The rose analogy already assumes the conclusion: that classical monotheism is simply a cultivated form of earlier Canaanite religion. My point was only about the conceptual distinction between mythological deities tied to particular natural phenomena and the God of monotheism.
2 Likes
Understandable, but I still think that many of his claims, including the performance of miracles and rising from the dead, coupled with (as you mentioned) his constant parallels to God, should require further analysis.
The Synoptic Gospels may not contain the modern formula “I am God,” but they do attribute to Jesus actions and claims that, in a Jewish context, carried divine implications. One striking example is Jesus’ response to Caiaphas in Matthew 26:63–65 (paralleled in Mark 14:61–64), where he identifies himself with the Daniel 7 “Son of Man” seated at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven. Caiaphas immediately tears his robes and charges him with blasphemy. The issue is less whether the modern wording appears and more how such claims would have been understood in their first-century setting.
3 Likes
- That reconstruction reflects one stream of historical-Jesus scholarship, but it is far from the only one. Several scholars argue that what later came to be called “high Christology” appears very early in the sources. For example, Larry Hurtado writes that “the earliest clear indications of believers treating Jesus as sharing in divine honor and as rightful co-recipient of worship are found in our earliest texts.” Richard Bauckham similarly argues that “the earliest christology was already in nuce the highest christology,” meaning that Jesus was included within the unique identity of Israel’s God. N. T. Wright also notes that within a few decades of Jesus’ death we already find what “would later be called a very high christology."
- Even within the Synoptic tradition, Jesus’ exchange with Caiaphas (Matthew 26:63–65; Mark 14:61–64) is significant. When asked if he is the Messiah, Jesus identifies himself with the Daniel 7 “Son of Man” seated at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven. Caiaphas immediately tears his robes and charges him with blasphemy. So the question is less whether the modern phrase “I am God” appears verbatim and more how such claims would have been understood within a first-century Jewish context.
1 Like
I agree, it should be analysed more. What I propose is a Christian Midrash and a cultivated discussion about the values Jesus was presenting, especially looking at the suggestion that Jesus of Nazareth may have belonged to a Jewish mystical stream, which is taken seriously by many historians of religion. I think too little attention is drawn to the possibility that when Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God, it may not have meant a future political event but the immediate experience of God’s transforming presence.
Wherever the discussion is closed down, we get for or against and new sects, but it has a divisive effect on the discussion and society. Emphasising truth, unity, beauty and goodness, the broad religious experience that all falls under the name Christianity could make it more accessible. I am particularly interested in the monastic traditions which provide perspectives that are not part of lay experience.
1 Like
Everything you quoted is part of the “cultural sophistication” I was speaking of, and are all interpretations of a tradition that stand alongside Johann Sebastian Bach’s Christian music, Leonardo’s Last Supper, Kempis’ Imitatio Christi, and many other works.
I find it compelling and illuminating to compare theology with art, because both are attempts to express something that ultimately exceeds ordinary language. While theology is often treated as a system of doctrines and art as aesthetic creation, both can be understood more deeply as symbolic ways of approaching ultimate reality.
Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas insisted that language about God is analogical rather than literal. Later, mystical theologians like Meister Eckhart even suggested that the deepest truth about God lies beyond all concepts. Art works in a similar way. A painting, poem, or piece of music cannot logically define its subject, but it can evoke an experience or intuition that ordinary language cannot capture.
But when it comes to science, that is where we have a change of category.
3 Likes
That seems to move the discussion into a different category. Earlier you were making historical claims about the development of Christian belief. Now you seem to be suggesting that theology functions more like symbolic art or mystical language. Those are interesting perspectives, but they address a different issue from the one you originally raised.
3 Likes
Several issues:
- First, the suggestion of a “Christian Midrash.” Midrash in Jewish tradition is interpretive commentary on sacred texts, often creative and exploratory. That may be valuable as reflection, but it is quite different from asking whether the events described in the tradition actually happened. If the discussion shifts to Midrash, the historical question Max raised risks being replaced by a literary or symbolic one.
- Second, the suggestion that Jesus should be understood primarily as part of or through a “Jewish mystical stream” is one interpretive proposal among several in historical scholarship. Presenting it as a central framework risks narrowing the discussion to a particular reconstruction of Jesus rather than examining the broader historical evidence.
- Third, the proposal to reinterpret the “Kingdom of God” primarily as an inner experience of God’s transforming presence. While that interpretation has a place in Christian spirituality, the historical sources also contain strong eschatological and communal dimensions. Treating the Kingdom chiefly as mystical experience may set aside important elements of the original proclamation.
- Fourth, the suggestion that Christianity should become “more accessible” through emphasis on monastic traditions. Monastic spirituality has unquestionably enriched Christian history, but it represents one stream within Christianity rather than the whole of it.
