The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Judaism and the Mystical Christ

I’m curious, also, where he is coming from. So let me ask a question, to determine where he is NOT coming from.

But first, a word on quotes. Since most religious figures teach some form of ethics, it’s possible to have variations on similar themes. Like take the Golden Rule, for instance. Each major faith tradition has a variation of it somewhere. But it doesn’t prove everyone is teaching the same thing. You know, let’s suppose that the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was akin to the whole of all recorded religious ethical teachings. And suppose all of us read it. What percentage of the many words and chapters would comprise what we are familiar with? If a group of monkeys (or a computer program, with true randomness from atmospheric noise, liked that used at Random) were to go through the religious books and pick quotes at random, it’s probably within a statistical likelihood they can pick similar meaning quotes. But certain parts of say Atlas Struggled might be more likely to create an impression. How impressed would be be with John Galt making a 60 page philosophical speech? How much more would we remember all the lights going off in New York city? The lights going out would probably create a more lasting impression. It’s highly probable we could choose quotes at random and get them all within a similar meaning context. It’s more probably that some parts leave a more lasting impression on us - therefore, we might quote them. But it only proves that similar meaning quotes can be randomly picked and matched - solely on the basis of probability and statistics alone.

Let’s put a twist on this question. Suppose I am taking ethical quotes from famous philosophers. And suppose I found similar ethical quotes from a collection of quotes, like that found at Ethics quotes. Suppose that Aristotle, Friedrich Nietzsche and Immanuel Kant said something similar in ethics. Would we conclude they taught the same philosophy - even in the branch of ethics?

Now to my question regarding what something is not. Are you advocating a form of religious pluralism, as defined by Wiki - Religious pluralism or Got Questions: Question: “What is religious pluralism?”?

Since Wiki gives many definitions, let’s run with the Got Questions definition:

The Parallel Sayings is definitely advocating pluralism.

I believe many people of other religions will be given eternal life at the Great White Throne, but not because of those religions. The parable of the good Samaritan, and the verses in Romans 2 that I quoted earlier cover that. Also in Acts 17 Paul says “God overlooked the times of ignorance”, so He is not condemning people who grew up in a Budhist land, or a Hindu land- and never received the witness of the gospel. Their conscience will excuse them or condemn them on the day God opens the secrets of mens hearts through Jesus Christ and many so-called Christians will be saved “but as through fire”

But no one is going to meet Krishna on that day, nor will his name be glorified in the eons to come- as I see it.

I’m sure the book is. But is Father Learning To Love advocating pluralism? That’s what I like to know from him.

For me, Jesus is the revelation of God. Ironically, Buddhism helped me see that in a way I never could have if I hadn’t listened to the wisdom of Buddhism - and thus I will always have a fondness for Buddhism.

Jesus is also “the fully Human one” (a phrase that plays well off of the oft used “Son of Man” moniker). I think we miss this in Christianity all too often when we emphasize Jesus’ divinity to a point that it is no longer really possible to call him human (example: if we believe God is “omniscient”, or all knowing, and we say Jesus is God, then how is it possible that Jesus was tempted? Temptation is not really possible if one knows everything.)

Agreed.

Not sure you understand how Wikipedia works - it is just as easy for you to go to one of those articles and dispute them. This is very important for recognizing just how reliable Wikipedia actually is. When there is an article with a long history of modifications - and articles like the ones I posted fit this bill - you are getting a pretty good representation of the modern consensus view. Of course, if I have caught your attention, I’d rather send you book recommendations that argue these points further and with much more detail. But for an internet discussion, it is more important to summarize, and hence, a Wikipedia article is adequate to introduce the concept, it seems to me.

Certainly. But we should take a majority like this seriously, and engage with their evidence and reasoning. Simply denying that they could be right about anything is…well, it’s denial. And that’s not healthy.

I do not think that it is impossible to be a Christian or to have faith and at the same time be realistic about the authorship of these books.

