"In the beginning..." (Christology and Randology)


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Background post.

"In the beginning...," on the thread titled "Obama on Ayn Rand in Rolling Stone," Angela (screen name "Xray") made a typo.

[....]

Like for example God created the word in seven days, yeah right.

One thing led to another. Compressing the history so far:

Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible has a very good discussion, based on historical/critical study of the Bible, regarding the conclusion that John was referring to Jesus when he spoke of The Word. [....]

Deanna,

Thanks for an informative reply.

I ordered the book you cite.

Ellen

Ellen: have you read this book yet?

Part of it, including a section about "The Word" becoming Christ, according to the Gospel of John.

I had to set the book aside unfinished in order to prepare for Larry's and my trip to Holland - an International Symmetry Association conference, some sight-seeing, and some climate-issues-related stuff. We just got back about 1:00 am Saturday, and we're still kind of betwixt and between with follow-through details and re-adjusting to home routine.

Meanwhile, I've read a bit farther in Jesus, Interrupted. I'm quite interested by the approach the author, Bart Ehrman, takes, and am seeing potential parallels for discussions of Objectivism. I'm hoping I'll have a chance to post some quotes and thoughts in a week or so.

Ellen

I've just started reading Chapter Five, titled "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus."

I'm fascinated.

In the next post I'll copy a passage which both briefly touches on the issue of The Word becoming Christ and indicates Ehrman's view on the question of Jesus' historic existence.

Eventually I'll get to thoughts I'm having about parellels between Christology and Randology.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is far less of a difference between shrugging and turning the other cheek than one might think.

Turning the other cheek, in the ancient world, was a way of humiliating the person doing the striking, i.e., by requiring the use of the backhand after a blow with the open hand.

This is a far more subtle and aggressive piece of advice than most give JC credit for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a profound observation. (Yes, I first thought "striking insight" but I have learned to hesitate before blurting my first reactions.

Perhaps this is why some readers of AS feel that the humiliation on top of the fatal blows to the villains, is a slap too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them)

From Chaper Five: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus

pp. 140-42

[several paragraph breaks added]

[...] John's is the only Gospel in which Jesus is explicitly identified as divine. To be sure, he is called the Son of God in all the Gospels. But to ancient Jews, being the "son of God" did not make a person God; it made the person a human being in a close relationship with God, one through whom God does his will on earth. The Gospel of John goes beyond this. In John, Jesus is the preexistent Word of God through whom the universe was created, who has become human (1:1-14); he is equal with God (10:30); he can claim God's own name for himself (8:58); he is himself God (1:1; 20:28). John's Gospel is the only one with this exalted a view of Christ.

[One day while] I was explaining this to my class [an undergraduate class on the New Testament] [...], something came to my mind from the days when I was an evangelical Christian. At Moody Bible Institute I had taken a course on Christian apologetics, the intellectual defense (Greek apologia) of the faith. In that course we had studied the famous English apologist and scholar C. S. Lewis, in particular his arguments that Jesus must have been divine. In Lewis's formulation, since Jesus had called himself God, there were only three logical possibilities; he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Lewis's thinking was that if Jesus was wrong in his claim - if he was not God - either he knew it or he did not know it. If he knew that he was not God but claimed he was, then he was a liar. If he was not God but genuinely thought he was, then he was crazy, a lunatic. The only other choice would be that he was right in what he claimed, in which case he really was the Lord.

Lewis goes on to argue that there are all sorts of reasons for thinking that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. The inevitable conclusion was that he must have been who he claimed to be. Jesus was the Lord God.

Back at Moody I had found this line of argumentation completely convincing, and for years I had used it myself in order to convince others of Jesus' divinity. But that was many years ago, and my thinking had changed drastically. (All of this - Moody Bible Institute, Christian apologetics, C. S. Lewis, Jesus' identity, my change of thought - all of it flashed through my mind in a split second while I was giving my lecture on John at Chapel Hill.)

I had come to see that the very premise of Lewis's argument was flawed. The argument based on Jesus as liar, lunatic, or Lord was predicated on the assumption that Jesus had called himself God. I had long ago come to believe that he had not.

Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?

I had come to realize that Jesus' divinity was part of John's theology, not a part of Jesus' own teaching [emphasis added].

