nwick,

The originally Canaanite God of the OT, Yahweh, was a preferred god of “landless and kin-shattered men” (Quigley). Kin-shattered meant these peoples had in one way or another broken their blood ties. The nomadic Habiru a proto-Semitic group adopted Yahweh amongst”

The Habiru, sought “the favour of Yahweh, the God of mercy (& war)one of the lesser deities of the Canaanite pantheon. Such allegiance to Yahweh by bondsmen, murders, and other “kin-shattered” persons did not originally imply any renunciation of the other deities in the Canaanite pantheon, and the Habiru continued to worship. As seemed other Canaanite Baals, working downward from the greatest, El, God of justice and Creator of the world”. (Quigley)

Below, when Yahweh is with the other gods, Yahweh recognizes he is the son of a greater god when in the Council of the Gods:
"I said, 'You are gods’; you are all sons of the Most High”. “ Psalms 82.6

The Most High is not “God the Father” of the NT godhead, rather the Father of the Gods, El.

The historical Hyksos (included Habiru) expulsion by Ahmose I occurred three hundred years before Moses (Egyptian name). Some Habiru remained behind as bondsmen and mercenaries. The Egyptian, Moses, would have likely been a murder or tradesmen, prior to the Exodus.

The above may have been the history of Jesus remote ancestors.
Yet, Christianity is a development coming about 200-300 years after said Jesus. Jesus was deified and, a new godhead, the Christian trinity, was developed.

The idea of godhead enters the scene under Tertullian with the Father & Son (only); Christian godhead was subsequently expanded to include an additional entity, the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

The historical Jesus stands between the two histories mentioned. He may have been a mendicant teaching his brand of Judaism to the Gentiles. Some of his teaching material is not as original as Christians assert, as can be evidenced by citing the Dead Sea Scolls.

Hope the above helps.

Oliver

Waterboy,
You should read me more closely. I have no sympathy for the via negativa since it leaves us with a vacuum. Likewise, saying what God is in opposition to the creaturely world leaves us with an image of God that is impossible since it defies all of our imaginings. I have always stated that we begin with Christ. "He who has seen me has seen the Father." This is the opposite to the via negativa and to defining God in opposition to the body, materiality, weakness etc.

Peter Sellick

No, no, no, Oliver. Christ is a 50-foot war-god with a 2-edged sword in his mouth*. He exhorts his followers to crush other religions, burn homosexuals alive, and keep our children safe from predatory scientists and historians who will fill their minds with heresy.

That's the Jesus that seems to crop up most often. Is there another one? If so, the Christians in these forums don't like to mention him.

* http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2434#54001

Sancho:

"Christ is a 50-foot war-god with a 2-edged sword in his mouth*. He exhorts his followers to crush other religions, burn homosexuals alive, and keep our children safe from predatory scientists and historians who will fill their minds with heresy."

Isn't he also the one who caused the deaths of more than 200 Victorians in the bushfires as punishment for their MPs passing abortion law reform?

Sells

Yes, I think you have made that point well and I stand corrected.

My question was, of course, how different are we from the atheists since we find ourselves in agreement with them in respect of certain concepts of God which we too would refute. I won't buy into the argument about definitions of atheism since that seems to me a red herring.

The difference lies, as you have said, in our perception of the universal scope of the 'christ-event' and I would add something about the gospel imperative as a direct consequence of that event.

Clearly Jesus 'represents', even to those whose 'Christology' is distinctly Socinian, some sort of ideal man that can and does inspire faith. Even as a 'mere prophet' Jesus inspires faith in sects such as the Unitarians and JWs.

It is also interesting to note the high respect in which Jesus is held by many atheists who might even allow the Gospel to inform their ethical positions on many issues while not being moved to adopt a Christian faith as such.

My question becomes "What more can we say about Jesus and why bother?"
or "Why is it important to keep the Christ story alive?". As you might have gathered Im not convinced that personal salvation is the main game here.

Waterboy, Sells et al.

<"What more can we say about Jesus and why bother?...Why is it important to keep the Christ story alive?">

I’m no theologian but here’s my tuppence worth anyway.

Jesus the Christ is the living spark of universal love and goodness that lives within every human. The ego (separate self) is a necessary function or aspect of the human being. But the ego does not of its own nature either admit Christ into its domain or submit to the gentle yoke of Christ. To accept that the ember still burns within one, that Christ is indeed alive, is a challenge for each individual.

If we are to perceive the presence of Jesus we need such things as symbols, narrative, terminology, ritual and music. The relative quantities and qualities of these must vary to suit each personality type. Our religious heritage can supply much of this as a starting point, but the contemporary world must also create its own. Revelation did not stop with the writing of the Bible. It is, rather, ongoing.

The process needs the Gospel and the Christian heritage to begin with. That is why the story must be kept alive and why we need to keep contemplating Jesus.