One thing to consider - while I do not believe John was written by an apostle named John, I do think it’s reasonable to assume that this gospel came out of a community that was founded by such an apostle - and perhaps the material that made up the book began with this apostle’s teachings. This is how an oral tradition works, and we need to keep in mind that the apostles were likely all (with perhaps the exception of Matthew) illiterate.

Must have fudged that - apologies. Let me try again - here is the article I wrote about the Nativity stories.

Not an accurate way of describing the way I think about the scriptures. I have written at great length on how I do think about the scriptures on my blog - especially in the series I’ve been linking in this thread.

Certainly. The way I think of this - particularly resurrection - may not match the way you do, but I absolutely believe in resurrection. I plan to write at length on the subject in “Book 2” of “Judaism and the Mystical Christ”, but for now: I believe that Jesus was resurrected into God. I believe that his disciples experienced his presence afterwards. Negatively: I think that when many Christians say “resurrection”, what they really mean is “resuscitation”, and I think these views impoverish the reality of resurrection.

Not a bad thing to believe in - and one a belief I have much hope in as well.

To the “bouncer” comment - I would say, to clarify, that I think it is possible that some are being drawn to Jesus without even knowing Jesus’ name. In other words - it’s not salvation by syllables. It’s salvation through the person.

Don’t have time to read the other two comments at the moment, but wanted to get to the last comment:

It really depends on what you mean by “pluralism”. We have to define the term. So, in short, yes - I’m all for pluralism. Now, do I mean that I think “all religions are the same”? Certainly not. Try to think of it this way: would you say that all languages are the same? It is certainly true that all languages have basic structures that are similar to each other, that quite often there are words that are nearly the same between langauge (parallel words, we might say), and that they are all capable of communicating the same ideas if we know how to translate well. But quite often, different languages draw out different nuances. And quite often, trying to translate a concept between languages results in things being “lost in translation”.

I find that Buddhism has helped me to think about consciousness in a way that Christianity never really did. I find that Buddhism has helped me to think about how important it is to “know thyself” - and to understand how I shape what I see, and I need to be aware of this so that I will not continue to block out things I do not want to see. And Buddhism has helped me to see things about Jesus that I never really saw before, as I mentioned before. But Buddhism and Christianity are certainly not the same. I will always be Christian - to suggest that I could be anything else would be as silly as pretending that I could somehow remove my “American-ness”. Can I grow through Buddhism in a way that many of my old Christian friends would not recognize me, in a sense? Yes - but I’m sure that if I were to begin to hang out exclusively in Buddhist circles (something I do not wish to do - though I love Buddhists and want to spend more time with them), they would “smell the Christian on me”, as it were.

If you go back to my original question, I said this:

Let me put my question this way. If Christ never lived, died and was resurrected, in the body of the man Jesus…or if the man Jesus was never born, died and resurrected…would we all reach the same spiritual end - regardless of what religion - or lack of religion - we followed?

I feel almost like I have to respond to this with another question: did Jesus have to die? (More specifically, in the form of an execution, as opposed to from old age.)

If you’re curious, I’ve presented my own views on the atonement here.

Well, here’s my problem here. Suppose I go to Patheos, which is a good site on faith. They do interview Christian authors, on books they have written. Now I have read many book interviews there, along with the questions and answers. None has ever said things like:

“Let me ask this question, in regards to your question.”
“It depends on what you mean…”
“read my article here for the answer to…”
Etc.

The author probably wouldn’t have the interview published, nor would they be invited back to Patheos, for any future interviews. And probably the same would happen in other Christian and secular sites, interviewing Christian authors. So I’ll leave things like this. If you ever get your book available on Amazon and get at least 31 people to rate it and write reviews (i.e. the minimum number for statistical relevance), I’ll read through the reviews and see what the collective rating is. If it gets 4 out of 5 stars in ratings and I like the reviews - I might then order it.

Not good logic. It is certainly necessary to define terms when language has been so confused as in our day. And Jesus certainly answered questions with questions. And if I have written at great length on a subject, do you expect me to do all that work all over again when I can link to it?

