Jesus Freaks

Ciceronianus

I don't have fond memories of the Jesus Freaks of the 1960s and 1970s. It seemed impossible to avoid them as they were determined to confront you, and though their goofiness was apparent once you were within, say, 10-20 feet of them, at which point they had begun asking you and telling you about Jesus, they weren't obviously appalling at a distance. They weren't physically distinctive as were the Hare Krishna's, for example. You had plenty of time to turn and run before you were noticed and possibly set upon by the Hare Krishnas, but the Jesus Freaks looked much like any other young, predominantly white, ambiguously hippie-type person you would find lurking in the streets. They didn't come to your home bearing copies of The Watchtower, but they were at least as annoying as those who did and you didn't have recourse to a door you could close on them.

I associate them with the debasement of the comfortingly ornate ritual and droning, sleep-inducing Latin of the mass as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church in the days of my youth. Suddenly, it was all gone. One was standing up, sitting down, kneeling, clasping hands, and called upon to sing as guitars were played and love of a very non-physical kind was lauded along with Jesus; priests raised chalices made of artillery shells, supposedly as an anti-war gesture, and one's participation in the--what was it? a celebration?--was in effect demanded in much the same manner as your parents demanded that you say hello to and kiss distant relatives at family gatherings.

Let's admit it. There's something about Jesus. Something about him which makes people--certain people at least--do things, think things not normally done in what I'll wistfully call "polite society." By that I mean a society in which people for the most part mind their own business, don't make spectacles of themselves, and leave other people alone. They don't ecstatically heal others or claimed to be healed themselves, don't do handsprings down the aisle at church or at meetings, don't hector other people walking down the street or knock on their doors to ask them if they've been saved or accept Jesus as their savior. They don't travel to distant lands to convert the heathens.

There's something about Jesus which makes people FREAKS.

This is the case even with philosophers, or kinds of philosophers. I'm now reading (or trying to read) something called Panentheism--the Other God of the Philosophers by John Cooper. Mr. Cooper is a "philosopher theologian" at the forebodingly called Calvin Theological Seminary. It's an occasionally interesting summary of the history of what he believes to be thinkers who were panentheists or contributed to panentheism, starting with Plato, moving through the various Neo-Platonists, glancing at the Stoics, touching upon Bruno and Duns Scotus, scanning Renaissance thinkers, moving along to Whitehead and Hartshorne. He then criticizes panentheism, because...Jesus. Somehow, Jesus and classical theism is better, truer to scripture, includes Jesus, and can be just as neo-platonic and philosophical and cosmos and evolution respecting as one might want.

I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious.

My guess is they struggle to, and do whatever may be required to, incorporate Jesus into their explanation of the universe and God, despite what evidence we have of him, which doesn't amount to much. The rabbi, the wonder-worker must be transformed into something more worthy of philosophical thought and speculation; more of a universal God. This has probably been going on since the early Church when the Founders sought to merge pagan philosophy and Christianity.

Does it work? I don't think so. But it may make these theologians Jesus Freaks of a different kind, worshiping an abnormal, unusual, unexpected Jesus. Or perhaps they make a freak of Jesus.

frank

↪Ciceronianus

You clearly need to eat more special brownies.

Deleted User

Let's admit it. There's something about Jesus. Something about him which makes people--certain people at least--do things, think things not normally done in what I'll wistfully call "polite society." By that I mean a society in which people for the most part mind their own business, don't make spectacles of themselves, and leave other people alone. They don't ecstatically heal others or claimed to be healed themselves, don't do handsprings down the aisle at church or at meetings, don't hector other people walking down the street or knock on their doors to ask them if they've been saved or accept Jesus as their savior. They don't travel to distant lands to convert the heathens. — Ciceronianus

Oh, boy, have you touched a good one.

