Apparently Jesus loves me only

"Jesus Loves Me Only" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward
“Jesus Loves Me Only” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

I believe in independence, sovereignty, and autonomy. But this doesn’t necessarily mean exclusivity and exclusion.

It seems to me we’re getting these two ideas confused.

William James wrote:

“Why may not the world be a sort of republican banquet of this sort, where all the qualities of being respect one another’s personal sacredness, yet sit at the common table of space and time?”*

Yes, indeed! Why not?

So this is exactly the idea we are experimenting with at the table of The Lasting Supper. And the experiment is going well. Please join us there. I will personally welcome you and help you feel comfortable.

(* The William James quote is taken from a fascinating book I’m reading, edited by Harald Atmanspacher and Christopher A. Fuchs, The Pauli-Jung Conjecture: And its impact today.)


11 Replies to “Apparently Jesus loves me only”

  1. Perhaps you can also make a few with the words…
    “Jesus loves me more… because I know more than you do.”
    “Jesus loves me more… because I know when the second coming will be.”
    “Jesus loves me more… because I vote for the correct party.”
    “Jesus loves me more… because I am outraged at all your sin.”
    “Jesus loves me more… because I earn it.”
    “Jesus loves me more… because I know exactly what God thinks.”

  2. Jesus is long gone and knows or loves no one living or dead for the last ~2000 years. He did leave a few words of wisdom but borrowed most if not all of these ideas from the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. Rigorous historic testing of the words of the NT has shown that only ~20 % are authentic.

  3. Bernardo: Thank you for the references.

    After review, it appears that Crossan’s methodology was essentially to roll all gospel accounts as one attestation. Thus, to Crossan, the fact that Matthew and Luke’s accounts state the same thing, equals only a single attestation.

    Crossan also provides tiers of years, with the first tier (his ‘First Stratum) being 30 to 60 CE (AD).

    Thus, and using Corssan’s methodology, are you saying that you lean towards First Stratum and Single Attestation as sayings that are original to Jesus?

    That is, sayings #132 through #186?

    Also, in the Crossan methodology, sayings #001 through #131 could have been (in theory) originated by Jesus, or Paul, or another author. And (in theory) could have been written by Peter, and later adopted by the authors of The Gospel According to Matthew.

    I think we should note that Crossan does his own analysis for ‘historicity’ (traceable to Jesus), and uses + or – symbols. The symbol + means that Crossan leans towards this being traceable to Jesus. However, Crossan does not reveal his rationale behind awarding the + or – within these links.

    So, that brings up my last question for Bernardo: are you leaning towards only the + marks being traceable to Jesus? That is, sayings #001, 004, 005, 008, etc.? Or, are you also including the inconclusive traceability (according to Crossan), marked with both the + and – sign? – that is, #003, #006, #007, etc.?

    Sincerely; Caryn

    [For the sake of other readers, Crossan uses the following Gospel accounts:
    GEbi – Gospel of the Ebionites
    GEger – Egerton Gospel
    GEgy – Gospel of the Egyptians
    GHeb – Gospel of the Hebrews
    GJohn – Gospel of John
    GLuke – Gospel of Luke
    GMark – Gospel of Mark
    GMary – Gospel of Mary
    GMatt – Gospel of Matthew
    GNaz – Gospel of the Nazarenes
    GPet – Gospel of Peter
    GThom – Gospel of Thomas ]

  4. Hi Bernardo:

    Per the links you provided, and more, I find that the scholars that formed the voting body (that used Crossan’s work), voted concerning the Gospel Accounts. Red meant that they agreed; Pink meant they mostly agreed; Gray was tending to not agree; and Black was Not in agreement.

    The voting body was called the “Jesus Seminar”.

    For them to achieve strong red and pink means quite a consensus.

    I see their biography of Jesus, to include his miracles and other items of interest. Are you therefore agreeing with the Jesus Seminar more than with Crossan?

    Sincerely; Caryn

  5. Caryn,

    To get all the rationale for Crossan’s inventory (attestations, time period, etc.), you will have to read his book, The HIstorical Jesus (one of about 20 on the historical Jesus).

    The other inventory referenced is a collection of most if not all the analyses of the passages of the NT. (Crossan, Luedemann, Meier, the Jesus Seminar et al). The references from this latter inventory were taken from the publications of the scholars. Again, you will have to read these publications to see what their conclusions are based on.

    Wikipedia probably has an analysis of the scholars and some of their books. Ditto for Amazon. Some books might be available on line at Google Books. Most if not all the books should be available at your local library.

  6. Caryn,

    I typically agree with the analyses presented in the latter inventory. In most cases, Crossan, Ludemann and the Jesus Seminar’s conclusions are in agreement.

Comments are closed.