As this flashed through my head in my lecture, I decided on the spot to lay it all out for my students (it's not part of my normal lecture on John), especially since I knew that a large number of people in the class were involved with Christian groups on campus and had heard this argument about Jesus necessarily being either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. I thought it might be useful for them to hear what historical scholars, as opposed to Christian apologists, might say about the matter. And so I explained, with Neely [*] listening, the standard apologetic line from C. S. Lewis and then pointed out the historical problem: Jesus probably never called himself God.

[* Neely Tucker, a reporter for the Washington Post, who was attending the class while researching an article on Ehrman.]

And to make my point, I suggested that in fact there were not three options but four: liar, lunatic, Lord, or legend. Of course I chose the fourth word to maintain the alliteration. What I meant was not that Jesus himself was a legend. Of course not! I certainly believe that he existed and that we can say some things about him. What I meant was that the idea that he called himself God was a legend, which I believe it is. This means that he doesn't have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.

Neely reported this part of my lecture on the very first page of his article in the Washington Post, and the report can easily be misinterpreted; one could read it as saying that I think Jesus himself was a legend. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this.

I seem to recall in the 80's that somebody wrote Atlas Shrugged is an intentional and direct parallel to the book of John.

And, Galt's name is John, after all.

I don't recall seeing such a suggestion, but then I wasn't paying attention to Objectivism-related stuff through much of the 80s. The assumption would have to be that Rand read the book of John.

She did know the Russian Orthodox liturgy according to George Walsh, who told how Rand would casually correct mistakes he made about that liturgy in conversations when he was researching his religion book. George said that Rand's nurse took her to services.

Re the name "John Galt," there are a number of letters in the Letters volume, dates between July 4, 1943, and October 30,1948, to an attorney named John Gall. He's described by the editor as a "prominent conservative attorney and later AR's attorney" (pg. 78).

The first letter is thanks for a fan letter which pleased Rand a lot. The last says that Rand had received news "that my friend, Mrs. Marie Strachow has obtained her visa" and "is due to arrive in New York" the following day, and thanking "Dear John" for his "help in this matter."

Since "Galt" is only one letter different from "Gall," I wonder if that's where she got the name.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is far less of a difference between shrugging and turning the other cheek than one might think.

Turning the other cheek, in the ancient world, was a way of humiliating the person doing the striking, i.e., by requiring the use of the backhand after a blow with the open hand.

This is a far more subtle and aggressive piece of advice than most give JC credit for.

Thanks for posting this. Next time I'll start with the backhand.

--Brant

it was so frustrating!

Robert Merrill pointed out a lot of superficial similarities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is far less of a difference between shrugging and turning the other cheek than one might think.

Turning the other cheek, in the ancient world, was a way of humiliating the person doing the striking, i.e., by requiring the use of the backhand after a blow with the open hand.

This is a far more subtle and aggressive piece of advice than most give JC credit for.

Thanks for posting this. Next time I'll start with the backhand.

--Brant

it was so frustrating!

Robert Merrill pointed out a lot of superficial similarities

Ah, but there is the rub.

Starting with a backhand is like blowing a bullhorn that you are about to hit someone, and, if they know how to defend themselves, you will get hit or kicked first.

Turning the other cheek really is the equivalent of saying: "Go ahead, hit me again. Your violence does not deter me. You will only be further humiliating yourself." Jesus was more subversive than we think.

On a less serious note, perhaps Adam/Selene has read more of the Bible than he lets on! :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the next post I'll copy a passage which both briefly touches on the issue of The Word becoming Christ and indicates Ehrman's view on the question of Jesus' historic existence.

There's quite a few talks by Ehrman on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbpUNLBJDjI

I've read Misquoting Jesus and a couple others by him. He did one recently that purports to disprove the 'mythicist' claim that there was no historical Jesus, and while I'm quite ambivalent on the subject I thought that that book wasn't very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good thread. As a nominal \Christian, I find many reasonable explanations for the recorded upernatural elements of his career. the miracles for example. The healings I leave to forensic medical history. But the wedding at Cana and the loaves and fishes, I can see as owners and hoarders of food and drink, being moved to share them with the hungry and thirsty.It does not sound like much today, but at that time it was fairly revolutionary, even miraculous.

