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

This in response to your reference to "literal minded people."

I'm not a Christian, but my wife is Catholic so I've spent some time around the church. I was at a dinner party sitting next to my 30 year old son, a 20 year old Jewish woman, and another 35ish year old man. Somehow the subject turned to religion in general and transubstantiation specifically. I told them that Catholics believe that the wafer is the actual body of Christ and the wine is his actual blood. They said, "You mean symbolically." I said, no, literally. We talked about it for 10 minutes and I couldn't convince them not that the Catholics were correct, but that they actually believed it. Finally my wife came over and gave them the official word. Even then they kept arguing.

If you want to understand what other people understand about the world, you need to make sure you are in the same world they are.

If you want to understand what other people understand about the world, you need to make sure you are in the same world they are. — T Clark

Yes, and that particular world is often a patchwork quilt of words and emotions. In his mid 90's I asked my father what he thought about Jesus. His response - 'Jesus is whoever the preacher tells us he is.' Sometimes people don't reside in a world of their own.

What room is there for interpretation, here? — Ciceronianus

There are facts (or purported facts) and then there's interpretation - what those facts mean, or even, did those purported events really occur, or are they symbolic? Critical scholarship shows many variations in the details of the accounts of miracles and the events of Jesus' life. Furthermore that many of the Gospels were written many years after the event.

In a way, you're appealing to a fundamentalist attitude to argue the point that the Gospels have a single unarguable meaning, when there are many ways of interpreting them.

Excellent point.

In his mid 90's I asked my father what he thought about Jesus. His response - 'Jesus is whoever the preacher tells us he is.' — Tom Storm

When I was a young physics student I once asked a professor: ‘What’s an electron?’ His answer stunned me. ‘An electron,’ he said, ‘is that to which we attribute the properties of the electron.’ — Adam Frank

that particular world is often a patchwork quilt of words and emotions. — Tom Storm

As are they all.

"You mean symbolically." — T Clark

One of my favorite southern Catholic writers is Flannery O'Connor, “Someone once told the Catholic writer Flannery O'Connor that it is more open-minded to think that the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar is a great, wonderful, powerful symbol. Her response was, “If it's only a symbol, to hell with it.”

Not well known fact: Lutherans also believe that the bread and wine is literally the body and blood of Christ, during the acts of the Eurcharist. At the end of the Eucharistic service, the bread and wine remaining are no longer flesh and blood.

Catholics believe that the body and blood remains body and blood, so... the priest consumes the remainder of the wine, and the remaining bread is kept in a monstrance, to be venerated. (Monstrance derives from Latin monstrare to show.)

I don't have fond memories of the Jesus Freaks of the 1960s and 1970s. — Ciceronianus

I don't either; I don't have fond memories of current Jesus Freaks either, though "freak" has fallen into disuse.

Jesus, I say as a profound heresy, has always been a construction of "the Church" wherever, whenever and whoever the church was at the moment to satisfy whatever need. "My Jesus" has become more and more obscure, verging on non-existence. The "Jesus" I like is similar to Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Workers. Day herself was a devout Catholic.

As saints and near saints go, Dorothy Day was likely much more tolerable than Mother Teresa. I'm very glad I didn't have to spend any time with Her Albanian Saintliness. Day didn't want to be referred for sainthood because, she said, "I don't to be dismissed that easily."

Somebody named Joshua existed (Joshua = Jesus). "Some one person" was the germ plasm of the Jesus the Church planted and grew. Who how when where why... big mystery.

I prefer "Bible-thumpers" (or holy mouthbreathers).

The "Jesus" I like is similar to Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Workers. Day herself was a devout Catholic.

As saints and near saints go, Dorothy Day was likely much more tolerable than Mother Teresa. — Bitter Crank

:up: Almost analogous to my once-upon-a-time preference for The Nazarene contra The Christ. "The Devil's Advocate" Hitchen's The Missionary Position is still, as far as I'm concerned, the book on that old Albanian vampire and the zombie death cult that "beatified" her.

