AndrewSW: Blog » Blog Archive » What is important to know about Jesus?

What is important to know about Jesus?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2003 at 4:40 PM and is filed under Religion, Philosophy, and the Nature of Truth.

Well, I grew up believing that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. I grew up with a whole bunch of other beliefs too. But what do we really need to know?

Belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a central hallmark of what it means to be Christian. Belief in what it means is something else entirely.

I believe in that event mainly as something that I grew up with so much that I have difficulty letting go. I grew up with this notion of a God that cares enough about the world to make a difference, and the story of Jesus as the ultimate example of just how dramatic of a difference a single act of God could make in the course of human history.

And so, the life, death, and resurrection becomes a dominant metaphor for me to understand the process of spiritual growth - I live what I believe, I die to that which is inappropriate (whether the “sin” of Christianity or the “attachment” of Buddhism - the words don’t matter, IMHO), and I am resurrected in a new understanding of my self, my role in the world, and the convictions that I must bring to bear on how to be a servant of God.

To me, this is all that I value about “the meaning” of Christ’s existance - and everything else winds up being something that either follows from Christ’s teachings (as we can best ascertain through honest scholarly research done with integrity), or is something that we just have to let God inform us about.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

sam Says:

June 18th, 2003 at 1:29 AM

Like I mentioned in another comment, I think something we need to pay attention to about Jesus’s life is his flaws. That sounds counter-productive, but it is very important. The world is full of idols, stories of perfection. Perfect little marble statues you can put up on your shelf and gaze at. Jesus is not one of those perfect statues. He was stained with sin just like us. Just like you and me. But he still saw the goodness of God through it all. If he could do it, then its something we can all do.

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

sam Says:

June 18th, 2003 at 1:50 AM

I’m not sure if you were comparing them persay, but I’d like to talk about Buddhist attachment for moment… It is really a very different concept from sin, and the words aren’t really interchangeable. There is a confusion stemming from the limitations of our language, as well as western culture’s general Judeo-Christian outlook that makes them seem similar, when they are not.

Attachment is not something bad. It isn’t something you will be punished for. Its not even something one tries to get rid of. A sin is something you do. Attachment is what you are.

There is a concept in Buddhism called ‘dependent origination’ which is key to the philosophy. It goes something like this:

Say one day you gaze at a flower and marvel at its beauty. How did that happen? The flower exists, but not as an independent object. The only reason the flower is there is because there were nutrients in the soil, and rain from the sky, and light from the sun. There had to be a seed, from plants before it. There had to be an absence of pests and enough time for growth. There are thousands of variables, all of which needed to be set just right, for that particular flower to grow. In fact, the entire universe came together in such a way that the flower was able to manifest. The flower is not an object in itself, the flower is a result of the combined situation of everything in the entire universe. It is said to be dependently originated, it depends on everything else being set just right. You are the same way. Your presence at that moment depended on the fact that there was food for you to eat, that your parents were able to meet, that the sperm hit the right target, that you didn’t get diverted by a friend before seeing the flower, etc. Then your feelings about the flower are dependently originated. You once were taught the concept of beauty, you were in a mood to appreciate it at the moment, you developed an attraction to nature at some point, etc. The event, Andrew gazing at beautiful flower, is dependently originated. That is what is meant by attachment. You are bound by threads of origination to every single particle in the entire universe. Interestingly, this concept is not far off from superstring theory and other cutting edge quantum physics theories…

What is meant by ‘freeing oneself from attachment’ is not removing those threads, but rather seeing them as threads, and moving with them, rather than against them. If we pull against the threads of attachment, or we hold too tightly to threads that do not always stay connected, then we suffer. Living the ‘middle way’ means accepting as threads come and go, and being flexible like water, rather than attempting to be rigid against the motion of the universe. When you die, you ‘demanifest’ as the conditions of the universe are no longer appropriate for your existance. The threads however, remain, and may be retangled to form a new being, hence reincarnation.

