The reason for my question comes from a chapter in the book “How To Read Literature Like A Professor” by Thomas Foster. Maybe I’m late to the party and this is a “must read” for all students of the English language, but if you don’t know this book-it’s a fantastic read.

I'm kidding. There are no rules as to what you can or cannot do with your characters. The trick is to make it believable and interesting.

There are several cliches which are best avoided if you ever want to get published. These are the few things that could be considered "cannot-do's" but your idea is not one of those cliches.

I can definitely see a character who looks great on the outside but is evil inside. Those kinds of characters can be quite interesting. If that's what you do I don't necessarily think that your character will be identified with Jesus, since the Christ symbolism is usually in self-sacrifice and not just in "being good." But in general it sounds like a fun concept to work with.

I could also see an interesting story where an evil character ends up sacrificing himself for others. It might be hard since you'd really have to get into the mind of the character and figure out his motivations, but it would definitely be interesting. You'd get the symbolism there, though how people interpret it depends on what exactly this character does. But then, the question is, can a character who sacrifices himself for the good of others really be evil? Or is your character sacrificing himself for evil reasons even though he appears to be good?

[Heh. So my rambling led me to the following concept: a man who leads a perfect-looking life and then sacrifices himself for what appears to be a good cause, but then later we find out that by sacrificing himself he gained supernatural powers and is now coming back as some crazy undead guy. Alright, I'm gonna stop now.]

I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do. I have a story in works that covers the exact topic, though not exactly the same way.

I’m thinking of a character that brings “peace” with money. If one were a billionaire, for example, he could end a lot of suffering. The symbolism would not be religious (as in a dove is released into the air when the character’s introduced) but subtle enough to give the impression that he is a Christ figure (once again, as defined by Foster). However, the peace he brings would serve only himself and cause terrible pain to others in the pursuit of his selfish needs.

The Christ figure has its roots in the messianic writings of Isaiah and other prophets, who clearly state that the annointed one is a scapegoat (another practice of ancient Judaism established by Moses), that is, he accepts the blame for all the sins and afflictions of the entire community, and then is punished to expiate the sin (ancient Israel did this with actual goats, which were driven out into the desert to die).

The person you're talking about is clearly an anti-Christ as described in Revelations and in some of the ancient prophetic writings under various other prophets by such monikers as "abomination of desolation". This is the opposite of the messiah, who "hath no form nor comeliness". The Christ figure is defined by innocently bearing the blame for the entire community.

quote:

---

He is despised and rejected of men: a man of sorrows, and aquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

---

The anti-Christ is the exact opposite of this pattern, he seems good on the outside, he's acclaimed and regarded as the hero, but in the end he betrays those that follow him to death or hell.

Now, this doesn't mean that you can't do a flawed Christ figure. In Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman is clearly a Christ figure (you can use the term scapegoat if you object to the religious imagery, though "scapegoat" has lost most of its meaning over the centuries), and the entire point was that not only was his self-sacrifice insufficient, but it was destructive to those he was seeking to help. Lesser examples of flawed Christ figures abound, it isn't novel territory.

On Christ-like characters...well, to put it in an overly familiar way, Aragorn son of Arathorn is a Christ-like character in the sense that he's the Messiah, the Redeemer, the One who will come and renew the kingdom and the people. But Frodo Baggins is also a Christ-like character, in the sense that he takes the sufferings of the world onto himself, and the world is saved because of it, but he is not.

In fact quite often in stories by the Norse, Greeks and Native Americans among others the most generous characters are the most deceptive (think the trickster motif with characters like Loki, Coyote or even Zues) and their generousity typically is of shallow things like a good meal or a pretty dress.

I guess this is a good place to mention my obsession of the week which is FDR, who I consider quite a moral puzzle. Was he America's Savior or our forbidden fruit? I think he had an interesting story arc at least as far as Eleanor goes, since she was apparently the only person who didn't know that he stayed with his first mistress for 40 years.

I agree with survivor that what you have described is the anti christ, but maybe I'm missing the point.Because I also got a picture of Annikin Skywalker. Doing everything for the sake of the Empire. Thinking that is the correct path, but in the end, he finds that it was all for nought and he's trapped.
He was the chosen one. He even though he didn't intend it that way, he became evil.

As for Aragorn, he doesn't have sex either, at least not during the movie (there was that kiss, though). And saying that Christ didn't experience lust is like saying that he didn't experience hunger or pain or fear. How is it meaningful to resist temptation if it's not even tempting to you?