So, what you'll notice about Jesus, just from a cognitive level in the sense that the brain desires conceptual frameworks with which to use as informational guides to action and behavior - which, is what concepts are actually for, mind you, and why they generate from consciousness - is that he checks all boxes normally reserved for individual exercise of executive function and exploration. What do I mean? We have in Jesus 1. a conceptual framework provided for us, no effort. 2. absolution of any failure to uphold the tenets of the frame work. 3. an ideal embodiment of the framework that we can constantly use to induce more action and thought both on the part of ourselves and others. 4. the open invitation of universal acceptance within the framework. 5. threats of punishment for those who reject the framework. 6. rewards for accepting the framework. 7. justifications for all bad phenomena (humans) and good phenomena (God). and 8. a definitive low-resolution explanation of all things in the universe. Or, stated another way:

1. Moral code without effort.
2. Forgiveness/Love for breaking the moral code.
3. A Hero myth.
4. Universal Human Unity.
5. Retribution.
6. Return On Investment
7. Knowledge/Righteousness
8. Coherence

All of these attributes map to the reward structures of the brain that are reinforced by strong emotion and experiential data. You can find more about that in neuroeconomic research. As far as I am aware, Christianity is the first and only religion to achieve this outline in practice.

This is the case even with philosophers, or kinds of philosophers. I'm now reading (or trying to read) something called Panentheism--the Other God of the Philosophers by John Cooper. Mr. Cooper is a "philosopher theologian" at the forebodingly called Calvin Theological Seminary. It's an occasionally interesting summary of the history of what he believes to be thinkers who were panentheists or contributed to panentheism, starting with Plato, moving through the various Neo-Platonists, glancing at the Stoics, touching upon Bruno and Duns Scotus, scanning Renaissance thinkers, moving along to Whitehead and Hartshorne. He then criticizes panentheism, because...Jesus. Somehow, Jesus and classical theism is better, truer to scripture, includes Jesus, and can be just as neo-platonic and philosophical and osmos and evolution respecting as one might want. — Ciceronianus

Since the establishment of Christianity as Roman religion, it has informed every single intellectual pursuit thereafter until the past 100 years. Period. From the time that Augustine revived the Greek philosophical tradition onward, philosophy has been plagued by the smokescreen of Christianity. Kant, Newton, Kirekegaard, Descartes, Voltaire, Marx, Hegel, Engels, Nietszche, Hume, Mills, Bruno, Spinoza, all of them, have frameworks inspired heavily by Christianity, its tenets, or its claims, even the athiests. All except one. I'll let you take a crack at guessing that one, if you feel like having some fun.

My guess is they struggle to, and do whatever may be required to, incorporate Jesus into their explanation of the universe and God, despite what evidence we have of him, which doesn't amount to much. The rabbi, the wonder-worker must be transformed into something more worthy of philosophical thought and speculation; more of a universal God. This has probably been going on since the early Church when the Founders sought to merge pagan philosophy and Christianity. — Ciceronianus

You fuckin bet it has. What has happened as a result is that science revealed no God, confused the human race beyond any possible reckoning, and left its moral code to inform any remaining stragglers. As a result, endless war, genocide, domination, self-deprecation, and longing for a love that can never be fulfilled. We will never recover from this...

Or, perhaps they make a freak of Jesus. — Ciceronianus

That's more like it. Say what you want about the religion in his stead, but if he existed, he was one badass guy. Imagine looking a Roman govenor in his face, at the heigth of Roman power, and saying " You've only what power I give you." There's a reason he's a Hero in this mythology.

Ciceronianus

You clearly need to eat more special brownies. — frank

I dunno. I ate all those special hosts and they never did me any good. Brownies would be tastier, though.

frank

↪Ciceronianus

Gummy bears are also popular.

universeness

The number of highly qualified people in the field of theology, biblical study etc who now say there never was a historical Jesus, continue's to grow and grow.
Prof Bart Ehrman, Dr Robert Price, Dr Richard Carrier, Dr Robert Eisenman, Dr Rod Blackhirst, Dr J Harrold Ellens, Dr Jan Koster and on and on it goes.
Books like Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill , Creating Christ by James Valliant and C. W. Fahy contain a lot of quite convincing evidence (in my opinion) to confirm that Jesus and all the people around him are made up fables, as are the gospels.

