Here's some Easter thoughts from some years back, looking for the name of a documentary about Jewish/Christian mixed couples raising children.
Anyway, the daughter of one such couple decided as a teenager to practice Judaism, noting in part that she was not comfortable with the idea of one person saving us (I might be losing part of the flavor). I get the idea though also am not really interested in the less universal backstory -- there is a certain favoritism involved there, especially the idea that God favored his "chosen people." Islam is amazing in its cultural diversity (from America to the Far East), but it has a bit of that, including the importance of one language to understand the "true" scripture.
No one religion probably is perfect in all respects, but Christianity to me does have a certain universalism. As Ehrman notes in his book, this involved a lot of recontextualizing things over the years. Paul might very well have started it all by determining Jesus' message was for the Gentiles though there is some good evidence that Jesus himself didn't really think so (reference to Gentiles as "dogs" in the gospels, let's say). And, though we only get bits and pieces of it from the early material we have available (e.g., Paul in Romans writes to an already existing Christian community whose originators are unclear -- it probably wasn't Peter either), Paul was not only in using a Jewish apocalyptic preacher to new ends.
Ehrman has talked about his religious path (here we even get an amusing glance [one charm is his sense of humor, even at himself] at teenage Bart trying to convert his Jewish girlfriend!) and explained how he went from fundamentalist to agnostic. He notes in the epilogue that he now thinks "Jesus as a true religious genius with brilliant insights."* Jesus appears to have been a charismatic preacher. It is notable to me, however, that the true growth came from those who recontextualized his teachings, especially if we take Ehrman's arguments about various things. Paul did share his overall apocalyptic philosophy (which Ehrman no longer accepts -- note this to the good professor was Jesus' basic mission statement) but expanded it to the Gentiles and his vision of Jesus as an exalted being (Ehrman thinks Paul saw Jesus as a type of angel at times) apparently (who knows?) was not Jesus' own belief about himself.
Ehrman references the Ebionites, who might even had continued the practices of Jesus' own brother (James), who were in effect Jewish Christians. They followed Jewish law and did not think Jesus was God. They died out. Like Gnosticism growing from the soil of early century Greek thought, there were aspects of Christianity that appealed to people. Constantine himself saw it as a uniting force. And, it takes something of a genius to successfully promote even basic things to success. Still, Jesus' core message of the world coming to an end soon to Ehrman is wrong. Jesus' moralistic message could be used without that. Still, being a good person, helping those in need etc. is a general message as seen by the ancient and modern day prophets.
Ehrman in his brief remarks here doesn't really explain what "brilliant insights" he refers to here. What 'true religious genius" are we talking about here? I think those who followed Jesus, including Paul, showed some of that. Jesus preached for about a year in a limited area. Paul and company covered much more ground over a span of years. They translated a message based in Jewish thought to a mostly non-Jewish audience though Ehrman provides some interesting parallels (e.g., the emperor cult as the one other place we apparently saw a "son of God" being regularly worshiped at this time -- Jesus was in effect the new emperor, just like ultimately the pope filled a similar role there).
I might not believe in it, but usage of Jesus' death and resurrection as a ground for faith and salvation was true genius. His death as a type of sacrifice, down to the need for a physical resurrection might seem outdated in this day in age. Fit the thoughts of the time, including with mystery cults and other myths with comparable ideas. But, Jesus in Ehrman's view did not think he was going to rise from the dead for that purpose though he might have thought he was going to serve a role as a judge in the end of days. Again, it was just a passing reference, so Ehrman might have a better answer if pressed. Still, it makes me think. This need not diminish Christianity itself in various ways, but the type that appeals to me if any is the type that is liberal and aware.
And, ditto Jesus' death -- if you believe the overall idea, I still am a bit unclear why it is supposed to be such a remarkable sacrifice at least in compared to others. Humans for much less than the salvation of the world, and with much less assurance things will go right, suffer and die. This book helps explain just what "God's only Son" means and many should read about it, since the concept is confusing without clarification. After all, are we not all the sons and daughters of God? Finally, I think the ultimate glorification of Jesus as God from the beginning of all time cheapens things. I'm with Joan Osbourne -- what if Jesus was truly one of us? A person cannot be "fully human" and "fully God" at the same time -- being human ultimately involves limitations, doubts, the real possibility (and actual) of doing things wrong, sinning if you like. Ehrman notes how the ultimate official Catholic Church doctrine was "paradoxical." As a historian, he was trying to not provide a value judgment. Hard not to.
"God" like religion itself is an understanding by humans of complex things that ultimately involve what makes us human and how we experience the world. To be fair, the to me convoluted places the doctrines of Jesus took us in the third and fourth centuries probably can -- like gnosticism was seen by modern day experts of the mind like Jung -- help us understand how people of the time dealt with complexities space might not have provided Ehrman enough time to cover. Compare, e.g., the various reasons why gnosticism ultimately failed, even though people like Elaine Pagels find aspects of it appealing. For one thing, it is rather elitist and ultimately filled with convoluted things. Following doctrine and creeds was a more democratic approach. Still, reading some of the convoluted places taken by some of these theories about "one substance" makes the natural law arguments against artificial birth control seem almost sane.
