Hi Everyone, Wow! Thanks to all who answered my post ‘Is Jesus Even Relevant?’ I have not gone through all the posts there yet, but will this weekend. This seems like a great forum! Most religion forums I have visited since 1990 have been little more than mud slinging and flame fights. But you folks are really smart and courteous in your discussions!
For myself, I am something of a deist, and my own personal take on Jesus is that he was we today would call a cult leader, and probably deluded or meglomaniacal. In some ways, Jesus looks like David Koresh and Jim Jones in that he demanded absolute loyalty from his followers even above family ties. {But of course, UNLIKE Koresh and Jones, he did not stockpile weapons and poison and there is no evidence he sexually abused his followers}. Jesus wanted to innaugurate the Kingdom of God, but it did not come, and in the end it killed him.
Now of course this is not the only possible interpretation of Jesus, and since I am not a scholar I won’t argue that it is even the best interpretation. {And I sometimes wish that this interpretation was impossible} It just seems to me at this time that something like this happened.
Anyway, I am starting to read EP Sanders ‘The Historical Figure of Jesus’ for another third quest view. meanwhile I am going to print out the whole discussion on the previous thread and see what ally your views are. Stuart
Thoughts on Jesus
Kia-ora Stuart,
Thanks for your posts. This take sheds some light on the motivation for your previous post. Thanks for stimulating more discussion.
I’d agree that this view of Jesus isn’t the best one, though it has some elements of reality about it. I’m curious, however, as to why you think “I sometimes wish that this interpretation was impossible”.
Is there any reason to limit possibilities before investigation or is it a matter of conscience?
Stuart, what are your reasons for this view? Do people think this is a possible (legitimate) view of Jesus from what we know?
Cheers.
More thoughts on Jesus
Hi Mars Hill,
My “Mad Jesus” hypothesis seems disturbingly possible to me, but no, I do not think there is any reason to limit possibilities here. My Jesus reading is actually pretty limited. I have read most of Charlotte Allen’s The Human Christ, Raymond Brown’s Birth of the Messiah, some NT Wright books, and Luke Johnson’s The Real Jesus. I am reading EP Sanders book “The Historical Figure of Jesus” now. In this limited reading, I don’t recall any scholars agreeing that Jesus was delusional or a cult leader, save for Albert Schweitzer.
Now as for the reasons for this hypothesis, I would says Jesus seems to share traits of real “Mad Messiahs” that we have known. Like them, he came from a religious tradition, but placed himself over and above this tradition with a great emphasis on himself. Like them, he had opinions of himself that we would see in any other man as being egotistic to say the least {Greater in wisdom than Solomon, or being a greater prophet than Elijah, or that no one knows God except the Son—-all these are Q sayings! No wonder some people want to stratify Q into redactional layers.} In addition to this, both John and the synoptics include potentially embarassing material in which even Jesus own family seemed to think he was crazy. And some at least of Jesus opponents thought he was crazy, or had a demon, and was leading Israel astray. All of this I think adds up to an uncomfortable picture of Jesus as a meglomaniacal cult leader.
Now I would like to see a scholar like Wright demolish this picture, because frankly, I miss a sane Jesus. So it is back to the books to rethink this view.
Have you done much Jesus study? And if so, which books do you find best so far?
Stuart
Unfortunate lack of reading
Kia-ora Stuart,
Unfortunately even though I’ve been part of the Christian tradition for several years I haven’t done much scholarly reading on Christ. I’m struggling to catch up with a three page reading list on postmodern thought and theology and when I’m through that I (hope) to get some more reading on Jesus.
I see what you're saying... but...
Pardon the inherent evangelicalism (to me its common sense, but I realize it may not be so to you) in my response, but here it is.
Examining the narrative of Jesus as recorded in the Bible (which you may or may not fully agree with) shows that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born to a virgin, in a setting less than ideal. This is not a regular occurance — and what would motivate the authors who recorded these events to write about such lunacy if it never happened? Why would we still have these accounts today, and why would we still be following them?
In the words of David S. Cunningham, “If Jesus is not understood as God incarnate, why would his teachings and actions have any special significance? Nor would it make sense to worship and pray to Jesus, as Christians have done for centuries and continue to do today.” (Quoted from Kevin J Vanhoozer’s ‘The Cambridge Companiion to Postmodern Theology’; pg186)
Stepping into Francis Schaeffer’s qusi-evangelical view of things, let me quote him to give another take on the issue… “The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is.”
