Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I agree. It seems he almost makes William James and other contemporary psychology more relevant to interpreting Jesus than Jesus' own Jewish context.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but he basically says that since Jesus' message was about God then Jesus was not messianic. This sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Of course Jesus preached the kingdom of God was coming into the world; but how does that rule out Jesus seeing himself as God's representative who would fight the battle against pagan evil and end the exile (duh...I like NT Wright's work better...)

As for non-eschatalogical, I agree Jesus did not mean the world, space-time, would end. If he meant that, he was wrong, for here we are. But why couldn't Jesus, like previous prophets, use imagery that sounds like end-of-the-world stuff to talk about destruction of Jerusalem? I take Jesus to mean that if the Jewish leaders continue on their path, the Roman armies (like Babylon) will come in and destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This will be the end of the age. But in his resurrection and ascension, Jesus is now on the throne, the kingdom of God is here, and you can have life if you choose the way of Jesus.

To say it is noneschatalogical seems to allow later Christian views of heaven/hell/judgment/etc. to dictate Jesus rather than Jesus' own Jewish views, in line with OT prophets.

As for "relationship" with God, that is my question - is this a term both liberals and evangelicals use with different meanings? Or is it an example of liberal theology sneaking into evangelical churches; or of evangelical theology sneaking into liberal?

chapter 3: compassion vs. holy, meaning compassion vs. ritual purity. Yes. Borg views Jesus as revolutionary in this matter; discarding Jewish purity laws in favor of compassion. Borg's phrase, "the shattering of purity boundaries," epitomizes his view of Jesus. I agree with him that it's a reasonable Christian expectation to continue shattering "purity boundaries" including other constraints to spiritual growth, and homosexuality seems to be a relevant issue in today's Christianity, so it seems natural to make that a focal point in testing our own Christian spirit. Do we believe in compassion, or do we believe in ritual purity? Jesus seems to come down strongly on the side of compassion.

Thus I think our stance as regards homosexuality is the ideal measuring stick. A great way to tell just how Christian we really are. At this point, my own "liberalness raises its errant head." It seems very clear to me that, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, the proper spirit of Christianity would never marginalize homosexuals. At the same time, it's very clear to me that the Bible speaks against homosexuality. (I agree with Jeff; Paul does not seem very "liberal" on this issue.) Does that make me errant, or does it make me a closer follower of Jesus? I believe the latter; I believe homosexuality is a current-day test of whether the Christian spirit is alive or dead...whether it continues to grow or has turned stale. Whether we subscribe to ritual purity or compassion.

Take a pencil and make a short list of the basic attributes that come to mind when you think of Jesus. Our lists will probably be very much the same: Compassion, love, kindness, acceptance, understanding, etc. These define for me the "spirit of Christianity," and just as Jesus felt obliged to discard religious laws and teachings where they contradicted the law of love, so should we. We are taught this compassion-over-purity rule by Jesus, himself.

You mean because the Bible is central to Christianity? I agree, and I think with careful discernment we can learn about Jesus from the Bible. I think it's unfair to claim I have no regard for the Bible.

Remember that, for me, the Bible contains a myriad of contradictions. We cannot align ourselves with all scripture; we must pick and choose. ALL of us are neglecting the teachings of certain Biblical authors in favor of others. So, in my opinion, Jesus taught us how to choose: choose compassion.

I get the feeling I'm still not answering your question...

Imagine getting to Heaven and having God say:

God:"WHAT? Why did you read that book in the Bible? And Amos, Micah, Titus, Jude? Whoever let that get put in MY Bible?

Rod: "Why YOU did Lord."

God: "No I didn't. Who's incharge down there?"

Rod: "You're Bible has been around almost 2000 years. We thought it was your collected WORD."

God: "Actually I can kinda see what would make you say that - Sorry! My BAD. How embarrassing."