Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time--Preface and Chapter 1

[Lee]

heh, heh. Oh my!

I'll go on record as saying I'm a HUGE fan of Borg. I do not wish to dampen anyone's faith, whether in conversation or in the books I write, but I do hope that I (and Borg, of course) do a service to those who DO find a more down-to-earth Jesus more palatable. The question is, can other Christians embrace liberal Christians as brethren, when those brethren show little interest in the creeds and afterlife-orientation and literal miracle interpretations etc.?

That quote is "credible OR incredible" (you have a typo, Jeff). I think you're asking, can Borg possibly objectively embrace a supernatural Jesus? Perhaps, but the whole point is that it isn't necessary. We don't NEED that burden of having to believe in the incredible. You don't HAVE to believe in the cosmic Jesus that sprang up in the centuries after Jesus actually lived in order to appreciate the pre-Easter Jesus, or even the post-Easter Jesus of experience (without the supernatural creeds that make the whole thing unbelievable to many in today's world).

[Lee]

Ah! Well, objectively, we know more about the historical Jesus than the risen Jesus. For the latter, what we have is uncorroborated stories that we assume are meant to be taken literally, and more important, the spiritual experience of Jesus within. Borg will come clean that he believes the N.T. writers were speaking of the resurrection in this manner as well...a spiritual awakening, not a literal event.

Christianity's value, for me, is in the humanitarian dream Jesus held of the Kingdom of God on earth. God, himself, is not bound by Christianity.

For Borg's "image of Jesus," he means I think that what we understand about Jesus drives how we relate to him and worship him. It's kinda common sense, but for example, if you are taught your whole life that you are a horrible sinner who desperately needs mercy from a punitive God, then you will primarily see Jesus through the lens of a replacement sacrifice; his death is what matters, and you love him because he died to rescue you from your sins.

[David]

I'm a sucker for personal stories, it humanizes people. I may disagree with Bart Ehrman or Marcus Borg on some things, but their stories of how they got there make me unable to not like them. What I got from Borg's story is that he is sincerely seeking truth. I think sometimes conservative evangelicals paint folks like Borg as wolves in sheep's clothing, implying (or saying) they are motivated by Satan to tear down the faith. At least in this first chapter, Borg comes across as a sincere seeker.

I appreciated how he says faith is not just believing nor being moral, it is about relationship (2-3). Of course, everyone says that. I grew up in conservative evangelical churches hearing its not about religion, its about relationship. Is Borg using the word differently (typical liberal doublespeak, lol)? Or is the evangelical use of "relationship with Jesus" a sign of how influenced by aspects of liberal theology they are?

On page 12 he talks about one view of Jesus as an eschatological prophet who believed the world would soon end...which of course Jesus was wrong. Is this our misunderstanding of Jesus and what he meant in his "end of the world" language? I have come to understand (kudos to NT Wright and Andrew Perriman) that he was talking about the end of the Temple, the conquest of Jerusalem and events surrounding the Jewish war of 70AD, not the end of the space-time continuum. I am not sure if he will get into this later, but isn't saying Jesus meant the end of space-time world to read our presuppositions back into the text?

I think the trouble "conservative" and "liberal" Christians have in communicating is simply using the same words with different definitions. I would affirm almost all Borg says at the end of the chapter (16-17). I guess in terms of apologetics, how central is this issue to faith? I imagine those like Borg (and Lee) would have no trouble accepting their more conservative brethren at the communion table together. Would those who hold up more traditional orthodox (Trinity, literal bodily resurrection) be willing to accept our liberal friends?

I want to say yes, we can all rally around Jesus, even if we disagree on very vital specifics of who Jesus was and is. But everything in my background fights against that.

In other words, are liberal Christians a target for apologetics (or for evangelism)? Or are liberal Christians people we join together with in doing mission and ministry? Or is it both, somehow?

[David]

Wow, I guess this book is not much for discussion. I'd post some thoughts from the rest, but no one responded here so I am not sure if I want to take the time.

Anyone have any thoughts on chapters 2-6?

It read almost like a typical Christian devotional book. I mean, I agree more with NT Wright and traditional views on things like Trinity and resurrection, but these were not central to this book. It was a lot of: Jesus is great, be like Jesus. Sure there were some things I could nitpick but I found myself moved quite a lot.

Which makes me ask the same question: if Borg is a "liberal" Christian does my enjoyment of this book just show how liberal I have become? Haha. In other words, Borg, like evangelicals, speak of "relationship" with God a lot. Is this using the same term in a different way, or is this an example of a liberal word being taken up by evangelicals...or an evangelical word taken up by liberals?

[Lee]

sorry, guys, my son up and decided to get married, I've been on a road trip. Will be back to the grind on Tuesday.

[David S. T.]

Sweet Lee, congrats.

I wanted to participate more but I've been pretty busy with work and other stuff and haven't had much time to get on here.

[Rod]

Is still haven't found a copy of the book. I'll probably wait till the next one we discuss. I'll keep reading your posts though.

Good luck with the wedding Lee.

[David]

Congrats! It seems with summer over, it is a busier time of year for everyone (I know it is for me!).