A very few people have ever actually ‘freed’ themselves from the threads, ie, entered nirvana. Nirvana isn’t a place, or a state of mind. When the threads are gone, then you don’t exist. The Buddha did it, and a few others after him, but according to tradition, no one has done it in a very long time. In fact, a tradition came about around 150ishBC when Mahayana (greater vehicle) Buddhism was formed. With it came a new idea, that being that Nirvana was not a good short term goal, and that enlightenment should be reached for the benefit of others, not for the ‘freeing’ of oneself. Many monks took a vow known as the Bodhisattva vow, which has many parts, but in essense, states that the taker of the vow agrees not to enter Nirvana until every other sentient being in the universe has entered before them. They will continue to be reborn over and over, dedicating their lives to helping others, until everyone has reached states of enlightenment. If you think about it, that is a pretty serious sacrifice. The Dali Lama is one such ’spiritual warrior’ as they are called, and comes from a line of continually reincarnated beings stretching back to the earliest bodhisattvas.

So anyway, to bring it around, sin and attachment are very different concepts, though they are easy to confuse due to language and our general judeo christian outlook, marked by a sense of ‘judgement’; the idea that somehow some external force has an idea about how you should be living. It can be hard to imagine a spiritual framework that doesn’t include this concept..

2553

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

heather Says:

June 24th, 2003 at 10:44 AM

as IF Jesus ever sinned…the whole point is that He didn’t sin. He was ‘led like a lamb to the slaughter’ completely pure and blameless in God’s eyes. That is why He was able to be a large enough sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity…the humanity at that present moment and the humanity of the future (like us). To suggest that Jesus had flaws, or a sinful nature is not a Christian view…how can it be? However, I won’t concede that I am some close-minded sort of person, so if someone can give me a Biblical example of Jesus sinning, I’m all for discussing it…
~nice site by the way~

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

Andrew Says:

June 24th, 2003 at 11:15 AM

Thanks for commenting Heather! I’ll let Sam speak for himself, but I suspect he merely meant that we often over-emphasize the divinity of Christ at the expense of his humanity. Jesus was fully human and so no doubt experienced sinful desires - he even expresses one such desire - that the cup pass from him (and thus that God’s will not be accomplished - a sin in my book for sure) - but also expresses the wisdom and knowledge that God’s will is to be acknowledged and served - that is, “not my will, but thine be done.”

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

Andrew's Blog Says:

June 24th, 2003 at 11:49 AM

The nature of motivation and the attraction of opposites
1) There is that which is to us - that is, that which sure seems to be according to our understanding.

2) There is that which is - the ultimate reality of how things are.

3) There is that which we would change ourselves to become - that which we …

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

sam Says:

July 1st, 2003 at 12:54 AM

Andrew, yes, the overemphasis on divinity, and the underemphasis on humanity was my major criticism. However, I feel its important to my understanding of Christianity to know that Jesus sinned, or in the very least, wrestled internally with the desire to commit sin.

As usual, in the Jesus sinned/Jesus didn’t sin debate, the bible can be used to ‘prove’ both cases. You’ll find that is true of nearly every biblical debate, such as “The bible says: Slavery is OK/not OK, racism is OK/not OK, women should be treated as equals of men/women shouldn’t be treated as equals of men, abortion is OK, not OK, drug use (including alcohol) is acceptable/not acceptable, etc. The list goes on for a long time).. What matters is your perception of faith.

For myself, the image of a sinless Jesus is unimpressive. Have you ever heard a white suburban motivational speaker talking to a bunch of inner city black kids, telling them that “racism isn’t real, you can rise above the world’s expectations, come on, stay in school, trust your teachers, trust the police, follow the law and you’ll get to own a nice house with a picket fence off in the suburbs while going to your satisfying 9-5 job!” Have you ever thought that maybe its a little bit empty because that guy never knew what it was like in the inner city? Contrast that to someone who grew up there, someone who was addicted to drugs, in a gang, robbing people and stealing cars, who decided that it wasn’t right, and struggled to change their life. If you heard them talking to those inner city kids, you can bet they’d listen a lot harder to the one who had been there. The one who had EXPERIENCED the pain and LIVED the bad life, and still found the strength inside to rise above their sins and succeed.