It is good logic. I only have so much time in a day. I’m actually looking for short and to the point summary answers. You know. The Reader’s Digest or Cliff Notes variety. The kind authors being interviewed give. Or the tape recording, telling Jim of Mission Impossible, what the next hour of the original TV show is about.

My time I devote to important things, like

Studying languages (i.e. French, Spanish, Portuguese and German)
Reading a good comic book (i.e. Marvel and DC)
Watching the BBC News
Watching some classic comedy (i.e. Laurel and Hardy, the Three Stooges, and the Marx Brothers)

All these things are more important to me, then following links of an unknown author. So for an unknown author to grab my attention, he or she must first grab others attention. Hence, my minimum requirement. I must see it on Amazon, with 31+ reviews and ratings, and an overall favorable rating (of course, the author could get that many friends and relatives to rate something and write reviews).

In Parallel Sayings Richard Hooper usesnthe words “most” or “many” when tied to “scholars” as if inherently authoritative. Take this example…

Many New Testament scholars, for instance, believe the apostle Paul’s out of body experiences were brought on by epileptic seizures- which, in turn, were brought on bychemical shifts within the brain, William James pointed out a century ago that even alcohol can induce mystical seizures"… and then goes on to explain brain chemical reactions in the brain… as if such absolute speculation could have any weight. It is more likely Paul was just intensely and intimately involved with the Ultimate Reality, the Lord Jesus, but in any case- what scholarship is there to confirm such an outrageous statement? None.

In another place he states that “Certain groups of scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar, suggest that as few as 18% of all the words attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels came from him, and even these are not in their original form.” The list of these kinds of assertions is long already, and mostly just as vague and unsupportable.

Over the next few chapters, however, the author bulds a pretty intricate Budhist/Hindu perspective using the sayings of Jesus (which are only 18% certified ;o)

I have only read about 100 pages so far, but the book is making what I consider to be a polite but blatant attempt to disembowel the gospel and interpret it through a Gnostic perspective that mytholizes(? :smiley: ) every supernatural foundation of Christian belief and re-interprets the words of Jesus(the ones out of the 18% that work for him I suppose) into a Budhist/Hindu concept.

While I agree that Jesus’ words do need to be looked at from an mystical mind-set, I found Hooper making generalized statements about Jesus that I thought revealed an intellectual prejudice that went beyong objectivity- but resembled the same kind of attitude that westerners have in reverse. Jesus is neither western or eastern. He is unique. :slight_smile:

It appears( he says so at least) that a major influence in his turn from Christianity was an experience where he asked a pastor, as a seminary student, if he really believed an Indian person who grew up Hindu and never heard of Jesus would go to hell. When answered in the affirmative- he made a huge turn towards eastern mystics- WHICH I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. Too bad he wasnot introduced to the true gospel at some point.

Primarily, I just disagree with his conclusions and definitely feel they presented in a strongly slanted way, not just in a pluralist direction, but essentially reducing all mysticism to a Hindu spirituality carrying a Budhist ethic. The book is an outright debunk of western Christian religion-WHICH I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ( :laughing: )- but it is also an antithetical presentation to what any believer in the risen Christ believes, including many of what I consider the intrinsicly true foundations of the teachings of Jesus Christ. At such a point the pluralism disappates into an outright assault on the fundamental faith of “Christ crucified” (imo).

Hooper does not believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, nor even a shadow of integrity in the histories or epistles contained in the Bible. It is all parabolic mythology or outright junk. In my opinion it is an anti-Christian piece of literature.

Of course, I am not saying this is your view, fatherlearningtolove, in toto, and I have enjoyed many aspects of the 6 chapters of your blog I have read and will continue to read… but you recommended the book, and it is an answer to some things I was wondering reading the blog. That’s why I asked where you were coming from regarding Jesus as Lord of All… I had no desire to offend or go on the offensive, just to clarify.

I think certain aspects of budhism are beautiful. As wisdom, there is much in it to be gained and I have always seen the similarities in areas because I studied Budhism and Krishna consciousness before I had my meeting with the ultimate reality and He revealed Himself as Christ crucified and called me to follow. Not everyone gets to experience that, but I did.