Ciceronianus

Gummy bears are also popular. — frank

Bad for the teeth, though.

frank

↪Ciceronianus

True.

universeness

Correction on Prof Bart Ehrman, I don't think he has actually stated he does not think there was no historical Jesus yet but he has stated he no longer believes in god. This after being a highly educated theist for most of his life.

Ciceronianus

Since the establishment of Christianity as Roman religion, it has informed every single intellectual pursuit thereafter until the past 100 years. — Garrett Travers

It's remarkable, no doubt about it. What it's "achieved" is amazing. It's success is in part, I think, due to its tendency to assimilate so well. It assimilated the Roman Imperial State, much of pagan philosophy, much of pagan worship (through the cult of the saints and otherwise). It's assimilating still.

Deleted User

It's remarkable, no doubt about it. What it's "achieved" is amazing. It's success is in part, I think, due to its tendency to assimilate so well. — Ciceronianus

Yes, it served as the final point of Universal Unity the Western Roman government would ever attempt, with a good deal of success. But, the wave was not something that could stopped. Oddly enough, when the Western Empire fell, all that was left as far as culture was concerned for the tribes to build from was, you guessed it, Christianity. Thus, the entire Middles Ages were built around that, and by extension every society, economic model, scientific culture, educational institution, etc. thereafter.

Hanover

I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious. — Ciceronianus

There are at least two ways to interpret Scripture. (1) The traditional way of the theists or (2) the contextualized way of the university professor or modern biblical scholar.

The traditional method makes certain assumptions:

1. The texts are cryptic and symbolic
2. The texts are prophetic and homiletic
3. The texts are consistent
4. The texts are divinely inspired/given

All of this is from Kugel's "How to Read the Bible."

https://jergames.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-assumptions-created-bible-lecture.html

So, the reason a traditional theistic reader obtains such unusual results from scripture (whether it be through the midrashim of the Jew or the exegesis of the Christian) is because their fundamental assumptions vary greatly from your own.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Ciceronianus

I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious.

There are very mystical descriptions of Christ in the Bible.

Gospel of John

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him,(and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it...

...He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.

14 The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Logos here is often translated as Word but can mean variously reason, meaning, or even logic. For a contemporary Hellenistic Jewish perspective, look at Philo of Alexandria. For him the Logos is universal reason, the logic of the world, the laws of causality and physics etc., both that which understands them in man, and that which generates them in the world.

So, Christian Freedom from "death in sin" (see Romans 7) can quite rightly be interpreted as a death of autonomy and personhood as man reverts to a beast and is ruled by passion and social forces. Paul experiences this death while biologically alive, and experiences a ressurected personhood through Christ, the Logos. So, when Christ casts out the horde of demons who call themselves "Legion" in Matthew, this can be seen as symbolic of universal Logos defeating the inner demons of passion, desire, instinct, etc., the chains of causality resulting from man not fathoming what moves him.

Scripture is said to work on multiple levels, as story, as allegory, and as a vehicle for esoteric revelation.

Jesus himself speaks to this mystical heritage.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

The "I am" as opposed to "I was" is intentional. Christ as Logos is omnipresent in time as causality is what dictates before and after. It is a principle that cannot grow old, as it is the ground for the concept of before and after.

T Clark

Does it work? I don't think so. But it may make these theologians Jesus Freaks of a different kind, worshiping an abnormal, unusual, unexpected Jesus. Or perhaps they make a freak of Jesus. — Ciceronianus

Atheists like to complain about how religionists have hurt the world - they start wars, they torture disbelievers, they subjugate women. You have added to that list of atrocities doing handstands in church and pestering people in the streets. Oh, the horror, the horror.

Tom Storm

The number of highly qualified people in the field of theology, biblical study etc who now say there never was a historical Jesus, continue's to grow and grow.
Prof Bart Ehrman — universeness

Saw your correction - Bart Ehrman specifically does not belong to this group - he disagrees with the mythicists, as they are known and specifically debated against Robert Price. From Erhman's blog Oct 2016

I started this thread by indicating that the majority of my 30-minute talk was devoted to explaining the positive evidence that I think shows beyond reasonable doubt that there was indeed a man Jesus of Nazareth.