.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this.

I seem to recall in the 80's that somebody wrote Atlas Shrugged is an intentional and direct parallel to the book of John.

And, Galt's name is John, after all.

If so, it is accidental. Rand (Alyssa Rosenbloom) was brought up in a culturally Jewish home.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this.

I seem to recall in the 80's that somebody wrote Atlas Shrugged is an intentional and direct parallel to the book of John.

And, Galt's name is John, after all.

If so, it is accidental. Rand (Alyssa Rosenbaum) was brought up in a culturally Jewish home.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this.

I seem to recall in the 80's that somebody wrote Atlas Shrugged is an intentional and direct parallel to the book of John.

And, Galt's name is John, after all.

If so, it is accidental. Rand (Alyssa Rosenbloom) was brought up in a culturally Jewish home.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yeah, duh, so what? No one brought up in a Jewish home has ever read the New Testament?

Rand commented somewhere on the King James Version of the Bible as being literature, unlike other versions.

(I hope to come across that comment again at some point. Her sentiment was one I share. I've sometimes quipped, "The King James Version of the Bible is literature. The others are just the word of God.")

Rand's works contain many counter-foils to teachings ascribed to Christ. And she did, indisputably, read Nietzsche.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read Misquoting Jesus and a couple others by him. He did one recently that purports to disprove the 'mythicist' claim that there was no historical Jesus, and while I'm quite ambivalent on the subject I thought that that book wasn't very good.

If it's the book I'm currently reading, Jesus, Interrupted [...], which was published in 2009, I think it's quite good, and I'm finding Ehrman's manner of reasoning a delight.

I'm curious as to your criticisms of the recent one you read, whichever it is.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Jesus Taught

Source: Jesus, Interrupted [...], by Bart D. Ehrman

[i'm leaving out the careful and lengthy reasoning on the basis of which Ehrman arrives at his conclusions about what Jesus taught and just copying some highlights of the conclusions.]

pp. 156-57

Like other apocalypticists of his day, Jesus saw the world in dualistic terms, filled with the forces of good and evil. The current age was controlled by the forces of evil - the Devil, demons, disease, disasters, and death; but God was soon to intervene in this wicked age to overthrow the forces of evil and bring in his good kingdom, the Kingdom of God, in which there would be no more pain, misery, or suffering. Jesus' followers could expect this kingdom to arrive soon - in fact, in their lifetimes. It would be brought by a cosmic judge of the earth, whom Jesus called the Son of Man (alluding to a passage in the Jewish Scriptures, Daniel 7:13-14). When the Son of Man arrived there would be a judgment of the earth, in which the wicked would be destroyed but the righteous rewarded. Those who were suffering pain and oppression now would be exalted then; those who had sided with evil and as a result were prospering now would be abased then. People needed to repent of their evil ways and prepare for the coming of the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God that would appear in his wake, for it was to happen very soon.

[....]

[The coming] Kingdom of God is not "heaven" - the place you go to when you die (as in later Christian tradition [...]). It is a real kingdom, here on earth [...].

pp. 160-62

Jesus, in short, taught that the Son of Man was soon to arrive from heaven in judgment, and people needed to be ready for it by mending their ways and living as God wanted them to. This involved self-giving love for the sake of others. Thus Jesus is said to have quoted from the Scriptures: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39, quoting Leviticus 19:18). His formulation of this view is the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). It is hard to state more concisely the ethical requirements of the law of God. Those who followed the dictates of Scripture would be rewarded in the coming judgment; those who did not would be punished. And when would this judgment come? In the disciples' own lifetime: "Some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power" (Mark 9:1); "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" (Mark 13:30).

[....]

[...] Jesus began his ministry by associating with John [the Baptist, who was an apocalypticist]. Jesus was an apocalypticist from the beginning of his ministry. That he remained an apocalypticist is quite clear from our sources. Our earliest traditions are filled with apocalyptic sayings and warnings. More significant still, after Jesus' death his followers remained apocalyptically oriented. That is why they thought the end was coming in their day, that Jesus himself was soon coming back to sit in judgment on the earth. This is contained in Paul's [genuine] writings, the earliest Christian documents we have. [There are later writings attributed to Paul which weren't by Paul.] The early Christians, like Jesus before them, and John the Baptist before him, were apocalyptically oriented Jews, expecting the imminent end of the age.