But I do see the cross as a WAY. That is how He revealed Himself to me. His way of self denial and the mystical aspects of His being the I AM- radiance of the Father’s glory and exact representation of His nature, as well as the work of spiritual seeking and growing- have been largely cut out of western Christianity and I have said for many years Jesus was probably more like a guru than any contemporary preacher or teacher I have seen- and definitely a mystic(for me, THE mystic)- but even with all of that, the core difference for me is His death, resurrection and ascenscion above all heavens, bearing the name above every name is undeniable to me- being, during my meeting with ultimate reality, integrated within the cells of my being so to speak.

Of course I would not expect anyone to take my word for that, but I do say it is true.

Me too. Why is your time more important than mine? I’ve already given much of my time to you…

I’ve pretty much done this with you already - if you want more, read my blog. But your questioning began to smell more and more like heresy hunting, and that’s when I decide to use evasive maneuvers - because I realize that it takes time to understand what I’m trying to explain, and to try to give short summaries would be selling it short already. But if you’re going to condemn me based on a short summary, I might as well simply leave you scratching your head.

I have other important things to use my time for as well. Yes, I have spent quite a big deal of my time working on writings - writings I have not received a single penny for, by the way, and really not much more than heartburn (with an occasional compliment) in the way of reaction from readers. But I have 4 children and a lovely wife, I read quite a bit, watch a lot of documentaries, and occasionally “waste” time watching entertainment or reading comic books as well. So it seems a bit arrogant of you to pretend that your list is more important than mine.

If you want to be a writer, you need to follow the rules and conventions that writers, publishers, marketers, etc., follow. For books on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc., it means self publishing or getting a publisher. And a agent - if possible. But you know what? From the book description and writer bio on Amazon, I know exactly where they are coming from. Same goes for author interviews. The interviewer asks direct questions and the author answers them. Or an author goes on a speaking tour and gives talks. And the author answers audience questions. You have to market yourself. And if you wish folks to read your blog, then you need to provide relevant and meaningful content, share stuff on social media, work with SEO, etc.

I’m just a mere consumer. But a consumer with advertisers, social media, other media (i.e. TV, movie, radio, magazine), etc., competing like they do, for my attention. So if you wish to reach me and other consumers, you need to do what other authors do. Answer questions like they do, give summaries like they do - let everyone know where you are “really” coming from. It’s all very simple, really. It’s sometimes hard to implement.

If you embrace a form of pluralism, I won’t condemn you. Or any other ism you might follow. Since I hung around for years in academia, taking literature and philosophy courses, I have encountered just about every ism under the sun. But I always knew where the literature writers and philosophers were “really” coming from. And I have hung around for years with folks from the Ute, Ojibwa, and Lakota tribes. I have gone where few white folks have traveled. I’ve participated in their ceremonies. I hung around their medicine men and women. I’ve hung around “real” holy people from India - not the kind that “advertise” or charge money. I never condemned them for heresy or anything else. And they never refused me hospitality or joining their spiritual endeavors.

If I may interject… I don’t think Randy is being abrasive, but trying to provide you with insight to increase your readership, if you so desire.

That is correct, Gabe. Here’s another thing I never revealed. I live about five minutes away from the National Headquarters of the Theosophical Society. I have a lifetime membership and have been a member for years. Not because I believe in their teachings or philosophy. But because they have the best library on religion and philosophy around. Whenever I watched a speaker - live or by video on the web - I knew exactly where they were coming from. The society doesn’t sponsor or permit debates during the presentations - only asking questions. And to be a member, you just need to state you are in accord with their 3 objects:

To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.
To encourage the comparative study of religion, philosophy and science.
To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in humanity.

The first 2 are easy to embrace. The third one I can also side with, as long as scientific methodology, double blind studies and statistical analysis, are used. And folks can see current webcasts and recorded webcasts free. Now folks in the Christian churches might condemn me for heresy for joining them - even if my reasons are to use their extensive library collection.

