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]

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: Easily done. Paul is a self-admitted liar.

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.

The “onus� falls on Paulthe speaker himself especially since he himself has already admitted that he is a liar.

Paul even tries to justify his lying,

Romans 3:7 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (Obvious answer: “Because you are an admitted liar.�)

1 Corinthians 9:19-22 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 21 by polonius.advice]

7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (Obvious answer: “Because you are an admitted liar.�)

1 Corinthians 9:19-22 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

Just curious, have you looked into even one commentary on these passages? For that matter, have you even read the entire letter to see what context in which they lie?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 21 by polonius.advice]

Hi......
And this what I find, that Christians sometimes leave historical Jesus far behind, and launch into Pauline letters to justify all manner of claims, for Jesus.

It seems quite clear to me that Jesus picked up The Immerser's mission after John's arrest, quite simply an attempt to gain an uprising for the return of and adherence to the poor-laws and all Moses laws apart from the 96 sacrificial laws.

That is it! And it failed.

What comes after Saul's blinding idea is just all ....Pauline.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 21 by polonius.advice]

7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (Obvious answer: “Because you are an admitted liar.�)

1 Corinthians 9:19-22 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

Just curious, have you looked into even one commentary on these passages? For that matter, have you even read the entire letter to see what context in which they lie?

RESPONSE: Yep! Been there, done that.

When someone tries to tell me that some writing "when viewed in context" means something entirely different that what it plainly says, I know I'm getting a snow job. How about you?

Did you ever read the story about the Vietnam era Air Force pilot who was given a tour of the plant that made his jet fighter (which almost got him killed) and he remarked that he wished he could find the worker who made it because he wanted to ring his neck?

Later, the PR man speaking to the press told them that the pilot "when speaking in context" he was very vocal about of the fine workmanship that had gone into his jet fighter and wanted to give the mechanic a firm pat on the back!

For a present day example see: http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-206962.html

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

We know that no one can walk on water unless we are talking about someone swimming; we know that no one can perform miracles or survive being dead after three days, so we know that an historical Jesus would be very different from the one written about in the NT.

It seems to me that the writers of the NT were concerned about a spiritual change in people more than about hoping/causing people to believe in fantastic tales; in other words, there may have been an historical Jesus, but his life was co-opted and exaggerated by adding miracles in order for people to pay attention to the meaning behind the teachings.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

We know that no one can walk on water unless we are talking about someone swimming; we know that no one can perform miracles or survive being dead after three days, so we know that an historical Jesus would be very different from the one written about in the NT.

It seems to me that the writers of the NT were concerned about a spiritual change in people more than about hoping/causing people to believe in fantastic tales; in other words, there may have been an historical Jesus, but his life was co-opted and exaggerated by adding miracles in order for people to pay attention to the meaning behind the teachings.

RESPONSE;

Aren't we supposeto believe in the miracles of Christ as proof of divinity?

The issue is if these miracles happened and are then historical, or they didn't really happen and are not historical.

Hence the Christ of faith, but not of history (if they didn't actually happen), hence the distinction.

[oldbadger]

Aren't we supposeto believe in the miracles of Christ as proof of divinity?

Hi...... only Christians! No other religion accepts 'Christ', they only accept Jesus as a prophet. But if anybody knows better then I need to hear about it.

The issue is if these miracles happened and are then historical, or they didn't really happen and are not historical.

Although I only believe that Jesus picked up John-t-B's mission and carried it on for nearly a year, I do believe that nearly all of the miracles in G-Mark did happen, but that they were exaggerated into miracles by avid evangelistic hyperbole. But no real miracles ever happened, only remarkable actions.

Hence the Christ of faith, but not of history (if they didn't actually happen), hence the distinction.

Faith is fine as long as it is not dangerous, controlling, hypocritical and hateful, but many Christians do want to extend their own personal beliefs into the entire populations of their countries, and produce some quite wicked ideas.

I would exclude JWs from that assessment because they do not force their own codes upon others, only introducing their faith to the people.

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 2 by polonius.advice]

proof of divinity?

It is how the authors choose to put weight upon the teachings. If you want someone to listen to something, you might add, hey, "this is from God." I am not trying to be funny or light. I think there are some important "spiritual" teachings in the NT which have been beneficial to me, and we might discuss those under another thread. For me, it is not necissary to believe that fantastic tales actually happened for the value of a teaching to change my life for the good.

I don't believe in miracles or hell, but I do believe that there is such a thing as peace in one's mind and spirit, and that starts by treating others like human beings--especially those who seem to have less a voice in society than others. Although I think there are contradictions in the NT, the major theme of Jesus' teachings are humanitarian in nature, and I for one, reading and thinking on "some" of the passages have become a better person for it. To me that is what is important--not whether or not a Jesus actually existed.

It seems to me that the original purpose of Jesus (or the creating of Jesus) was about liberating the common people from something very oppressive: the Hebrew Temple cult. And, along with those practices, labeled sinful, which destroyed the relationships between people--which could other wise be sources of peace and joy--some of the teachings of Jesus were simply about living right with those around you.

My point is that these teachings seemed so important to the authors that they attached the weight of God, hell, heaven, fantastic miracles or whatever they could come up with to make the people listen. To them, for the people to be oppressed by the practices of the Temple cult or to destroy their lives by reckless living was far worse than them adding God, hell and fantastic tales of glory to their teachings.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

We know that no one can walk on water unless we are talking about someone swimming; we know that no one can perform miracles or survive being dead after three days, so we know that an historical Jesus would be very different from the one written about in the NT.

No, we don't know that no one can walk on water.
Miracles are happening all the time you just need to open your eyes.
Jesus understood the laws of nature. We can not judge others through our limitations.

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 1 by Monta]

Miracles are happening all the time

Maybe we should first agree on what is a miracle. Life is certainly wonderful; not many would deny this. But usually when we discuss miracles we are talking about something like magic--like healing people with the snap of a finger or someone coming back to life after being dead for a long time. The daily evidence in my life and everyone I know shows that magical miracles like those described in the Bible never happen. Now, a wonderful thing we all have, which you might refer to as miraculous--is our ability to think and come to conclusions by the power of thinking, It seems to me that if God used miracles in the past through people, God still would. Further, if God wanted people like me to believe in magical miracles which have no explanation, such a God of love would show me and everyone, but this has not happened.

We can not judge others through our limitations.

I am not judging anyone, I am evaluating and analyzing whether or not certain tales could have possibly happened. If someone told me to jump off a dangerous cliff and not to fear for my life because a miracle would happen and that I would merely float softly to the ground below--I would immediately reason that what I was being told was false.

Anyway, it seems to me, that the important thing is to understand the point--the teaching--of what the Biblical writers were trying to say. Faith in this sense is not believing in magical fantastic miracles but applying the teaching to our lives. As the divinity of Jesus was mentioned earlier, why is his divinity important? The answer: to save us from our sins. The sacrifice was needed in order to put an end to the oppressive Temple cult--to set people free. The end of faith is love--not believing in miracles or theological formulas which demand that we do.