Jesus, Scandal and Mimetic Rivalry

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/caravaggio_salome.jpg?w=400&h=336

*At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks (stumbling blocks = scandal) Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes! “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble (causes you to stumble = is a scandal to you), cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. * (Matthew 18:1-9)

The first thing to notice is how the disciples’ lapse into mimetic rivalry evoked from Jesus a discourse on scandal and scandalizing. It seems at first a non sequitur for an offense so minor as this squabbling between his disciples. And what could it possibly have to do with John the Baptist? Yet from Girardian theory and the mimetic point of view, it is the perfect response. And mimetic rivalry is precisely the difference between John and Jesus.

To understand more of the theory, the difference between John the Baptist and Jesus, and how the exegesis of the passage shows the seriousness with which Jesus regarded mimetic rivalry, you may continue to follow it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/18/a-new-anthropos/

A very rich reflection.

dj

 

[simspt]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/caravaggio_salome.jpg?w=400&h=336

*At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks (stumbling blocks = scandal) Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes! “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble (causes you to stumble = is a scandal to you), cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. * (Matthew 18:1-9)

The first thing to notice is how the disciples’ lapse into mimetic rivalry evoked from Jesus a discourse on scandal and scandalizing. It seems at first a non sequitur for an offense so minor as this squabbling between his disciples. And what could it possibly have to do with John the Baptist? Yet from Girardian theory and the mimetic point of view, it is the perfect response. And mimetic rivalry is precisely the difference between John and Jesus.

To understand more of the theory, the difference between John the Baptist and Jesus, and how the exegesis of the passage shows the seriousness with which Jesus regarded mimetic rivalry, you may continue to follow it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/18/a-new-anthropos/

A very rich reflection.

dj

What is Girard’s view on the church and the historicity of the New Testament? Views on the resurrection? Deity of Jesus?

 

[Sulla]

Girard’s new book, Battling to the End (Achever Clauswitz in French) is, like almost all of his work, more or less a Christia apologetic. The general thrust of his work is, it seems to me, a response to the observation that the mythological past contains lots of dying and “raised” gods. Why this might be, and how the Christian revelation changes all this is the over-arching theme of his work.

 

[djeter]

What is Girard’s view on the church and the historicity of the New Testament? Views on the resurrection? Deity of Jesus?

One of the 20th century giants of this world is Rene Girard, a French thinker and devout Roman Catholic who has contributed numerous books and articles to a wide range of disciplines: history, philosophy, literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics and cultural studies. Girard received his Ph.D. in history from Indiana University and has lived and taught for most of his life in America.

An introduction to his work is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/04/rene-girard/

And another example of his interpreting his work through the gospel is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/05/is-christianity-indistinguishable-from-other-%e2%80%9cpagan-myths%e2%80%9d/

I haven’t come across anything yet that questions his acceptance of Church doctrine and reading him has deepened my appreciation of my faith.

dj

 

[Sulla]

Have you read Battling to the End?

 

[nordskoven]

Christ, in so many arcane particulars, fulfilled all that was godly, even if embraced by seeming pagans, like being the dying and resurrecting God; and Christ contradicted cultural but spiritually false orthodoxy, like the Essenes with their lengthy curses upon their enemies in His counseling love for enemies. Christ’s cousin, John the Baptist, had his cultural presumptions met by Christ’s response from Holy Writ pointing to Messiah. Nothing new under the Sun. God revealed Himself, and that includes to the ancients dubbed “pagan” today. Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes the universality of cultural mores, like Genesis 2 marriage, suggesting everybody was on the same divinely-inspired page. Ptah was Egypt’s first and monotheist God; Shang-Ti was China’s.

