Organs in churches run by priests like this have little hope of survival

[MusingMuso]

Hi

Not much time today (as usual) so just a brief comment (again).

The empty tomb is the ultimate sign - the one that Jesus strongly hinted at to the Pharisees, etc.  And to paraphrase St paul, "if Christ has not been raised from the dead we might just as well all pack up and go home - there's no hope left!".

Christianity is the only religion that is based on a relationship with God rather than on rules and religions.  It IS unique (and I believe, right).

every Blessing

Tony

=====================


Dear Tony,

My great problem with any and all religions, is the fact that those who claim one thing or another, are merely saying what they believe to be the truth, rather than what can be proven to be truthful. The important word here is "proven"....that which is beyond all reasonable doubt and could stand up in a court of law.

Now I would be the first to conclude that, as far as evidence is concerned, the account of the resurrection is consistent across the four synoptic gospels, whereas something like the virgin birth is not. However, what evidence is there to suggest that the gospels as we know them, are precisely as first written or that they are contemporary accounts?

The historical/archeological quest is fraught with difficulty...a fragment here and  a fragment there; amounting perhaps to nothing more than circumstantial evidences of uncertain date.

If we consider a contentious issue to-day such a "global warming," scientists and quasi-scientists set out to prove things on the basis of history, real time observation, scientific measurements, computer models of CO2 build-up: even wild speculation and warnings of a doomsday scenario.  No doubt, somewhere along the way there is and will be truth.

One of the great issues during and after the life of Jesus, was that of bodily resurrection, which occupied the minds of the Jews and actually defined the schism between the Pharisees and Sadducees ; the belief of the Pharisees the "Rabbinic" belief in physical resurrection at the end of time. That stated, neither the Pharisees nor Sadducees believed in individual resurrection;  they merely argued about  the resurrection of all mankind.

It would be a big mistake, I think, to assume that the resurrection of Christ was a great stumbling block and a source of schism between Jews and Christians. The separation of the Jewish and Christian faiths probably didn't occur for about 300 years. (311 AD, I think, to be precise). As a further point, there were distinct advantages in being Jewish, for the Jews enjoyed special privileges within the Roman Empire, as a matter of pragmatic co-existence. Thus, it was convenient to be a sect within a sect within an occupying Empire.

The further point is that of Messianic belief in a "deliverer", who would free the people of Israel from their historic shackles and from Roman occupation. It would have been utterly inconceivable and a huge source of contention that a great Messiah could be executed by the Romans, especially one who was regarded as The Son of God.  It would also be contentious to believe that one individual could be resurrected. The same belief is written into the Q'uran, and by implication, within the Christian faith itself....God the all powerful, ever present and indestructible .  Hence, the Prophet Muhammad gets around the problem by suggesting that Jesus, (the great prophet), only appeared to die on the cross, but it was not really so . In other words, he takes the death and resurrection into an altogether more spiritual realm, but not terribly eloquently  I would suggest.

As  I've probably written before, I just do not see the point of an immediate physical resurrection, either as a sign or as a physical entity. In my book, that would demote spirituality into the realm of magic tricks. As a spiritual fact, the resurrection is indisputable, for death made not the slightest difference, if the intention was to kill off a young man who was a thoroughgoing nuiscance and rebel-rouser , who threatened to destabilise what was the status quo of a working relationship between the Jews and the Romans. The rest, as they say, is history, (as well as modernity).

Where I absolutely agree with Tony is the nature of the relationship between the Creator, (or the force of creation), and the individual, because to be Jewish, one had to be part of a tribe with a definite heritage leading back to the House of David. By implication, that leads back to Jewish law and the ten commandments; notwithstanding the fact that some of the kindest people I have ever met are Jewish, who place morality above statute. The Muslim faith is similar, in that keeping true to the laws of God is the way to the eternal. Christianity is exactly that relationship which is open to all, of any faith and none....perhaps even the humanist, the atheist and the agnostic.

I don't have to believe in a physical resurrection to acknowledge that Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God, and equally, I don't feel compelled to regard him divine, either as a foregone conclusion or as an article of faith. Even if Jesus had been nothing more than an idea, the idea  would have a very hallowed place, as indeed it does across many faiths and none.