Jesus' ethical teachings need to be placed in that apocalyptic context. Many people understand Jesus as a great moral teacher, and of course he was that. But it is important to recognize why he thought people should behave properly. In our day, ethicists typically argue that people should behave in ethical ways so that we can all get along for the long haul, in happy and prosperous societies. For Jesus, there wasn't going to be a long haul. The end was coming soon, the Son of Man was to appear from heaven, imminently, in judgment on the earth, the Kingdom of God was right around the corner. The reason to change your behavior was to gain entrance to the kingdom when it came. It was not in order to make society a happy place for the foreseeable future. The future was bleak - unless you sided with Jesus and did what he urged, in which case you could expect a reward when God intervened in history to overthrow the forces of evil and set up his good kingdom on earth, which would happen very soon.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Jesus Taught

Source: Jesus, Interrupted [...], by Bart D. Ehrman

[i'm leaving out the careful and lengthy reasoning on the basis of which Ehrman arrives at his conclusions about what Jesus taught and just copying some highlights of the conclusions.]

pp. 156-57

Like other apocalypticists of his day, Jesus saw the world in dualistic terms, filled with the forces of good and evil. The current age was controlled by the forces of evil - the Devil, demons, disease, disasters, and death; but God was soon to intervene in this wicked age to overthrow the forces of evil and bring in his good kingdom, the Kingdom of God, in which there would be no more pain, misery, or suffering. Jesus' followers could expect this kingdom to arrive soon - in fact, in their lifetimes. It would be brought by a cosmic judge of the earth, whom Jesus called the Son of Man (alluding to a passage in the Jewish Scriptures, Daniel 7:13-14). When the Son of Man arrived there would be a judgment of the earth, in which the wicked would be destroyed but the righteous rewarded. Those who were suffering pain and oppression now would be exalted then; those who had sided with evil and as a result were prospering now would be abased then. People needed to repent of their evil ways and prepare for the coming of the Son of Man and the Kingdom of God that would appear in his wake, for it was to happen very soon.

[....]

[The coming] Kingdom of God is not "heaven" - the place you go to when you die (as in later Christian tradition [...]). It is a real kingdom, here on earth [...].

pp. 160-62

Jesus, in short, taught that the Son of Man was soon to arrive from heaven in judgment, and people needed to be ready for it by mending their ways and living as God wanted them to. This involved self-giving love for the sake of others. Thus Jesus is said to have quoted from the Scriptures: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39, quoting Leviticus 19:18). His formulation of this view is the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). It is hard to state more concisely the ethical requirements of the law of God. Those who followed the dictates of Scripture would be rewarded in the coming judgment; those who did not would be punished. And when would this judgment come? In the disciples' own lifetime: "Some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power" (Mark 9:1); "this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" (Mark 13:30).

[....]

[...] Jesus began his ministry by associating with John [the Baptist, who was an apocalypticist]. Jesus was an apocalypticist from the beginning of his ministry. That he remained an apocalypticist is quite clear from our sources. Our earliest traditions are filled with apocalyptic sayings and warnings. More significant still, after Jesus' death his followers remained apocalyptically oriented. That is why they thought the end was coming in their day, that Jesus himself was soon coming back to sit in judgment on the earth. This is contained in Paul's [genuine] writings, the earliest Christian documents we have. [There are later writings attributed to Paul which weren't by Paul.] The early Christians, like Jesus before them, and John the Baptist before him, were apocalyptically oriented Jews, expecting the imminent end of the age.

Jesus' ethical teachings need to be placed in that apocalyptic context. Many people understand Jesus as a great moral teacher, and of course he was that. But it is important to recognize why he thought people should behave properly. In our day, ethicists typically argue that people should behave in ethical ways so that we can all get along for the long haul, in happy and prosperous societies. For Jesus, there wasn't going to be a long haul. The end was coming soon, the Son of Man was to appear from heaven, imminently, in judgment on the earth, the Kingdom of God was right around the corner. The reason to change your behavior was to gain entrance to the kingdom when it came. It was not in order to make society a happy place for the foreseeable future. The future was bleak - unless you sided with Jesus and did what he urged, in which case you could expect a reward when God intervened in history to overthrow the forces of evil and set up his good kingdom on earth, which would happen very soon.