A pure untouched lamb doesn’t mean anything to me. Of course they would preach virtues, they would never know how tempting a life of sin is without living it! What matters is someone who understood temptation. Someone who understood desire and craving. Someone who knew what the road of sin was like. Someone who knew all the pains and sufferings of mankind, and was still able to stand up to the divinity inside him and lead the people. Someone who knew how the simple and painful life of man can be attractive, but who still decided to be crucified in order to save everyone. Thats what has meaning, in my eyes.

As for biblical references, I refer you to this interesting website on the issue:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcsi.htm

I have heard the argument that while Jesus didn’t sin, he was severely tempted to do so, and that the possibility of his sinning was very real, and that Satan knew this, and knew that he had victory in hand if he could only tempt Jesus.

I don’t think it is the case that Jesus never sinned, but that he succumbed to small temptations, and that he rose to the occasion when real temptation knocked on his door. However, the belief that sin was possible, and that Jesus was seriously tempted by Satan, is an acceptable one from a standpoint of spiritual legitimacy, in my eyes. Purity is empty. Only when it is colored by the life of mankind can it truly touch us.

Anyway, I know this comment is late, but its not every day that I’m in the mood to expound on something like this. Thanks, Andrew, for posing interesting questions for which I can post long winded responses. :)

211e

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

sam Says:

July 1st, 2003 at 1:00 AM

Another small addition…

Crucifiction was called the ultimate sacrifice. To sacrifice something, it must be something you already have, and are now giving up. What he sacrificed, what was so tempting, in my eyes, was the life of man. How tempting, to drink and laugh with friends, gamble at the casino, sleep with various women, eventually get a job and settle down with a nice lady and have some kids, become an elder of his village and tell people what to do. How nice, to indulge in temptation. That is what Jesus gave up when he decided to sacrifice himself. But he could not give it up, without knowing what it tastes like. Its not enough to have a description handed to you. You need to live it to know it. Thats what God was missing, and thats why God send Jesus to man, to understand what was so GOOD about sinning. And Jesus made the right decision, to give himself up, and give up that simple, pleasurable life of man. Without knowing it, there would not have been such a sacrifice.

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

Andrew Says:

July 1st, 2003 at 8:06 AM

“I have heard the argument that while Jesus didn’t sin, he was severely tempted to do so, and that the possibility of his sinning was very real, and that Satan knew this, and knew that he had victory in hand if he could only tempt Jesus.”

That’s the argument I’ll stick with. I’ll need to ponder your other comment a bit.

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here

sam Says:

July 1st, 2003 at 6:13 PM

Allow me to phrase in another way:

For years, God tried to convince people to be good. The Old Testament is filled with commandments and decrees and prophets and visions and angels. What about this wasn’t working? Why was Israel in a state of disarray and corruption in 0 BC?

I think the answer is that humans wouldn’t listen to the words of a loud vengeful god, or the silky words from a pure goody-good angel. They would listen out of fear, but anyone who’s spanked a kid only to find later that they continued the behavior behind their back knows what happens when you rule through fear.

Why would you listen to someone who didn’t seem to really understand your troubles?

So God sent a little piece of himself down into a man. Jesus was to live a life of man, a life of suffering and sin. Then, as a demonstration to all of humanity, Jesus would find it inside himself to rise above sin, and express his love for all people. Its like the song goes, “Nobody knows, the trouble I feel… Nobody knows, but Jesus..” How does Jesus know your troubles? Because he lived them alongside us.

(Comments wont nest below this level)

Reply here