The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith

[polonius]

Perhaps an interesting question that underlies Christian religions.

Frequently when a difference of opinion arises in matters of religion, someone quotes the Bible as if it were an inerrant document given to us by God. But is it? What does the evidence show?

Opinions and evidence?

[polonius]

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."

Thus quoting the New Testament as proof of some event is not really evidence of what really happened or was said. It may just be a legend.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 2 by polonius]

Yes, but the Hebrew OT is the same thing. A tenuous thing at best. No modern religions had hard copies in circulation(in whole) before 800 AD. There were fragments but not canonized version of other than Christian writings, as I see it.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 2 by polonius]

Yes, but the Hebrew OT is the same thing. A tenuous thing at best. No modern religions had hard copies in circulation(in whole) before 800 AD. There were fragments but not canonized version of other than Christian writings, as I see it.

RESPONSE: No. The Old Testament was translated into Greek (Septuagint) about 100 years before Jesus birth. The four Gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD.

Both are only partially historical and contain errors. So if all scripture is God breathed, then God makes lots of mistakes!

[Elijah John]

Perhaps an interesting question that underlies Christian religions.

Frequently when a difference of opinion arises in matters of religion, someone quotes the Bible as if it were an inerrant document given to us by God. But is it? What does the evidence show?

Opinions and evidence?

The Bible is not inerrant, nor is it infallible. Matthew 16.28 alone is evidence of it's imperfection. And there are many, many other examples.

The Bible did not drop intact from Heaven, but rather it was compiled over centuries by men, and the final canon was decided by commitee.

Not exactly sure, however, how title of the OP relates to the OP's question for debate. Clarification please.

[polonius]

Not exactly sure, however, how title of the OP relates to the OP's question for debate. Clarification please.[/quote]

RESPONSE "...Bible as if it were an inerrant document given to us by God. But is it? What does the evidence show?

That's the question.

It's a question of what is now called "historicity." How do we differentiate between just stories and actual history.

We all learned the history of George Washington's honesty - how he admitted chopping down the cherry tree. But on investigating the historical basis of this tale it was found that a doctor penned the line about 1810 for a children's history book.

Don't ever ask a Texan, but checkout the historicity story of Colonel Travis' "line in the sand" story!

[polonius]

Not exactly sure, however, how title of the OP relates to the OP's question for debate. Clarification please.

RESPONSE "...Bible as if it were an inerrant document given to us by God. But is it? What does the evidence show?

That's the question.

It's a question of what is now called "historicity." How do we differentiate between just stories and actual history.

We all learned the history of George Washington's honesty - how he admitted chopping down the cherry tree. But on investigating the historical basis of this tale it was found that a doctor penned the line about 1810 for a children's history book.

Don't ever ask a Texan, but checkout the story of Colonel Travis' "line in the sand" story. a big scene in the John Wayne picture "The Alamo."


"Traditionally, there were no survivors of the battle of the Alamo, but records of that period show that there were about forty (their names are listed on-line). Most were the wives and slaves of the soldiers, merchants, etc. One was a defender of the Alamo, a Mexican, who convinced the victors that he had only been a prisoner of war.

Louis Roses was the defender who left before the final battle. Later, the 40 survivors were extensively interviewed by the press and even, evidently, by a commission. None made any mention of Travis’ line in the sand.

The story of the line in the sand was first published in 1873 by a William Zuber, a journalist and historian, in a writing titled An Escape from the Alamo. It was supposedly based on a claim of what Louis Rose told someone who related the story.

Zuber later admitted that he had made up much of Travis’ exhortations, which obviously had not been recorded. In 1888 the History of Texas for Schools was published for all Texas school children that contained even further embellishments.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius]

What does the evidence show?

Not a single verse of "scripture" is ever shown to have emanated from any version of "God".

Which is what a number of you are circumlocuting.

Perhaps just come straight out and say it.

It's like ripping off a BandAid.

The honesty will make you feel cleaner and fresher.

[bjs]

Moderator Action

This topic questions the accuracy of scripture. The accuracy of scripture is assumed in the theology forum, so this has been moved to the apologetics forum.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[marco]

Perhaps an interesting question that underlies Christian religions.

Frequently when a difference of opinion arises in matters of religion, someone quotes the Bible as if it were an inerrant document given to us by God. But is it? What does the evidence show?

Opinions and evidence?

The writers may have tried hard to write a good story. The Christmas tale and the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam cause us to smile. There is not one single statement from Christ that carries a fact unknown to the writers but revealed several centuries later; that would identifyJesus as genuine. The background details of lakes, hills and cities gives the tales some solid credibility; but the deeds recorded are the wild imaginings of the excited authors.

We can trace Caesar's reasons for his actions, read the story of his wars and move to the conclusion in 44BC. There is convincing consistency; we have his enemies and his friends writing. We can believe he was born in 100 BC but without angels, and that date matters little. With Jesus we have blank followed by blank - all dates uncertain - a sudden wine miracle, a few brief passages, then death, resurrection and ascension of a man we hardly know. We have no idea of his politics, where he came from, what his strengths were; we have only palm leaves thrown at his feet. So the Jesus of history is a comma on a page of print. The Jesus people honour is anything they want him to be, and he's sometimes active today, not speaking in his native Aramaic, but apparently in good English, Russian, Finnish or what you will.
Inspired by God? Hardly.