I think the more reasonable position on Jesus these days is that there was a human being who was killed and who inspired the myths. I think the general view, even amongst atheists is that the mythicists position is vulnerable.

Changeling

↪Ciceronianus

GOD-SQUAD

Wayfarer

I'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. — Ciceronianus

Presumably because their understanding is completely divergent from your own, strange though that may seem.

The Jesus they refer to is some nebulous kind of love or spirit or force necessary in some sense to creation and humanity and the universe, and is something that just doesn't seem to be the Jesus described in the Gospels, the Acts, or even by Paul at his most mystic and mysterious. — Ciceronianus

I think what you're not seeing is Jesus as archetype. I also think you need a bit more philosophical theology - that book you mention seems a good source for the same.

My spiritual orientation was formed around my teenage encounter with the popular Eastern mysticism of the 1960's - predominantly Krishnamurti, Sri Ramana Maharishi, and authors including D T Suzuki and Alan Watts. It provides a counter-cultural or alternative attitude to spirituality and religion. Within that milieu, the focus is not exclusively on Jesus - instead, Jesus becomes an archetype of the enlightened teacher (although also more than that, considering the sacrificial nature of Jesus' crucifiction.) But if you view such a being through the lens of comparative religion and anthropology, they're a type. The peripatetic, itinerant teacher/sage, who has realised and who embodies a salvific understanding, wisdom and insight. That helps to provide a broader context for the question, at least.

(Where this is probably irreconciliable with ecclesiastical Christianity, is the latter's insistence on the unique, once-for-all-time significance of Jesus Christ, which is obviously not acceptable to Buddhists and Hindus, even though Hindu sages, such as Maharishi, frequently quote or refer to Jesus. For a brief scholarly account of Jesus in the context of pluralism, see John Hick, Who or What is God?)

Ciceronianus

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

What's called the Gospel of John was the last of the Gospels written, by my understanding, and likely was written after the death of Paul. It's only in that Gospel that Logos is referred to, and it seems clear that the concept was borrowed from pagan philosophy. The other Gospels are quite dissimilar. Paul, of course, borrowed from pagan philosophy (and the ancient pagan mystery religions as well). He was born in Tarsus, well known as a center of Stoicism. The process of assimilation had already begun. Tertullian's peevish comment "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" notwithstanding, the early Christians were eager to incorporate the pagan thought even then. The supposed correspondence between Seneca and Paul is an example of the Christian quest for acceptance by the pagan elite.

Ciceronianus

I think what you're not seeing is Jesus as archetype. I also think you need a bit more philosophical theology - that book you mention seems a good source for the same. — Wayfarer

So, Christianity portrays Jesus as an archetype? I don't think so.

You see, this is my point. I'm quite certain that Christian philosophers theologians see Jesus differently than I do. I suggest, though, that they see Jesus differently than most Christians do, differently from how he is described in the Gospels.

Ciceronianus

You have added to that list of atrocities doing handstands in church and pestering people in the streets. — T Clark

Well, I wouldn't call them atrocities. I'd call the former preposterous, the latter annoying and hectoring. I'm not an atheist, by the way, though my conception of God doesn't inspire me to gymnastic feats or induce me to irritate others with my view of the divinity.

Ciceronianus

So, the reason a traditional theistic reader obtains such unusual results from scripture (whether it be through the midrashim of the Jew or the exegesis of the Christian) is because their fundamental assumptions vary greatly from your own. — Hanover

Well, I don't know the "traditional theistic reader" comes to the same conclusions as de Chardin or Barth (for example). I'm inclined to think that if they believe in Jesus, they believe in the Jesus of the Gospels. I get the impression Christian philosophers/theologians don't, or would rather think of Jesus as different from that Jesus in very significant ways.

