3/2/10
What would it be like, if Socrates, “History’s greatest questioner” was confronted with, and examined, the claims of Christ? Christ’s claims hold tremendous power and controversy. If Jesus is who he said he was, (the son of God, and therefore equal with God) then we are faced with only two honest options; one, we accept him and everything he said and claimed as the absolute Truth, or two, we reject him. However, if Jesus is not who he said he was then a whole new set of puzzles arises. This is the subject with which Peter Kreeft’s book deals.
When I first began to read Kreeft's examination, I didn’t like how the book was written directly as a dialogue. But as I pushed on you quickly adapt, and come to appreciate the quick, flowing dialogue. It allows the debate to continue uninterrupted. Throughout the course of the book Socrates meets several different people, all who are attending “Have It University” The first student he meets is Bertha Broadmind, then Thomas Keptic, Professor Flatland who teaches 'Science and Religion', Professor Shift who teaches 'Comparative Religions', next Socrates encounters the claims of Christ in Professor Fesser's 'Christology' seminars. Each person represents an individual view on Christ, and Christianity. Each view is logically examined.
Most of the people are positive in their feelings and beliefs towards Jesus, but few take the time to examine what they believe, and why they believe it. Few realize that he was more than a good teacher. Socrates brings people's apathy to the front. If they care enough he says, they’ll search the subject out themselves to find the truth, and then follow it. No matter where it leads. Since they won’t do that he concludes, he has been called to the present to examine it to see if it’s true, and then bring its importance to their attention.
In one discussion he shows that maybe Jesus was a liar, and therefore untrustworthy and undeserving of our service. But no lie has ever had such a major effect on the world. If that’s true, then the whole world has been revolutionized by deception. Secondly what did Jesus have to gain if he was lying? He was tortured and killed, as have been millions of his followers. No-body would die for a lie that they gained nothing from. Or maybe Jesus was just genuinely mistaken! But how could someone fulfill the thousands of prophecies that surround Jesus? It would be impossible. Or maybe Jesus was just crazy? The writings we have of Josephus don’t seem to indicate that he was. And what crazy person has ever had such an effect on man-kind? No one would follow, and die for a lunatic. If Jesus was telling the truth however, then the power of his message would have an unlimited affect on humanity, millions of people would willingly die for something they knew to be truth. And the prophecies that are in the Old Testament are fulfilled. It can only follow that he was who he said he was.
Throughout the book several people subtly attack the resurrection. “If the bones of Jesus were found in a cave in Palestine tomorrow all the essentials of Christianity would remain.” In other words the resurrection was more of a figurative moral story than an actual literal event. There are only two possibilities, either Jesus rose from the tomb or he did not. If he did not then all of Christianity is in vain. It means the disciples lied about the resurrection. They couldn’t have been “honestly mistaken” they claimed to see him ascend into heaven. Socrates meets it like this.
Socrates: So you say that the meaning of the resurrection is the union of goodness and power?
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: And you say that the resurrection didn’t really happen?
Fesser: No I did not say that, I said it is not necessary to the essentials of Christianity to interpret it literally.
Socrates: To interpret it literally is to say that it really happened, in history, on earth, physically, biologically, in Jesus’ body and not just in people’s minds, correct?
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: And you say that the meaning still remains even if the historical happening is not believed?
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: If it didn’t happen in history then it is just a myth, an archetype
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: Jesus the historical person did not have the power to rise from the dead, but Jesus the myth does?
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: And rising from the dead means power?
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: And Jesus represents goodness?
Fesser: Yes
Socrates: Then if Jesus didn’t really conquer death, it follows that goodness does not really have power. In that case, the meaning is not intact is it? For if the resurrection really happened, the meaning is that goodness has power, and if it didn’t really happen, then goodness does not have power. Does that not logically follow?
Fesser: No, Socrates. It needn’t be historically true, only mythically true. You don’t expect a myth to be historically accurate.
Socrates: But, this fairly tale, even as a tale, is different from all other fairy tales, according to your interpretation; for it is not only about goodness but about the union of goodness with power. The meaning of other fairy tales is unchanged whether the tales have the power of history or not. But the meaning of this fairy tale is the union of archetype with history, myth with fact, goodness with power. So how can its meaning survive the loss of half its meaning, namely its history, its power?
Fesser: Hmmm, there does seem to be a self-referential inconsistency in my hermeneutic.
Socrates: I suppose this is as close as a professor gets to “repent and believe”?
Fesser: What do you think Socrates? Why does the resurrection have to be literal?
Socrates: I will tell you, but my answer is not mine, but scripture's. Yours on the other hand, seems to not be scripture, but yours. I think it is literal first; because it proves Jesus’ claim to divinity, only a God can conquer death. Second, because it is the completion of his task, his purpose, and the reason he became a man.
Logically and slowly, this imaginary Socrates lays out the argument that Christianity without a literal Christ is useless. Specifically focusing on the story of Christ, he shows its uniqueness among the mythologies of the world. Yet, people's hearts throughout the book often remain hardened.
"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man." Romans 1:20-23
No comments:
Post a Comment