writing would have been different if he was a real life friend of Jesus. Would he have given answers which where more obtuse. Instead of a yes or no it would have been more of a story or parable? What if his relationships with women where documented, instead of writing of what women should wear on their heads? Where there any women who washed his feet with perfume? Or did he defend any women who where about to be stoned poor choices?
Maybe these are unfair questions. Yet I see Jesus as beyond his culture, where Paul was entrenched in his culture yet aspiring to be like Jesus.

Related articles

• Evidence for Christianity (brighthub.com)

Jesus the perfect way

Back in my evangelical days I was always uncomfortable with the position that Jesus was the only way to God. Sure their are some get out clauses for people who never hear the Gospel but ultimately a narrow position.
I found this paragraph in 'The Meaning of Jesus' by Marcus Borg extremely helpful: referring to exclusive passages of scripture::

"...whatever these passages may have meant in their first century contexts, they need not be understood to mean that Jesus (or Christianity) is the only way of salvation. Instead , we might understand them (and similar Christian statements about Jesus being "The only way") as reflecting the joy of having found one's salvation through Jesus, and the intensity of Christian devotion to Jesus. They should be understood as exclamations, not doctrines, and as "the poetry of devotion and the hyperbole of the heart" So decisive need not mean "only"

But the claim does mean that for us, as Christians, Jesus is the decisive revelation of God, and of what a life full of God is like. Indeed I see this as the defining characteristic that makes us Christian rather than something else. If we found the decisive revelation of God in the Torah or Koran, then we would be Jews or Muslims..."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Progressive Christian, Prophetic Evangelical (beliefnet.com)

What would Jesus do?

I'm currently reading 'The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions' by NT Wright and Marcus Borg. Much of the book explores the idea of the 'quest for the historical Jesus'. It is a hugely important question.  Borg appears to look at the historical data with more of a objective perspective; while Wright relys on 'Faith' on many of his interpretations.

One of the things which I've found helpful is the idea that Borg uses, the 'Pre and Post Easter Jesus'. What was Jesus really like pre-Easter, taking into account all of the written data was post the Easter story, most written a long time after his death.

Keeping this in mind one of the questions which entered my head was what would 'Borg's Jesus' vs 'NT Wrights' make of the crimes done in 'Christ's' name, such as, Slavery, the inquisitions in Spain, anti-semitism. Would Jesus have stopped the Crucifixion? Maybe slipped into the obscurity of history?

I suspect if Jesus had been around at any of these horrific times he would have still been crucified....

Jesus and Sexuality

It was with Elton Johns comments about Jesus which got me thinking about this one. As reported in the Herald Sun.

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. "On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving.

Well the truth is we don't know much about Jesus own sexuality. Eltons argument unfortunmately comes from the silence. There is no evidence that he had a sexual relationship with anyone male or female.

I think the closest we get is in Luke 7:38

³⁸And standing behind Him at His feet weeping, she began to wet His feet with [her] tears; and she wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed His feet [affectionately] and anointed them with the ointment (perfume).

I made the brash comment to Christina that this sounded erotic. Where she corrected me and said 'sensual'. As a man I would have found this pretty big turn on. Though it would be interesting if it was also one of Jesus temptations which he resisted. Again an argument from the silence.

I do think that Elton was correct when he said "he understood human problems" Maybe this was why he left without saying anything about the issue of homosexuality...