Though I hestitate to fully embrace Schaeffer’s view of truth, I admittingly think that he is on to something. Even without accounts of Scripture, there are numerous sources (writings of Tacitus; numerous Talmudic references; Lutcian references; the writings of Roman historian Suetonius) that speak of Jesus Christ. Though they may not completely align with the accounts found in the Bible, one must admit that it is strange that such accounts make mention of him. Could this be an example of what Schaeffer refers to as ‘the truth of the external world?’
Back to the cult leaders you mentioned. In 2,000 years, I highly doubt anyone will care about the teachings of David Koresh, much less even know about him.
The fact that the story of Jesus has endured 2,000 years of history (plus the many years that his coming to earth was prophesied, as recorded in the Old Testament accounts of Isaiah and others) and that his teachings are still being tought prevents me from putting Jesus and his teaching on the same level as that of David Koresh.
I doubt the story or teachings of David Koresh will have any future significance — do they even now?
I’m no scholar, either, but this is my ‘common sense’ response to your view of Jesus. I’d love to hear your response — it is good for me to see things from different perspectives.
Specialness not needed up front
You can speculate why certain constructions were put on the birth narratives. Clearly this was not a king being born, so he was born lowly, but in faith was a king… This seems reasonable.
Please, Isaiah stands in its own right, and was no prophecy of Jesus. That is to read back into it, which of course the early Christians did. But it cannot be turned around into a proof. A faith statement is not a proof of anything, other than the making of the statement.
The words and actions of Jesus will stand for themselves or they won’t - they do not need an edifice to hold them up in the way of claims of the supernatural.
I would not claim anything of David Koresh, who was a manipulator and quite possibly a bully to some scared and accepting people. A better comparison is Gandhi. His words and actions will last as that of peaceful resistance, and that he was killed by one of his own. Nothing is lost for Jesus when accepting the importance of figures like Gandhi and Buddha.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Faith as evidence, evidence as proof...
This seems a spurious argument to introduce. Whilst clearly any faith statement can be reasonably combatted by the denial of that statement by another who believes differently and, socially, we have an enpasse, nevertheless, it is when we examine the evidence of the faith (/statement) - whether in Jesus, Mohammed, or Ghandi - we discover the evidence begins to speaks for itself and confirms or denies the reasonableness of the faith / statements.
Is such evidence “proof”? Legally, courts of law exist to examine evidence, in order to determine proof. And the link between them, as in much of science, actually, is not so great as is often implied by the loose use of these terms. In a faith context, such as the faith of millions of members of the Christian community, over millenia, the evidence is whelming.
Consequently, it seems to me, the “burden of proof,” in such a situation is upon the gainsayer to demonstrate why that evidence doesn’t lead appropriately to the conclusions that so many others - who demonstrate their faith, not only with statements but with concordant actions - say that it does. And thus, to attempt to stem the flow of argument, as in this instance, by suggesting that a prima facie “proof” has not been made is simply spurious. Who determines whether the evidence constitutes proof? The accuser? No. It must be a independent judgement.
That’s the point: they already have stood - both the testing of time and of the trusting faithfulness of millions of ardent followers. That is the evidence and the proof (as in ‘of the pudding… in the eating’!). They have stood and been trusted; faith has been founded upon them; faith - not mere statements, but actions done in accordance with faith. Such evidence must be weighed and to ignore it - such as by appealing to the idea that we can see so much more clearly than the “early Christians” - it seems to me, is not to disprove anything, merely to deny it with the kind of “faith statement” so derided by the writer.
Jesus and Prophecy
Hi John,
I know the “mad messiah” hypothesis is not the only one possible. So I have preferred to say Jesus might have been such, not that he certainly was. But “mad messiahs” are also false messiahs, and this is I think a firmer stance, though it is more general.
For me, it is obvious that the kingdom of God has not arrived. Death still reigns supreme, the wolf has not lied down with the lamb, the nations study war evermore and beat plowshares into swords, and no little child is leading them anywhere. I agree with the “third quest for the historical Jesus” that all indications are Jesus thought himself to be the messiah and announced the impending reign of God. That this has not happened is emoirically verifiable by anyone. If Jesus failed, which he seems to have done, then he was must have been a false messiah. Two thousand years is long enough.
Secondly, the prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled are of two kinds that I can see; typological and deliberate.
1. Typology is the reading of a text in search of “prefigurements”. The text by itself, in it’s original context, is not prophectic, but something within the text seems to parallel the event one is trying to find prophesized. Isaiah 7 is an example. It originally said nothing about Jesus or Jesus time. But a later writer who believeed Jesus was born of a virgin finds in the Septuagint version of Isaiah the word “parthenos”, and so into the Gosepl of Matthew it goes. Another example is Micah. The one born in Bethlehem in the original context is one who will destroy the Assyrians. As things turned out, this did not happen.
