Democrat and Independent Thinker..."The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Nietzsche

Commenting on many things, including..."A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from." - Keith Olbermann

Friday, March 09, 2007

Truth and kerygma...

...go together like love and marriage, love and marriage, ladedatata daduhdada

Have I ever mentioned that I double-majored? One major was History. The other was Religions? As in all world religions, mythologies, etc. Minored in Philosophy? No? Oh. Well, yeah, I did. I had planned on becoming an archaeologist before a bad man entered my life and kinda fucked things up.

Anyway, I thought some of my regular readers might like to read my comment(s) posted over at Obsidian Wings in response to this post and some of the previous really well thought out comments in the thread, albeit with limited, yet normal and typical resources.

I almost hate to tell y'all this, but religious theologians have long concluded (over the last two centuries, with the third movement ongoing) that the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith are two very different things. There have been three movements of the search for the historical Jesus, all attempts to determine what was the actual historical truth contained in the Gospels and what was kerygma ("Good news" or the dogma of the early church, look it up in Wikipedia.)

Basically, the conclusion by many minds much finer than any of us here is that the Christian religion is NOT rooted in history, it is rooted in faith alone. Minds like Albert Schweitzer and the great German Rudolf Bultmann who ended the first (old) quest with his statement "Christ who is preached is not the historic Jesus, but the Christ of faith."

Gunthur Bornkammm's book "Jesus of Nazareth" is an excellent yet accessible work for any who might like to read further.

Most have come to the conclusion that Jesus was an inspired teacher of one type or another, who either did or did not see himself as the Messiah, who was or was not seen by his followers as the Messiah, but who became the focal point of a new way of thinking and being which was encompassed in what little we think we know about what he actually taught, which was built upon and extrapolated by the early church. The early church evolved in order to spread this new way of thinking and being, into what exists today and the Jesus of history was gradually and perhaps intentionally turned into the Christ of faith.

In no way was this any different than the evolution of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion with any one or many Godheads. All religions, indeed many secular philosophies, have a central focus point around which a basic teaching of how man should deal with mankind revolved and the basic tenets have grown and evolved.

So, attempting to prove or disprove the life, death or even existence of the historical Jesus in any relation whatsoever to the Christ of faith is, well, pointless.

Anyone who goes into any church, mosque, synagogue, or what-have-you expecting to be taught historical truth may as well be going into an ice cream parlor expecting to be served a t-bone steak, whether they have the capacity or education to understand that fact or not.

There is no historical truth in any religion. The only truth that can be found in any religion, or philosophy, is the truth that way of being and thinking might contain as to how we should behave toward one another and why in whatever form and using whatever imagery it takes to reach our fellow human beings in a way that they can grasp and understand. What more can you expect, and, moreover, why would you expect more? What more does mankind need other than to learn to live with and love one another with peacefulness and understanding?

Posted by: BlueKat March 09, 2007 at 06:46 AM

Oh, and just as a sidenote in reference to some previous comments, I don't think there was and "O" or a "D" on the tablets of the 10 Commandments. I'm pretty sure they would have been written in Hebrew, not the English language, although Egyptian hieroglyphs wouldn't be totally out of the question.

The Samech (S), and both Mem's (M) are pretty much closed characters, but if you really want to believe the "see thru" letter bit, they could be written with just a teeny weeny opening so the insides wouldn't necessarily have to fall out or hang in the air, umm, magically. But, if the magically hanging letters make you happy, go for it and don't let anyone tell you that you can't believe whatever you damn well choose.

Posted by: BlueKat March 09, 2007 at 06:57 AM

UPDATE: Lawsy, it went on from there. Lotsa pompous asses on the tubes.

No comments: