China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Hey Thomas, let me ask you a non-rhetorical question: In your mind, is it at all important whether or not Jesus was in actuality the Jewish messiah?
Chris
Chris
Jesus: fiction or non
- Thread starter Sunny C.
- Start date
Pico
Well-Known Member
That's who he claimed to be. And if he wasn't then he's a liar.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Pico,
Thomas and I are talking about the writer's craft in this particular historical setting as it relates to strict historicity in literary terms. Since I think that he and I agree that the writer's aim isn't to produce a work of strict historical accuracy, but rather a liturgical document useful in the early church, I'm asking him if the messianic references, viewed from our modern vantage point, aren't perhaps more relevant to the Gospel author's contemporary audience than to us. I would like his take on that. If I had asked you it would be a rhetorical question since I already know what your answer would be.
Don't take me wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't answer. The more the merrier and etc., but I'm really interested in his take.
Chris
Thomas and I are talking about the writer's craft in this particular historical setting as it relates to strict historicity in literary terms. Since I think that he and I agree that the writer's aim isn't to produce a work of strict historical accuracy, but rather a liturgical document useful in the early church, I'm asking him if the messianic references, viewed from our modern vantage point, aren't perhaps more relevant to the Gospel author's contemporary audience than to us. I would like his take on that. If I had asked you it would be a rhetorical question since I already know what your answer would be.
Don't take me wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't answer. The more the merrier and etc., but I'm really interested in his take.
Chris
At the outset we must acknowledge that there was only one sacra doctrina — what we now call the Old Testament was the only testament there was. I don't think the Gospel authors were ever aware they were writing a new one that would stand separate from the old ... they saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises made to the Jews "so that all might be fulfilled" occurs 17 times, I think, and 12 of them in Matthew.
In light of the community experience of the day — Don't overlook that, Chris, it's absolutely fundamental. I don't think the authors were conscious of writing a text for all time, their mission was twofold, to present the 'truth' and 'reality' of Jesus as they understood it (far more important than mere 'historicity' which presents facts, but learns nothing by them), and to bolster and support a community coming under pressure of increasing severity.
For example I personally think that the 'original' Matthew was a logia, a 'sayings' document, written in Aramaic (so I dispense with the hypothetical 'Q' — not necessary in my schemata (of good grief, listen to the 2nd year theology student!)). Not just sayings but a collection of masal — a Hebrew term which the Greeks translate as parable, but which in the Hebrew has a wider remit, proverbs, riddles, stories, parables, similitudes, allegories...
The final form of Matthew we have is something else again, still based on the masal collection, but has now been worked over, as some suggest, by an early school of higher studies attached to one of the major churches in Judea (and all this around 80-90AD) and incorporating the insights of Mark. "Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old. (Matthew 13:52) might be a reference of the final author ... working in the Matthean tradition.
Matthew follows an existing literary method of a symmetrical structure, and employs Hebraic devices such as inclusio (bracketing), chiasmus (criss-crossing figurative elements) and ring composition, in this case an alternation of narrative and sermon/discourse ... like ripples out from the central 'event' — in Matthew this being the Parables of the Kingdom (Chapter 13 of 28).
All in all Matthew is a scholarly — and moreover a scholarly rabbinical — response to the increasing pressure on the Christian community from the Jewish community.
Hence the apparent 'anti-rabbinical' tone in Matthew — he was simply following the teaching of his Master in refuting a corrupt and often self-serving ecclesial body by bringing out the light of Scripture — the spirit of the word. Matthew employed rabbinical methods of argument and discourse with practiced ease, he was one of their own, and although not cruel, he was necessarily uncompromising.
+++
In Luke, I'm not so sure we can say that, we assume he was a Gentile after all, but he was schooled by (early) Paul, and possibly the Blessed Virgin, so his teachers would have been Jewish. Luke 'universalises' the Gospel, whereas Matthew, if I can say, goes straight for the rabbinical jugular.
Luke deploys his parables on universal themes, rather than on the fulfillment of Scripture, which would be of but passing interest to his audience. The prodigal son, the good samaritan ... but in all Luke is faced with a Gentile Christian audience who are faced with a similar problem to Matthew ... if God has, it would seem, not kept His promises to Israel, and allowed the Holy City and the Temple to be destroyed, then what hope can they hold out that He will keep His promises to them?
In short, the Sitz im Leben provides a key and a clue to the motives of the authors in selecting, ordering and presenting their material, but this is all subsequent to the material itself, the actuality of the existing person of Jesus Christ.
John's Gospel goes head-to-head with the all-pervading philosophical and theological dualisms of the times — commonly called 'gnosticism', but that's something of an anachronism, as it implies a common (and alternative) body of belief, whereas the reality is more a case of each man promoting his own doctrine (and thereby himself as a 'Master') and rarely would they agree to be considered under a collective title.
In John's case it is one Cerinthus, a contemporary, who was preaching along themes that orthodoxy would have to contend with for the next 400 years, and which has re-appeared in our age so invitingly.
I think Sitz im Leben is the key here.
Thomas
Hi Chris —
That's a great question, so allow me two answers, one the 'orthodox line' and the other my own 'insight' and inspiration' in response to your question — which means it might be way off the mark, I haven't had time to research it yet, or it might be something that has been discussed at length by theologians, and I've never come across it (the main reason for doing the degree)...
Or it might be, and this is highly unlilkely, a 'new' view, in which case it's mine, so hands off, although I will credit you with a dedication and a cup of coffee when it streaks across the publishing firmament like a new Harry Potter ... or perhaps an alternative and orthodox Da Vinci Code ... anyway ...
Orthodox view.
Yes it is. Absolutely. The key to Mark's Gospel is the 'Messianic Secret', and the core of Matthew's are the Parables of the Kingdom — and the 'secret' fact that the Kingdom is here, now, walking and talking — and Jesus is its King. The same in Luke, the same, explicitly, in John ... Jesus is the Incarnate Word.
The paradox of Mark and the Messianic Secret is why does Jesus continually perform public miracles, and then swear everyone to secrecy? Because He knows as soon as He actually claims He is the Messiah, He is a dead man, and He has certain things to accomplish before that hour comes.
That's what got Him killed, that was the only accusation the Sanhedrin could make stick: Are you the Son of the Living God? Not in any neo-gnostic sense but in a strict and orthodox Hebraic sense — specifically He who is prophesied in Daniel — to which Jesus answers quite simply: Yes. Then that was out-and-out blasphemy. He was condemned.
In Mark we know the Pharisees were plotting with the Sadducees to be rid of Him before He even began His public mission — He was preaching openly before He called the Apostles (I'm not giving Scripture refs for the sake of brevity — but can if anyone wants them). We know they were constantly trying to catch Him out, and they nearly managed to stone Him on one occassion, before He 'slipped away'...
Why? Why was He such a big deal in their eyes?
Because the prophets never claimed anything on their own authority, but Jesus was something else — He claimed the ability to heal, to perform miracles, to forgive sin ... in His own name — that can only mean one thing: He has Divine Authority, God is not with Him, or in Him, He is God.
This was a radical break with tradition ... priests, prophets and kings don't operate like this, they always refer to God as the source of their authority, everything they do or say is in his name.
The miracles of Jesus are not arbitary displays of power, nor are they only, as many assert, responses to the faith of the people — they are demonstrations, precise and without doubt, of who He knows Himself to be — He feeds the 5,000 in His own name, replicating a miracle performed by The Lord in the Scriptures ... He cures the sick, gives sight to the blind, restores the crippled, all in His own name, He 'works' on the Sabbath because He is the Lord of the Sabbath, He raises the dead in His own name because He is the Lord of Life. He can forgive sin — that is He can dismiss an offence against God ...
... logically, only the one offended can forgive ... if someone offends you, someone else cannot say 'it doesn't matter, forget it' — someone else can say 'I know him, he's better than that, he won't hold it against you' but that isn't forgiving the offence, that's saying the offence will be forgiven. Jesus is explicit — He has the power to forgive.
As C.S. Lewis observed, He is either bad, mad, or God.
