A KIND OF JEWISH REFORMER

On a message board where I post frequently, one of the posters has the following in his signature --

I would imagine Jesus was a kind of Jewish reformer. If you were looking for an equivalent to the figure you dimly perceive through the gospels it would probably be a Richard Dawkins. -- A.C. Grayling

Now, I don't know who A.C. Grayling is, but since he cites Richard Dawkins (of all people), I'm going to have to guess that Grayling is an atheist.

That said, there just so much off the mark about this quotation that I can't help but laugh.

The statement that Jesus was "a kind of Jewish reformer" seems to be made as if it is some sort of new and novel insight. And that in itself indicates a lack of familiarity with the story of Jesus. "A kind of Jewish reformer"? Well, duh. No kidding. His message was that the Jews had gotten so tied to their traditions that they no longer paid attention to the words God had spoken to them in scripture. And this rattled the "religious authorities" all around, even those who opposed each other in the normal course of events.

But then Grayling goes on with the silliness that the figure to be found in the gospels can only be "dimly perceived."

This idea that the Jesus in the Gospels is somehow a watercolor or merely stained glass version of some personality is hardly new or fresh. And it is ridiculous. There's nothing dim about the figure in the Gospels. The personality we find there is so strong that for over two thousand years he has drawn people to him, simply by way of the report of his "biographers". How is that a "dim perception"?

But the capper.... Jesus would be someone like Richard Dawkins: Richard Dawkins??

Richard Dawkins, the current prophet of atheism? The uber-rationalist who nearly goes into convulsions at the idea that children are enjoying fantasy literature, because none of that stuff is "real." Richard Dawkins, who utterly denies the existence of the spiritual dimension, or anything supernatural? Richard Dawkins, who insists that God does not exist at all?

Jesus, who asserted that he was the Son of God, that Jesus would be like Richard Dawkins?

I don't think so. I think it merely shows that Grayling himself has only a "dim perception" of what is in the Gospels, let alone what Jesus Himself might be like.

And yet the confidence with which the assertion is made is astounding. Because it starts from a point of view that assumes everyone would agree that the Gospels are vague about what they are talking about, a point of view that assumes that all readers of the Gospels are dull-minded and unable to perceive things clearly in the first place. It's also a point of view that assumes that eveyone is going to agree that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant and insightful thinker, whose every word is accurate and true.

Dear me.

Why is it that such atheist advocates always assume that Believers, and Christians especially, are lacking in intellectual skills and discernment? That Christians are incapable of logic or scientific understanding? Is it just because it makes things much easier for them to dismiss serious consideration of what really does lie within the Gospels?

I'm not really looking for an aswer to these questions here, but I couldn't help but muse on the matters. I'm not going to pounce on the poster who uses the quotation, since there is nothing to be gained in doing so. Such discussions as we have on that board are not about beliefs. So it would not be appropriate for me to challenge him about it there. But that isn't going to stop me from thinking about the absurdity of the quotation.