Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Christology debate (low and high)

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Codsi
    Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote on January 21: I d better summarize my point since it may have been misunderstood. Frides [Lameris] cited Mark 14:61-62 as
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 21, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote on January 21:

      "I'd better summarize my point since it may have been misunderstood.
      Frides [Lameris] cited Mark 14:61-62 as evidence for why Jesus was
      crucified, namely, Jesus's own high Christology. I thought that Frides's
      view needed argumentative support, not just citation."

      I find this clarification besides the point I was making, when I quoted
      Jeffery's following remark: "Frides Lameris makes a strong statement." I
      realize now that my text was not clear enough. I apologize for this. So let
      me clarify in my turn my position. I was not interested in debating the real
      reason why Jesus's enemies decided to crucify him, but in the link made by
      Frides Lameris between Jesus's declaration before the high priest (Mark
      14:61-62) and his presentation of Jesus as a mystic who, like a few other
      mystics, identified himself with God.

      To see in Jesus a spiritual master and a mystic is a view that makes sense
      to me. But even then, I find it highly improbable that he would have made
      the declaration attributed to him in Mark 14:61-62. As a mystic, his
      intimate relation to God must have remained applicable to other men and
      transferable to them. This is not the case of the high Christology of verses
      61-62. In my view, our high Christology finds its origin in the disciples,
      in their capacity of bearing witness to the resurrection. I understand the
      Easter experience as a mystical event, in which the disciples lived an
      intimate encounter with the resurrected Jesus whom God had elevated, in
      their eyes, to the rank of Lord and Christ.

      Christianity is based, according to this view, on two distinct mystical
      experiences. Jesus had his own. After his catastrophic death, the disciples
      had their Easter experience. Quite naturally their Easter experience had a
      retroactive effect on the way they viewed the historical Jesus. Quite
      naturally also, they bridged the gap between the historical Jesus and the
      resurrected Christ. For them the resurrected Christ was as real as the
      historical Jesus. The fact that their faith was based on a highly subjective
      and therefore illusory experience can make sense only to some of us today.

      Faith is a formidable act by which the human mind creates the object of its
      belief. Decartes declared: "I think, therefore I am." In the same manner,
      the believer declares: "I believe in God, therefore God exists." Both
      statements are true, but they are considered as absurd by those who are not
      aware of what goes on in their own mind, on the unconscious level.

      David Trapero wrote on January 20:

      "Everybody's nibbling around the edges. We need something that accounts for
      all the data, something with explanatory power, something like a unified
      field theory of early Christianity that avoids the usual clich├ęs."

      The theory I have just formulated can serve as a unifying guide for our
      research. Unfortunately many of us must reject it for reasons of faith. This
      is why it is much safer to nibble around the edges, and to publish scholarly
      books on secondary questions.
      So long,

      Joseph Codsi
      P.O.Box 116-2088
      Beirut, Lebanon
      Telephone (961) 1 242-545
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.