- Are you speaking metaphorically about monastic perspectives, or do you actually envision new monastic-style communities?
- All of these perspectives may have value in certain contexts. My concern is simply that the discussion Max initiated was about the historical and theological claims of the tradition. When the conversation shifts toward symbolic interpretation, mystical frameworks, or particular spiritual traditions, the original question can easily be displaced.
3 Likes
This is obviously true, and I have never claimed otherwise. My point was that, even under those circumstances, one could still choose to believe that the apostolic witness is true. What would change is that the witness itself would lose its epistemic weight, and any decision to trust it would then rest on nothing more than desire. That would not, of course, prove the testimony false, it would only show how radically and absolutely arbitrary the required leap of faith would become.
So I have never denied this, and I have never claimed that “ the truth of a claim depends on the origin of consciousness.” What I have argued and I’m arguing is that, if it were conclusively shown that billions of human beings across history have been deeply deceived by their own brains, then the apostolic witness would lose any serious epistemic value. It could still be believed to refer to real events (in the sense of actual supernatural events rather than mere projections of the disciples’ imagination) but believing in the reality of that testimony would then become a wholly arbitrary act. In other words: God’s hiddenness would become absolute and we would have to trust their own testimony with nothing more than our own desire of said testimony to be true.
This is also true. But there is a profound difference between saying that human beings can sometimes be deceived by their own brains and claiming that every spiritual encounter with the dead was nothing more than a fabrication of the brain, even when experienced by sane individuals who were neither mentally ill nor under the influence of any substance. Yet that is exactly what would follow if consciousness were conclusively shown to be entirely material in origin.
This, I think, goes to the heart of my point. In the hypothetical (and I don’t think that consciousness will ever be proven to be of entirely material origins, because it isn’t, as I said I’m merely describing an hypothetical, because our faith is rooted in history and there are some conceivable discoveries that would seriously threaten it) scenario I am describing, the apostolic witness might still be wholly true, but we would have no reasonable grounds for knowing that it was. In such a case, it would be entirely possible (and perfectly reasonable) to think that the apostles themselves had been misled by their own brains, just like all those people throughout human history who have testified with absolute sincerity and conviction that they had seen the spirit of someone who had died. It could be possible to believe that their case (which also wasn’t about a spirit, they claimed that Jesus actually rose from the dead( was a special one; but the decision to view it as such, the decision to view it as a true supernatural event instead of a figment of their imagination, would be entirely arbitrary. As I said: absolute leap of faith.
From here Americans’ spiritual experiences | Pew Research Center
“Almost half of U.S. adults (45%) report ever having had a sudden feeling of connection with something from beyond this world, while three-in-ten say they have personally encountered a spirit or unseen spiritual force.”
And
“Fewer U.S. adults say they have ever personally encountered a spirit or unseen spiritual force: 30% of Americans say they’ve had such an encounter, though roughly two-thirds believe in the existence of spirits or unseen spiritual forces”
That would be 100 million people in the US alone, without examining all the other countries, and only in this particular era.
And even assuming that the US is particularly “porous” Buffered and porous selves - The Immanent Frame (which I don’t think it’s true, or better yet: it’s certainly true compared to Western Europe, which is heavily buffered, but it’s more difficult to say that it is more porous than the rest of the world, especially places like Africa, South America and the Middle East) and that in the rest of the world the incidence is a mere 10%, we would still end up with numbers close to a billion only in this particular era.
So no, I am not exaggerating when I say that billions of people throughout human history have had such experiences. In fact, I think experiences of this kind probably lie at the very origin of burial practices at the dawn of our species
That is far from saying that they have seen the spirits of dead persons. For example, were the questions formulated so that those answering did not count experiences with the Holy Spirit as ‘encounters with a spirit’?
I suspect that many of the reported encounters (possibly most of the cases) are misinterpretations of what is observed. People believe in ghosts, spiritual guides and other types of entities that may be just wild imagination or ‘heavenly creatures’ (created beings that are not material). I guess the stories about ghosts are largely wild imagination while the ‘spiritual guides’ may be either imagination or demon-like creatures. There are also charlatans, some sort of mentalists who pretend to be in contact with the dead and convince those around that a spirit is present.
Seeing the spirits of dead persons is a subcategory and I assume that many of those cases are either misinterpretations or experiences that happen within the ‘inner world’ (mind) rather than the ‘external world’ - God might give us experiences that feel real to us but do not happen in the objective external environment. If only one person can see a spirit and those around the person do not see, the possibility that it happened within the ‘inner world’ is difficult to exclude.
