Okay, in response to the comment in which I am told that I “seem to ignore the number of times He [Jesus] refers to Himself as God”, I have decided to write this entry.
In the course Jesus and the Gospels, A class by Michael Gilmour I had last year, I was taught that scholars today pretty much unanimously believe that The Gospel of Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written, though it was not completely written by one author, and instead was edited together from multiple sources. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke then copied Mark and other documents, constructed their own gospels soon after. Finally John was written quite a while later. Interestingly enough, in these books the focus on Jesus as a man to Jesus as a divine figure shifts progressively in chronological order, Mark treating Jesus as entirely human and the others progressively focussing more on the divinity of Christ In Mark Jesus refers to himself as solely as the son of Man, only in the other gospels does he refer to himself as “Son of God” or divine, though really even if he does call himself the “Son of God”, Christians today call themselves “sons and daughters of God”, making it not really any different, at least from my perspective. Another thing which deserves pointing out, is that in the Gospel of Mark (10:18) Jesus actually makes a point to make sure that he is not seen as divine/God by the people. When someone comes to him kneels and asks him “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds “Why callest thou me ‘good?’ There is none good but One, that is God.” (sorry for the antiquated English, I am quoting from the KJV). So it seems that Jesus really did not view himself as the same as God, and that the “divinity of Christ” really did not come about until later within Christianity.
The phenomenon of great people becoming deified is quite a common occurrence, Gandhi, who died fairly recently 1948, has a following people believing he was divine, as does Mother Teresa, and she passed away much more recently. To me this illustrates that it is entirely possible that a similar thing could happen in Jesus’ day. The individual, (Jesus, Mother Teresa, Gandhi) know they are not divine, however because of the things they accomplished people begin to think they are, and they develop a cult following. And really since Jesus didn’t write anything, how can we know what he truly thought of himself. The only difference between these recent movements and Jesus is that his has had nearly 2000 years to develop.
Another interesting story worthy of mention is that of Shabbetai Zevi whose life is actually quite similar to that of Jesus’ and also has a sect of Judaism which thinks he is divine, (for more information on this sect see http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/zevi.html, which is a direct quotation of Karen Armstrong’s A History of God).
Take the above for what it is worth, but really I have trouble believing that Jesus believed himself to be divine, I do believe that he believed in God, I would say that is obvious and a result of the culture he grew up in. I would not however say that belief in God or the divinity of Christ is necessary to work towards the goals he had for society. This is also shown by Reimarus (1694-1768), who “argued that Jesus had simply wanted to found a godly state. . . . He point[s] out that in the Gospels Jesus never claimed that he had come to atone for the sins of mankind. That idea, which had become central to Western Christendom, could only be traced to St. Paul, the true founder of Christianity. We should not revere Jesus as God, therefore, but as the teacher of a “remarkable, simple, exalted and practical religion” (Karen Armstrong 307).
As final thoughts I would like to quote my textbook from Jesus and the Gospels written my Craig Blomberg, which states: “Historically, the church’s doctrine of Scripture has almost always stressed that it is only the contents of the original manuscripts that are authoritative, inspired, or inerrant.” And yes I know that the whole New Testament is viewed as authoritative, inspired, and inerrant, but I would challenge this saying that it seems evident that details about Jesus and his nature evolved over time, and so I think it is safe (though heretical I realise from a Christian perspective) to not trust the validity of much of the New Testament, because much of it is based on a Paul-originated theology and christology instead of a Christ-initiated teaching.
Lastly, I know that my thoughts on the bible and Christianity and all of these things will not be easily accepted by Christians, and I don’t necessarily believe that they should be... because... (this is probably something better thought and kept silent than typed and published, but I am going to type it anyway, ) I believe that some people are not ready to not have Christianity as a crutch. As Karen Armstrong similarly states: “Freud made a valid and perceptive point when he insisted that it would be dangerous to attempt to abolish religion. People must outgrow God in their own good time: to force them into atheism or secularism before they were ready could lead to an unhealthy denial and repression” (Armstrong, 358). Some people need a superior being in their lives in order to be psychologically “healthy,” and some don’t, and it is my realisation of this, I believe, that allows me to be a “pluralist-atheist,” because I may not necessarily believe in God (whatever he/she/it may be), but I realise the value of the belief of God (or any being resembling God) in others’ lives who are not able or ready to be without “him”.