Ellen

Ellen: a case can be made that the "kingdom of heaven" reference by Jesus was actually something akin to one's progression away from the duality of the Western worldview to the unitive worldview of the Eastern world. In other words, Jesus was making a fairly "typical" mystical comment, and one that could also have come out of the mouths of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and some of the great Indian sages. Under this formulation, the "kingdom of heaven" truly is not of this world, but (theoretically) resides "inside" each human, but only if that human can transcend duality. This view is/was a mainstay of Eastern mysticism, and, at that time, relatively uncommon to the Western ear, except where implied by pantheists such as the Stoics.

It is oddly unfortunate that Jesus is sort of everywhere nowadays, because the 21st Century Jesus most everybody has an image of in their head barely resembles the Jesus of the New Testament. As just one other example, Jesus was not really the carpenter "hick" from Galilee that we think of him being. He was fluent in several languages. Galilee was on the Silk Road, and far more bustling than the Podunk image most people have. Jesus was more akin to a Wisdom teacher than is commonly thought. I can get some references for anybody who finds this topic of interest.

And--one more thing about "Jesus the Hick Syndrome"-- assuming, of course, that he was not in fact God, he also obviously had some medical training. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: a case can be made that the "kingdom of heaven" reference by Jesus was actually something akin to one's progression away from the duality of the Western worldview to the unitive worldview of the Eastern world. In other words, Jesus was making a fairly "typical" mystical comment, and one that could also have come out of the mouths of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and some of the great Indian sages. Under this formulation, the "kingdom of heaven" truly is not of this world, but (theoretically) resides "inside" each human, but only if that human can transcend duality. This view is/was a mainstay of Eastern mysticism, and, at that time, relatively uncommon to the Western ear, except where implied by pantheists such as the Stoics.

Are you talking about Gnostic interpretations?

I'm not sure from your description. I wouldn't call gnosticism (to the extent there was commonality amongst the variety of views lumped under that label) non-dualist.

It is oddly unfortunate that Jesus is sort of everywhere nowadays, because the 21st Century Jesus most everybody has an image of in their head barely resembles the Jesus of the New Testament.

One of Ehrman's points is, Which Jesus of the New Testament? Exactly the issue I became intrigued by in a parallelism to Randology is the Christain habit of combining New Testament stories into an overview which ignores the differences between the earliest sources and John and later. What I'm getting to is a similar habit of interpreting The Fountainhead in the light of Objectivism although Rand hadn't formulated Objectivism or even made rationality the prime virtue when she wrote The Fountainhead.

As just one other example, Jesus was not really the carpenter "hick" from Galilee that we think of him being. He was fluent in several languages. Galilee was on the Silk Road, and far more bustling than the Podunk image most people have. Jesus was more akin to a Wisdom teacher than is commonly thought. I can get some references for anybody who finds this topic of interest.

I find the topic of interest and would appreciate some references.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an unintellectual level, the similarities between Christians who believe Jesus was the "perfect man" , and Rand-worshippers who subscribed to the Gospel of James(Valliant) is very obvious. Except Valliant adds an extra Judas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehrman on:

Jewish Expectations of the Messiah

Jesus, Interrupted [...]

from Chapter Seven:

Who Invented Christianity?

pp. 228-29

Why is it that the vast majority of Jews has always rejected that Jesus is the one who was predicted - a savior sent from God in order to suffer for others, so as to bring salvation, and then be raised from the dead?

The answer is actually quite simple. In the Jewish tradition, before the appearance of Christianity, there was no expectation of a suffering Messiah.

But doesn't the Bible constantly talk about the Messiah who would suffer? As it turns out, the answer is no. Since the beginning, Christians have frequntly cited certain passages in the Old Testament as clear prophecies of the future suffering Messiah, passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, in which someone suffers horribly, sometimes expressly for the sins of others. These passages, Christians have claimed, are clear statements about what the Messiah would be like. Jews who do not believe in Jesus, however, have always had a very effective response: the Messiah is never mentioned in these passages. [....] The term "Messiah" never occurs in them. In Jewish tradition, these passages refer not to the Messiah but to someone else (or to lots of someone elses).

