Is Jesus Really Laughing?
I’ve been loaned a book by a good friend of mine called The Laughing Jesus
I already have major problems just from reading the first pages. Example:
“But the original Christians didn’t see Jesus as an historical man who ‘suffered for our sins’. They viewed Jesus as the mythical hero of a symbolic teaching story, which represents the spiritual journey leading to the experience of awakening they called ‘gnosis’, or ‘knowing’” (p. 4).
Not that I don’t believe we need to critically examine our assumptions, traditions and beliefs we’ve inherited from the past. But I hope they spend considerable time and effort to prove that! It’s a huge, sweeping statement that flies in the face of centuries of research, study, and writing. I recognize the recurring and growing influence of gnosticism, so I feel it is urgent for me to read and understand these guys, their books, and their influence. Let’s see what happens, so stay tuned!
Share This
Fair enough. Off to a good start.
Thanks Jeff! Should I tell everyone reading this blog that it was YOU who loaned me the book, or not?
Dear David,
It is self evident that you are terribly weighed down by the significant investment you have made in your current beliefs. Too bad.
You state that the statement made in the introduction to the book is “a huge, sweeping statement that flies in the face of centuries of research, study, and writing.” What research and study? If one examines the contemporary history there is simply no mention of any Jesus. There is no historical record (other than a know well recognized forgery of Josephus) which corroborates a real physical Jesus. None, zero, nada.
The overwhelming research and study weighs AGAINST your point of view. You say that there needs to be proof for what these authors say (not that there is not any - there is). I find this interesting, especially in light of the fact that there is none for your current belief. You accept the existence of Jesus on faith alone. Is it not hypocritical to expect proof from others when you require none for your own beliefs?
I have a hard time accepting your willingness to “critically examine” things. I think you have too much to lose if you REALLY did this. I wish you strength my good man.
Jake: Who isn’t influenced by what they’ve learned? Is there one person free from the constraints or benefits of his or her past? Is there one person alive who’s mind is totally liberated from the accumulation of its knowledge? No not one! I should’ve said I hope they “attempt” to prove it, because, to be honest, I don’t think they can. I admit that I believe not only in the existence but also the divinity of Jesus. I’m also aware that I will approach an idea predisposed to accept or reject it because of my world-view and beliefs, even my mood at the time. So, when I read a statement like, “the early christians didn’t believe in the historical man called Jesus who came to save us from our sins”, or whatever, no one should expect me to suddenly exclaim, “Oh my God! I’ve been wrong all these years, as well as Barth, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Athanasius, and Paul! Oh well. On to new things!” If I am going to change my mind, they need to attempt to. That’s all I meant.
Oh, and another thing: have you seen the movies “Taken” or “Flightplan”? Sometimes when I read such books as Pagan Christ or Laughing Jesus, I get the Hitchcockish feeling that someone is trying to convince me that someone I have known and loved never really existed at all. Just a thought.
Jake said: “You state that the statement made in the introduction to the book is “a huge, sweeping statement that flies in the face of centuries of research, study, and writing.” What research and study? If one examines the contemporary history there is simply no mention of any Jesus. There is no historical record (other than a know well recognized forgery of Josephus) which corroborates a real physical Jesus. None, zero, nada.”
There is no historical record? Let’s forget about Pliny, Tacitus, and Josephus (who doubtless did include a record of Jesus, but it was more likely doctored to make it “more Christian.” It’s a presupposition to to suppose that the entire entry was placed there by misguided Christians).
And what about the Gospels? They don’t count?
David,
Yes, everyone is influenced by what they have learned — assuming of course that learning means gaining an understanding through the application of reason and logic to observed facts. One cannot “learn” by accepting propositions blindly - that would be faith. Faith can be helpful when you are a child - it makes life easier to understand, helps with the morality bit (the whole eternal damnation if you don’t behave bit - worked for me!) But as we grow up, we tend to want to understand things rationally and logically. We want things to make sense. I don’t understand how a smart fella like you can accept things that don’t make sense? Tell me, truly, on what basis do you believe what you believe? (Saying I read it somewhere or someone told me do NOT count) How is believing in a God who listens but never answers, rational? We pray, but then there is God’s will? If it is all God’s will - why pray? Then there is the whole sending the son to do the dirty work of dying (knowing that he would be back in just a short commercial break) for ALL our sins - don’t you find that dripping with symbolism?? Anyway, I could go on and on. I won’t. This is my last post to this blog.
Fred:
No, the gospels don’t count. They were all written at least two generations after Jesus’ alleged life. They are internally inconsistent, doctored by the church for its own purpose and in essence a transmutation of pagan myth. They are no more reliable than Humpty Dumpty or the Three Little Pigs. Why do you think christian thinkers were so orgasmically excited when the Jesus Ossuary (which we now know was a fake) was discovered a few years ago? - it was because it was the first “real” proof of Jesus’ existence.
People, people, use the cranial capacity God supposedly gave you. Ask yourself, does it all make sense?
Hear, hear, Jake! (or is it here, here?)
Sorry to see Jake leave. A rare voice of reason and independent tought in this blog. David, you are fantastic, but you are indeed influenced to a greater degree than most by virtue of your background and your career path and not nearly as able or willing to think independently about these things.
