Yes and No

yall shouid not talk about god that is the man who made u

cheap viagra http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/ >cheap viagra [url=http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/]cheap viagra[/url] cheap viagra

Dr. Borg,
I would really appreciate a response to my comments and questions made on 12/29/06, see above.

Jim Sullivan

Dr. Borg,
After reading your book, Meeting Jesus for the First Time Again, I want to personally thank you for getting this life-long Christian back on track. Being from the "Bible Belt", I have always struggled with merging my analytical brain and my faith. As a high school teacher of world cultures, it was more difficult to think that, by virtual of my birth in a Christian society, my religion was the only "way". After being in somewhat of a vacuum for the past 15 years, the nothingness that had become so common is now being replace by the spirituality I have longed for. No more need to "kiss my brains" goodbye. Thank you for articulating, through print, the answers to questions I have had for years!

Dr. Borg,
Based on what you have said here you do not believe that much of what is widely accepted by Christians or Jews is literally true. Can you agree with fellow panel member Sam Harris that there is, in fact, no evidence that God exists and that religions are based on what might most honestly be called fairy tales as opposed to literal truths? If you don't agree with this, then why not, and if you do agree, then what convinces you that religions deserve to be supported today?
Jim Sullivan

Dr. Borg,

Thanks so much for your clarity in explaining Jesus in the this article and for your entire body of work. You are a real blessing to so many of us that have a deep faith but prefer not to "check our brains at the door" when we enter discusions of faith.

In the negative responses here, it is clear that people struggle to see the subjective nature of language. The title "son of god" can have a variety of meanings so it seems obvious to say "yes" to some meanings while saying "no" to other meanings. This answer is not that different than the ones Jesus gave when questioned about theological issues like when he said "render unto ceasar what is ceasars'" or "let the dead bury the dead". What exactly belongs to ceasar and who exactly is "dead"? Jesus refused to fall victim to the trap of narrow language.

Thanks E. Favorite,
Interesting article. Definitely interesting reading for Christians. I think it's actually positive for Christianity.

To Martin CT:

You say, "I find myself having to cross my fingers at many church services (e.g. today, Luke's nativity story as simple history), but I can't seem to leave the community. "

Maybe the church will change and you won't have to leave.

I think a lot of clergy have their fingers crossed too, or have found other ways to accommodate what they know about the mythological and metaphorical roots of Christianity. It's a sorry state of affairs, I think, where talking in code is the accepted way for a community to cope.

Have you read anything by John Shelby Spong? He's a retired Episcopal bishop. One of his books is "Why the Church must Change or Die." It’s in bookstores and on Amazon.

Also, via this forum, I found an article about how Conservative Jews are beginning to inform their congregations about the origins of the Hebrew Bible. The NY Times article, "New Torah for Modern Minds," by Michael Massing, starts like this:

“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.”

You can read the whole thing through the Times’ paid link
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

or go to a free link (same article, different title) http://www.kulanu.org/links/etz_hayim.html

Amazing, isn’t it?

Merry Christmas

Marcus,

Thank you once again for explaining a way to think of the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. I have found this deeply helpful as a "modern" scientifically trained person who nonetheless seems to be a Christian.

It is possible to understand all the (limited) historical data and to accept what Jesus' words (to the extent we have truly have them) did and did not say about him, while still "subscribing" ourselves to the Christian story, as it was understood in the early Church of the Gospels and Paul's writings.

But how to deal with the later doctrines: the trinity, "he died for your sins", etc.? Some of these seem to have been invented for the convenience of the institutional church -- even to avoid having to deal with the Kingdom of God being at hand and the radical social messages.

So I find myself having to cross my fingers at many church services (e.g. today, Luke's nativity story as simple history), but I can't seem to leave the community. An unfinished work.

Dr. Borg - Thanks for your response. I’ve read it over and over. I think I understand what you mean and what it means to you, but I’m glad that you probably won’t ever be called as an expert witness, because I’m afraid your explanation might not be straightforward enough for the judge and jury.

Merry Christmas

To E. Favorite.

Yes, I would answer as you suggest I would.