I prefer "Bible-thumpers" (or holy mouthbreathers). — 180 Proof

Yes, but that's because you are, as are so many here on the forum, an anti-religion bigot.

Yes, but that's because you are, as are so many here on the forum, an anti-religion bigot. — T Clark

Again, I prefer irreligious freethinker (à la Epicurus, Lucretius, Epictetus, Spinoza, Hume, Russell, Dewey, Zapffe, Camus ... et al)

re: Tetrapharmakos + Deus, sive natura + Dionysus vs "the Crucified" :fire:

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: — Garrett Travers

I think you take over thinking to a new level. I can give you a dozen more explanatory contexts to fit Jesus into. No, a hundred more. It is easy to do. And it misses the point, in a ,well, most superfluous way (there are, heh, heh, easier ways to miss the point).

It is not a question of what the brain needs or does. A person is not a brain. Just compare the two and you will find 3 and half to 4 pounds of gray squishy matter on the one hand, and a thinking, caring experiencing person on the other. Two mistake the one for the other is impossible.

The point you miss? Tell me, why are we born to suffer and die? It is meant as a reference, not to historical philosophy or theology, but to the foundational conditions of being human.

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

In my mind, one reason is the importance of tradition within Christianity. If to be a Christian means to have faith in the basic tenets of Christianity, I think it's often overlooked that one huge cornerstone holding up this faith is the tradition of Christianity itself. The crumbling of this cornerstone for myself was one of the main reasons for losing my own former faith.

There's a two-thousand-year-old theological tradition that has it's roots in the rather forceful emergence of a catholic, orthodox faith in the face of both persecution and a chaotic milieu of different strands of early Christianity, some of which are barely recognizable to us today as Christian. One element of that forceful emergence of catholicity was, as I'm sure you know, the creation of a canon.

What I came to realize later was that I was taught the singular, nearly ultimate importance of the canon (the Bible), when in reality, what really bound the whole thing together was the tradition that grew out of the emergence of a catholic faith; the canon was only one aspect. So it's almost this feedback loop where tradition venerates the Bible because of...the tradition that venerates it. The emphasis on the Bible of course could only reach it's modern heights once literacy was more prevalent, so of course, for hundreds of years, it didn't even play the role it does in modern Christianity. That's another example of the evolution of the tradition.

So it's true, as you say, that theologians sometimes have to do an awkward dance to fit Jesus into their theology; but in my mind, this is because of the underlying, sometimes unconscious, importance of the tradition of Christianity itself. If there wasn't this need to remain tethered to tradition, theology might look a lot like secular philosophy; anything might be on the table. But tradition keeps theology chained to itself. Jesus is part of the tradition; he was the genesis (but not the founder, arguably) of the whole thing, after all. So he must be kept in. And gradually emerging doctrines like inerrancy and divine inspiration served to tether theology to tradition even more tightly.

A side note is that John's inclusion in the canon was controversial, and I think largely responsible for Jesus's role in the evolving tradition, and Paul was also important (but how many of the Pauline letters were actually written by Paul is another question). Sorry for the ramble, hopefully that made some sense.

It is not a question of what the brain needs or does. A person is not a brain. Just compare the two and you will find 3 and half to 4 pounds of gray squishy matter on the one hand, and a thinking, caring experiencing person on the other. Two mistake the one for the other is impossible. — Astrophel

A person is most certainly a brain. You do realize that all functions you exhibit, including those which are subconscious, are produced by the brain?

The point you miss? Tell me, why are we born to suffer and die? It is meant as a reference, not to historical philosophy or theology, but to the foundational conditions of being human. — Astrophel

I don't regard "suffer and die" as what I am meant to do, or that human life and consciousness is to be relegated to such as the decree of anyone or anything other than myself. We suffer as a function produced by the brain, we die because bodies are made of organic materials and elements that expire over time. Like all things do

Time to bring out the de re/de dicto distinction. Are people in love with Ariana Grande or will any person like Ariana Grande send them into a tizzy of excitement?