The main problem with typology is that it convinces no one except those already committed to the belief one is trying to prove. Christians will look at it and be impressed by the type, but Jews {who never expected a virginally conceived messiah} will be unimpressed.
2. Deliberate actions: These are actiuons one conciously performs. The prophecy in question is the script and choreography, and the would be messiah therefore does these. Examples are Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem, probably knowing full well that this would conjur up images from Zechariah.
Now your appeal to millions of people beliving over the centuries is a criterion I do not accept. If I did, I would have to say the same things about Islam and Hinduism—-and I totally disbelieve both of these religions. But millions have through the centuries believed both of these religions, yet that fact does not make them true.
One last word on typology if you don’t mind. One man’s typology is another man’s out-of-context reading of a text. There is a passage in Isaiah {I THINK it is Isaiah} that says of Jerusalem “Let her gates be shut and no one enter” {or words to that effect}. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox both use this verse as a “prophecy” of Mary’s Ever-Virginity! They believe Mary NEVER had sex and NEVER had more children after Jesus—-and this is their proof text! Typology is so subjective that you can make it prophecy anything.
Stuart
Mounting (and dismounting) evidence
hello stuart…
you wrote:
You do not accept it in which sense? The fact of it? Or the relevance to a / the / my (perceived) argument? Or the conclusiveness of it? I will assume it is the latter, since the two former seem unlikely, not least because my whole point is that you CAN’T reasonably ignore such evidence; read into it what you like individually, but it’s too significant to be ignored. And - if you would understand it aright - then journey with others, particularly those who offer different views, but don’t ignore it.
Not “true” in what sense? You say you totally disbelieve these religions, fine. But your tone might be taken to indicate that you quickly assume that you can therefore readily right off the faith experiences of these millions, nay, billions of people. That’s a position that I think many people would find uncomfortably arrogant and a view they would want to dissociate themselves from (perhaps you would too, when it’s put that starkly). To be agnostic about the major faiths is understandable, but to suggest they are completely unbelievable suggests you have set up personal criteria against which you are judging the evidence. That doesn’t make you, or anyone taking such a position, an independent judge and thus, you cannot be an arbiter in the sense of determining the sufficiency of evidence to indicate “proof” or “truth.”
Thus, I would suggest, in the face of disbelief, one ought only to allow oneself to be agnostic enough to consider examining the evidence of other peoples faith experience; anything less is a pre-disposition. Fine, if you’re sure that’s where you want to be but one in such a position cannot honestly expect to be taken seriously as a critic, let alone a spokesperson, by those who do have faith experiences (which hundreds of years after the secular revolution still includes most of the world’s population!)
Thus, I encourage again the idea that we must first examine the evidence of those who lay claim to faith experiences , then, whether they concord with the faith statements. If they do then the faith experiences ought to be properly considered as evidence FOR the reality of the faith itself. At that point, we may begin to assess the quality and appeal of the faith. “Truth” in the sense you seem to have posited it, is, in other words, not the only criteria on which to accept the evidence.
Having established such a agnostic context for examining the faith positions of huge swathes of the populace, I would take further issue with your use of the argument:
Quite so, on a social or individual level. Who is to choose between them? But your point overlooks the place of community and tradition in deciding such things, included within which are the reality of gifted / called / vocational indivduals / teams whom the community and tradition to have been recognised as bearing (some kind of) authority for making interpretations and decisions on behalf of the wider community. That such authorities are NOT infallible, all the time, does not mean they - and all their ilk - can be sidelined whenever and by whomever it suits (which seems to be your point with the somewhat bizarre RC example re. the virgin birth!)
That is one of my main points. The fact is there are well developed traditions and modes of interpretation and recognition of authority upon which the Christian / Messianic faith is founded. That we are re-examining them, here within OST, for example, does not mean that bath itself, never mind the baby, may be thrown out by anyone who finds something they personally object to within the bath; a good deal of criticism of religion seems to be on such a level. Such critics can only be taken seriously on the level of personal engagement.
Do you see my point? john
On community / authority / modes of interpretation readers might visit: authority of scripture ditto Jewish rabbinical modes of interpretation Jewish rabbinical approach to truth
Well John, the first thing
Well John, the first thing I would offer is that we should not let ourselves be too concerned about the appearance of arrogance. In our world today, just believing youself to be right about something is going to appear arrogant to someone. Certainly you as an evangelical must know that the evangelical claim that Jesus is the only way to God is seen as arrogant by almost everyone else. {I can honestly say it does not bother me though} Should this bother you? Not at all, if you believe Jesus IS the only way to God.