Before Christianity there were no Jews that we know of who anticipated a Messiah who would suffer and die for the sins of others and then be raised from the dead. [....]

pg. 231

That the Messiah would be a powerful warrior-king was the expectation of many Jews in Jesus' day.

But there were other Jews who had other expectations about what the future deliverer of Israel would be. Especially in the apocalyptic tradition, within which Jesus and his followers stood, it was sometimes thought that the future savior would not be merely an earthly king. He would be a cosmic judge of the earth, sent from God to overthrow the forces of evil with a show of strength. This divine figure was called a variety of things in different texts, including "the Son of Man" (based on a reading of Daniel 7:13-14). [....]

pp. 232-33

[....] Other Jews had yet different expectations of what a future savior might be like. [For instance, quoting a footnote reference, "a priest who would deliver the authoritative interpretation of God's law."] But the one thing that all the Jewish expectations had in common was this: the future Messiah would be a figure of grandeur and real power, who would overthrow God's enemies in a show of strength and rule over God's people, and the other nations of earth, with a rod of iron.

And who was Jesus? A virtually unknown itinerant preacher from the hinterlands of Galilee who got on the wrong side of the law and was crucified as a political insurgent. Jesus did not overthrow the Romans. The Romans crushed him like a gnat. Calling Jesus the Messiah was for most Jews beond laughable; it was virtually (or really) a blasphemy against God. Jesus is the Messiah? The preacher who got crucified? That is God's Messiah? Yeah, right.

[....]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehrman on:

Christian "Messiah" Reinterpretation

Jesus, Interrupted [...]

from Chapter Seven:

Who Invented Christianity?

pp. 233-34

If there was no expectation among Jews that the Messiah would suffer and die for sins, why is it that Christians believe in a suffering Messiah? Here's the way it worked historically. Prior to Jesus' death some of his followers evidently thought that he was the Messiah; this conviction shows up throughout the Gospels. But obviously if they said "Jesus is the Messiah," they meant it in a traditional Jewish sense, for example, that he would be the king who would establish the throne once more in Israel and rule over his people. (Remember, though, that Jesus himself appears to have understood the term in a different, apocalyptic, sense).

This hope that Jesus could be the Messiah was radically disconfirmed by the events of history: Jesus never did raise an army, never did drive the Romans out of the promised land, never did establish Israel as a sovereign state. Instead, he got crucified. This showed his followers that their faith in him had been unfounded.

But then they, or at least some of them, came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead. This reconfirmed their earlier notion: Jesus really is the one chosen by God! He is God's own son! He is the one upon whom God has shown his special favor, God's annointed one, our savior. He is the Messiah!

This reconfirmation forced the earliest Christians into a new understanding of what it meant to be the Messiah. Their logic was impeccable. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus suffered and died. Therefore, the Messiah had to suffer and die.

But what was one to do with the fact that there were no Jewish prophecies that the Messiah would suffer and die? The earliest Christians began searching the Scriptures for hints of their new belief, and they found them, not in passages that referred to the Messiah but in other passages that describe the suffering of God's righteous one. Christians concluded, and argued, that these passages were actually referring to the Messiah, even though the Messiah is never mentioned in them and even though no one had ever thought, before this, that they referred to the Messiah. [....]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an unintellectual level, the similarities between Christians who believe Jesus was the "perfect man" , and Rand-worshippers who subscribed to the Gospel of James(Valliant) is very obvious. Except Valliant adds an extra Judas.

Unerringly spotted, though I think it's not at all "an unintellectual level".

It's one aspect of intrinsicism you have described. Instant, and "Revealed" knowledge - and morality. Authoritarianism, common to the religious (by way of Jesus, et al) the secular humanist (the State, the Media, the People)- and self-contradictorily, to many of us Objectivists, early on. Later on too, sometimes.

The "Revealer", as with Rand, may be exalted unrealistically beyond the real and utmost respect and admiration she/he deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now