This marked Him out ... and this is one of the single most telling arguments against any notion of an invented Christ, or the Christ of the conspiracy theorist ... because if such was the case, the conspirators would not have concocted a tale that set them at odds with everyone and ensured their own deaths not that much longer after His. If they sought personal power, or financial gain, or the secret delight of having foisted a huge lie on an unwitting populace (in the spirit of 'Piltdown man', 'cold fusion' or 'The Hitler Diaries') they could have concocted the myth of a new prophet, and themselves the first generation of a prophetic brotherhood, and been accepted by the Temple authorities, the people, and the Roman administration.
The destruction of the Temple by the Romans would have played right into their hands, they could present Jesus as the new Jeremiah or Ezekiel, Elias or Isaiah (as there is evidence that the people thought He was inspired by that selfsame spirit of prophecy) He would be the voice of the new dispora, the new hope of a spiritual Israel ... and they could have taken that to the bank, they'd have ended their lives rich, fat and happy ...
But that was not the man whom they met, and witnessed, in the flesh.
So when He walked upon the water, a miracle witnessed only by the Apostles, He calmed the elements in His own name ... He did not invoke God, but acted on His own authority, and again and again, in word and act, He asserted that everything God is, He is also ... and they were gobsmacked, and could do nothing but say, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God."
+++
OK - personal speculation now ... again brief because it's all a bit of a jumble, and needs working through, but ...
If we look at Scripture, there is a marked turn in Jesus' ministry after the news of the death of John the Baptist. Prior to this, Jesus had instructed his disciples, and sent them out in pairs to teach, preach, and perform miracles. Then John is killed.
Now in the Synoptics, although (as we have discussed) historicity or chronology is not of prime importance, all three writers record the same series of events in the same order:
1 - The disciples are out and about, preaching.
2 - Word comes of the death of John the Baptist.
3 - Jesus calls his disciples together, and takes them off alone.
4 - The crowds follow.
5 - The feeding of the 5,000 — a significant miracle.
6 - The walking on the water — the undeniable evidence of Jesus' divinity, the Apostles are staggered and acknowledge His divine Sonship.
7- The first Prophecy of the Passion — He's revealing what lies in store for Him.
8 - The condition of following Christ — He's revealing what lies in store for them.
9 - The Transfiguration.
These last three, I think, mark a sea-change ... before the death of John, Jesus operates with a certain discretion (still active enough to get him on the '10 most wanted' list), even to His disciples, He is still within the function of a prophet, a good one, but just a prophet.
After John's murder, the mission kicks in, and in no uncertain fashion.
Now we could say Jesus has seen the writing on the wall ... John's gone, and He'll not be long behind, so into overdrive with his apocalyptic/eschatalogical message... the gloves are off, as it were ... and it's a race against time.
Or we could say something else — we could say that the Ministry of John the Baptist was the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, in preparation for the reception of the Son:
"The Spirit prepares man for the Son of God; the Son leads man to the Father; the Father gives man immortality ... Thus God was revealed: for in all these ways God the Father is displayed. The Spirit works, the Son fulfills His ministry, the Father approves..."
Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, 4, 20, 4-6
"Through the Spirit man ascends to the Son, through the Son to the Father."
ibid. 5, 36, 2
Think about it:
John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who was barren, and beyond child-bearing age (reminiscent of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 17:17). His birth, name, and office were foretold by the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, a priest in the temple of Jerusalem.
So the birth of John is not 'normal'. I'm not saying his father is the Holy Spirit, nor does Scripture, Zacharias' paternity is never questioned, but affirmed, but the birth of John is according to the Divine Will.
Notably John recognized Jesus as the Messiah while in his mothers' womb — but only in the Spirit can we see the Son. This is evident in the Presentation in the Temple, when Luke states that the Holy Spirit was upon the devout Simeon, and present to the prophetess Anna, hence the nunc dimittis of Simeon, which we pray every day:
"Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord,
according to thy word in peace;
Because my eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles,
and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 2:29-32
John baptises. At the baptism of Jesus, we have a Revelation of the Holy Trinity, the Voice in the Cloud, the Son, and the Dove, "This is my Son, the Beloved... ", repeated at the Transfiguration, "This is my Son, the Beloved..." and again, made manifest at Pentecost when the Paraclete, as tongues of flame, descended on the Disciples.
+++
I think that Jesus, although fulfilling His mission, was actually training his disciples, equipping them for 'the hour' that He and they must face, which would not come until the time was right, and which would be signalled by the departure of the Holy Spirit as one acting independently, whose job it was to prepare the way ('make straight the way of the Lord' was John's mission, echoing Isaiah).
