One of the major difficulties that Christians now have* is in trying to explain clearly, simply, concisely: who Jesus was, what Jesus did - and, in particular, why Jesus was indispensable.
(i.e. "Indispensable" to those who want what Jesus offers.)
Jesus might be conceptualized in two main ways: either as someone who was a Teacher and Preacher of The Truth; or as a Creator who changed the universe - and thereby the possibilities for Men.
Information
Historically, Jesus has been regarded mainly as a T&P who provided Information.
This information was also backed-up by divine power - but the main thing (people assumed) was "the information".
In order that this information be learned, understood, and acted-upon in future generations; it was assumed that Jesus constituted a Church (naturally, several/ many have claimed to be "the" Church that Jesus intended).
In sum: To varying degrees and in various ways, the true information derived from Jesus and provided by this Church, would be backed-up by divine power.
The Church's "essential" job was to discover, preserve, develop the information from Jesus; then to disseminate it, persuade people of its validity, make and enforce rules of conduct derived from this information. Ultimately, the Church would supervise construction of a human society that embodied, was built-upon, the information provided by Jesus.
(The "essential" nature of Jesus was therefore bound to the "essential" nature of "the" Church that was the true repository of "the information" that Jesus provided. That is; Jesus was essential because of his information; therefore Jesus was essential insofar as "the" Church was essential to the knowledge, understanding, implementation etc. of this information.)
Creation
I suggest an alternative understanding of "What Jesus did" is that he was a New Divine Creator ...
"New" because Jesus did not exist as a divine Man before his incarnation on earth; and "divine" because he was creating additional possibilities; he was creating an extension to pre-existing creation.
"Primary " divine creation already existed before Jesus; and Jesus was born-into this creation and became divine in the context of that first creation.
What Jesus did (the primary thing); was to make possible new a different future, a new option, than was possible before Jesus.
This, I believe, is the truth about Jesus - it is the proper primary conceptualization of who he was and what he did, and its consequences.
But.
This (I would say true) way of understanding Jesus as a new creator of new possibilities is blocked by theological-philosophical assumptions, which were actually pre-conceptions (i.e. they were pre-Jesus ways of understanding); which have been (I believe) retroactively imposed-upon who Jesus was and what Jesus did.
For instance:
Jesus's nature as a divine Man, incarnated into mortal life on earth, who creatively-transformed the possibilities of existence from his life onwards...
Was obscured and rendered incoherent by also insisting that Jesus The One God, who was eternal omniscient, omnipotent and unchangeable, impassible.
Nobody can explain (clearly, simply, concisely) how Jesus can be a mortal incarnate Man and also The One God - therefore this is made A Mystery.
So the person trying to understand why and how This Man Jesus who lived and dies 2000 years ago is necessary to salvation now; is immediately told: It's a mystery.
(Not a good start, I suggest.)
The fact that therefore Jesus made-a-necessary difference, did something new, brought something to the world that did not exist before the time of Jesus...
Was terminally-confused by insisting that Jesus was always the One God, from eternity from forever-before his birth/ life/ death/ ascension; and (because of his "omni"-attributes) Jesus operated outside of time.
Such that Jesus somehow always was, as well as always-is, and always shall be...
Such that the explanatory sequence of creation before Jesus and then creation after Jesus; was said to be ultimately a kind-of mortal and earthly illusion...
Because in real-reality, outside of Time/ where Time-is-not, where the One God (including Jesus) existed... creation Just Was: Eternally and Perfect...
So the understanding of Jesus as a new creator that I regard to be true; was-and-is theologically regarded as false by prior philosophical assumption; because it was assumed that could be no ultimate change in creation; neither before nor after, no addition to creation.
(After all, how could Jesus add-to or improve something that was already and forever perfect?)
The consequences include that Jesus is nowadays, almost universally (among self-identified Christians as well as not), regarded as primarily a teacher, preacher, prophet... Jesus is seen as a provider of information.
Christian debate therefore focuses mainly on "the information" - on the validity of its sources, whether the sources are being understood accurately, whether or what difference is made by societal changes; and the various claims by Churches or secular experts over the authority to decide these matters of information.
Among self-identified Christians; debate also concerns the nature and scope of that divine power which (it is envisaged) backs-up and pushes "the information".
Questions such as: What does God really want to happen to us - will reform be imposed, or perhaps our destruction? Is the divine power restricted to a particular Church, or particular parts of the earthly-institutional instantiation of "the" Church?
Does divine power to impose information apply to all humans in the same way? Is divine power irresistible by humans, or does it depend on voluntary human cooperation?
Questions regarding Church authority; how it arose and how it was preserved and transmitted across many generations.
Such are the kinds of question that concern many self-identified Christians: questions of information.
Alternatively: It seems to me that when Jesus is understood as a divine Man whose work was essentially that of Creator operating in sequential Time; the story and sequence become clearer and easier to understand (and explain).
It is realized that for Jesus the teaching and preaching and prophecy were an "optional extra" - information was secondary to his main work and achievement.
In an ultimate sense, when understood as a Creator; if Jesus had lived and died in utter obscurity, and left no records or memories in earthly society - then his essential work of creation could still have been accomplished.
The new-created possibilities Jesus made, would still exist; and would still be available to all who desired them.
+++
*Aside from the fact that modern Men have been trained, multi-generationally, to find the claims of religion incredible and ridiculous; while uncritically gulping-down endless drafts of incoherent/ self-contradicting nonsense from the Establishment media-conduit.
4 comments:
I probably won't communicate this well, but this post help clarify my reservations whenever I have listened to Christians (over)emphasize the "good news" Jesus brought. Yes, it's wonderful, but only when it is considered within the context of what you have outlined here.
Without that, we run the risk of equating Jesus with a messenger whose main task was to announce and promote the new possibility of Heaven, all without stressing his indispensible role in making it a reality as a divine creator separate from God the father. Without that, the "good news" becomes little more than information dissemination and is hardly better than the views in other religions that accept Jesus as a great moral teacher or prophet but nothing more.
As much as this post resonates with me, I don't think it will resonate with others. Jesus as a new creator is a step too far for most. It contradicts all the information they have inculcated; and that information will be clung to, even when it leads to nowhere but mystery.
@Frank - Good encapsulation.
"Jesus as a new creator is a step too far for most. It contradicts all the information they have inculcated"...
And yet it is *all there in the Fourth Gospel* - if only Christians (and others) would *really* read it, and take it seriously as the (or a) primary source - and not just to confirm what they have already been told in the Synoptics, or Paul; or from traditional theology and doctrine.
This jibes with my own experience in the early stages of my thinking through Christianity: I can recall going through the thought process of considering whether Christianity implied that those who had not heard the good news were "damned" or at least highly unlikely to attain salvation, or whether in fact Jesus' work on Earth had substantively changed things EVEN FOR THOSE who had never heard of him. Intuitively, I concluded: He changed the nature of reality. He opened up possibilities that had not existed before, and that one of the functions of the Holy Spirit is in fact to impart that "knowledge" everywhere, even to those who are not explicitly aware of Christianity.
Also, to Frank's point, a further problem with Jesus-as-Information-Provider, is that it also makes the primary task of all Christians to be .... Information Providers.... And that is largely what we see in the evangelical world: The main task of Christians is to "spread the word", rather than to focus on their own spiritual work. Instead, evangelization is itself seen as the primary spiritual work. Christianity as mind virus that must be spread from person to person.
@Daniel - That's very well put!
Post a Comment