"Fractelle" asked, "Just what is meant by `Total Christ'?"

Having survived with distinction as a stretcher-bearer in the bloodied mud and muddied blood of the “killing fields” of Flanders during the First World War, Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) rhetorically asked in 1919, “What exactly is the human body?”[1] He concluded that there is, in fact, only ONE BODY. That is the COSMIC BODY of Jesus. For the basic stuff or substance of all things great and small, seen and unseen, everything in the heavens and on earth – was made by God the Father first and foremost for the incarnation of God the Son – through him, in him and for him (Col.1:16{. And WE – having been “chosen” IN Christ before the world was made (Eph.1:4) – are each given an ever-changing PART of the TOTAL body of Christ for the duration of our own earthly lives. After that – when the last atoms of our incarnation return to the cosmic pool of Christ’s incarnation – we shall each find our selves stripped down to nothing but a POINT of infinitesimal size, hoping to be “clothed” in the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God! “Blessed are those who are invited to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb” (Rev.19:9).

After 36 years of further meditation on these matters by March 1955 – a few weeks before he died in New York on Easter Sunday 1955 [10 April] – Teilhard said “There is more in the TOTAL CHRIST than MAN [all mankind] and GOD [Father, Son and Holy Spirit].”[2] There is also the COSMIC body of his incarnation, destined to be completely glorified at the end of time.

Yours in Christ [the Total Christ] – Roch - with Christ within us and all around us - "Le Milieu Divin"!
________________________________________________________________

[1] Teilhard 1919 pp.11-13 in “Science and Christ” Collins 1968
[2] 1955 “The Christic” pp.80-102 in “The Heart of Matter” 1978

Dear Fractelle...

your personal testimony about your progression from 'believer' to Atheist was interesting.

I wonder though if at 10 you would comprehend the things you call 'inconsistencies'. (I sure didn't.. had no clue about the broad biblical themes)

That aside, those other points you made about the big picture.. irrational/collective this and born that..I doubt that there is a person alive who has not struggled with those questions.

No one addresses all that better than Paul in his letter to the Romans. Have you read it lately ?

I'd sure be interested in what you make of the great Apostles work at your current age.

His problem, is also my problem. No matter how 'huge' the questions are, he was faced with the memory of a rather vivid personal encounter with the risen Christ. The encounter in his case, changed him from a 'rabid murderous monster' into a gentle caring person, who would rather deny himself his rights and pleasures, for the sake of making Christ known. That same Christ he sought to destroy.

Why not consider that? There are as many unanswerable questions raised by rejecting Christ as there are by accepting Him.(at the philosophical level) The 9-11th chapters of Romans are the most difficult to accept from your standpoint but they do provide answers to some of your questions.

It all comes back to the man Jesus ..of Nazareth...born without human father, who went about healing, proclaiming the Kingdom of God..even the Muslims believe that much.

Do you consider the reported words of Jesus to be lies, fabrications, and misrepresentations?.. to quote our friend CJ.. "fairy tales"

I find that difficult to accept. The main reason is that if we look closely at those words.. there is 'nothing in it for us' by way of normal human reward. Its about denying our lusts, inviting us to be persecuted, in fact putting off all that is natural to us.

I often roll my eyes when reading how, on the way to Jerusalem and death for Jesus, his disciples still discussed who was the greatest among them.

Dear Foxy

Thank you for your sincere and heart felt replies.

I believe in the universe, it exists, it is all around me and at the end of my life that of which I am made will continue as a part of the universe. I find this truly inspiring.

I wish you all the best that life has to offer.

Love

F

Just a couple of small questions.

The opening post asserts: "Every servant girl in Jerusalem 2000 years ago knew that Jesus came from Nazareth."

This is a fairly categoric assertion, and one for which I have never seen the faintest shred of evidence.

Is there any? Or is it just another one of those little things that we are supposed to take "on faith"?

Similarly, runner uses as a starting position "With over 500 people at once witnessing Christ after His resurrection..."

How come none of these 500 bothered to write down their experience, or even to search out someone who could write and get them to do it?

As far as I am aware, so far, no contemporary accounts of these events has surfaced. If they had, I'm sure they would have made headlines, both then and now.

Just another item to add to the list marked "blind faith required"?

It is only relevant, I guess, in the sense that we atheists are accused endlessly of "making it up as we go".

The same people who level that accusation at us, however, give themselves licence to continuously invent new justifications for their beliefs, at will.

Dear Pericles,

Don't be disheartened. Most modern liberal theologians would never condemn you for your views. And neither do I.
Of course there are limitations to what one can know through historical inquiry. No one can speak in absolutes - and it is a question of "faith," as you pointed out.

I believe what I believe - and I wouldn't dream of denying you the same right.

As George Bernard Shaw told the nun who stood by his death-bed,
"Sister, may all your sons be Bishops!"

(Smile).

Foxy, this is something of a departure from you normal gentle profession of your own personal faith.

>>Dear Pericles, Don't be disheartened. Most modern liberal theologians would never condemn you for your views. And neither do I.<<

That sounds more than a little condescending. In fact, if it were one of the other Christians on this thread, I would not hesitate to describe it as arrogant.

1. I am not "disheartened". Nor is there anything in my post that could be construed in this manner.

2. I have no interest whatsoever in the views of "modern theologians", nor would it concern me for one minute if they were to "condemn" me, whatever that may entail.

What does interest me, however, is the ability of Christians to invent evidence at will.

In what other field of human activity does an individual find it necessary to suspend disbelief to such an extent that they are willing to believe, without a second thought and without the faintest shred of factual support, such blatant inventions such as "Every servant girl in Jerusalem 2000 years ago knew that Jesus came from Nazareth", or that there were "over 500 people at once witnessing Christ after His resurrection"?

It has reached the stage where I am tempted to the view that it is some form of mental deficiency. A sort of colour-blindness of the mind, if you will.

My father could not identify the colour green. No matter how many times my mother explained to him this hat, or that overcoat, were a shade of green, he could only see grey.

In much the same way, it is clearly pointless for me to show the inescapable and inexcusable flaws in the history of Christianity, and the sheer perversity involved in ignoring them.

But I do recall that my mother never stopped pointing out the veridian tinge to my father's newest hat.

>>I believe what I believe - and I wouldn't dream of denying you the same right<<

Nor I you, Foxy. But where, in any post I have ever submitted here, have I even remotely hinted otherwise?