Similarly, I am not too concerned with appearing arrogant {though I do try to be polite and not condescending} if I deem the religious experiences {“testimonies” as evangelicals would call them} as not quite relevant to my concern with the truth of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not doubt these subjective experiences impact their lives, but they do not show me that Jesus is/was the Messiah. Now if religious experiences were had only by Christians, then this would be more suggestive. But if Hindus and Muslims have faith experiences as well, we have to assume that either the experiences of one religious group is correct and the others are delusional or demonic {and to take this stance we must already assume the truth of one of the religons anyway} or we can see them all as something more basic to humans in general, without respect to the particular beliefs of the individual or group in question.
Now on the matter of textual interpretation, let me quote something you said: “…your point overlooks the place of community and tradition in deciding such things, included within which are the reality of gifted / called / vocational indivduals / teams whom the community and tradition to have been recognised as bearing (some kind of) authority for making interpretations and decisions on behalf of the wider community. That such authorities are NOT infallible, all the time, does not mean they - and all their ilk - can be sidelined whenever and by whomever it suits (which seems to be your point with the somewhat bizarre RC example re. the virgin birth!)”
First of all, what makes the Catholic use of “Let her gates be shut” as a type of Mary bizarre, and Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7 as a type of Jesus not bizarre? Neither verse in the plain literal context refers to Mary or Jesus. It would seem we are back to where we were before. One man’s type is another mans out of context reading. “Types” of this nature are only convincing to the already initiated. In other words, you have to preach to the choir!
But what about the “community and tradition” and “the gifted / called / vocational indivduals / teams”. The same problem awaits us here as well. Such people are gifted or called only in the eyes of their fellows in the faith. Their authoritative pronouncements and the traditions of their respective communities do not matter a hill of beans to the rival communites with their own experts and traditions!
Put another way—-are the Jews much impressed with authority of the Catholic magisterium? And do the Catholic Bishops and Cardinales view the interpretations of the lone evangelical preacher as authoritative? Again, if you are a Catholic and you want to persuade another Catholic on a matter of interpretation of scripture, appeals to authrity and tradition may be persuasive. But they are not to those outside.
How then, does all this get us anywhere closer to the truth about Jesus of Nazareth and whether or not he was Israel’s messiah? Jesus is said to have conquered death, but death still reigns on earth. Jesus is said to have defeated Satan. But does not evil still run rampant? Jesus is said to have brought about the reign of God. But does it not look more like anarchy out there than like Godly Government? And if we are ready to give up on a social program or political system if it has failed for twenty to a hundred years, is it not also wise to place no faith in Jesus’ Kingdom which has had two thousand years?
Best Wishes,
Stuart
faith and fear regarding subjectivity
Good day, Stuart
An interesting response. For the record, I’ve no idea what you mean by the term “evangelical Christian,” and it’s not a label I have or would use consistently about myself. Consequently, might it be better to avoid the use of labels as a means of positing what another’s view represent?
To co-respond to your argument(s):
Firstly,You wrote,
That’s an interesting point and in certain contexts it is absolutely the right attitude to take. However, in your introduction to this post you were fairly exultant at finding a forum in which arrogance was not the norm:
I think that your openness there is more believeable. When arrogance is mentioned in the context of argument and debate, (in a geunine manner, in respect of your argument, rather than as accusation against your tone - I hope the difference is clear) I think the intention is to flag up a failure of the line of argument to properly consider reasonably obvious elements, a sort of cry to ask you to put on the brakes a bit, a suggestion that the argument has it’s own momentum and is in danger of being self-fulfilling or something like that.
That was my point and it remains so: to dismiss the shared faith experiences of millions of people seems to me to be an untenable point of view that touches upon arrogance. I do not mean to say, however, that to take such a view implies personal arrogance. There may be several reasons why someone would hold to such a view.
Secondly,Anyway, to continue with the main point about whether consideration of the faith experiences of the religious-opiate taking masses is reasonable…
You seem to suggest that all of such can be put down to something common / basic within humanity. This seems to be simply another way of being certain you see much more clearly than all those people. Again, an attitude I consider quite unconvincing and unreasonable, wherever it comes from, regardless of motivation. The point is the need to examine the faith experiences, from the view of the faithful, to see whether they line up with the claimed faith. In this sense, there is no tension between Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Human secularist having different faith experiences. The point is: do they line up with the faith that is claimed. When they do, then we the opportunity to examine faith-in-action and we have a form of evidence for faith that has every right to be properly considered. To right it all off as “subjective” with the implication of irrelevance simply won’t do. I don’t think we would do that with other arenas of culture and we ought not to with religious faith.