It's notable also that John is preaching whilst Jesus lives in apparent anonymity. Jesus is baptised by John, and is led 'by the Holy Spirit' into the desert, to be tested. When He returns, the Baptist is under arrest.
So I'm saying that Jesus is actually the Messiah that was prophesied, but that the Jewish expectation was of a man to fulfill a noble destiny, as had always been the case ... they expected the 'Son of Man' as is commonly spoken of in their Scriptures — a prophet — what they got was the Son of Man as signified by Daniel, not at all what they were expecting.
That's why Jesus used this title of Himself often — Son of Man is obscure in its meaning and it allowed Him to refer to Himself without voicing an outright blasphemy, but without deceiving His audience ... those who were open to the Holy Spirit, then and now, would see and know the true implication of the title.
+++
I've veered away from certain other notions as I write, and perthaps have followed them too far in answering your question ... but 'Messiah' means anointed:
"In the name of Christ ('the Anointed') is implied the anointer, the anointed and the unction. The Father is the anointer; the Son, the anointed; the Holy Spirit the unction."
Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, 3, 18, 3
Thomas
That's a great question, so allow me two answers, one the 'orthodox line' and the other my own 'insight' and inspiration' in response to your question — which means it might be way off the mark, I haven't had time to research it yet, or it might be something that has been discussed at length by theologians, and I've never come across it (the main reason for doing the degree)...
Or it might be, and this is highly unlilkely, a 'new' view, in which case it's mine, so hands off, although I will credit you with a dedication and a cup of coffee when it streaks across the publishing firmament like a new Harry Potter ... or perhaps an alternative and orthodox Da Vinci Code ... anyway ...
Orthodox view.
Yes it is. Absolutely. The key to Mark's Gospel is the 'Messianic Secret', and the core of Matthew's are the Parables of the Kingdom — and the 'secret' fact that the Kingdom is here, now, walking and talking — and Jesus is its King. The same in Luke, the same, explicitly, in John ... Jesus is the Incarnate Word.
The paradox of Mark and the Messianic Secret is why does Jesus continually perform public miracles, and then swear everyone to secrecy? Because He knows as soon as He actually claims He is the Messiah, He is a dead man, and He has certain things to accomplish before that hour comes.
That's what got Him killed, that was the only accusation the Sanhedrin could make stick: Are you the Son of the Living God? Not in any neo-gnostic sense but in a strict and orthodox Hebraic sense — specifically He who is prophesied in Daniel — to which Jesus answers quite simply: Yes. Then that was out-and-out blasphemy. He was condemned.
In Mark we know the Pharisees were plotting with the Sadducees to be rid of Him before He even began His public mission — He was preaching openly before He called the Apostles (I'm not giving Scripture refs for the sake of brevity — but can if anyone wants them). We know they were constantly trying to catch Him out, and they nearly managed to stone Him on one occassion, before He 'slipped away'...
Why? Why was He such a big deal in their eyes?
Because the prophets never claimed anything on their own authority, but Jesus was something else — He claimed the ability to heal, to perform miracles, to forgive sin ... in His own name — that can only mean one thing: He has Divine Authority, God is not with Him, or in Him, He is God.
This was a radical break with tradition ... priests, prophets and kings don't operate like this, they always refer to God as the source of their authority, everything they do or say is in his name.
The miracles of Jesus are not arbitary displays of power, nor are they only, as many assert, responses to the faith of the people — they are demonstrations, precise and without doubt, of who He knows Himself to be — He feeds the 5,000 in His own name, replicating a miracle performed by The Lord in the Scriptures ... He cures the sick, gives sight to the blind, restores the crippled, all in His own name, He 'works' on the Sabbath because He is the Lord of the Sabbath, He raises the dead in His own name because He is the Lord of Life. He can forgive sin — that is He can dismiss an offence against God ...
... logically, only the one offended can forgive ... if someone offends you, someone else cannot say 'it doesn't matter, forget it' — someone else can say 'I know him, he's better than that, he won't hold it against you' but that isn't forgiving the offence, that's saying the offence will be forgiven. Jesus is explicit — He has the power to forgive.
