This book was pivotal in making me realize what I wanted to do with my life: that I wanted to write for a living, that I wanted to write about religious topics, that I wanted to help others explore the same issues I could feel Dostoevsky making me grapple with, even that young age.
Really, truly, this book is the impetus for who I am. The passage I want to discuss is one a lot of people know.
The night before his sentence, the Grand Inquisitor visits Jesus in his cell. And that, frankly, his return at this point is just disruptive to the overall meaning of the church. And the great line, the quote that I really gravitated towards is this one here:.
Many non-believers cite this passage as the reason why they do not believe—forgetting, by the way, that Dostoevsky himself was quite a fervent believer. But they also forget the end of the story: what happens after the Grand Inquisitor makes this huge statement, and lambastes Jesus for not speaking up for himself.
Jesus simply stands up, walks up to the Grand Inquisitor, and gives him a kiss. I think Dostoevsky is saying that we must never confuse faith with religion. I, as a person of faith, read the same story and did not see it as a repudiation of faith the way a lot of atheists do.
I saw it as a challenge to always remember that those who claim to speak for Jesus are precisely the kind of people that Jesus fought against. What I love about the Grand Inquisitor parable—and a parable is truly what it is—is this notion that if Jesus showed up, all of a sudden, today, he would not only bear very little resemblance to who the Church says he is, his primary focus would be on challenging the very religious institutions who claim to speak for him.
I first read this book when I was a Christian: a firm, devout follower of Jesus. Someone whose impression of Jesus was wholly a result of what the church told me he was. This rocked my world, even back then. I could sense that I was never going to be the same. This realization instilled in me, first and foremost, a deep sense of anti-institutionalism. I have always been distrustful of institutions—particularly religious institutions, but also political institutions. Essentially, anyone who presents themselves as a gatekeeper to truth, or a gatekeeper to salvation, I am distrustful of by definition—regardless of anything that they are saying or doing.
Just the notion that they were in this position of power was enough for them to be challenged, to be questioned.
This is one reason why I am not interested in any church, mosque, synagogue—any kind of organization. I also feel that the mistakes of institutions have no bearing on the value of the faith. To me, the most unsophisticated attack on religious faith is to say that religion has been responsible for great evil in the world. Well, of course it has. But to blame religion for bad things done in the name of religion is akin to blaming nationalism for fascism.
Any ideology is prone to be used for good and bad, and rather than focusing on judging the actions of those performing these deeds in the name of the ideology—we, in a knee-jerk way, focus on the ideology itself. If you do believe it, then it helps to have a language to help you express that ineffable experience—to yourself, and to other people.
And that is all that religion is—that language. Jesus is repeatedly called a magician , as well as an exorcist and a faith healer, who must have been married The greatest surprise is that for Reza Aslan Jesus is a zealot who was crucified because he fomented sedition against Rome. His goal was to restore Israel and reign as a real king now , , Like the Maccabees who sought to throw off the Seleucid yoke in B. Second, there is nothing new or fresh in how Aslan approaches the New Testament.
For example, the author thinks nearly every book in the New Testament was written by someone other than the person after whom it was named Also, since many gospels existed xxvii in that era, Aslan asks how anyone can take Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at face value? Third, Paul comes under harsh criticism in Zealot because it is said he has absolutely no interest in the historical Jesus xxvi.
Since his focus was exclusively Christological Aslan charges the apostle with inventing Christianity as it is known today He argues that this breach is proven by the fact that James forced Paul to take a Nazarite vow and participate in a controversial Temple rite Angry and bitter with other apostles, Paul is ultimately arrested and extradited to Rome It is poor scholarship in that the author confidently relies on outdated and untrustworthy sources.
He does not seem interested in grappling with those who believe New Testament writers, like Luke, wrote with diligence and integrity. Finally, though some of the history is interesting , and the author engaging, there is little that resonates with how most Muslims see the prophet Jesus.
0コメント