Pastor D. James Kennedy, no friend to Catholics, and while scholarly, is a former dance instructor, deserves our attention with his Gospel in the Stars. As Bishop Sheen notes, the whole world foreknew the Good News, citing as one example the Chinese history preserving the incident of the emperor who asked his sages what the import of that new star was. The sages looked it up–pre-recorded–and said it heralded that special figure we call Christ. Kennedy takes it back further, noting that the names of the stars and the constellations illuminate the very Gospel itself with the Leo of the Tribe of Judah born of the Virgo Mary.

Kennedy is helpful in redirecting our proportional estimation of God’s providential might and power. The divine lineage, under attack from the Garden, was none the less preserved in a talented and tenacious remnant, however unpopular or besieged. History shows the elect of God were fit and highly skilled and open to divine instruction, as seen in Noah’s construction of the Ark, an extremely technical account being preserved in Genesis as contradistinct from other versions. So a little astronomy, as with Tubal-Cain’s metallurgy (why bronze preceded the iron age) or Jubal’s mathematic-rich music is not to be disbelieved.

The rebels took the artifacts but not the understanding, turning astronomy and the time clock of the stars into base astrology; making of Babylon the mud brick “omphalos” or center of the universe, a technical necessity to delineate east from west in traversing the Earth. The rebels turned God’s EN “women of grace” flowing from Genesis 3:15’s Woman & Seed war machine–women like Sarah, whose marriage defined kingship–into prostitutes caged in temples, children slain, husbands enslaved. The same rebels now try to turn the rainbow covenant symbol into a profane anti-marriage logo.

Like Paul who saw Christ after His death, Balaam the pagan prophet saw Jesus Christ before His incarnation. Those who preceded Balaam were lavishly given God’s revelation as was Balaam. “I behold Him, but not near…” The Gospel in the Stars, and Kenneth Kitchen’s observation that even remote African tribes share Genesis monotheism, laws, and mores like marriage and modesty, means the pop cultural attribution of antiquity to “gods” and “pagans” is dead flat wrong, and that as Sheen notes, everybody had the same prophetic story, and that includes the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Son of the Virgo.

The rebellion was and is real and the obfuscation of truth vigorous and profitable, as the New York Tims bestsellers abound with Gnostic literature, and Gnostic movies rake in millions, and Gnostic speakers like Deepak Chopra cash in by scoffing at the relevance of the 2,000-year-old Christ. There were then and are now and will be Anti-christ wannabe’s. And searching extant ancient law, art, architecture, and literature only more clearly delineates the widespread and resounding message of divinely-revealed love, law and prophecy–and the mendacious misdirection and murderous malevolence of the Father of Lies and Murder and his minions.

Jewish lore suggests Shem escaped Egypt with the bones of Adam, burying them in the cave under Golgotha, then moving them to the twin caves, Machpelah, which Abraham, a prince among the misguided pagan people, bought to bury Sarah. Egyptian hieroglyphs state “the bones of Ra (Adam) were on the boat of Nu (Noah).” Shem was probably Greek historian Herodatus’ “Philition” the “Lover of Rightesousness” shepherd who grazed his flocks around the Great Pyramid, debased by misinforming demonic Egyptian false priests from Shem’s true role. Shem was the monotheist Shepherd-King who built the Great Pyramid as the orthodox omphalos or Earth belly-button; and as a mausoleum for the bones of Adam; and as a monument to God’s providence in escaping the Great Flood as the boat buried at the foot suggests.

Shem is identified by the Jews as Melchizedek, “King of Righteousness” and a mystery man–probably hiding from demonic priests. As we can reconstruct from Egyptian myth, Shem fought the self-proclaimed god by “convicting him with the strengh of his tongue.” And that conviction was this: if he’s a god, he should be able to be put to death and rise from the dead. So Shem put him to death, and he didn’t rise from the dead. Shem cut up his body and sent it to his cult centers of worship to show the people their god was a phony. Instead of being grateful for the god-cannibal-king’s demise, they revolted, seeking Shem’s life, and Shem fled. Christ passed the God test. Christ fulfills all: Priest-Sacrifice; Shepherd-King; Dying-Resurrected God…

May Jesus the Messiah preserve us from cultural Catholicism and bring us to embrace His gentle yoke in following Him through death to join Him as His Spotless Bride in eternity, all in humblest thanks and highest praise. AMEN

 

[simspt]

One of the 20th century giants of this world is Rene Girard, a French thinker and devout Roman Catholic who has contributed numerous books and articles to a wide range of disciplines: history, philosophy, literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics and cultural studies. Girard received his Ph.D. in history from Indiana University and has lived and taught for most of his life in America.