One last thing. Ehrman wrote a book on the basic problem of evil in the world and has noted that it was the basic reason he lost his faith in God. In the book, which I read a few years back, he discussed the various reasons (including basically "who knows"?**) given by the Bible about why there is evil and suffering in the world. The question is major since Jesus was ultimately seen as a savior that addressed the problem though I personally am sorry to say I don't quite see it. Anyway, the reasons were varied and at times clashed. But, that is a charm about the Bible -- it is filled with so much diversity, and its editors have not tried to iron them out. Ehrman in this book even notes "Luke" leaves in verses that seem to contrast with his overall message in part because they reflect old traditions. The gospels, epistles etc. all show this as do believers today.
It is well worth studying and thinking about. And, I'm sorry, I have tried to read the Qu'ran, and maybe I'm missing something in translation or bias from not coming from a Muslim tradition colors my take, but it's much harder to read. Some good stuff there, to be sure. Want to be fair!
---
* Ehrman at one points suggests accounts of Jesus' miracles were largely an outgrowth of changing views of his status after he died, but doesn't dwell on the fact. This is an interesting thought if taken that far, since I gather even those who don't believe Jesus is divine generally accept people at least thought he was an exorcist and healed the sick to some degree. Perhaps, Ehrman just means the breadth of the accounts.
** Some of the more interesting "heretical" thoughts and writings amounted to trying to address this issue such as explaining the evil forces controlling this world by a form of divine dualism.
Some wondrously note how God sent his only Son to save us from our sins, but like a little child pointing to the emperor, I still wonder ... um, where did these sins come from? Why were the evil forces out in the world if God is so powerful and good? Seems like Jesus basically cleaned up a mess you know who was negilent in allowing to occur. Others, of course, can explain why I'm so off base. The gnostic philosophy has something going for it though all those emanations and such start to get a bit convoluted.
Anyway, the daughter of one such couple decided as a teenager to practice Judaism, noting in part that she was not comfortable with the idea of one person saving us (I might be losing part of the flavor). I get the idea though also am not really interested in the less universal backstory -- there is a certain favoritism involved there, especially the idea that God favored his "chosen people." Islam is amazing in its cultural diversity (from America to the Far East), but it has a bit of that, including the importance of one language to understand the "true" scripture.
No one religion probably is perfect in all respects, but Christianity to me does have a certain universalism. As Ehrman notes in his book, this involved a lot of recontextualizing things over the years. Paul might very well have started it all by determining Jesus' message was for the Gentiles though there is some good evidence that Jesus himself didn't really think so (reference to Gentiles as "dogs" in the gospels, let's say). And, though we only get bits and pieces of it from the early material we have available (e.g., Paul in Romans writes to an already existing Christian community whose originators are unclear -- it probably wasn't Peter either), Paul was not only in using a Jewish apocalyptic preacher to new ends.
Ehrman has talked about his religious path (here we even get an amusing glance [one charm is his sense of humor, even at himself] at teenage Bart trying to convert his Jewish girlfriend!) and explained how he went from fundamentalist to agnostic. He notes in the epilogue that he now thinks "Jesus as a true religious genius with brilliant insights."* Jesus appears to have been a charismatic preacher. It is notable to me, however, that the true growth came from those who recontextualized his teachings, especially if we take Ehrman's arguments about various things. Paul did share his overall apocalyptic philosophy (which Ehrman no longer accepts -- note this to the good professor was Jesus' basic mission statement) but expanded it to the Gentiles and his vision of Jesus as an exalted being (Ehrman thinks Paul saw Jesus as a type of angel at times) apparently (who knows?) was not Jesus' own belief about himself.
Ehrman references the Ebionites, who might even had continued the practices of Jesus' own brother (James), who were in effect Jewish Christians. They followed Jewish law and did not think Jesus was God. They died out. Like Gnosticism growing from the soil of early century Greek thought, there were aspects of Christianity that appealed to people. Constantine himself saw it as a uniting force. And, it takes something of a genius to successfully promote even basic things to success. Still, Jesus' core message of the world coming to an end soon to Ehrman is wrong. Jesus' moralistic message could be used without that. Still, being a good person, helping those in need etc. is a general message as seen by the ancient and modern day prophets.
Ehrman in his brief remarks here doesn't really explain what "brilliant insights" he refers to here. What 'true religious genius" are we talking about here? I think those who followed Jesus, including Paul, showed some of that. Jesus preached for about a year in a limited area. Paul and company covered much more ground over a span of years. They translated a message based in Jewish thought to a mostly non-Jewish audience though Ehrman provides some interesting parallels (e.g., the emperor cult as the one other place we apparently saw a "son of God" being regularly worshiped at this time -- Jesus was in effect the new emperor, just like ultimately the pope filled a similar role there).