As C.S. Lewis observed, He is either bad, mad, or God.
This marked Him out ... and this is one of the single most telling arguments against any notion of an invented Christ, or the Christ of the conspiracy theorist ... because if such was the case, the conspirators would not have concocted a tale that set them at odds with everyone and ensured their own deaths not that much longer after His. If they sought personal power, or financial gain, or the secret delight of having foisted a huge lie on an unwitting populace (in the spirit of 'Piltdown man', 'cold fusion' or 'The Hitler Diaries') they could have concocted the myth of a new prophet, and themselves the first generation of a prophetic brotherhood, and been accepted by the Temple authorities, the people, and the Roman administration.
The destruction of the Temple by the Romans would have played right into their hands, they could present Jesus as the new Jeremiah or Ezekiel, Elias or Isaiah (as there is evidence that the people thought He was inspired by that selfsame spirit of prophecy) He would be the voice of the new dispora, the new hope of a spiritual Israel ... and they could have taken that to the bank, they'd have ended their lives rich, fat and happy ...
But that was not the man whom they met, and witnessed, in the flesh.
So when He walked upon the water, a miracle witnessed only by the Apostles, He calmed the elements in His own name ... He did not invoke God, but acted on His own authority, and again and again, in word and act, He asserted that everything God is, He is also ... and they were gobsmacked, and could do nothing but say, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God."
+++
OK - personal speculation now ... again brief because it's all a bit of a jumble, and needs working through, but ...
If we look at Scripture, there is a marked turn in Jesus' ministry after the news of the death of John the Baptist. Prior to this, Jesus had instructed his disciples, and sent them out in pairs to teach, preach, and perform miracles. Then John is killed.
Now in the Synoptics, although (as we have discussed) historicity or chronology is not of prime importance, all three writers record the same series of events in the same order:
1 - The disciples are out and about, preaching.
2 - Word comes of the death of John the Baptist.
3 - Jesus calls his disciples together, and takes them off alone.
4 - The crowds follow.
5 - The feeding of the 5,000 — a significant miracle.
6 - The walking on the water — the undeniable evidence of Jesus' divinity, the Apostles are staggered and acknowledge His divine Sonship.
7- The first Prophecy of the Passion — He's revealing what lies in store for Him.
8 - The condition of following Christ — He's revealing what lies in store for them.
9 - The Transfiguration.
These last three, I think, mark a sea-change ... before the death of John, Jesus operates with a certain discretion (still active enough to get him on the '10 most wanted' list), even to His disciples, He is still within the function of a prophet, a good one, but just a prophet.
After John's murder, the mission kicks in, and in no uncertain fashion.
Now we could say Jesus has seen the writing on the wall ... John's gone, and He'll not be long behind, so into overdrive with his apocalyptic/eschatalogical message... the gloves are off, as it were ... and it's a race against time.
Or we could say something else — we could say that the Ministry of John the Baptist was the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, in preparation for the reception of the Son:
"The Spirit prepares man for the Son of God; the Son leads man to the Father; the Father gives man immortality ... Thus God was revealed: for in all these ways God the Father is displayed. The Spirit works, the Son fulfills His ministry, the Father approves..."
Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, 4, 20, 4-6
"Through the Spirit man ascends to the Son, through the Son to the Father."
ibid. 5, 36, 2
Think about it:
John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who was barren, and beyond child-bearing age (reminiscent of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 17:17). His birth, name, and office were foretold by the angel Gabriel to Zacharias, a priest in the temple of Jerusalem.
So the birth of John is not 'normal'. I'm not saying his father is the Holy Spirit, nor does Scripture, Zacharias' paternity is never questioned, but affirmed, but the birth of John is according to the Divine Will.
Notably John recognized Jesus as the Messiah while in his mothers' womb — but only in the Spirit can we see the Son. This is evident in the Presentation in the Temple, when Luke states that the Holy Spirit was upon the devout Simeon, and present to the prophetess Anna, hence the nunc dimittis of Simeon, which we pray every day:
"Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord,
according to thy word in peace;
Because my eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles,
and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 2:29-32
John baptises. At the baptism of Jesus, we have a Revelation of the Holy Trinity, the Voice in the Cloud, the Son, and the Dove, "This is my Son, the Beloved... ", repeated at the Transfiguration, "This is my Son, the Beloved..." and again, made manifest at Pentecost when the Paraclete, as tongues of flame, descended on the Disciples.
