In Reply to: Serious Defect in Jesus' Moral Character posted by Bertrand Russell on June 14, 2007 at 13:44:30:
Seems to me all you're really saying is that Jesus of Nazareth was a product of his culture. Then the argument is: If that is the case, how can he be Christ, the Son of God, immortal and divine?
To me, it's a paradox very much like a Zen koan: How can two seemingly irreconcilable conditions be true? Jesus was truly human, and therefore bounded by the limitations of his culture, yet at the same time truly God, and therefore transcendent and omnipotent.
Well, this discussion could get complicated real quick, so I'll leave off with this observation: A lot depends on how you conceptualize God. I believe God has a lot more tolerance and acceptance of humanity than we do for ourselves, so I can imagine a God willing to be bound by the limitations of a given human culture at a particular time in history. That same God transcends the limitations of first century Hellenic culture and emanates within the boundaries of my own time and culture.
I also see an important difference between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. Although they are related, they are not one and the same conceptually. This is how I reconcile the relationship between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-8)
The historical Jesus could have been a complete Neanderthal. Nevertheless, the Christ of faith embraced his mortality and rose from the dead. I believe because it gives me hope. I follow because it opens me up to the a spirit of lovingkindness.