I follow the teachings of Jesus. The best known sources are in the Gospels. But there’s more in parts of the Letter of James; a treasure trove in the Gospel of Thomas; and a confusing mix in the Didache. Paul also borrowed a few of Jesus’ teachings, including the ode to Divine Love (1 Cor. 13: 1-8a), which is very different in style, tone, and message compared to other parts of 1 Corinthians.
1 Like
If you follow Jesus only, are you required to believe he was resurrected?
Nope. But you’re pretty much required to believe in Divine Love, Divine forgiveness, and the power of miracles.
Sounds great. I think Jesus, even if not resurrected, would create a great counterbalance to the laws of the OT. I think I may become a convert. Though if I do, Jesus’ mission was probably to bring about a universal morality, not to reverse the fall, which is a Pauline idea.
1 Like
To be clear, I definitely believe in the message of the Cross. It’s just not the usual understanding of the Cross.
What happened to Jesus when he was put on the Cross, and what happened after he was taken down, speaks more powerfully about God’s message of love, healing, and forgiveness than anything else I can think of. A man who loved God with all his heart and all his mind and all his soul and all his strength should have died on the Cross, but somehow managed to survive. This same man didn’t seek revenge against those who harmed him, but instead spent his final days using the last of his strength to continue to teach and heal others with humbleness and courage and love. In my view, it was God’s message about love – that love conquered all that the Cross tried to require of Jesus (including the ignominious death it demanded but didn’t get) – which is the true core of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus may have died soon afterward, but it was on his terms and God’s terms, not on the terms of hatred. No matter what others did to him, Jesus refused to give up the morality of love and forgiveness that bound him to his God. How amazing is that for a source of inspiration?
3 Likes
Thank you Reggie , I appreciate your in depth explaination.
I not only accept the Holy Bible but I also follow the Apostles’ Creed. Therefore, I accept an orthodox view. I do not mean Eastern Orthodox; on the contrary, I reject neo-orthodoxy and liberalism. I cannot support Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, or Harry Emerson Fosdick. Jesus was raised in the physical body that was put in the tomb, but somehow it was changed to be supernatural. Until he was resurrected, His spirit went to paradise. That is where my parents’ spirits are now; however, their spirits will return to their glorified bodies in the graves at the end of the age. When their spirits and bodies reunite, this will recreate the living soul (living being) Genesis 2:7.
I think I would be happiest in the time of Egyptian hegemony over the many cults and religions - - both inside and outside of the Nile Valley.
I believe to study The Divine contributes to one’s success in the afterlife, but there is no severe dualism with a Satanic force attempting to seduce one to destruction.
Researchers study the minutia of the various Gods… or even “the little Gods” that fill the world and wilderness… but there are those historians who are more invested in the Egyptian notion of emanations… where all the diverse pantheons and versions of the Godhead are really just human interpretations of a single divine aspect of the Cosmos.
And for those who led an unworthy life, there is extinction. This is the most appealing aspect of Egyptian metaphysics… one which very few modern religionists seem able to embrace. Herbert W. Armstrong would chastise the nay-sayers …
And the Egyptians would condemn those with this impressive artistic rendering of your eventual fate!
The “terrible” multi-form god Ammit (or Ammut) - - poised to consume the heart of the unrighteous in the most reasonable application of divine justice presented by an ancient nation.
No doubt there are those who find this multi-formed “beast” uniquely offensive. But I don’t think its radical nature is much different Ezekiel’s description of cherubim, with “wheels in wheels” and four different faces on a single head!:
"In the Book of Ezekiel and (at least some) Christian icons, the cherub is depicted as having a number of wing pairs, and four faces:
that of a lion,
an ox,
a human, and
an eagle.
Their legs were straight, the soles of their feet like the hooves of a bull, gleaming like polished brass."
Eeek! ???
A Phoenician representation of the One-Headed Kind …
I must say George that I do not always agree with you; however, you do come up with interesting topics. Also, if BioLogos will allow you to comment on this, what is your opinion on Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong. They denied Jesus as Son of God. They said that Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary. Joseph is not Jesus’ step-father as I would say he was. I would just like your opinion. God bless you, George.
I agree totally that this is a good idea, I also think that this is the view found in the OT. Satan only plays two brief cameos in the Book of Job and Book of Zechariah, rather than being a supreme cosmic evil.
1 Like
Thanks for starting this thread, Ryan. I feel enriched by the Forum scholars who have added to my understanding of Scripture and ANE history, but it of equal interest to me is where it has led each of them.
I, too, feel like ‘I don’t fit anywhere’ (at least as defined by orthodoxy), but it doesn’t bother me in the least. Looking through the nearsighted (scientific) lens of my philosophical “bifocals”, I rationally conclude that I am just one of the flawed animals produced by evolution. However, and in spite of that, I can look through the ‘far sighted’ (theological) lens and see that I have a spiritual nature and that God loves me for trying to fit myself into the Image that Jesus provided for us.
So to your list, I guess I should just add “maverick Catholic”.
Al Leo
2 Likes
Thank you Albert for your perspective , I feel similar .
" I’m just an ape barely saved by grace " a phrase I have repeated many times 
I’m a Unitarian Universalist. Do you think I would object to the Armstrong view? If any thing, it might be a little too zealous for my taste.
Interesting history as their church (while around in some splinter groups also) has (ahem) evolved into Grace Communion International, a mainline evangelical church with orthodox (little o) beliefs. God works in mysterious ways.
1 Like
Mr O’Donoghue, I have really struggled with Paul’s references in Romans to “original sin,” too–I think that it makes God look evil to condemn us all for being born “evil”–sort of a Gnostic heresy. However, Pete Enns’ book, “Evolution of Adam,” and some recent podcasts (last week’s, for example) helped me realize that wasn’t his drift given the context at all. Would be interested in your impression. He also interviewed Beverly Gaventa, who wrote “When in Rome” regarding the context. His review of the “New View on Paul” helped me too, though I still have trouble with Paul’s apparently creative way of taking the OT out of context to prove his point. thanks.
I know that that has to do with the 2nd Temple creative interpretation, which was common–I don’t really understand it as a 21st century reader.
1 Like
I call myself a Christian! Why make it so complicated.
3 Likes
Thank you Totti, I have no problem with that😉
1 Like
@gbrooks9 I don’t know if I would call myself a Unitarian Universalist (I only see the Bible as valid scripture), however, I will say that through one way or the other Yahweh has made himself known in other religions, be it in Ancient Persia, China, and India, where one high god ruling over the heavens and the earth was worshipped. In the case of Hinduism he was outright called ‘I Am’.
1 Like
I now live in Utah, and there are a lot of “Christians” who have been taught to respect the Bible but never really read it, they cling to the teachings of another set of books, so around here I am calling myself a Bible-only Christian.
I believe it is also good for setting myself apart from the holiday-only Christians, and the I’m-an-American Christians (although, I’m not sure there are too many of them any more).
My goals are to gently make a clear distinction and politely invite questions or discussion.
3 Likes
Thank you Charlene , it certainly is difficult to have a meaningful biblical discussion if the other party doesn’t read it .keep your head up .