I might not believe in it, but usage of Jesus' death and resurrection as a ground for faith and salvation was true genius. His death as a type of sacrifice, down to the need for a physical resurrection might seem outdated in this day in age. Fit the thoughts of the time, including with mystery cults and other myths with comparable ideas. But, Jesus in Ehrman's view did not think he was going to rise from the dead for that purpose though he might have thought he was going to serve a role as a judge in the end of days. Again, it was just a passing reference, so Ehrman might have a better answer if pressed. Still, it makes me think. This need not diminish Christianity itself in various ways, but the type that appeals to me if any is the type that is liberal and aware.
And, ditto Jesus' death -- if you believe the overall idea, I still am a bit unclear why it is supposed to be such a remarkable sacrifice at least in compared to others. Humans for much less than the salvation of the world, and with much less assurance things will go right, suffer and die. This book helps explain just what "God's only Son" means and many should read about it, since the concept is confusing without clarification. After all, are we not all the sons and daughters of God? Finally, I think the ultimate glorification of Jesus as God from the beginning of all time cheapens things. I'm with Joan Osbourne -- what if Jesus was truly one of us? A person cannot be "fully human" and "fully God" at the same time -- being human ultimately involves limitations, doubts, the real possibility (and actual) of doing things wrong, sinning if you like. Ehrman notes how the ultimate official Catholic Church doctrine was "paradoxical." As a historian, he was trying to not provide a value judgment. Hard not to.
"God" like religion itself is an understanding by humans of complex things that ultimately involve what makes us human and how we experience the world. To be fair, the to me convoluted places the doctrines of Jesus took us in the third and fourth centuries probably can -- like gnosticism was seen by modern day experts of the mind like Jung -- help us understand how people of the time dealt with complexities space might not have provided Ehrman enough time to cover. Compare, e.g., the various reasons why gnosticism ultimately failed, even though people like Elaine Pagels find aspects of it appealing. For one thing, it is rather elitist and ultimately filled with convoluted things. Following doctrine and creeds was a more democratic approach. Still, reading some of the convoluted places taken by some of these theories about "one substance" makes the natural law arguments against artificial birth control seem almost sane.
One last thing. Ehrman wrote a book on the basic problem of evil in the world and has noted that it was the basic reason he lost his faith in God. In the book, which I read a few years back, he discussed the various reasons (including basically "who knows"?**) given by the Bible about why there is evil and suffering in the world. The question is major since Jesus was ultimately seen as a savior that addressed the problem though I personally am sorry to say I don't quite see it. Anyway, the reasons were varied and at times clashed. But, that is a charm about the Bible -- it is filled with so much diversity, and its editors have not tried to iron them out. Ehrman in this book even notes "Luke" leaves in verses that seem to contrast with his overall message in part because they reflect old traditions. The gospels, epistles etc. all show this as do believers today.
It is well worth studying and thinking about. And, I'm sorry, I have tried to read the Qu'ran, and maybe I'm missing something in translation or bias from not coming from a Muslim tradition colors my take, but it's much harder to read. Some good stuff there, to be sure. Want to be fair!
---
* Ehrman at one points suggests accounts of Jesus' miracles were largely an outgrowth of changing views of his status after he died, but doesn't dwell on the fact. This is an interesting thought if taken that far, since I gather even those who don't believe Jesus is divine generally accept people at least thought he was an exorcist and healed the sick to some degree. Perhaps, Ehrman just means the breadth of the accounts.
** Some of the more interesting "heretical" thoughts and writings amounted to trying to address this issue such as explaining the evil forces controlling this world by a form of divine dualism.
Some wondrously note how God sent his only Son to save us from our sins, but like a little child pointing to the emperor, I still wonder ... um, where did these sins come from? Why were the evil forces out in the world if God is so powerful and good? Seems like Jesus basically cleaned up a mess you know who was negilent in allowing to occur. Others, of course, can explain why I'm so off base. The gnostic philosophy has something going for it though all those emanations and such start to get a bit convoluted.
2 comments:
Part of the difficulty with Ehrman's view of Jesus is the fact that he spends quite a lot of time establishing that what Jesus actually said and stood for is difficult to discern in light of the various agenda that inform the gospels and other New Testament books. It's a bit like the problems presented by the "Jesus Project" in which a variety of biblical scholars attempt to decide what are the actual legitimate quotes of Jesus. Where all such folk (as well as the rest of us) tend to end up is affirming those items in the biblical sources that resonate for us, personally. I don't fault that method and tend to follow it myself but can hardly claim any scholarly authenticity for where they (and I) end up.
I have the "Jesus Project" gospels (wonders of Amazon discounts) & they really do try to do too much, if anything in the direction of doubt. Ehrman in his books for the general public seems to try to do a bit too much. But, up to a point, I don't think he goes too far to lack total scholarly authenticity. Agnosticism is a good philosophy to have in the field probably.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!