Best,

MM

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

I think you're missing the point of Jesus' Resurrection.  As Paul says, it's the "first fruits" - and a confirmation for believers of their future.  Many people have investigated the accounts (and don't forget that Jewish historian Josephus also makes mention of Jesus' resurrection - and he's not exactly "pro Christian"!)  Starting with the book "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank morrison (a lawyer who looks at the accounts from the perspective of a lawyer in terms of evidence) and with other later examinations, many have come to the conclusion that the balance of probability (at the very least) is that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a fact.  That's aside from any faith aspects - which is perhaps a more powerful argument anyway.

Then there's the Christian martyrs - many thousands who died to uphold the reality of the resurrection.

The split between Christianity & Judaism is also rather earlier than you suggest - being all but complete by AD70 or so and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.    The Biblical (& extra-Biblical) accounts from the period show that the church rapidly became primarily Gentile (although Messianic Jews were still around).  Why else would the Romans identify & persecute Christians once they realised that Christianity wasn't really an offshoot of Judaism.

As Matthew's gospel in particular shows, the Jews of Jesus' day had largely mis-read the Messianic prophecies - or perhaps had re-interpreted them in the light of daydreaming - after all, the nation was occupied by the Romans.  Jesus' refusal to take on this role was one reason for their condemnation of Him.

For me, the humanity, as well as the deity, of Jesus are equally important, as is the resurrection.  I quoted Paul earlier - that quote is still relevant.

Every Blessing

Tony

[MusingMuso]

Hi

I think you're missing the point of Jesus' Resurrection.  As Paul says, it's the "first fruits" - and a confirmation for believers of their future.  Many people have investigated the accounts (and don't forget that Jewish historian Josephus also makes mention of Jesus' resurrection - and he's not exactly "pro Christian"!)  Starting with the book "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank morrison (a lawyer who looks at the accounts from the perspective of a lawyer in terms of evidence) and with other later examinations, many have come to the conclusion that the balance of probability (at the very least) is that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a fact.  That's aside from any faith aspects - which is perhaps a more powerful argument anyway.

Then there's the Christian martyrs - many thousands who died to uphold the reality of the resurrection.

The split between Christianity & Judaism is also rather earlier than you suggest - being all but complete by AD70 or so and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.    The Biblical (& extra-Biblical) accounts from the period show that the church rapidly became primarily Gentile (although Messianic Jews were still around).  Why else would the Romans identify & persecute Christians once they realised that Christianity wasn't really an offshoot of Judaism.

As Matthew's gospel in particular shows, the Jews of Jesus' day had largely mis-read the Messianic prophecies - or perhaps had re-interpreted them in the light of daydreaming - after all, the nation was occupied by the Romans.  Jesus' refusal to take on this role was one reason for their condemnation of Him.

For me, the humanity, as well as the deity, of Jesus are equally important, as is the resurrection.  I quoted Paul earlier - that quote is still relevant.

Every Blessing

Tony

Dear Tony,

I have a bit of a problem in that I'm no Biblical scholar, and most of my reading goes back a long time and I'm not even certain of the source of the reading material.

I'm not sure that I miss the point of the Resurrection; quite the contrary. I certainly do not believe in physical resurrection of any kind, because it is in the nature of human matter to age, decay and die. The prospect of all the same aches and pains, ailments, bruises, cuts, toothache all over again, is not exactly an unqualified heaven. In any event, one lifetime is enough for me and I do not see the need to linger around for all time. I am reminded of that delightful Stephen Fry moment, when he joined a tour of the Mormon Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, and the guide said, "We believe that we will once again united with our families in heaven."

Stephen Fry replied, "What happens if you're good?"

I think that any re-union with my entire family would not be an unqualified delight, and to some people, it would be anathema.

I feel a bit the same about non-family members, who have come and gone in a wide variety of styles....some delightful, others definitely not...from doves to serpents in fact.

St Paul, of all people, would know that the Greeks certainly did not believe in physical resurrection; the physical body liable to corruption. Unfortunately, I forget where I stumbled across the information, but I seem to recall that St Paul may well have been reviving an earlier belief in resurrection and blending it with Greek philosophy.

As for the "evidence" of the Resurrection, it may be consistent, but is it fact?  I'm afraid it is just not enough to suggest that "the evidence points towards" something by a process of hearsay or circumstantial evidence contained within fragmented documents. The originators are not alive, the documents copies of the originals, and in legal terms, none of it would stand up to expert cross-examination.