+++
I think that Jesus, although fulfilling His mission, was actually training his disciples, equipping them for 'the hour' that He and they must face, which would not come until the time was right, and which would be signalled by the departure of the Holy Spirit as one acting independently, whose job it was to prepare the way ('make straight the way of the Lord' was John's mission, echoing Isaiah).
It's notable also that John is preaching whilst Jesus lives in apparent anonymity. Jesus is baptised by John, and is led 'by the Holy Spirit' into the desert, to be tested. When He returns, the Baptist is under arrest.
So I'm saying that Jesus is actually the Messiah that was prophesied, but that the Jewish expectation was of a man to fulfill a noble destiny, as had always been the case ... they expected the 'Son of Man' as is commonly spoken of in their Scriptures — a prophet — what they got was the Son of Man as signified by Daniel, not at all what they were expecting.
That's why Jesus used this title of Himself often — Son of Man is obscure in its meaning and it allowed Him to refer to Himself without voicing an outright blasphemy, but without deceiving His audience ... those who were open to the Holy Spirit, then and now, would see and know the true implication of the title.
+++
I've veered away from certain other notions as I write, and perthaps have followed them too far in answering your question ... but 'Messiah' means anointed:
"In the name of Christ ('the Anointed') is implied the anointer, the anointed and the unction. The Father is the anointer; the Son, the anointed; the Holy Spirit the unction."
Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, 3, 18, 3
Thomas
Hey Chris —
Suppose for a moment it is a fiction.
Supposing there's some quirk in the fabric of our being that needs a myth we can believe in ... not out of frailty, or fear, but out of an absolute necessity of our survival ... that without it, we would spiral down into some black hole of nihilistic existentialism ... that without it, the whole thing is actually meaningless and we might as well just log in to whatever and go with it, cos any meaning life has, any value we give it, is as equally false and as delusional as any other ... that we might stand there, looking up into the cold night sky, the unfathomable and utterly pointless distance, and we might as well put a gun in our mouths right now, because in the grand scheme of things, it makes not a jot of difference ... and at least it would be an honest response.
Don't even go there ... cos once you do, that voice will whisper in your ear, that demon will sit on your shoulder ... that's one particular little box with 'Pandora' written on the side is one we really don't wanna open...
So we generate a myth.
Then what I delight in, about the Christian myth, is it is absolutely bloody seamless ... and that alone makes it worth the investment.
People believe or they don't believe not because the argument is inadequate — we're suckers for glamorous arguments, no matter how inadequate or nonsensical — it's not because we lack faith in God, but we lack the conviction to place our chip on that number in this game of roulette we call life ... we don't gamble on God cos we don't gamble on anything.
Faith in God is like Dad standing by the wall where he's just planted his kid and says, "Jump, I'll catch you."
(Have you seen a film by Hal Hartley called "Trust"? I love it)
+++
Like a 3D fractal, the deeper in you go, the same pattern repeats itself again and again, never a fault, never a flaw, never an error ... like a snowflake, it's never the same twice, but it always conforms to the image of itself ... every new theophany, every new epiphany, at the same time is recognisably the same ... it hasn't deviated a micron in parsecs and it never will ... and every nanoparticle is a hologram of the whole ... and it will never be exhausted.
... and every now and then this dialogue pops you out of the wormhole into a church, or a train, or a beach, or a room, or a bar, and you're sitting at the bar, with some guy you've never met, but know really well, and the bartender pours you both a stiff one, and you look at the light glinting gold in the glass (I'm a Scotch man, but in present company I'll settle for a good bourbon) and you down 'em in one, and then he leans across, you catch his smile in the mirror at the back of the bar, and your shoulders almost touch, and he says "jump, I'll catch you."
... and the bar spins away, and you're hanging there in space, against a backdrop of stars, tied with a thousand strands as tensile as a spider's web, with the echo of that voice in your ears and the falling sensation in the pit of your stomach ... and then you're looking up into the night sky ... and you sigh ... and you go back indoors, and bury yourself in the warmth and comfort of a good book, and old friends, and tune up your favourite strings.
