johnnies are an interesting bunch of people that attend st. john’s college, like me. here’s a pic of my seminar. normally we sit around a big square table and talk about books for two hours, but this particular night we had dinner and discussion.
yesterday (in our last class) we discussed kierkegaard’s philosophical fragments. an interesting question was raised that i’d like to pose to any of you… should we be grateful not to have known the historical Jesus? you don’t need to have read kierkegaard to respond. just reflect on whether being a contemporary of Jesus would help or hinder faith. i’d LOVE to hear your thoughts!!
(i changed the setting on comments so anyone can respond… even anonymously if you prefer… yeah, i’m not actually expecting responses. but it would be cool!)
to have been a contemporary of jesus would be to know the core values of christianity, which i believe the religion is thousands of miles from now.jesus apparently was a man with a deep understanding of human beings and how things really work in the universe. was/is he diety? don’t know, but we have certainly made him into that.yeah, i would have liked being a contemporary of jesus.uncle l
Perhaps Biblical Christianity fails when faith is helped or hindered based upon physical knowledge of Christ. Or physical awareness. To believe that living in the time of Christ and walking the streets of Jerusalem with Him would improve faith counteracts Scriptural teaching. Christ chastised followers for being a generation in need of signs; signs they wanted in order to validate His claim to deity, signs they told Him would bring them to belief. It seems a parallel thought to His chastising to think that the sign of Him – in person – would help or hinder faith. And He wanted them to believe wholeheartedly without the need for signs and demonstrations of His Majesty. Faith in Christ is dependant on everything but signs. Christ never taught that those who heard His teaching or that saw Him were enabled toward a better faith.