There are many fine Jewish scholars who would dispute the "fulfilment of prophecy" and even the exact meaning of what those prophecies actually were in linguistic terms.

Even the separation of the Jewish faith from that of the Christian church is far from cut and dried, or specifically dates from 70AD. In fact, the parting of the ways was both regional and historically staggered, but most scholars would agree that the final break occurred in 311AD. (The Emperor Constantine had good political reason to adopt Christianity as the one true faith).

It seems to me, that the historical quest is, at best, fraught with difficulties, and I wonder if it actually benefits anyone.

Surely, it is the here and now which should matter to us, and unless the church rids itself of being Bible-bound and religion-bound, faith stands little chance of usurping science and secular philosophy.

Best,

MM

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

You're missing the point!  Jesus was not, and is not, "just" a human being. He is also Divine.  There are mixed views on the bodily resurrection of believers in the last days - and it's not something I've had cause to look at in detail - suffice to say, the Bible does talk about new bodies, so I don't really see any great problem with that.

The church cannot rid itself of the Bible - one of the basics of the faith is that the Bible is "the Word of God".  Get rid of that, and there's nothing left apart from a few rules and regulations and a lifestyle, which is far from being what it's all about!  And don't make the mistake of thinking that heaven will be like life here - what little the scripture hints at indicates that it will be rather different.

The bottom line is that faith in Christ is a prerequisite - leading to a relationship with God - not just a religion.

I shall pray for you.

Every Blessing

Tony

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Tony and MM

It's great to see both of you expressing both sides of the same coin, and one that is of primary importance.

I have just had the good fortune to be in an organ room with a library of musical books. Among those is an edition of Dr Charles Burney's "History of Music".

The three volumes are extraordinarily comprehensive. What is specifically of interest is his documentation of Ancient traditions including both the Egyptians and ancient Greeks. As far as the latter is concerned, he details rituals beliefs and music attached to worship of both Apollo and Bacchus, the latter deriving directly from Osiris.

Please forgive vagueness on account of cursory reading scanning vast numbers of pages but of one of these deities, musicians were known as "Sons of" in just the same way as Jesus answers "who are my mother brothers and sisters - those who hear my Father's will and do it". This perhaps gives us a clue too to Jesus' own claim to be the Son of God: it was a common currency of belief and idiom to refer to someone doing the will of (a) God as Son of God.

It is in this way and context that Jesus is Divine that does not require an especial biological or spiritual pseudo magical connexion with God. God - Spirit, the idea, the communication of idea, of will of God - Son of God, the one who obeys the will of God.

Referring to earlier belief practices therefore gives us an indication of how our specific and narrower interpretation of Jesus as Divine may have been misunderstood and lost in translation.

History is a foriegn country. In assessing our scriptural texts and doctrines, it's important to be able to try to enter that foreign place with customs, language, concepts and idioms rather different than our own, however similar they appear.

It's in this way that there are ways, if we look for them, in being able to find common ground between apparently opposing points of view whether within Christianity or beyond.

In a parallel section in the thread "A Place for Exploration" I outlined a possibly radically different interpretation of the otherworld, the afterlife leading heaven and hell. Bearing in mind the Egyptians believed the Sun to die every night and be resurrected every morning, as we do when we apparently sleep but exist in a netherworld of dreams, concepts of an afterlife could well refer to this rather than a period when we are buried in the ground or cremated.

In many ways, the body is the empty tomb of Christ. Our bodies do nothing and achieve nothing without animation, animation of the Construction Force, animation of God. In rising from the tomb, Christ asks us to lift our perspectives and to rise with him above the materialism of earthly concerns and to animate our bodies so that they are more than an unliving place. "What do the birds care for what they will wear tomorrow . . . " and Jesus follows that question with an assurance that all who do God's will will be looked after by God. That seems a little optimistic but when one starts to rationalise god in terms of the force of construction of which we read in Genesis 1 and the way in which, if we choose to make circumstances be the circumstances of God's will, the nodes in the network of like-minded decisions makers doing god's will ensure that one travels along a rope of the net rather than falling through the holes. It's in this way that Christianity is a way of life,

leading to a relationship with God - not just a religion.

as you say.

