The Historical Christ vs. The Christ of Faith

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: Is the apologetic for the "historical Christ" a meaningful defense of Christian faith?

I've noticed that many Christians fall over each other as they grasp for what modern scholars might refer to as "the historical Jesus." They love to point to this historical person as some darned good evidence for Jesus. After all, all those scholars cannot be wrong if they don't doubt that "Jesus" was a real man, can they?

Now, rather than dispute those claims of a historical Christ, I've decided to take a different direction in this discussion. Let's assume the scholars are correct, and a Jesus--the scholar's version of Jesus--really lived as a real guy. How much does this "scholarship" advance Christian faith?

Unfortunately for Christians, I think the belief scholars maintain in a historical Jesus does Christianity more harm than good. The Christ many scholars have arrived at is not the Jesus of Christian hope. He had no magical powers, was not a divine or semi-divine being, and he had no power at all to grant anybody eternal life in a heavenly paradise. He was just a deluded "apocalyptic preacher" who got himself executed by the Romans.

So apologists cannot have it both ways. If they want to shout out that scholars have the historical evidence for Jesus, then they must take that Jesus as nothing more than a man. The historical Jesus is not the Jesus Christians want, and they misrepresent the evidence if they say he is.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]
My response isn't exactly on target with what you referred to, Jagella, but it's my take on it.

The Jesus one reads about in the NT hardly resembles the Jesus believers go gaga over today. I believe it was Sam Harris who gave a talk entitled "Christianity made me talk like an idiot." Sweet Jesus wasn't so sweet. In fact, he could be downright disrespectful and rude, even to his own mother. Christians today go to great lengths to try to justify his ill-mannered behavior.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Historical Jesus scholarship is indeed a threat to conventional, orthodox (small "o") Christianity, though some like Borg and Spong attempt to integrate the findings into the context of their Trinitarian traditions and churches. Not an easy fit.

HJ scholars doubt the real Jesus ever claimed to be God. HJ scholars view the Gospel of John as the least reliable, most theologically tinged Gospel. And HJ scholars do indeed make a distinction between the historical Jesus, and the "Christ of Faith", the latter being beyond the realm of historical critical methods and scholarship.

[historia]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Not really. Which is why the decision on the part of some Internet atheists to embrace the marginal, discredited theory that Jesus didn't exist, while personally attacking scholars who conclude he did, was always a poor decision tactically. Atheists lose precisely nothing in accepting that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure. But hand Christian apologists an easy win when they attempt to challenge it.

[historia]

I believe it was Sam Harris who gave a talk entitled "Christianity made me talk like an idiot."

You're thinking of Seth Andrews. Sam Harris was never a Christian.

[Jagella]

The Jesus one reads about in the NT hardly resembles the Jesus believers go gaga over today. I believe it was Sam Harris who gave a talk entitled "Christianity made me talk like an idiot." Sweet Jesus wasn't so sweet. In fact, he could be downright disrespectful and rude, even to his own mother. Christians today go to great lengths to try to justify his ill-mannered behavior.

Yes, you can shape Jesus any way you wish. Since the evidence for Jesus is so weak, you can have any Jesus you want or no Jesus at all. If the nasty Jesus of the New Testament isn't to your liking, then just dress him up as a modern-day nice guy smiling and helping people who are in need. Nowadays some people say Jesus doesn't even believe in hell anymore!

[Jagella]

Historical Jesus scholarship is indeed a threat to conventional, orthodox (small "o") Christianity, though some like Borg and Spong attempt to integrate the findings into the context of their Trinitarian traditions and churches. Not an easy fit.

Just fit Jesus any way you want to. At worst some apologists like Historia will tell you that you're wrong.

HJ scholars doubt the real Jesus ever claimed to be God. HJ scholars view the Gospel of John as the least reliable, most theologically tinged Gospel. And HJ scholars do indeed make a distinction between the historical Jesus, and the "Christ of Faith", the latter being beyond the realm of historical critical methods and scholarship.

Many scholars have revised Jesus to make him acceptable as a historical person. As I explained in the OP, in so doing they ruined Jesus as a savior. Oddly enough, though, many Christian apologists make good use of this "ruined Jesus" to make a case for Christianity. Maybe apologists hope people won't notice that the historical Jesus isn't the Christ of Christian hope.

[Jagella]

Not really.

I've often wondered if you realized that the Jesus scholars have granted historicity to is not the Jesus of faith. This "historical" Jesus doesn't do much good for Christian apologetics.

Which is why the decision on the part of some Internet atheists to embrace the marginal, discredited theory that Jesus didn't exist, while personally attacking scholars who conclude he did, was always a poor decision tactically.

What exactly is an "internet atheist"? I do realize that the internet is seen as a threat to Christian faith. All those people thinking and speaking freely won't do Christianity much good.

Anyway, not all mythicists are atheists. I know of at least one theist who doesn't believe Jesus existed. That said, I think it's fair to say that most mythicists are atheists. One explanation for this phenomenon is that most atheists have no need for a historical Christ, and as a result are open to evidence that his historicity is in doubt.

Atheists lose precisely nothing in accepting that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure.

Well, atheists will be misled if they accept Jesus as historical if he was a myth.

But hand Christian apologists an easy win when they attempt to challenge it.

I'm not so sure. I think Richard Carrier did a very good job debating Craig Evans over the historicity of Jesus. Evans argued very illogically and with little or no evidence that Jesus really existed.

[SallyF]

The supposedly historical Jesus character presented in the Christian-Jewish propaganda is presented as a particularly nasty, narcissistic character.

That is why it is necessary for Christians to polish him up and present him as how they would LIKE him to be

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Is the apologetic for the "historical Christ" a meaningful defense of Christian faith?

I see no reason (at least in the USA) for the need to defend any lifestyle choice so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
I suppose those who aren't comfortable in their chosen lifestyle might lash out and feel the need to defend....something. But overall, there should be no reason to defend anything.