|
Jesus once asked
his Apostles this question: "Who do men say that I am?"
The Apostles told him that he had been identified as Moses, Elijah,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, or even John the Baptist raised from the dead.
Then Jesus confronted them with an even more startling question:
"Who do you say I am?" The impetuous Simon Peter
jumped up and said, "The deliverer, the Son of God!"
Many of those who knew Jesus only by reputation assumed that he was
the reincarnation of some well known prophet. Some of his
enemies seemed to think that he was a person in league with the
prince of devils. But the Apostles, who had lived with him for
more than a year, believed he was the Son of God and in some way the
Messiah expected by the Jews. That certainly didn't settle the
matter; the search for Jesus' identity has continued for over 1900
years and hasn't ended yet.
The Evolution
of Christianity's Jesus Concept.
Gnosticism was a
2nd century movement whose name comes from the Greek gnosis, or
"secret knowledge." The Gnostics held that Jesus was
a spiritual being whose appearance as a mortal was only an illusion.
Another group of early Christians known as the Adoptionists believed
that God adopted Jesus at the moment of his baptism or at the time
of his resurrection. A later group known as the Modalists
taught that Jesus was only a manifestation or mode of God. Yet
another later group, the Subordinationists, saw Jesus as perhaps
divine, but subordinate to God. The church fathers were no
doubt a bit distressed by all this theological disorder. It
was the Jesus concepts taught by Arius that motivated the church
hierarchy to call the Council of Nicea. Arius taught that Jesus was
God's first born creature, an agent who made all things. He
taught that Christ was divine, less than God, but more than man.
The matter was partly settled for the orthodox Christian church at
the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. They adopted the ideas of
Athanasius: "Christ begotten, not made. He is not
creature, but creator, the same essence as the Father."
The council was also forced to clarify the Trinity doctrine to show
Jesus' relationship to the Father. But it was at the Council
of Constantinople in 381 that the three persons of the Trinity were
declared equal, which of course made Christ equal to the Father.
The Council of Ephesus in 431 dealt with the relationship of the
human and divine natures of Jesus, but didn't resolve the issue.
It was finally resolved at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
Regarding Jesus' two natures they stated in part, "...in two
natures without being mixed, transmuted, divided or separated....the
identity of each nature is preserved and concurs into one person or
being." This has ever since been the standard doctrine
about the person of Christ for the Christian church. Attempts
to enforce such standard doctrines yielded some ominous
repercussions.
Since the church
had gained considerable political power, expressing opinions that
differed from the party line could prove hazardous to your health.
Things didn't change a great deal until that upstart priest, Luther,
told the Pope what he could do with his indulgences and touched off
the Protestant reformation. When the church finally got out of the
government business, thus losing the power to barbecue you for
expressing contrary beliefs, and when science and the Rationalists
began to look at the world, the church's dogmas began to lose
authority. Critical scholarship began to ferret out inconsistencies
and conflicts in the scriptures. Increasingly, starting at the end
of the 18th century, scholars began the search for the historical
Jesus. Some of them concluded that not only was it not possible to
come up with a historical Jesus, but that he was only a mythological
figure, a composite of people's Messianic hopes.
Critical
Scholarship and the Historical Jesus.
Albert
Schweitzer, in his 1906 book, "The Quest of the Historical
Jesus," examined the work of some of the Jesus investigators
who preceded him. The conclusion reached by many of these
investigators was that the historical Jesus cannot be found in the
scriptures. Schweitzer agrees with this conclusion, but he
doesn't feel that this means that we cannot find Jesus at all.
On the last page of his book he writes, "He comes to us as One
unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, He came to
those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: 'Follow
thou me!' and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our
time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise
or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the
sufferings which they pass through in His fellowship, and as
ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience who He
is." Schweitzer accepts the idea that Jesus existed, but feels
that we cannot know Him just by studying the scriptures. Unlike
Schweitzer, other investigators question Jesus' very existence.
In a book titled
Jesus Son of Man, Rudolf Augstein goes to great lengths to totally
discredit the scriptures. He sees Jesus as a mythological figure
like Mithras. While he makes many excellent points about the
inconsistencies and problems with the scriptures, he seems to go
overboard in rejecting even the few non-scriptural references to
Jesus. In its section about Jesus, The Encyclopedia Brittanica
lists three non-scriptural historical references that are
represented as credible. First, Jesus' execution was mentioned in
the annals of the Roman historian Tacitus about 110 A.D. The second
reference comes from Josephus, the Jewish historian at the court of
Nomitian. Josephus mentions the stoning of "James, the brother
of Jesus, who was called Christ." Josephus also mentions the
death of John The Baptist. The third historical reference to Jesus
is in the Talmud, a collection of Jewish
writings. In here, Jesus is identified as the "possibly
illegitimate son of a man named Panther. Jesus worked magic,
ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the people, gathered five
disciples about him, was hanged (crucified) on the eve of passover."
And recently archaeologists discovered the tomb of Caiaphas, the
high priest who helped engineer the death of Jesus. But accepting
Jesus' historical existence does nothing to explain who he was.
Jesus
has been characterized as an uneducated peasant by some groups. In
an article titled "Sepphoris" in the May/June (1994) issue
of Biblical Archaeology Review, Richard Batey proposes that Jesus
probably had been in the city of Sepphoris often, and may have even
worked there as a carpenter since Sepphoris is only about an hour's
walk from Nazareth. Batey says that archaelogogists have determined
that Sepphoris was a "Greco-Roman metropolis boasting upwards
of 30,000 inhabitants..." and for three decades was the capitol
of Galilee and Perea. In a footnote to this article, Batey
mentions that many scholars now accept that Jesus spoke Greek as
well as Aramaic, and that some of the parables may have been
composed originally in Greek. These ideas are in harmony with the
account of Jesus' life in The Urantia Book. The evidence points to a
Jesus who was multi-lingual and well educated for a man of his time,
not an illiterate peasant. The ideas about Jesus seem as numerous
and varied as pebbles on the beach.
A Jesus for
Everyone.
To the Christian
fundamentalist, Jesus is God allowing himself to be crucified to
save unworthy and sinful humanity from everlasting punishment. While
most Christians of mainline Protestant churches would accept that
Jesus is a divine being, they would be likely to see him as a bridge
to God, rather than a sacrificial lamb. To the liberal Christian,
Jesus may be only a great moralist and teacher. To the Moslem, Jesus
is a prophet, an equal of Mohammed but not the Son of God. To the
Hindu, Jesus may be an Avatar, a Hindu deity who incarnated on
earth. To the Buddhist, Jesus might be a Bodhisattva, one who in
mercy forsakes the release of Nirvana to return to earth and
minister to humankind. To the Jew, Jesus might be either one of a
group of false messiahs who worked the crowds around the time Jesus
lived, or a good Jewish teacher who got in trouble with the
authorities. To the agnostic, Jesus is a possibility; to the
atheist, much ado about nothing. Rev. Bill Hammond, a Unitarian
minister, in his sermon "Jesus, What Manner of Man?" sees
Jesus as a man who started out as a magician but who later came to
be seen as the Messiah by his followers. In a recent book,
"The Historical Jesus," John Dominic Crossman portrays
Jesus as a teacher of peasant equalitarianism. He asserts that the
Last Supper, Jesus' resurrection and Ascension weren't real events
but "dramatic visualizations." So many books! So many
Jesus's! As I read all this, I am reminded of an old saying:
What Peter says about Paul tells more about Peter than it does about
Paul. Likewise, perhaps what is written about Jesus tells more about
the writer than about Jesus. Why is this so? |