1 Like
That is one possible interpretation, but I personally know people (actually surprisingly more than I would expect) who have had experiences in which they see the spirit of someone who later turned out to be dead, despite having had no prior way of knowing it. Even @Terry_Sampson , if I recall correctly, once described a similar experience in an old thread (where both he and another person saw the spirit of someone that was later confirmed to be dead, but they had no way of knowing that in advance).
So yes, some of these cases may be misinterpretations (perhaps even many of them) but certainly not all. The hypothetical discovery I am referring to, however, would expose even the most significant among them (which would have been many millions throughout the history of mankind) as nothing more than deceptions and coincidences generated by the brain.
Evil spirits and demonic entities are especially prone to making contact through occult practices.
Which is why I’ve studied the occultism but I’ve never practiced it.
It is possible that people see something real. Cases where many see the same are more convincing than reports based on what one person can see.
What I have started to think (speculate) is that God may sometimes let us see something in our mind that is not objectively present in our surroundings. I compare it to how the Holy Spirit may talk to ‘spirit-filled’ believers. The talk is usually not something audible, it comes straight into our mind. Although much of the talk/prophecy is what 1 Corinthians 14 tells: “But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort“, the message may also reveal matters the person cannot know. Detailed information about the life of a person is rare but I know cases where secrets have been revealed in such a detail that it has lead to a radical turn in the life of the listener - for example, repentance of an extramarital affair or some other destructive behaviour. These cases are not ‘evidence’ for the outsiders (do not usually happen publicly) but they may be radical experiences for those involved.
2 Likes
Yes. And I would argue that even when one single person sees something that he/she had no way of knowing beforehand is very significant. In most of the so-called “crisis apparitions” that seems to be the case.
And as I said, I would not be at all surprised if burial practices at the very the dawn of our species emerged from experiences of this kind
Absolutely.
That is a very unique perspective, and I think you are on to something
- I’m trying to understand the framework you’re using. Are you suggesting that Christianity should primarily be understood as a symbolic and spiritual tradition expressing meaning and experience, rather than as making historical and theological truth-claims about events such as miracles, the resurrection, and the identity of Jesus?
- When the focus shifts toward mysticism, symbolic interpretation, Midrash-like readings, and monastic perspectives, it begins to sound less like a discussion of historical or doctrinal Christianity and more like a proposal for a different kind of spiritual movement centered on experience and interpretation.
There are two categories that use the term “g - o - d”: first and most common are all those supposed deities which are actually just entities within the universe that have greater power than most entities; second is those which are outside or apart from the universe that are considered to be creators of the universe.
Dismissing the latter as though they were part of the former is as rational as dismissing the existence of passenger cars on the basis of the observation that no human being could fit into a Hot Wheels car.
1 Like
This is only the case if you (1) ignore the cultural context and (2) expect ancient literature to work the way modern literature does.
Just as one example, in Matthew 12 there is a blunt claim by Christ to divine status. In the culture and literary context it is like a slap in the face.
3 Likes
Sure, if you ignore the Pauline letters which are much more ancient than any of the Gospels. Because in the Pauline letters the christology is very high.
2 Likes
The problem is that the earliest testimony we possess about Jesus does not give us a merely ethical teacher later wrapped in supernatural theology. On the contrary, the earliest layer already contains claims that are unmistakably supernatural.
Paul says he handed on what he had himself “received,” namely that Christ “was raised on the third day” and “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” That is not a later Hellenistic embellishment about a moral reformer; it is an extremely early proclamation of resurrection appearances at the very heart of the tradition.
Nor is that all. In Romans, Paul speaks of Jesus as “God over all, blessed forever” (Romans 9:5). Again, that is not a stripped-down historical teacher later elevated by theology; it is already a radically exalted view of Jesus in sources that far predate the Gospels.
And in Philippians, in what many take to be an early hymn Paul is quoting or echoing, Jesus is described as one to whom “every knee should bend” and “every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” That is extraordinarily high language, and it appears very early, not at the end of a long legendary development.
Even Paul’s own call is described in revelatory terms: God was pleased “to reveal his Son to me.” So our earliest Christian witness does not present a merely human moral visionary whom theology later transformed into something more. It already operates in a world of revelation, resurrection, exaltation, and divine status.
So I think your method is highly selective. You are not simply peeling away later cultural constructs to reach the historical core; you are privileging the parts of the tradition that feel historically modest to modern tastes, while downplaying the fact that the oldest evidence we have is already saturated with supernatural claims.
Put simply: if the earliest testimonies already speaks of resurrection, appearances, revelation, and exaltation, then the sharp contrast between a “historical Jesus” and a later “supernatural construct” becomes impossible to maintain. Because what you incorrectly define as a “later supernatural construct” is actually contained in the most ancient testimony in our possession.
1 Like