The Jesus of history and Christ of Faith

[polonius]

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

[Elijah John]

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.

The fact that Jesus died, was crucified is a matter of history and a consensus among historians. By contrast the notion that he "died for our sins" is theological speculation...that is the province of the "Christ of faith".

[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.

The fact that Jesus died, was crucified is a matter of history and a consensus among historians. By contrast the notion that he "died for our sins" is theological speculation...that is the province of the "Christ of faith".

RESPONSE:

Yes. I agree.

However, the claim that Jesus was the product or a virgin birth or physially resurrected from the dead is not a matter of history.

The virgin birth claim is only reported in two gospels written about 80 AD, and not repeated in them nor reported in the other two gospels nor Acts.

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by 500 people on one occasion is only found in one of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, c. 55-57 AD. written about 25 years after the fact by a non-witness. This incident is not in any gospel nor in Acts.

If 500 people in Jersualem actually saw the post-Resurrection Jesus
it would have been widely reported by those who had, and those they told. Some of these people would have been literate and hence we should have further written reports. But none of the Gospels refer to Jesus being seen by 500 people on one occasion.

And neither are ther any Roman records of such an event.

[oldbadger]

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

Hello..... I would like to try.

I have noticed that in debates about historical Jesus that Christians will post messages about 'The Lord Jesus Christ' and 'theological claims'.

Eventually I realised that some Christians are quite unable to imagine or accept the concept of the man that historians are studying because they see him as a God. Some Christians actually believe that Jesus lead the Israelites out of Egypt, possibly because they believe that 'Jesus is God'.

And so you have 'Historical Jesus'... and 'Historical Christianity'.
These are totally separate and different subjects.
If an HJ student attempted to discuss 'HJ' on some extremist Christian forums he/she would probably commit blasphemy in the first paragragh!

[oldbadger]

Yes. I agree.

However, the claim that Jesus was the product or a virgin birth or physially resurrected from the dead is not a matter of history.

The virgin birth claim is only reported in two gospels written about 80 AD, and not repeated in them nor reported in the other two gospels nor Acts.

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by 500 people on one occasion is only found in one of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, c. 55-57 AD. written about 25 years after the fact by a non-witness. This incident is not in any gospel nor in Acts.

If 500 people in Jersualem actually saw the post-Resurrection Jesus
it would have been widely reported by those who had, and those they told. Some of these people would have been literate and hence we should have further written reports. But none of the Gospels refer to Jesus being seen by 500 people on one occasion.

And neither are ther any Roman records of such an event.

And there you have it.......
In an historical debate your points would be noted with an historical level of interest.
In a debate with Christians, many would just consider you to be a blasphemous trouble-maker.

In fact, one Christian chat-site bans non-christians from even posting in their HJ section, which could be one way of avoiding any historical difficulties.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by oldbadger]

I wouldn't say a "blasphemous troublemaker". Some matters are simply questions of faith, one can choose to believe something or not.

JW

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 14 by oldbadger]

I wouldn't say a "blasphemous troublemaker". Some matters are simply questions of faith, one can choose to believe something or not.

JW

Hello.....
...and I acknowledge that you yourself would not accuse an HJ historian of being a 'BT', and that some matters are simply a question of faith to some Christians.

But some Christian forums have an official 'statement of faith' and to question any part of that faith or any of the bible can be interpreted as 'intentional blasphemy'.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by oldbadger]

I wouldn't say a "blasphemous troublemaker". Some matters are simply questions of faith, one can choose to believe something or not.

JW

Hello.....
...and I acknowledge that you yourself would not accuse an HJ historian of being a 'BT', and that some matters are simply a question of faith to some Christians.

But some Christian forums have an official 'statement of faith' and to question any part of that faith or any of the bible can be interpreted as 'intentional blasphemy'.

Questioning or asking a questions is not in my opinion objectional. That said I do believe some things are blaphemouse, but don't see any examples of that here. Hisorians are under no obligation to be Christians, they merely assess the historical evidence that exists for the existence and actions of any given individual. It is not blasphemous not to believe everything that is said about Jesus in the gospels, although such a positions would , in my opinion, be a mistake.


JW

[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?

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.

RESPONSE:


Hardly. Whether the accounts are historical or fictional is the principal consideratuion.

Mark and Luke claim only one demoniac. Matthew rewarded himself for correcting Mark's geographical error ( Mark's reported location was 35 miles from the sea), so to reward himself Matthew made his yarn more interesting by introducing a second demoniac.

One has to learn how to differentiate fact from fiction in scripture.

[Elijah John]

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.

The fact that Jesus died, was crucified is a matter of history and a consensus among historians. By contrast the notion that he "died for our sins" is theological speculation...that is the province of the "Christ of faith".

RESPONSE:

Yes. I agree.

However, the claim that Jesus was the product or a virgin birth or physially resurrected from the dead is not a matter of history.

The virgin birth claim is only reported in two gospels written about 80 AD, and not repeated in them nor reported in the other two gospels nor Acts.

The claim that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by 500 people on one occasion is only found in one of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, c. 55-57 AD. written about 25 years after the fact by a non-witness. This incident is not in any gospel nor in Acts.

If 500 people in Jersualem actually saw the post-Resurrection Jesus
it would have been widely reported by those who had, and those they told. Some of these people would have been literate and hence we should have further written reports. But none of the Gospels refer to Jesus being seen by 500 people on one occasion.

And neither are ther any Roman records of such an event.

I agree as well. All good points. The Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are matters of faith, not historical fact.

I think all we can know of the historical Jesus is that he lived, preached, offended the Temple authorities and maybe healed. And was executed on a Roman cross.

NT Evangelists and the Church fills in the gaps and is the source of the "Christ of faith".

I would not be surprised if Paul were behind it all and that all was based on his vision, with the Gospel evangelists retrofitting their narrative to accomodate Paul's singular experience of the "Risen Christ.".

[oldbadger]

Questioning or asking a questions is not in my opinion objectional. That said I do believe some things are blaphemouse, but don't see any examples of that here. Hisorians are under no obligation to be Christians, they merely assess the historical evidence that exists for the existence and actions of any given individual. It is not blasphemous not to believe everything that is said about Jesus in the gospels, although such a positions would , in my opinion, be a mistake.


JW

Fair enough.
And so, given the above, imo the study of Historical Jesus could finish at or about the time that Jesus appreared to his disciples by Genesarret, after which point there are a number of guesses for further speculation.

But Historical Christianity is only really getting started by then, it seems.

For me, that seems to be the significant difference between most Christian Creeds and HJ researchers. You may know many Christian HJ researchers and students, but most that I know are either agnostics or atheists, which does also seem to be a kind of separation.