Best wishes

David P

[MusingMuso]

Hi

You're missing the point!  Jesus was not, and is not, "just" a human being. He is also Divine.  There are mixed views on the bodily resurrection of believers in the last days - and it's not something I've had cause to look at in detail - suffice to say, the Bible does talk about new bodies, so I don't really see any great problem with that.

The church cannot rid itself of the Bible - one of the basics of the faith is that the Bible is "the Word of God".  Get rid of that, and there's nothing left apart from a few rules and regulations and a lifestyle, which is far from being what it's all about!  And don't make the mistake of thinking that heaven will be like life here - what little the scripture hints at indicates that it will be rather different.

The bottom line is that faith in Christ is a prerequisite - leading to a relationship with God - not just a religion.

I shall pray for you.

Every Blessing

Tony

Dear Tony,

I am not missing the point at all, I am merely approaching religion and Christianity from a completely different angle, for the simple reason that the task of theology is to reinvigorate traditional truth in the light of contemporary knowledge and sensibilities. As I stated previously, perhaps the most eloquent comment about Jesus came from the Centurion, (*Truly, this is the Son of God"), for make no mistake, the age in which Jesus lived was full of religious nut-cases who claimed to be the Messiah.  The world is still full of religious nut-cases who claim all sorts of things. The Centurion's comment is eloquent because there was no hidden agenda...no claim to fame...no good, sensible reason why a Roman soldier should demonstrate belief in a "foreign" God. Faith is the ONLY justification for calling anything or anyone "divine." How interesting that the Centurion chose the word "truly" (of truth) rather than say, "The fact is, this is the Son of God."

Heaven is an appalling prospect to me...all your worst fears confirmed.  Everyone knows that God will be wearing Gieves & Hawk, speak only English in a BBC accent, moan about the weather and play cricket. Hell, if it exists, would be far more interesting; full of miscreants, rebels and intellectuals. I think I would be unable to resist setting-up a spiritual  "escape committee" based on the Alpha Course.

"Old Nick's been kicking off again...bless him."

I didn't suggest getting rid of the Bible, but the "word of God" formula is not without its critics. What I meant by "Bible bound" is the belief that the Bible is the answer to everything and that all enlightenment is contained therein. If I may say so, it is also a very protestant idea.  Indeed, one of the foundation-stones of the reformation was the belief that the ordinary man in the pew should have full and open access to the Bible in its entirety. Prior to that, Bibles were very much the preserve of educated clergy, and copies of the Bible were both rare and inaccessible to the majority. In fact, the Bible was considered quite dangerous unless it was read and interpreted correctly, which is actually quite true, for it is not one book but many, all drawn together at a quite late stage in the development of Christianity.

Not only that, the Bible is wholly inadequate in explaining the origins of life on Earth and the cosmology of creation. You may believe that God created it all, (which saves a lot of time and energy), but then you have to define your God accordingly, in the vaguest of terms. The simple fact is, whoever wrote Genesis hadn't a clue, but they made a very good guess at certain things.

The ultimate perversion of religion, is to vainly attempt to make all knowledge, all science and all discovery fit in with pre-conceived belief, and conversely, science frees us for the shackles of ignorance and idle-speculation. If that means that I am a "secular" being, then so be it. At least I am not delusional!

When the church of God stops pretending to have all the right answers, perhaps it can start to ask the right questions. If and when it does, perhaps it will once more connect with people and deserve to be taken seriously.

Are we really to believe that everything comes down to the duality of heaven and hell or good and evil?

I think I prefer...nay....relish a three dimensional God, who occupies all creation and the real world, and which, (rather than who), is at the ground of all being, to quote Paul Tillich.

Thank you for your prayers;  I probably need them.

Best,

MM


PS: Since writing the above, I realise that I didn't say what I actually meant concerning the God of Creation. I am referring to the idea that a man with a white beard created everything with a sweep of his arm, and "saw that it was good." It's the simple answer to a question of staggering complexity; the journey of discovery really in its infancy even now.

[MusingMuso]

Dear Tony and MM

It's great to see both of you expressing both sides of the same coin, and one that is of primary importance.

I have just had the good fortune to be in an organ room with a library of musical books. Among those is an edition of Dr Charles Burney's "History of Music".

The three volumes are extraordinarily comprehensive. What is specifically of interest is his documentation of Ancient traditions including both the Egyptians and ancient Greeks. As far as the latter is concerned, he details rituals beliefs and music attached to worship of both Apollo and Bacchus, the latter deriving directly from Osiris.