Thomas
(Where did that come from? Anyone got Wim Wenders' phone number?)
Suppose for a moment it is a fiction.
Supposing there's some quirk in the fabric of our being that needs a myth we can believe in ... not out of frailty, or fear, but out of an absolute necessity of our survival ... that without it, we would spiral down into some black hole of nihilistic existentialism ... that without it, the whole thing is actually meaningless and we might as well just log in to whatever and go with it, cos any meaning life has, any value we give it, is as equally false and as delusional as any other ... that we might stand there, looking up into the cold night sky, the unfathomable and utterly pointless distance, and we might as well put a gun in our mouths right now, because in the grand scheme of things, it makes not a jot of difference ... and at least it would be an honest response.
Don't even go there ... cos once you do, that voice will whisper in your ear, that demon will sit on your shoulder ... that's one particular little box with 'Pandora' written on the side is one we really don't wanna open...
So we generate a myth.
Then what I delight in, about the Christian myth, is it is absolutely bloody seamless ... and that alone makes it worth the investment.
People believe or they don't believe not because the argument is inadequate — we're suckers for glamorous arguments, no matter how inadequate or nonsensical — it's not because we lack faith in God, but we lack the conviction to place our chip on that number in this game of roulette we call life ... we don't gamble on God cos we don't gamble on anything.
Faith in God is like Dad standing by the wall where he's just planted his kid and says, "Jump, I'll catch you."
(Have you seen a film by Hal Hartley called "Trust"? I love it)
+++
Like a 3D fractal, the deeper in you go, the same pattern repeats itself again and again, never a fault, never a flaw, never an error ... like a snowflake, it's never the same twice, but it always conforms to the image of itself ... every new theophany, every new epiphany, at the same time is recognisably the same ... it hasn't deviated a micron in parsecs and it never will ... and every nanoparticle is a hologram of the whole ... and it will never be exhausted.
... and every now and then this dialogue pops you out of the wormhole into a church, or a train, or a beach, or a room, or a bar, and you're sitting at the bar, with some guy you've never met, but know really well, and the bartender pours you both a stiff one, and you look at the light glinting gold in the glass (I'm a Scotch man, but in present company I'll settle for a good bourbon) and you down 'em in one, and then he leans across, you catch his smile in the mirror at the back of the bar, and your shoulders almost touch, and he says "jump, I'll catch you."
... and the bar spins away, and you're hanging there in space, against a backdrop of stars, tied with a thousand strands as tensile as a spider's web, with the echo of that voice in your ears and the falling sensation in the pit of your stomach ... and then you're looking up into the night sky ... and you sigh ... and you go back indoors, and bury yourself in the warmth and comfort of a good book, and old friends, and tune up your favourite strings.
Thomas
(Where did that come from? Anyone got Wim Wenders' phone number?)
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Interesting reading Thoomas. About the above, to me it seems not just that Jesus was avoiding/putting off His death by maintaining the secret (that was right out in the open), but also that it was not necessary, and perhaps would have been a detraction, for Him to go around saying "I am the Messiah and the Son of God." First, it would have attracted followers who were looking for a political solution. Second, it is that much more convincing, to me anyway, that He claimed His title not by going around saying "I am the Son of God!" but by such acts and outpouring of love that those around Him concluded: this is the Son of God. It was the Holy Spirit at work in the people as well.
Others have come and gone claiming Messiahship but more or less saying: I am He, often with some words of threat if you don't buy it. Unfortunately, you also see that threat creeping in by the time John was written: those who do not believe are condemned already.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
Well, Thomas, you never disappoint! And now you've given me so much food for thought that I don't know where to begin. Maybe I should just take a nap!
This is kind of where I'm going in my own thought realm. While it is undeniably important to consider Christ in the original and ancient context insofar as that is possible given all the layers of the thing and the foggy disconnect between our modern cultural mindset and that of the people most closely associated with the actual events, I'm wondering how one breaks through the anachronistic patina so as to rejuvenate the pristine concept of the Logos Christ in the largest sense as a living, wholly functioning thing. To that end I agree that it's of utmost importance to examine all the relevant source material and to try to the best of one's ability to place ourselves in the original context so as to see through the eyes of those contemporary to the actual events. But in terms of myself and my own modern experience and mental life it is of almost no consequence to participate in an anachronism of a messiah or ultimate avatar specific to an ancient frame of reference. So for me it is more a question of placing the pristine concept in a frame of reference appropriate to my own time and place.