And for examples of spiritual writings on Amazon, look at:

Mystic Visions: Black Elk’s Great Vision Clarified by Quentin H. Young
The Incredible Life of a Himalayan Yogi: The Times, Teachings and Life of Living Shiva: Baba Lokenath Brahmachari by Shuddhaanandaa Brahmachari
This House Is On Fire: The Life of Shri Dhyanyogi by by Shri Anandi Ma

I know these authors personally and they are good friends of mine. I have been in ceremony with Quentin. I have hung around Dhyanyogi, while he was still living. And Shuddhaanandaa’s work with the poor in India, would rival that of Mother Theresa.

Hanging around academia (i.e. College of DuPage) and the Theosophical Society, has exposed me to all kinds of isms. For Theosophists, they usually advocate some form of esotericism. And if they embrace the Christian tradition, it’s usually some form of esotericism or gnosticism. As a former academic, I’m more concerned whether any position is logically coherent and can be logically defended. In the forum here, there are rules of engagement. Folks are protected to some degree, by those rules and the admins and moderators. I personally follow those set up in academia. But if someone didn’t want any flack or heat, then they really shouldn’t open a thread up, in the first place. Or to state a popular saying:

Listen - my problem here is that internet critics are some of the most demanding and lazy people out there. I put so much work into my writing already, and have gotten nothing back from it. Not a dime. Occasionally I get a compliment, but more often I get people who want to argue. I’m so, so tired of arguing. And if I smell a heresy hunt, I’m not going to even try to lure you in to read my work - you’re not worth the time, if you’re a heresy hunter. That’s a headache I don’t need in my life - and I know because I’ve had too many of them already. I think I’ve given plenty in this thread - don’t like it, don’t read. Or if it makes you curious, go read.

The problem I see in internet discussion groups is that all too often, people only participate in them because they like to argue. It gives them some sort of sick twisted sadistic pleasure. So they go around looking for things to disagree with - and this causes them no pain (at least none that is immediately visible) because they are arguing with “anonymous” strangers. So they don’t lose friendships over this addiction. And it’s a consumer mentality - they don’t really care to try to understand where anyone is coming from, they just want to disagree and “prove” themselves to be right. I can’t tell you how much heartburn this mentality has caused me. It’s so, so hard to build up a readership base these days, because publishing companies only care about people who have already done so. You have to do all the work yourself. And let’s be honest - I am not a salesman. I have never been a good salesman - I actually tried it one summer when I was in college, and I was terrible at it. It’s because I actually take no for an answer. But I’m good at writing. If I had other people who were my salesmen - people who liked my writing enough to promote it for me - I could have a good readership base. But right now I have to self-promote, and it sucks. Especially because all anyone wants to do is argue with me. I’ve had it. I’m not arguing any more. It’s too much trouble. Go read my blog, or don’t - it’s up to you. But I will not be drawn into an argument.

No, I won’t read it. And that would go for many folks, if you don’t tell them where you are coming from. And it all depends on what you mean by heresy and who’s on the other side. For Christians embracing exclusivism and traditional hell teachings,folks here would be embracing heresy - by embracing universalism. As far as arguments go, I usually refrain - unless someone attacks me first. It’s the martial arts philosophy of aikido and jujitsu. And I can guarantee that you won’t be presenting any position here, that I haven’t already encountered in academia or at the Theosophical Society.

That’s absolutely fine with me. But don’t try to manipulatively guilt me into walking into what smells like a trap to me.

It sounds more like delusions or paranoia to me. If you want to know how Eagles Way, myself or others respond, then study how we engage folks in other discussions. It’s called profiling. If you do it well, then you can almost predict how someone will respond. It’s just the science of psychology.

Have you ever written a blog and tried to promote it - specifically a blog about controversial religious subjects? If you had, you’d know what it’s like to constantly be hounded by OCD types who want to prove to the world that they are right and you are wrong. It’s not paranoia - it’s what I’ve lived.