The Jesus of history and Christ of Faith

[polonius]

Can anyone make a distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

[polonius]

We should start with the sources for the history of Jesus.

Christian sources:

Apostle Paul – Epistles written about 25 years after Jesus’ death.
Gospel of Mark – Written about 40 years after Jesus’ death.
Gospel of Matthew – Written about 50 years after Jesus’ death.
Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles – Written about 50 years after Jesus death.
Gospel of John – Written about 65 years after Jesus’ death

Non-Christian sources:

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official, and Historian (61-112 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-117 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD,

[ThePainefulTruth]

Can anyone make a distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

The Jesus of history, whoever that was, was a man who can be discerned by facts and evidence. The divine Christ of faith is a Pauline myth.

[polonius]

There were five historical references written by Jesus followers 25 to 65 years after his death.

There are four historical references to Jesus written 31 to 122 years after his death by non-followers of Jesus.

None of these writers knew Jesus in the flesh and wrote many decades after the events they ae describing.

[liamconnor]

Can anyone make a distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

The question is already decided since the dichotomy comes from Bultman.

As far as the dates given for the gospels, they seem to ignore two important points:

The gap between event and written record is incredibly small compared with numerous classical texts. If this gap alone constitutes the need to reject them as credible accounts of Jesus' life, then goodbye to most of our beliefs about the ancient world.

SEcondly, it ignores the obvious question: did people preserve orally the teachings and deeds of Jesus between the years 33AD and 70 AD? Or did everyone go 'hush' until someone (Mark?) decided to do an inquiry.

If one can believe the latter, one can believe almost anything. Common sense (not to mention the evidence from the Pauline literature) makes it reasonable beyond doubt that the disciples of Jesus formed communities and remained involved in those communities.

The onus lies on the one who would have us believe that upon Jesus' death all his followers either a) died on the spot, b) took a vow of silence, c) retired to Spain, d) were struct with Alzheimer's, e) did not care whether their memories of Jesus were altered by the communities they founded.

[liamconnor]

Can anyone make a distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

The Jesus of history, whoever that was, was a man who can be discerned by facts and evidence. The divine Christ of faith is a Pauline myth.

This is far too glib and facile. It in fact ignores the evidence.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(1Co 15:1-3 NAS)


Paul explicitly says that he RECEIVED the following tradition. If anyone wishes to call this tradition a Pauline invention, the onus falls on him to prove that Paul is lying.

We can also point out that the Corinthian community were familiar with Peter: the onus falls upon him who would propose that Paul founded the Corinthian church on something which Peter would have denied.

[polonius]

Can anyone make a distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

The Jesus of history, whoever that was, was a man who can be discerned by facts and evidence. The divine Christ of faith is a Pauline myth.

This is far too glib and facile. It in fact ignores the evidence.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(1Co 15:1-3 NAS)


Paul explicitly says that he RECEIVED the following tradition. If anyone wishes to call this tradition a Pauline invention, the onus falls on him to prove that Paul is lying.

We can also point out that the Corinthian community were familiar with Peter: the onus falls upon him who would propose that Paul founded the Corinthian church on something which Peter would have denied.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you would want to read Paul's writings to see when he says his knowledge of Jesus Christ comes from.

"For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel I preach is not from man; nor did I receive it from men, nor was I taught it, but Jesus Christ revealed it to me" (Gal. 1:10-12).

Recall also that Paul never knew Christ in the flesh.

[polonius]

Can anyone make a distinction between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith."

SEcondly, it ignores the obvious question: did people preserve orally the teachings and deeds of Jesus between the years 33AD and 70 AD? Or did everyone go 'hush' until someone (Mark?) decided to do an inquiry.



If one can believe the latter, one can believe almost anything. Common sense (not to mention the evidence from the Pauline literature) makes it reasonable beyond doubt that the disciples of Jesus formed communities and remained involved in those communities.

The onus lies on the one who would have us believe that upon Jesus' death all his followers either a) died on the spot, b) took a vow of silence, c) retired to Spain, d) were struct with Alzheimer's, e) did not care whether their memories of Jesus were altered by the communities they founded.

RESPONSE:

Perhaps your exaggerations are not shared by historians.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[polonius]

The cure of the demoniac, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Did this happen in the Gerasenes, Gadarenes or Gadara? Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to a different place?

Was there one possessed man (Mark and Luke) or two possessed men (Matthew)?

Should we believe that these are different yarns or three nearly identical events at different locations?

[bluethread]

The cure of the demoniac, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Did this happen in the Gerasenes, Gadarenes or Gadara? Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to a different place?

Was there one possessed man (Mark and Luke) or two possessed men (Matthew)?

Should we believe that these are different yarns or three nearly identical events at different locations?

As with objections based on scientific accuracy, objections based on location specificity are beside the point. These three are indicators of a general area for the sake of context. They may be different events, or the location may have been generalized for the sake of a broader audience. Mark is thought to be the first and most simplistic of the recorded accounts. Luke is thought to have used Mark's account as a primary source in his research. Matthew my also have referred to Mark's account in his collection of midrashim(teachings). Each is for a different audience and for a different purpose. Whether one is referring to the precise location, the region, or a noted metropolitan center is secondary to the accounts.