Tom Storm

You see, this is my point. I'm quite certain that Christian philosophers theologians see Jesus differently than I do. I suggest, though, that they see Jesus differently than most Christians do, differently from how he is described in the Gospels. — Ciceronianus

Well yeah - this is part of the problem with many subjects. The Baptists down the road from me see a very different figure from the Catholics next door. The name Jesus is about all they have in common.

I have a friend who is a Catholic priest and he sees Jesus as a metaphor and an invitation for contemplative prayer. He has almost no interest in the story as fact - it is a teaching aid, like most holy books. The issue is people hold different levels of understanding - a shallow or deep faith. The same could be said for science, with its dogmatic materialists and more nuanced naturalists.

Wayfarer

You see, this is my point. I'm quite certain that Christian philosophers theologians see Jesus differently than I do. I suggest, though, that they see Jesus differently than most Christians do, differently from how he is described in the Gospels. — Ciceronianus

As if there were a single uniform interpretation of the Christian gospel. History says otherwise.

Ciceronianus

I have a friend who is a Catholic priest and he sees Jesus as a metaphor and an invitation for contemplative prayer. He has almost no interest in the story as fact - it is a teaching aid, like most holy books. The issue is people hold different levels of understanding - a shallow or deep faith. The same could be said for science, with its dogmatic materialists and more nuanced naturalists. — Tom Storm

So, I take it, the Catholic priest doesn't believe the Gospels, or believes in them, or the Jesus they portray, only as metaphor. The sophisticated, knowledgeable Christian doesn't believe Jesus did what the Gospels say he did, or I suppose even said what they say he said.

The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question.

Ciceronianus

As if there were a single uniform interpretation of the Christian gospel. — Wayfarer

Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Jesus turns water into wine.

What room is there for interpretation, here? "Well, he didn't really raise him from the dead, the Gospels just say he did."

That doesn't seem to be an interpretation, unless it's assumed the authors of the Gospels didn't mean what they said. What's the basis for that assumption? That seems to be an assertion that Jesus didn't raise Lazarus from the dead.

Tom Storm

The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question. — Ciceronianus

I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding.

Jesus can be seen to fit into in a bodhisattva story tradition. These day I'm more inclined not to resist or disparage this way of viewing things but find it fascinating that this is how humans make meaning. As long as Jesus isn't used as an excuse for fag hating; life denying, bad politics and the setting off of bombs (and let's face it this is where literalists have often ended up), I don't mind how his story is understood.

Paine

'm curious why even the most "philosophical" of Christian theologians (e.g. Teilhard de Chardin, Barth) include Jesus in their theology. — Ciceronianus

I am curious how Barth figures into your argument. He argued for a Pauline vision of the struggle between the spirit and the flesh that put the idea of an imminent God of nature outside of the crisis of faith. Grouping this hard-core Protestant with Chardin hurts my brain.

Ciceronianus

I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding. — Tom Storm

It seems to me that if the Gospels are believed to be suggestive, inspiring, thought-provoking (insert appropriate adjective) stories, something of Christianity is lost. In other words, Christianity becomes a religion in which Jesus isn't, or can't be, what the Gospels say he is/was, or is/was only what we want to think the Gospels say he is/was or what the Gospels should say he is/was or what only selected portions of the Gospels say he is/was. That seems to me to be a serious problem.

Philosophim

Did you really need to use the slur "Jesus Freaks"? What if someone came along and used the slur "Atheist Freaks". I think you could have gotten the point across without the slur, and it will would have been an interesting topic.

Tom Storm

That seems to me to be a serious problem. — Ciceronianus

It's only a problem for concrete thinking. There's a vast and venerable tradition of allegorical understanding of Christianity, Judaism and other religious traditions - leading us into the mystical traditions of faiths, which often become wordless and contemplative rather than a focused list of who, what, where and when. The majority of people seem to prefer the list, as there is a special safety in the predictability of believing that a story is literally true. Personally, as someone lacking a sensus divinitatis, the entire matter is 'academic'.

T Clark

Well, I wouldn't call them atrocities. — Ciceronianus

Well, yes. There was some irony in my response.

Jesus Freaks

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions