The Resurrection & the Priesthood: Only the Real Thing, Please
RECEIVING THE FAITH OR INVENTING THE FAITH?
It is always funny to me when I read the results of modernist “scholarship” from the splendidly incestuous mutual admiration societies styling themselves as “Jesus Seminars” and whatnot. Without fail, these folks (who have, like Dr. Science, a degree in Theology and therefore Know More Than You Do) love to speak of the people who witnessed and bore witness to the life of Jesus as though they were a pack of idiot savants.
In the modernist wonderland, Jesus was a fuddled rabbi with hopes of a better world. He was, we are assured, a profoundly inspiring person, a charismatic leader, and a mesmerizing speaker. How inspiring, charismatic, and mesmerizing? Why, so much so that He galvanized a movement of Jews into ignoring everything He said and did, utterly forgetting His unforgettable oratory and replacing it with reams of quotations with the precise historical value of a load of dingo kidneys. Yes, though He never walked on water or calmed a storm, the Jesus of the modernist scholar is nonetheless a miracle worker of sorts. Why, just by uttering a few sketchy epigrams about being nice, this itinerant preacher (who did not, we are assured, make claims of deity, multiply loaves, raise the dead, or even compose the “Our Father”) managed to transform unlettered Jewish monotheists into men who willingly blasphemed the God He preached by deifying this Nazarene cipher. So deeply inspired by the awesome figure of Jesus were they, that out of profound reverence for Him they obliterated virtually every trace of His memory and substituted in its place the ingenious fabrication called the “Gospel.”
So, it is said, there is a radical discontinuity between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. But, lest this disturb the faithful whose alumni donations to universities form such a vital part of the work of those who delight in being called “brilliant scholars” by The New York Times, we must here enter into what those scholars obliquely refer to as the “Easter Event.” What, pray, was that? Well, it’s far too subtle for people as ignorant as you and me to understand, but in plain bafflegab it goes something like this: The Resurrection (and the entire Gospebpis a mythic expression of the gestalt of messianic expectation alloyed with Yahwist apocalyptic, pagan fertility myth, and certain psychological factors catalyzed by the Christ Event and finding its locus in the transsignification of the Christian community’s own self-empowering transcendence of the death of Jesus of Nazareth and exaltation of His ministry into a mode of “divine revelation.”
Translation: The real Jesus (whoever that was) is dead as a doornail and was probably eaten by wild dogs soon after the crucifixion. But since the Apostles believed in Him real hard and, like idiot savants, created the Gospel story out of whole cloth to relieve their guilt, disappointment, and religious psychosis, then we can say the Resurrection is “true” in some Pickwickian sense, so as not to disturb believing yokels like you and me, who fund colleges with “brilliant theologians” on their faculty.
Enjoyed reading this?
READ MORE! REGISTER TODAYSUBSCRIBE
You May Also Enjoy
A high Calvinist’s view of the “Stages of progression regarding the early church fathers.” A…
Man's passion to redress his felt grievances against nature becomes, as the Marquis de Sade showed us, a desire simply to outrage nature.
Review of The Achievement of John Henry Newman