Today
is the feast of Corpus Christi. That is the body of Christ. It is
when we remember the great gift of Himself Jesus gives us in the
Eucharist. What I was reflecting on today is the craziness of it.
Discussing the idea that maybe someone made up the resurrection of
Jesus. Maybe they made up the idea that Jesus is God. Maybe they made
up all the miracles. It is a bit much. Could early Christians really
believe so much based on no real data in an environment of
persecution. If you read them it is harder to believe. The Apostolic
fathers had the mindset of staunch conservatives. They fought
heresies and searched instead for a deeper understanding of what came
from the apostles and the old testament.
Yet
after all that I think what maybe the least plausible thing for them
to make up is the teaching on the Eucharist. Saying Jesus is God is a
stretch, a big stretch. Saying Jesus told them to eat His body and
drink His blood is beyond a stretch. Jews didn't even eat meat until
all the blood was drained. They would never drink an animal's blood.
Yet the early Christians are supposed to have made this up? It is
just impossible. Yet the teaching of the real presence of Christ in
the Eucharist goes right back to the beginning and without
controversy. John relates the words of Jesus in John 6 acknowledging
how radical they are yet not backing down from them at all. His
disciple, St Ignatius of Antioch, uses these words as an argument
against Gnosticism. That is that the body of Jesus must have been
physical because it is physically present to us in the Eucharist. It
is an interesting argument because it would make zero sense if anyone
believed in a symbolic Eucharist.
Then
we have St Paul. He accepted the teaching of the apostles without any
explanations. Jesus said, “This is my body.” So you had better
come to the table contemplating that fully. A lot of the teachings of
Jesus are explained further by St Paul in the light of the
crucifixion and resurrection. It is quite significant that for this
he just relates what Jesus said and did.
So if
you are a skeptic and think Jesus was just a man then how does this
story come into being? It kind of raises the bar on the
liar-lunatic-lord argument. That is whoever sold the early church on
this idea had to have been crazy. It is just a hard thing to believe.
If it isn't true then there is no benefit at all to believing it. You
can see why the resurrection might be popular to believe. You can see
why the divinity of Jesus might be implausible but might also have
some upside in being attractive to some. The eating and drinking of
Jesus' body and blood? Who is going to be attracted by that. The
Romans would not be. One of the few really strong moral prohibitions
they had was against cannibalism. Yet Christians just asked to be
accused of cannibalism by teaching this doctrine and, in fact, many
Romans did make that claim. Where is the benefit?
So
there are many teachings that came from Jesus that the non-Christian
has to find a source for. The New Testament changed human society in
so many ways. Where did the wisdom and power come from? Much of what
flowed from that secular people agree with. The dignity of the human
person. Love as a central virtue. The importance of forgiveness. Yet
whoever brought us these ideas also brought us many ideas about God,
about miracles and about resurrection. That is strange enough but the
Eucharist is so much stranger. They tend not to want to believe Jesus
taught anything that would make them label him crazy. Yet his
followers arrive at such a strange place. How does that happen?
Reasons to Believe in Jesus
ReplyDeleteReasons to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God can be found in quotes from two prominent atheists and a biology textbook.
Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)
Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)
And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )
Sartre speaks of the "passion of man," not the passion of Christians. He is acknowledging that all religions east and west believe there is a transcendental reality and that perfect fulfillment comes from being united with this reality after we die. He then defines this passion with a reference to Christian doctrine which means he is acknowledging the historical reasons for believing in Jesus. He does not deny God exists. He is only saying the concept of God is contradictory. He then admits that since life ends in the grave, it has no meaning.
From the title of the book, you can see that Nagel understands that humans are embodied sprits and that the humans soul is spiritual. He says, however, that dualism and idealism are "traditional" alternatives to materialism. Dualism and idealism are just bright ideas from Descartes and Berkeley. The traditional alternative to materialism is monism. According to Thomas Aquinas unity is the transcendental property of being. Campbell does not even grasp the concept of monism. The only theories he grasps are dualism and materialism.
If all atheists were like Sartre, it would be an obstacle to faith. An important reason to believe in Jesus is that practically all atheists are like Nagel and Campbell, not like Sartre.
by David Roemer
347-417-4703
David Roemer
http://www.newevangelization.info