Reddit mentions of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith

How to Think About God: A guide for the 20th Century Pagan

Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity

Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief

Biblical Games: Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible

The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation That Proves the Ultimate Truth

The Abolition of Man

Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith


Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally

I have read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time."

Unless his views have changed drastically since he wrote that book, he is exactly as I described him.

You might like John Shelby Spong or Marcus Borg. All of their books are pretty good, but these books are the last ones I read of them, and they are pretty good, and seem like what you are looking for.

I really want to read The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions now. I just finished reading Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith which was written by one of the authors of the book you suggested, Marcus J. Borg. I highly recommend it as well.

Another book recommendation...

Check out Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg. This description from one of the reviews introduces the book pretty well:

>His essential premise involves the importance, even primacy, of our personal image of Jesus. Is Jesus the savior who requires faith? Or, is Jesus a great teacher of moral ideals? Borg rejects both in chapter one. Borg imagines Jesus as one to whom spirit, and the experience of spirit, was foundational. Accordingly, Borg does not understand the Christian life to be "about believing or about being good .... It is about a relationship with God that involves us in a journey of transformation."

My fiance's father is a former pastor from a conservative area of the country who, in the last decade, has undergone a transformation in his belief. Whereas he was once orthodox, doctrinaire, and "institutional," today he is "dealing" with the notion that Jesu, the bible, and changes in Christian doctrine by the Church are historical represent figures produced by human beings as responses to various social, economic, political and cultural circumstances. For many of us, including myself, this has been our position for a long time (disclosure: If theism implies a belief in a supernatural being, I am atheist). He's been reading http://www.amazon.com/Meeting-Jesus-Again-First-Time/dp/0060609176 by Marcus Borg book, which has accelerated his reflections in the direction of possibly atheism. He still works for Youth For Christ, however, and remains a "believer" and follower of Jesus (as he describes himself).

I raise this example because, as it turns out, when I last saw him last month he was confronted by question similar to justjim73, albeit from a different perspective: he's been asked by other pastors to write a sermon that answers: "who is Jesus" and "what is the role of the Church" today. He doesn't know what to do.

Shall he write a sermon rich in fundamental beliefs and orthodox positions? He doesn't believe that anymore. Shall he describe the struggles he's had with both "Jesus" as a transcendental figure and the Church as the worldly institution committed to spreading the gospel? He fears reprimand and excommunication (remember, this is a small community where his colleagues believe he is also a true believer). His "break" with the Church (happened a few years ago; afterwards he went into non-profit, albeit still with YFC) came precisely because he could no longer live with the bookkeeping and recruiting efforts of the Church that sought only to produce converts and not guide spiritual life.

My own view is that the problem is less what the non-religious think of Christianity, about which there are many and varied experiences and opinions, and more about the difficulties of sustaining a conversation when the existence of "religious" groups implies, in today's discourse, the existence of "non-religious" groups. The presupposition here is that both are apparently, completely at odds with each other.

This is the basic presupposition of the topic question, right? If so, it's a false assumption.

My answer to your question is: my views of Jesus and the contemporary Church in the US are generally not pertinent when it comes to trying to start a dialogue with the "religious." Certainly, it is a topic of conversation. But it's not how I build a conversation. Yet it seems that the confrontation of the "religious" with the "non-religious" today has to start there. Why? Why can't we start with economic inequality, for example? Or shared ideals of living a good life? Why begin a conversation with the non-religious by asking them their opinion of Jesus and the Church? Isn't that already, or at least usually, to foreclose how people can have conversations with each other about worldly issues?

I'd recommend reading the gospel of Mark, which you can do in a couple of hours. Some people still use bibles in old timey language, like the King James, so you may want to get a modern translation of the New Testament, like the Good News translation.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585162337/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_6?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Also, check out Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, by Martin Borg.

http://www.amazon.com/Meeting-Jesus-Again-First-Time/dp/0060609176