Again, I hope that this does not seem to rambleish, if it is it is because it is two years of my thoughts squeezed into an evening of writing, but again, I hope that whichever side of the fence one is sitting on, that it fuels appetites for further research on the subject!
5 comments:
I don't like the wording you used, calling Christianity a crutch. From your perspective I can understand how you could see it as one, but I think better terminology can be used. For example, from my perspective I could see atheism or pluralism as a crutch for someone who had the psychological need to not believe in God, or who had led a lifestyle in which if they were a member of a religion would produce guilt because of the moral codes of the majority of the members of that religion. I prefer to think of atheism and Christianity simply as systems of thought, rather than psychological crutches.
I'm sorry if that seemed off the topic, but that is just me rambling. It's what I thought about, and if you weren't aware of the bias of your language, I thought I would mention it out. I am also sorry if it did seem a bit pointed, but it wasn't intended to. The rest of the entry was pretty interesting.
burdic,
Just because you do not like how someone words does not make it any less true. Religions and many social institutions can become a crutch or as Marx stated "religion is the opium of the people." Religion tends to dope the people and placate them. Church provides some people with a weekly high and only costs as much as you are willing to tithe.
That is not to say that religion acts as a crutch or a drug for all people.
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
-Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People)
Perhaps I should have said disagree instead of simply emoting. I simply don't agree that being a crutch is something which is innately true of religion. Furthermore, just because that is one of the most famous diatribes made by Marx doesn't mean that it is true either.
One reason that I disagree is because I don't believe that religion "dopes the people and placates them" to their social conditions on the whole. It can, and it can very easily, but religion itself does not necessitate that. I also believe
At the church I go to in Omaha... I don't really come away with a "high" as it were. When I hear the senior pastor preach, I come away feeling somewhat ashamed, but also motivated to do better. I don't mean this in regards to spiritual conditions necessarily, in fact, more in regards to social conditions than anything. When I leave, I am more aware of the world and the situations in it, and what I can do to help. Religion shouldn't provide you with fulfillment, it should provide you with empowerment.
Two questions related to the development of the divinity of Jesus. Ihave comments about the usefullness of religion, which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on, but perhaps they can wait.
1. While it is helpful for you to suppose the autheniticity of claims that you believe have Jesus denying divinity, is it not somewhat selective to then dismiss as historically dubious statements in the Gospels that seem to promote Jesus' divinity? You don't necessarily do this in your post, but in your private thoughts I suppose this would be the case.
2. The Easter mystery of the radical transformation of the Apostles, while not necessarily exact in Biblical specifics, is still nonetheless more than likely generally historical, and how, I wonder does that effect your views of the post-Jesus attribution of divinity?
Thanks.
K.
Kelly,
I am glad you responded, I always value and respect your input when I get it! As for your first question, my attempt was to show that the thought of Jesus as divine was not present in the earliest writings (Mark) but sort of crept into the following of Christ as it progressed. Therefore the writings as the religion began to form... which is why it makes sense that in Mark we find not a whole lot (if anything) about the divinity of Christ within it. And the quote in my entry which seems to be in opposition to the idea of the divinity of Christ. So I guess it is "selective" but also Mark is older and therefore I would assume that it is also more reliable, portraying Christ as he was and not as people thought he should have been.
As for your second point, I am not really sure what you are referring to. But I assume you mean Saul/Paul and such... and really, I will admit that I don't know... having been a part of the Pentecostal movement growing up I have seen some pretty odd things happen, (never scales falling from eyes, but it woludn't surprise me if I met someone in the movement who was convinced that it happened to them). I don't believe that much if anything that I saw in the pentecostal movement actually happened, whether it be violent exorcisms or healings... and so I am also doubtful of the accounts of the apostles, though I will not say that they didn't happen for sure, I will say that I can doubt that they did, simply because of the doubts I have of things that people in the Pentecostal movement are "sure" of.
Post a Comment