I add that my affirmation that Jesus is the Light of the World, the Bread of Life, the Son of God, and so forth, are affirmations of his significance for me (and for Chrfistians generally). These are "confessional" affirmations - not "confession" in a legal or courtroom sense, but statements of allegiance - not to the statements, but of allegiance to the character and passion of God as disclosed in Jesus. The statements mean, "Jesus is Lord, and the would-ve lords oif this world are not." Jesus is Lord, Hitler is not; Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not; and so forth.

Dr. Borg – in a further attempt to understand what you’ve said, I would like to know if the following is correct:

In a court of law, under oath, if you were asked to testify as an expert witness (based on your lifetime of scholarship) you would answer “no” to the following:

- Jesus was born to a woman who became pregnant without having sexual intercourse with a mortal man.

- Jesus’s father is God, a supernatural being from heaven.

In that same court, you’d answer “yes” to the following:

- Jesus did not perceive himself to be the Son of God

- As a Christian, I believe Jesus is the Son of God because his early followers thought of him that way.

Very interesting admission. I have long felt that mainstream Christianity as created by the Roman Emperor and proto-Pope Constantine contains a deep division that is NOT characteristic of all early Christian sects. Namely, the dead Jesus is infinitely preferable to the living one. After all, it is much easier to put words into the mouth of a dead Jesus and to attribute all kinds of magic missing in the living person. The living one actually had an ethics that would condemn much if not most of what has transpired historically "in his name." As for the dating of the Gospels, I believe most scholars accept them to be far from contemporary accounts, rather they evolved over the following centuries. Otherwise there is an entire biblical exegesis industry which would be endangered, indeed the author is likely employed in that field as a "Christian historian." The division between the followers of the living Jesus and the dead one is what cuts off mainstream Christianity from other spiritual sources around it. Dogma prevails over spirit. Reconciliation is impossible.

Very interesting admission. I have long felt that mainstream Christianity as created by the Roman Emperor and proto-Pope Constantine contains a deep division that is NOT characteristic of all early Christian sects. Namely, the dead Jesus is infinitely preferable to the living one. After all, it is much easier to put words into the mouth of a dead Jesus and to attribute all kinds of magic missing in the living person. The living one actually had an ethics that would condemn much if not most of what has transpired historically "in his name." As for the dating of the Gospels, I believe most scholars accept them to be far from contemporary accounts, rather they evolved over the following centuries. Otherwise there is an entire biblical exegesis industry which would be endangered, indeed the author is likely employed in that field as a "Christian historian." The division between the followers of the living Jesus and the dead one is what cuts off mainstream Christianity from other spiritual sources around it. Dogma prevails over spirit. Reconciliation is impossible.

Very interesting admission. I have long felt that mainstream Christianity as created by the Roman Emperor and proto-Pope Constantine contains a deep division that is NOT characteristic of all early Christian sects. Namely, the dead Jesus is infinitely preferable to the living one. After all, it is much easier to put words into the mouth of a dead Jesus and to attribute all kinds of magic missing in the living person. The living one actually had an ethics that would condemn much if not most of what has transpired historically "in his name." As for the dating of the Gospels, I believe most scholars accept them to be far from contemporary accounts, rather they evolved over the following centuries. Otherwise there is an entire biblical exegesis industry which would be endangered, indeed the author is likely employed in that field as a "Christian historian." The division between the followers of the living Jesus and the dead one is what cuts off mainstream Christianity from other spiritual sources around it. Dogma prevails over spirit. Reconciliation is impossible.

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?"

No. Anyone who does must prove two assertions:

1. That God exists.

2. That God procreates and somehow produces a son.

The concept is meaningless.

Jesus was a Jew, possibly a revolutionary, who did not confine himself to doctrine and dogma, had some influence among the populace of his time, opposed the status quo and was affective enough to warrant execution by the religious and political power elete of his time. . . Today, he might be a simple Palestinian who might influence the Israeli public to such an extent that both the Palestinian and Israeli power eletes would simply kill him because he posed too great a threat to their status.

Nothin' like having your cake & eating it too. Myself, I believe the world is really flat, and we just consider it to be curved 'cause it's easier for physicists & mathematicians to deal with it that way.

Come now professor. Would you accept as correct an answer to a quiz of both "yes and no?" I must say you got it right for the answer is always yes or no. Is it alright if I answer yes AND no? Just following your lead, sir.