People might not be Jesus freaks as such but may be simply looking for someone who fits the description of what to them is the ideal person and Jesus just happens to be it.

Great post.

In the long run (2000 years) and in the short run (last 15 minutes) tradition is both brick and mortar, and the Bible, the writings of the saints, of reformers, hymns, liturgy and so on are more bricks in the edifice of Christianity. God is a piece of that tradition, older than Jesus.

There are days when beyond question I am not a believer. Other days my atheism wavers. I was too deeply immersed in Protestant Christendom (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church) to be anything but an ambivalent, wavering atheist.

Still, I am not a pissed-off-church-hating-atheist. From certain angles, religion is just plain weird and freakish. From another angle, it is a balm; maybe glorious. Another angle shows us its holy real estate function. It's a club--mostly they are easy to get into, though personally, I'd avoid joining hard boiled Baptists in so much as a wiener roast.

I'm not an atheist, but have lost pretty much all interest in the pointless battle between atheism and theism. I'm also not pissed off at the church and don't have any hateful feelings towards it. I really like studying religion and spirituality in general, in large part probably as an attempt at closure. But I do feel at the same time like it's leading me somewhere.

Great post. — Bitter Crank

I'm with BC. A really good post. Thoughtful and well-written.

'Jesus is whoever the preacher tells us he is.' — Tom Storm

There's truth to that. The Jesus character has had enormous plasticity. Over two millennia, he has been pretty much what people wanted him to be. Portraits of Jesus are portraits of humankind: you have black jesuses, japanese jesuses, arabic ones, and even some blond ones... The Nazis made of him an arian. Philosophers see a philosopher in him. Some atheists too indulge in imagining him the way they would like, eg as a literary myth.

This plasticity -- which I believe stems originally from his own ambiguities -- is a significant part of his appeal.

Himself asked his disciples "Who do you think I am?" As if he was not quite sure.

Another part of his appeal is in his wisdom, and I think specifically in the inversion of values he so often practiced: money is worth nothing, your weakness is your strength, the use of love as a weapon, the exaltation of the poor, etc.

Himself asked his disciples "Who do you think I am?" As if he was not quite sure. — Olivier5

More likely because the answer would reflect something about them.

he disagrees with the mythicists, as they are known and specifically debated against Robert Price. From Erhman's blog Oct 2016 — Tom Storm

I saw that debate and its an old one. Bart has become far more anti-theist since then, check out some of his latest YouTube offerings.

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 — Tom Storm

I subscribe to the more recent chat on this. For example, Joe Atwill's book presents Jesus and the disciples as satire. Parodies of characters who fought against the Romans. The Sicari.
Why would the rebel Jews, accept a Messiah who states things like 'render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasers and turn the other cheek and blessed are the meek etc.' These are all good for the Romans.
A jewish leader that tells the Sicari to stop fighting the Romans and accept their fate.
If they behave themselves, Jesus tells them they will get their reward in heaven, AFTER THEY ARE DEAD!
Then the jews get blamed for asking for this nice placid Jesus to be crucified and the Romans try their best to refuse! This is obviously Roman propaganda!

Josephus Flavius started as a Sicari but got captured by the Romans and turned traitor.
Atwill thinks he was involved in authoring the gospels and inventing Jesus.
Some of the more simplistic, interesting parallels he posits are:
The phrase 'fishers of men' being a parody of a battle fought by Titus Flavius on the sea of Galilea against a Jewish force led by a rebel called Jesus. Many of the defeated Sicari ended up in the water and the Romans were ordered to spear them, they literally went 'fishing for men.'
He parallels Josephus Bar Mathias (later Josephus Flavius ) as Joseph of Arimathea(a place never found.)
He parallels Judas Iscariot (with Sicari).
These are only the beginnings of the parallels and typological similarities he posits between the gospels and the books of Josephus Flavius. There was no historical Jewish messiah named Jesus Christ.
In Greek, even his name literally translates to Jesus(Saviour) Christ(Messiah), so his name is Saviour messiah. I'm sure the Sicari called all their rebel leaders 'saviour' and 'messiah' or chosen hero.