Please forgive vagueness on account of cursory reading scanning vast numbers of pages but of one of these deities, musicians were known as "Sons of" in just the same way as Jesus answers "who are my mother brothers and sisters - those who hear my Father's will and do it". This perhaps gives us a clue too to Jesus' own claim to be the Son of God: it was a common currency of belief and idiom to refer to someone doing the will of (a) God as Son of God.

It is in this way and context that Jesus is Divine that does not require an especial biological or spiritual pseudo magical connexion with God. God - Spirit, the idea, the communication of idea, of will of God - Son of God, the one who obeys the will of God.

Referring to earlier belief practices therefore gives us an indication of how our specific and narrower interpretation of Jesus as Divine may have been misunderstood and lost in translation.

History is a foriegn country. In assessing our scriptural texts and doctrines, it's important to be able to try to enter that foreign place with customs, language, concepts and idioms rather different than our own, however similar they appear.

It's in this way that there are ways, if we look for them, in being able to find common ground between apparently opposing points of view whether within Christianity or beyond.

In a parallel section in the thread "A Place for Exploration" I outlined a possibly radically different interpretation of the otherworld, the afterlife leading heaven and hell. Bearing in mind the Egyptians believed the Sun to die every night and be resurrected every morning, as we do when we apparently sleep but exist in a netherworld of dreams, concepts of an afterlife could well refer to this rather than a period when we are buried in the ground or cremated.

In many ways, the body is the empty tomb of Christ. Our bodies do nothing and achieve nothing without animation, animation of the Construction Force, animation of God. In rising from the tomb, Christ asks us to lift our perspectives and to rise with him above the materialism of earthly concerns and to animate our bodies so that they are more than an unliving place. "What do the birds care for what they will wear tomorrow . . . " and Jesus follows that question with an assurance that all who do God's will will be looked after by God. That seems a little optimistic but when one starts to rationalise god in terms of the force of construction of which we read in Genesis 1 and the way in which, if we choose to make circumstances be the circumstances of God's will, the nodes in the network of like-minded decisions makers doing god's will ensure that one travels along a rope of the net rather than falling through the holes. It's in this way that Christianity is a way of life,

leading to a relationship with God - not just a religion.

as you say.

Best wishes

David P

Dear David,

I recently used the "Son of...." symbolism to describe the people of the Netherlands, when I called them "Sons of the soil and the sea."  Their eternal struggle to keep their feet dry is an epic story in itself. The normally resourceful Romans simply dismissed the Netherlands as "the great bog of Europe."

So it is not just who and what we are, but also where we are which defines us. That applies as much spiritually as it does physically, and to be "The Son of God" (the Creator), is to be creative, benign and inclusive. It is precisely because we are potentially "Sons of...."  that the church can be considered the body of Christ....creative, benign and inclusive.....following in the footsteps of  Jesus and continuing forward in the spirit of creativity.

The thing which I find fascinating, is the fact that this spiritual creativity is neither defined by sect, tribe (race) nor specific belief systems. It is open to all and available to all, and requires no specific faith other than a belief that what Jesus said was "of truth." ("Truly, this was the Son of God") Perhaps of even greater significance is the statement, "No-one comes to the father but through me."

Many would claim that in saying this,  Jesus was declaring himself to be God, but actually, the more interesting prospect is that the statement demolished  the prerequisite  belief that one had to be Jewish.
"I am the way, the truth and the life" also pulled the rug on those who would claim exclusive truth and the idea of God having a "preferred religion."

We must never under-estimate the power of these statements, which effectively questioned theocratic religion of any kind, and even questioned the authority of the Romans, and by implication, the very fabric of the symbiotic relationship which existed between the Romans and Jews. Furthermore, it seems that Jesus was regarded as just another rabble-rouser in a land full of them, and as such, he would be target for the authorities, as we know he was.

When Jesus said "Keep the old laws" and "Render unto Caesar ", he was making the distinction between "truth", politics and religion. The "truth" was in establishing the personal relationship with the creator, as Tony rightly pointed out, and quite simply, it was and is revolutionary.

Perhaps the most challenging proposition is to ask a question.

Is it possible to be a Christian humanist, agnostic or atheist....perhaps even a Christian Jew or Muslim....perhaps even a Christian witch...God forbid, even a Christian organist?

Best,

MM