Marcus,
Try reading the works of Josephus. What is it about Jesus that troubles you so much?

Marcus:
    You call yourself a "historian"? What a joke. Historians do not use scripture as a source of actual occurrences. Only quacks do that.
    Any bonafide historian knows that the only source of purported "information" about the major "Jesus" (Joshua) of the New Testament, the one called "christ" (messiah), is the New Testament itself, and therefore nothing contained in that body of scriptures can be construed as providing information about anyone who actually lived or about events which actually occurred. If you want to verify ANYTHING or ANYONE appearing in the New Testament scriptures, you have to provide EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE of it or of her or his actual existence.
    I challenge you and everyone else to furnish even the tiniest scrap of evidence to demonstrate that "Jesus" actually existed and that any of the fairy tales and folk tales in the New Testament scriptures refer to anything which actually happened.
    Finally, Marcus, any bonafide historian knows that "Easter" is a "Christian" gentile conversion, lacking in reason or authority, of the Hebrew/Jewish holiday Passover into this particular addition to the thousands of examples of "Christian" fraud and flimflammery to which humanity has been subjected over the centuries.
    When Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn gave humanity the great gift of opening up these subjects on the internet, and you agreed to participate, you opened yourself up to something you have not experienced before: direct challenge to the claptrap you have propounded over the years. You are not going to continue to get away with it, Marcus. If you want any of us to believe anything you have to say, you are going to have to stop relying on scripture in support and provide some evidence that whatever you refer to in the scriptures is true. Face it.
- Burton H. Wolfe

If Jesus was/is the Son of God, than so am I (and more importantly so is everyone else!)

Regardless of what you think, He clearly perceived Himself to be the Son of God BEFORE His death and ressurection. The gospels are an account of words that He spoke before the cross.

Best Regards,

Shawn

Dr. Borg –

Are you saying Jesus did not perceive himself to be the Son of God, but his followers did and you believe his followers’ perceptions over those of Jesus? Do you mean that the followers’ perceptions are more compelling than historical evidence or the person himself?

If you feel that this is sound basis for belief, then it seems like followers (not necessary of Jesus, but of any venerated figure – e.g., a head of state) could purposely misrepresent their leader for their own selfish or evil purposes and lead future followers wildly astray.

...sounds like that's a "no" from you in actuality - I would interpret your statements in the affirmative as lacking objective truth about your beliefs and instead being expression of the convictions of the traditions with with you associate.

Yest me, your hoax buster is laughable. It certainly does your arguments no good. You would be wise to stop referring to it.

We can be a little more specific about Alexander the great, Roman emperors and even Hirohito. They were all sons of god. Jesus was not the son of God.

Sons of god are Gods. The nitpicking capitalization of the word specifies a person. All supernatural beings including angels, both good and bad ones are gods. Their children, sons only are Gods. Jesus doesn't qualify for two real good reasons.

First Jesus was female, a dead giveaway to not being a son of god or man. Then Jesus had original sin, failure to be the firstborn son of the son of god, God. Only the firstborn son of God is without sin, the sin of origin, the birth sin. "We are all sinners" because none of us are firstborn sons of God. And if that isn't enough, Jesus was not fathered by her mother's husband.

The firstborn son of God was killed during an event known as Passover. Therefore it was necessary to Baptize a sinful person to take his place. But then a male imitator, was selected and Baptized in the blood of the firstborn son, figuratively speaking.

Later she was discovered, somebody snitched on her. She was charged with blasphemy, stripped naked in the public square so all could see that she was a she and thus convicted. She died on the cross of Egypt along with her mother and her wife. It takes three hours on average to die on the cross of Egypt and weeks on the Roman cross, just another tidbit of supporting evidence.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the full story in synopsis form with ties to the Biblical tales.

Merry Christmas and happy new year to all.

So Jesus is not the Son of God to Muslims or Hindus or Atheists? So it is not objectively true? Like this author said, the New Testament testifies that Jesus did claim what he says Jesus did not. So are we to believe this scholar 2000 years removed from the time of Jesus or eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus and heard what he said?

I choose following the disciples and those who heard and saw Jesus, along with those who knew those who knew Jesus (like Luke and Mark for example).