The Everlasting Man

I've been reading G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man over the past couple of weeks (it's taking me so long becuase I read it online when I'm at work, a paragraph here and there). If you haven't read any Chesterton, you should, if only to see that, yes, there are Christians (even Catholics) who use their brains. These days it's easy to find examples of so called Christians unwilling to use the reason that God gave them - worshipping not God but some psychotic bastard who hates the majority of his creations and doesn't believe in the natural workings of the world that he created and controls.

In the latest chapter I read he makes a very compelling argument for the divinity of christ, or rather, not for the divinity, but for the honest consideration of that divinity. There is a popular idea - popular in Chesterton's day as much as in ours - that the historical Jesus was a very learned and wise Jewish rabbi. He was a teacher, a wise man, even a prophet. The view stems from two things, both are rational assumptions. First, it is highly unlikely that Jesus the man, this historical Jesus as he is often referred to, did not actually exist. To say otherwise is simply ludicrous. It's to argue that shepherds and fishermen were able to dupe the world with a vast conspiracy that would have little point if they didn't believe it in the first place. In fact, it would have been a suicidal conspiracy - leading them largely to violent death at the hands of authorities or insane mobs, and certainly not leading them to riches and glory. This is like saying that the government caused 9/11 so that they could invade Iraq. As much as certain members may be capitalizing off tragedy, to say that there was a conspiracy involving hundreds of high level officials and no legitimate reporter has ever found out is basically retarded.

The second view of Jesus the teacher comes from reading the gospel. Anyone can see that the man must have been intelligent, as well as wise well beyond his time. The greatest atheist, if he honestly approaches it, cannot read the Parable of the Prodigal Son without thinking at the least - "Here was a great moral reformer." The longevity of his teachings elevates him far above the average philosopher and numbers him among the greats. His teachings are without exception, to my mind, beyond his own time and place: universally applicable. To love your enemy was as near an impossible thing but a uniquely insightful thing then as it is now. The greatest intellectual could not but look at his apparently paradoxical words about dividing with the sword and delight in the subtlty of his thought. As Chesterton points out, Jesus was a man of peace who knew full well that a good peace was better than a good war, but a bad peace infinitely worse. There is universal wisdom here.

That being said, I can agree with the popular view. However, those wanting to claim Jesus as great moral thinker run into a problem. He claimed, quite clearly, that he was the Son of God. This isn't the claim of a great man, this is the claim of a small man who might very likely be insane. One could never imagine a true thinker, whatever his pride, actually claiming to be the Almighty. That kind of egomania is the province of small minded men, unable or unwilling to see how they are men like everyone else. It is easy to discount, because it does not seem logical at all for a man to actually be the Son of God. If one approached the Gospels as someone who had never heard the name Jesus before, one couldn't discount it however. It would, in fact, be incredibly shocking. The speaker of the Sermon on the Mount - preaching wisdom, tolerance, love and moderation - suddenly makes the absurd and insane claim that he's God. There is a serious paradox here that can't be easily ignored.

The obvious option is to say that Jesus never said it. His followers must have added that bit later on. After all the Gospels were written some time after the fact. Only if that's true, and though I personally don't believe it to be true I'm willing to admit that in fact it could be, then it is the only mistake like it that has ever been made. Muslims don't confuse Mohammed with God, Jews don't confuse Moses with God, no one ever thought Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle were God. If it is indeed an error then it is a unique one. If it is a coverup written as it was after the fact, but when there were those who had lived through the events covered, it is an impressive conspiracy. Logic dictates that that is incredibly unlikely. How could one keep a stranglehold on all those who knew the truth?

If one accepts that Jesus was a great moral reformer, logically one must at least consider the possibility that he was telling the truth.