Whether right or wrong in his assessments, Jake’s willingness to think objectively has been refreshing.
so, am i to understand, jeff, that:
1. my voice isn’t a voice of reason
2. i am influenced more than most by my education and experience, etc.
3. i am a pawn of the church
4. i won’t think independently
5. i can’t think independently
6. i don’t think objectively
well, at least i’m “fantastic”
I have tried to point out that the difference between you and Jake is his willingness to toss out everything he has known and understood in order to analyze a new idea. If an idea comes along that, if you were to accept it, would require you to deny your decades-old belief foundation, I don’t think you are able or willing to examine it objectively.
You take great liberties with new ideas within the christian context and you have a talent for pushing christians outside of their comfort zone and I think this is what makes you a fantastic pastor. Jake’s frustration appears to be - and I share this - an observed unwillingness to throw everything you know away in order to examine an idea objectively.
Using the familiar Matrix analogy, when Morpheus and Neo meet, Morpheus offers Neo two pills. The red pill will answer the question “what is the Matrix?” (by removing him from it) and the blue pill simply for life to carry on as before. As Neo reaches for the red pill Morpheus warns Neo “Remember, all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”
I think you need to unplug from the Matrix - abandon your world view - in order to examine a new idea.
The ideas, and books we received them from, that Jake and I have mentioned in this blog may not be valid or true either. But Jake’s ability and willingness to embrace them so he can digest them is unique in this blog.
I, personally, feel liberation and great joy from “putting my childish ways behind me” and embracing new ideas that explain life in a way that makes much more sense than the christian storyline I have been familiar with throughout my life. I don’t suggest that my answers are the final answers or the mislabelled “truth”. But my willingness to let go of what I have known at least makes the exploration of new ideas worthwhile.
All this being said, I am aware of your history as a presbyterian minister and your bold and courgeous move away from it when your learnings and meditation took you there. But I wonder if you assume the same posture to new ideas today that you did then. That is for you to answer, not me or anyone else. I wasn’t around back then and I only know what I read in your blog and in conversation with you today.
I suppose it is laudable to be objective. But you can be completely objective AND completely wrong! I have tried, in this blog, to keep the dialogues within the realm of the ideas themselves, and have tried to keep people’s motives, attitudes, and character out of it. Let’s examine the IDEAS being presented. I don’t think it is fair, Jeff, when I argue an idea, for you to pull up my “unwillingness” or “inability” because of where I’ve been or who I am. I have never accused Jake or you of being wrong BECAUSE you’re an avowed atheist or a backsliding sinner or “just” a layperson. I hope to be able to show an idea valid because of its inherent ability to be true or false. And who said I have come to a conclusion anyway? You guys are prophets of my own doom! We’re all in process here. I’m surprised, frankly, at the speed at which some people will bail out of a conversation, on all sides, just because it isn’t going in their direction. What’s so tolerant about that?
Nobody has said you are wrong because of who you are. I haven’t said you are wrong at all.
You said in your blog, “Not that I don’t believe we need to critically examine our assumptions, traditions and beliefs we’ve inherited from the past. But I hope they spend considerable time and effort to prove that!”
You could start by mentioning the countless references throughout that book. If you didn’t have my copy, I’d include them here. Unlike your concerns with lack of valid references in the Pagan Christ, this book is full of references and “proof” for why they say what they say.
As well, I have found few statements in the Laughing Jesus that I did not first hear from other respected sources such as Karen Armstrong or Richard Rohr.
Your statements in this blog posting - not necessarily in the comments that followed - are biased and misleading and show a contempt for this book within your first 4 pages. Your blog implies “so far these guys are in left field but I’ll be a trooper and keep on reading it”. You imply that they say what they say without basis and that is simply not true.
What else am I to conclude other than that you are unwilling and/or unable to take leave of your biases and think objectively?
And regarding Jake’s “bailing”, I would not expect you to participate in a dialogue of circular reasoning and wishy washy propaganda talk if you felt it was that - and I believe this is where Jake found himself, if I may speak on his behalf based on his comments here. I stick around partly because I think there is some good dialogue and partly because I find a lot of the comments are highly entertaining.
Hey everybody. Jeff and I are good friends. Really! So, in good fun, check out my latest post:
Cat-fight Over Jesus
OK, I am back for one more post. I cannot stand to not respond to this.
I am not bailing because things are not going my way. I don’t have an agenda. I thought you were prepared to look at your beliefs without any strings, which I find admirable for a person of your stature, if not downright courageous. That is what interested me. I am now convinced that that is not the case, ergo my interest disappears.
On another point, you say you can be objective and completely wrong. I disagree. They are completely different concepts. Objectivity is an ability to assess something without taint or bias. Being wrong may occur in such an assessment, but not BECAUSE of the assessment being objective, but because of an error in analysis. Which brings me to the second basis for assessment of belief: reason. Reason is the process of arriving at a conclusion through the interpretation of established facts, using the rules of logical reasoning (deduction, induction and abduction) - the process which lies at the foundation of the scientific method. It is the only, infallible, absolutely incontrovertible path to truth. It is the basis for every accepted scientific academic advance we have made.
All I ask is that you analyze your beliefs using that approach and not simply believe something because the Bible says so, or because your pastor told you so, or because it comforts you, etc.
Show me that you are prepared to TRULY and rationally test your beliefs, and I will engage you again.
okay