Himself asked his disciples "Who do you think I am?" As if he was not quite sure.
— Olivier5

More likely because the answer would reflect something about them. — Wayfarer

Both, I would think. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I will chalk that up under "freaky things that Jesus entices folks to do": rewrite history so as to erase his name.

I will chalk that up under "freaky things that Jesus entices folks to do": rewrite history so as to erase his name — Olivier5

I don't think the Jesus Christ fable will ever be 'erased,' similarly, I don't think the fables of Hercules or Harry Potter will ever be erased, but yes, I think we have to correct the historically incorrect claim that the story of the life of the Christian messiah, (which I think is close to saying the word messiah twice) Jesus Christ, is a memorialisation of actual historical events.

think we have to correct the historically incorrect claim — universeness

That's not what real, professional historians say. It is instead what rabid, irrational haters of christianity say.

This is obviously Roman propaganda! — universeness

I bet the Romans kicked themselves when people started believing it and refused to recognise the divinity of the Emperor. "Guys, guys, we made the whole thing up... really, we did... "

That's not what real, professional historians say. It is instead what rabid, irrational haters of christianity say. — Olivier5

For me personally, many of the tenets of Christianity are pernicious yes, many others are not. This is again for me, the same with all theism.
We each make our choice. Your professional historians are my cranks and purveyors of false history.
I am sure your choice is the exact opposite.
I am open to dialogue on any issue you care to raise to support your view. I predict that at the end of any such exchange, our positions are unlikely to have altered, even though both of us (as I certainly do) will state that we are open-minded and will accept evidence presented if its veracity can be established.

What would be the point of talking about it? Haters wanna hate.

I bet the Romans kicked themselves when people started believing it and refused to recognise the divinity of the Emperor. "Guys, guys, we made the whole thing up... really, we did... — Cuthbert

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
You have the order the wrong way around.
The Sicari refused to recognise the divinity of the Roman Emporer's that's true, that's why the clever Romans, with assistance, delivered their version of a divine roman emperor to the jews, disguised as their own pacifist messiah, dressed in sackcloth, for them to 'believe in.'
The Romans then also used this new cult to tame other rebellious peoples and eventually admitted it by adopting Christianity as their own.
The Romans were well-practiced at creating religious cults, building temples of worship and assigning priests, etc to spread and maintain the cult. They learned how from reading how the Greeks did it.
There are many well-recorded examples of them doing this for many of their Emperors.
There are extant examples of statues and archways depicting such.
The Christian cult is just their most successful one.
Many did, after all, accept the Roman emperor as their god or to bring things up to modern times, the Christian god's main representative on Earth. Everyone who accepts the pope (the final inheritor for the Roman emperors), continues to worship the legacy of the Roman Emperors. He is the pontif maximus, an old name for the Roman emperor and he still rules his flock from Rome itself.

Must be a burden for you, 'to hate.'

The Christian cult is just their most successful one. — universeness

I think I see the argument. They got people to join their cult for the sport of persecuting them for being in it. Three hundred years later they made it official. Funny lot, those ancient Romans.

A further point I would make is I think the insults, the parody and the satire continue to this day for followers of Christianity. I find it incredible that they don't reject being referred to as a 'flock' of sheep.
When I have asked them 'why do you accept being referred to as sheep?'
I get 'because it is reflective of a loving, caring shepherd.'
I then say but a shepherd looks after his sheep because they are his main resource for survival. He is clothed from them, fed by them, earns money by selling them.
That's why he loves them!!
It's that why the Christian leaders love you, you keep them fed, clothed, rich!!

They normally 'hate me' after that but not all, some raise a little enlightening eyebrow now and then.