If we turn it upon it’s head and examine the point of view of human secularist, I think their faith-experience lines up very well with what they claim as their faith. I have no difficulty in believing them as faithfully representing their beliefs. But I don’t choose to follow their ‘faith’ because it holds no attraction to me; I have found something measurably and discernably better in what it offers and, subjectively, what I have found that it delivers. You see, in such a context, “truth” is not the only choice we make in what we decide to be faithful to. In fact, it’s probably not going too far to say that we may never be certain enough about “truth” to remove the need for faith. Ergo…
Thirdly,Now, on matters of textual criticism, you return me again to the idea that it is impossible to choose between the different authorities. Not at all. The key is to examine the substance widely and to see the fruit and it’s concordance with faith. Why do I suggst one example is bizarre and another not? That’s simply my view. I completely agree that typology can be abused, but that’s no reason to not allow it to speak to us at all.
The idea that to not allow it to ever speak because it will simply be a subjective experience is perhaps a rational anxiety that forms a stumbling block for many, maybe including yourself? However, to open ourselves up to subjective experience is already a daily part of our lives, why be afraid of it in regard to faith? Benjamin Disraeli said something like, “Never deny your feelings, to do so is to deny truth.”
You also suggest that “authoritieies” can only ever serve a purpose “preaching to the choir.” This is fine, as far as it goes, but if it were only as simple as that the choir would never grow, would it? But it does and it does because new people see the beauty of singing, when they hear the choir. So you see preaching to ‘the choir’ has a ripple effect that ought not to be readily despised by those who presently see no joy in being part of the choir. To seek to deny others realisation of faith, simply because of our own viewpoint? Why would we, other than to further our own (subjective!) experience and agenda?
Lastly,You say examining thesee things doesn’t get you any nearer understanding whether Jesus is the Messiah. Well, I’m not sure you are in a position to determine that! When you disclude evidence, you can’t see the big picture it points to, hence my encouragement to look at it again with a more open disposition. I found the following page to be quite helpful in understanding the importance of NOT assuming that because WE CAN’T SEE something, that it therefore can’t be true:
Learning to think spiritually, a quote from which is:
I’d be particularly interested in whether you find that link at all helpful, Stuart? It certainly helped me.
If you did, then, at that point, it might be worth engaging in debate about the elements you raise concerning the nature of the kingdom which Jesus claimed to inaugurate and which you presently, reasonably (though subjectively) SEE him as failing in.
Shalom! john
Isaiah, Matthew, Immanuel and virgins
This must be a quick comment, as I’m currently on the run, having absconded from rehab; however, a contrite repentance should secure speedy readmission. But it’s addiction to Pluralist’s comments: I just need one more gulp …
Whatever we do with Isaiah 7:14, and Matthew’s use of the word ‘parthenos’ (LXX as quoted in Matthew 1:23), we should at least pay attention to context. In Isaiah, the immediate context is the threat to Judah and its king (Ahaz) from Israel and Aram. Isaiah was unsuccessful, if his aim was to arouse faith in Ahaz. But his field of prophetic vision was broader than Ahaz, and concerned the threat to the house of David and its kingship. The broader message of the prophecy was the protection of Judah, even though it was nearly overcome by Assyria, despite Ahaz’s fruitless alliance.
But to which child was Isaiah referring? There seems to be none who fitted the bill in his own day. The immediate context then extends to Isaiah 9, and its promise of a child yet to be born who would reign on David’s throne, whose attributes would include ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father’ (Isaiah 9:6-7).
The context extends further - to Isaiah 11:1-5 - with a promise of a future restoration of the Davidic kingship from the appearance of destruction (the stump of Jesse). It is not then so unreasonable to say, as Matthew did, that Jesus was the coming king referred to in Isaiah’s prophecy - provided we take the whole context of the prophecy, not just one isolated verse. Maybe we need to look again at how ‘Matthew’ handled prophecy - rather than jumping too quickly to the conclusion that ‘he’ misinterpreted Hebrew by taking a ‘mistaken’ LXX rendering of a particular word.
It has been credibly suggested that ‘Matthew’s’ gospel originated in Antioch, and part of its purpose was to counter the attacks of Jews in particular, on the faith and on the person of Jesus. We should be cautious, in the light of this, of regarding the gospel as the fabricated reading-back and rewriting of history by a later Christian community. From this perspective, a much more interesting and nuanced gospel emerges, with a polemical function, in which every detail was designed to confound an articulate and hostile Jewish audience. The detail includes the genealogy, the birth accounts, the literary references, allusions and devices well understood by Jews.
Well, that’s it. Now it’s back to the strict regime boiled cabbage and plenty of fresh air and exercise.