The trick, for me, is to avoid not only the anachronistic, neo-Israelite conception, but also the universalist-syncretist soup and post-modern relativism whilst simultaneously using all of those things as tools to broaden my knowledge base and sharpen my perception. It's a helluva balancing act!
Thanks for your excellent replies. I'm sorry that I can't reciprocate appropriately and give back as much as I've received, but I offer you my sincere appreciation.
Chris
Thomas said:
This is kind of where I'm going in my own thought realm. While it is undeniably important to consider Christ in the original and ancient context insofar as that is possible given all the layers of the thing and the foggy disconnect between our modern cultural mindset and that of the people most closely associated with the actual events, I'm wondering how one breaks through the anachronistic patina so as to rejuvenate the pristine concept of the Logos Christ in the largest sense as a living, wholly functioning thing. To that end I agree that it's of utmost importance to examine all the relevant source material and to try to the best of one's ability to place ourselves in the original context so as to see through the eyes of those contemporary to the actual events. But in terms of myself and my own modern experience and mental life it is of almost no consequence to participate in an anachronism of a messiah or ultimate avatar specific to an ancient frame of reference. So for me it is more a question of placing the pristine concept in a frame of reference appropriate to my own time and place.
The trick, for me, is to avoid not only the anachronistic, neo-Israelite conception, but also the universalist-syncretist soup and post-modern relativism whilst simultaneously using all of those things as tools to broaden my knowledge base and sharpen my perception. It's a helluva balancing act!
Thanks for your excellent replies. I'm sorry that I can't reciprocate appropriately and give back as much as I've received, but I offer you my sincere appreciation.
Chris
Welcome to the world of theology!
I think this is as best we can do as a 'reality check' — take Logos for example — John uses the term twice, and significantly in the prologue of his Gospel, but to assume that he meant logos the way Stoics meant logos would be to make a mistake.
To separate 'Jesus' and 'Christ' into two distinct entities is an error that John wrote specifically to address ... and yet 2,000 years later it's still alive and kicking. It's useful to know the background to try and ensure we don't fall into the same assumptive traps.
That's a good point. But if we bring the word into our current experiential paradigm, then we can give it a transcendant value that stands above time and space.
I always though the Latin verbum was a very poor offering in place of the Greek logos, until I got into the deeper theology of it. Now the situation is reversed ... I think verbum for me opens dimensions of thought that logos does not adequately address.
But I would have to admit that verbum says much, more than logos, and both are in a different league, for me, to messias or Emmanuel. Currently I'm contemplating the word Kurios, the title accorded Jesus as the equivalent of Adonai, itself the vocalising of the tetragrammaton YHWH.
Every time I tried to re-engage with the Church I stumbled, until I discovered the language of Neoplatonic metaphysics ... then Scripture simply 'lit up' ... now I'm trying to bring my act up to date, looking at the moderns — Ricoeur, Lonergan et al — but their reference points are still the Greeks!
Can say ... can I make life a little more difficult? In an essay I read written in 1959(!), the proposition is put forward that the Greeks had no adequate term for 'person' as an existential being as we currently understand it. It was Augustine who brought that into play.
After your snooze, look at:
Lecture 1959
You can skip the Augustine bits (that's my bread and butter), just trawl it for a review of the Greek lexicon and the limitations of their philosophy on a topic which, in this current age, is centre stage.
My 'excitement' is that more and more Augistine seems a man of our times. It also explains why the later Greek theologians are so dismissive of him — they are still too Platonist (all the Greek Fathers were Platonists) — 'explaining away' the Doctrine of the Trinity until it is lost in the ineffable world of Neoplatonic abstractions and hesychastic light ... Augustine was a Christian Platonist to his deathbed, but that did not stop him utilising Aristotle when Plato had nothing left to say ... he rediscovered the 'man' and insisted (along with Paul) that we would see Him 'face to face'.
Thanks for the instigation Chris, you've given me a lot to think about.
pax tecum,
Thomas