An introduction to his work is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/04/rene-girard/

And another example of his interpreting his work through the gospel is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/05/is-christianity-indistinguishable-from-other-%e2%80%9cpagan-myths%e2%80%9d/

I haven’t come across anything yet that questions his acceptance of Church doctrine and reading him has deepened my appreciation of my faith.

dj

Thanks for the info.

 

[djeter]

Have you read Battling to the End?

No, checked my local library for a copy but they didn’t have one. Someone on another thread recommended it.

dj

 

[Sulla]

nordskoven, that was totally fantastic and totally crazy. Thanks, brother.

 

[nordskoven]

Overwrought analysis is a symptom of un-love. I’m very wary of overlaying anthropological analysis on the history of anthropos, let alone sacred history. I’m gun-shy after Margaret Mead, and her perverted overlay of Polynesian “free love.” God invented “scapegoating” and it is indeed a religious term from inspired Hebrew ritual. Myth is history, as the discovery of Troy shows. Inspired myth is inspired history, as God’s providence shows. Play it as it lays. Girard doesn’t bring God closer to mankind; or mankind closer to God.

Girard reminds me of my theory of trisecting an angle: my theory, presented to my teacher, was rightly rejected as simply mathematically unproven. I have no theological proof Girard’s hobby-horse will run. The utility of saying “mimetic rivalry” instead of “pride” and “jealousy” escapes me. I’d rather have a dance-instructor-turned-theologian reconstruct The Gospel in the Stars than some bloviating if devout Catholicky scholar expel more of what can be termed squid ink. In that may I at least claim to cling to my child-like wonder.

 

[djeter]

Overwrought analysis is a symptom of un-love. I’m very wary of overlaying anthropological analysis on the history of anthropos, let alone sacred history. I’m gun-shy after Margaret Mead, and her perverted overlay of Polynesian “free love.” God invented “scapegoating” and it is indeed a religious term from inspired Hebrew ritual. Myth is history, as the discovery of Troy shows. Inspired myth is inspired history, as God’s providence shows. Play it as it lays. Girard doesn’t bring God closer to mankind; or mankind closer to God.

Girard reminds me of my theory of trisecting an angle: my theory, presented to my teacher, was rightly rejected as simply mathematically unproven. I have no theological proof Girard’s hobby-horse will run. The utility of saying “mimetic rivalry” instead of “pride” and “jealousy” escapes me. I’d rather have a dance-instructor-turned-theologian reconstruct The Gospel in the Stars than some bloviating if devout Catholicky scholar expel more of what can be termed squid ink. In that may I at least claim to cling to my child-like wonder.

Yes, please do cling to your child-like wonder. May we all live like Chesterton.

As for “bloviating if devout Catholicky scholars” I would rather have them than the bloviating atheist scholars one usually comes across in the academe. Give me a sociological or cultural thesis that can be illustrated by Gospel truth any day. Not only do I regard the thesis in a higher light, it may illuminate the Gospel truth for me further. How does one lose?

As for Mimetic rivalry, for me it emphasizes the escalating nature of pride and jealousy and as a kind of original sin that characterizes violence – I don’t see it at all as a meaningless synonym. I had missed the Pharisees as everyman that we see in this Girardian essay:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/17/the-gospel-revelation-of-the-founding-murder/

You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but for me it was indistinguishable from crankiness. In that we seem like brothers.

dj