AND you agree… right? IF not, care to explain these very CLEAR words of yours…
What say you — is there an alternative meaning 
Yep you just can’t trust those pesky Levitical priests… even in Eden. 
I was quoting the words of the serpent, and no, I don’t agree with them. I’ve added the quotation marks in case others may be confused by what I’m saying.
I was unaware that it was Israel’s human kings who saved them.
I thought I would share this video - for everyone’s benefit!
But first, a quote I saw today on Facebook:
The white man goes into his church and talks about Jesus. The Indian goes into his Tipi and talks with Jesus.
Thanks HF!
I was under the impression that it’s the Spirit of God among us that saves, things such as honesty, treating each other with respect, Do not murder, steal, covet, etc.etc. I wonder why God didn’t just say that in the beginning?
I must be mistaken. Maybe we should be following the infallible word: sacrificing animals, burning incense, eating veggies and shaving our heads.
And maybe Trump will save the day after all!
This interview with Marcus Borg is interesting, and he sounds like he is channeling @Bob_Wilson.
Bob, am I correct in seeing definite parallels in yours’ and Borg’s thinking on the issue here?
And I’d like to ask if anyone has read the collaborative effort of Borg and NT Wright, The Meaning of Jesus. Reviews sound promising. One of the reviews stated:
" The fact that Borg is not quite your stereotypical liberal and Wright is not quite your stereotypical conservative makes the dialogue between them particularly interesting. Certainly if you find supernatural phenomena simply unbelievable, or if you take the inerrancy of the Bible as a non-negotiable axiom, then you will likely find The Meaning of Jesus to be uninteresting. But if you are open to the possibility of finding some middle ground, and want to see someone sketch out what that might look like, then Borg and Wright are two of the best people you could pick for the job. Both are thoroughly familiar with the scholarly literature on the New Testament, and at the same time are very good at giving simple explanations for the layman without getting bogged down in technicalities."
You don’t have agree with all they say BUT those two are simply brilliant, especially in conversation together. Though less well known I’d also add Andrew Perriman to that list of good thinkers who are able to express themselves well.
1 Like
While I’ve got you here, davo - and thanks for that comment - do you as a personal position align with Borg, as set forth in that short article I linked to?
Well I had to read the whole thing and it’s worth it. I do tend to lean in his direction. I thought this was particularly noteworthy…
Whenever the afterlife is made central to being Christian, it invariably turns Christianity into a religion of requirements. If there is an afterlife, it doesn’t seem fair that everyone gets to go there regardless of what they do before death , so there must be something you have to do or believe. And then suddenly Christianity ceases to be a religion of grace and instead becomes a religion of measuring up to what God requires.
Couldn’t have said that better 
Interesting. Thanks.
I wonder if @JasonPratt or @james.goetz or @Cindy_Skillman would care to weigh in on the link above entitled “Why Be A Christian?” by Marcus Borg?
Hi Dave, Could you please include the link in the same post as your question? I hate to say that I am still struggling with some of the dynamics with the latest forum software and I cannot easily find the link entitled “Why Be A Christian?” by Marcus Borg 
Dave, one thing I do agree with is that the Bible is not about life after we leave the earth. However, in the quotation that Davo has pointed out here:
There is something we have to do. We must be transformed or made in the “image of God.” I believe the basic simple truths of the Christian faith were there in the beginning of creation, before man added all the extras. And that there have been men in various times and places throughout history still believing in and living by these basic principles.
Yes, Dave, thanks for asking. I agree with Davo and the reviewer that the joint effort of Borg and Wright is wonderful, and a beautiful example of two Biblically knowledgeable scholars respectfully comparing notes despite their differing approaches. Indeed, I think it reveals much about Borg as a unique liberal in being able to respectfully dialogue with Wright’s strong evangelical personality (albeit Wright’s non-fundamentalist breadth lets him return the favor). Indeed, the reason I think progressive evangelicals often appreciate Borg is because he focuses more on affirming what he sees as the abiding truths in the classic doctrines, rather than just focusing on what he does not find literally true. One can easily sense with Borg that he genuinely does not want to just denigrate Christian tradition or ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater.’ And both men share an emphasis on how our faith shapes and transforms us in the now, and to our high calling to love and edifying our world.
And yes, you’re right to see his influence and parallels to my own views. As you know my reading of the NT has been esp. influenced by Wright. And I’d guess, being less orthodox and Biblicist than Wright, I am somewhere between Wright and Borg. I share Borg’s inclinations e.g. to look beneath the Biblical pronouncements to ask what concerns and realities underneath that were driving their vantage point, indeed to recognize the humanness of the perspective the Bible contains, to share a more universalist vision than even a progressive Wright, and also to see some significant commonalities in various faith traditions.
OTOH, while relating to some of Borg’s more skeptical approach, I’m closer to Wright in making engagement with Scripture paramount, in seeing the Gospels as reliable history, and in affirming an actual resurrection and unique superiority of Jesus over other faiths. And I’m not ready to embrace as much of a process theology view of God as is Borg (though I respect why it has appeal). But I share that his epistemology is wider that a dogmatic reading of texts.
1 Like
The process is called Theosis, in EO theology. And deification in RC theology. Other traditions would say they have tools, to also aid - in this endeavor. Like the ceremonies, of the Red Road. Or the meditative and contemplative traditions, like Yoga (1, 2) and Zen. Which I say can enhance the Christian journey…as long as we focus on the methodology… versus what they offer theologically and philosophically. I did detail this more, in the Path.
Sure enough!
Notta.
Yepper 
I don’t actually see it that way. It is the immortality that Jesus brought to light that addresses one of mankind’s deepest questions - is death the end? The Christian answer, the hope of eternal life with one another and God, frees believers to enjoy this life more, to find true depth, to have hope in bad times, and to begin to live now in the light of that glorious promise.
While belief in an after-death great divide has typically led to focus on the supposed requirements, I agree with Dave that the hope that death is ultimately defeated should free us to live fully in love and the practice of Jesus’ values.
Well…Jesus taught that doing good was necessary in order to experience a resurrection of life, and that those who do evil, will experience a resurrection of judgment. So clearly there is a requirement to live a good life if we are going to enter into life. There’s nothing wrong with requirements. The problem is with people who want to avoid meeting the requirements.
Hear the words of Jesus!
Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (John 5:28,29 ESV)