Is the "Christ of Faith" an idol?

[Elijah John]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

[marco]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

Perhaps we get a better view of what happened when we look at the Roman and Greek pantheons. Christ's following moved house to Rome where they had household gods, messenger gods, gods of wisdom and beauty, gods of the sea, and gods of the Underworld and many others. So we find in the Christian Church relatives of the Father God; Jesus the son and I don't really now what relation the Spirit is - possibly brother-in-law or second cousin. Anyway through the ages the dearth of minor gods was felt and Mary became a replacement for Juno, quickly followed by saints of all shapes and sizes, including women. So the Roman religion was re-established but the new faith was called monotheism. To those asking the obvious question, the answer given was "a mystery", and mystery is defined in a special way, a truth beyond human prying but revealed in part by God.

Islam cleaned Christianity's Augean stables and declared Allah to be the only god, though Muhammad's veneration has touches of divinity about it. To them Jesus was a servant prophet, big in his own way but lesser than Muhammad and certainly not the equal or the son of Allah.

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The concept of the “Christ of Faith� as separate from the Jesus of history seems to be built on the assumption that Jesus is not God.

If Jesus is not God, then worshiping him in any form is idolatry.

If Jesus is God and approved of people worshiping him (as the synoptic Gospels record), then worshiping him is not idolatry.


(EJ, haven’t you asked this before? I don’t think the answer is going to change.)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

I never understood the making of a separate Person out of the Holy Spirit. Seems to me, if the Father is Spirit, as John's Jesus tells us, and the Holy Spirit is by definition Spirit, they why the distinction, if Monotheism is claimed? Even without Jesus in the equation, that makes two Spirits, thus two Gods. Add Jesus, it becomes three, in this "mystery".

Perhaps the Father was more antropromorphized once upon a time (Old Testament and pre-Johannine times) than we realize, and so a distinction was felt necessary.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The concept of the “Christ of Faith� as separate from the Jesus of history seems to be built on the assumption that Jesus is not God.

If Jesus is not God, then worshiping him in any form is idolatry.

If Jesus is God and approved of people worshiping him (as the synoptic Gospels record), then worshiping him is not idolatry.


(EJ, haven’t you asked this before? I don’t think the answer is going to change.)

Then it seems the apologist has a lot invested in the notion that "Jesus is God". If God is as concerned with orthodoxy (right belief) as apologists suggest, then there is a lot at stake in "getting it right".

The apologist may have convinced him or herself that "Jesus is God", but not so much with us skeptics. There is scant evidence in the Scriptures, and in fact it seems more evidence to the contrary.

The Scripture repeatedly says that Jesus is a man, (Acts 2.22-24, 1 Timothy 2.5, etc.) yet the apologist says, "see, there, it says that Jesus is God". And we shrug, not seeing it.

Yes, I have asked variations on this question before...but the matter is far from settled. We are not beholden to the dictates of Church Councils here on this site.

[marco]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

I never understood the making of a separate Person out of the Holy Spirit. Seems to me, if the Father is Spirit, as John's Jesus tells us, and the Holy Spirit is by definition Spirit, they why the distinction, if Monotheism is claimed? Even without Jesus in the equation, that makes two Spirits, thus two Gods. Add Jesus, it becomes three, in this "mystery".

Perhaps the Father was more antropromorphized once upon a time (Old Testament and pre-Johannine times) than we realize, and so a distinction was felt necessary.

Those who defined the Trinity doctrine didn't have reason on their side. It is called the "mystery of the Trinity" which in other words means the mess. It is fortunate that Jesus didn't name a group of other supernatural entities else the pantheon would have increased monthotheisticaly.One would have supposed that the Holy Spirit aided Jesus, but he consistently attributes his powers to the Father. The "descent" of the Holy Spirit is just a manifestation of the Father's power.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

I never understood the making of a separate Person out of the Holy Spirit. Seems to me, if the Father is Spirit, as John's Jesus tells us, and the Holy Spirit is by definition Spirit, they why the distinction, if Monotheism is claimed? Even without Jesus in the equation, that makes two Spirits, thus two Gods. Add Jesus, it becomes three, in this "mystery".

Perhaps the Father was more antropromorphized once upon a time (Old Testament and pre-Johannine times) than we realize, and so a distinction was felt necessary.

Those who defined the Trinity doctrine didn't have reason on their side. It is called the "mystery of the Trinity" which in other words means the mess. It is fortunate that Jesus didn't name a group of other supernatural entities else the pantheon would have increased monthotheisticaly.One would have supposed that the Holy Spirit aided Jesus, but he consistently attributes his powers to the Father. The "descent" of the Holy Spirit is just a manifestation of the Father's power.

It seems that the Holy Spirit is, as the Jehovah's Witnesses hold, the manifest power of the Father Jehovah. In this, I think they are right. The Father and the Spirit are one in the same, one trancendent in Heaven, and one, immanent on Earth, in us and with us. One and the same. "Both" Spirit.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The concept of the “Christ of Faith� as separate from the Jesus of history seems to be built on the assumption that Jesus is not God.

Or maybe it's not an assumption, but simply the honest conclusion to which their research has led.

If Jesus is not God, then worshiping him in any form is idolatry.

It would seem that such would be the case. At least a "soft" idolatry. I appreciate your honesty about the implications. Seems there is a lot invested, and a lot at stake.

If Jesus is God and approved of people worshiping him (as the synoptic Gospels record), then worshiping him is not idolatry.

I have to admit, I think that is the apologist's best argument. It almost seems as though the Synoptic Evangelists held this position, but were afraid to come right out and say it. And instead, had Jesus accept the devotion and make the argument by example. And the Evangelist's Jesus seems to have missed a teaching opportunity here, to re-affirm absolute, Shema-monotheism, and instead accepted devotion, if not actual worship.

But the Evangelist's are known to have taken poetic licence. And if they put word on Jesus lips, then perhaps they attributed actions to him as well. Seems very likely. And very UN-likely that a first century Jewish preacher accepted worship reserved for God alone. Remember, Jesus affirmed the Shema in the Gospel of Mark, the earliest Gospel. That affimation seems to have vanished in subsequent Gospels.

[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."

From Wikipedia:

Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:
1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

Evidently, each person can hold the view he likes!

[polonius]

Matthew’s Gospel alone says that there were Roman soldiers at the tomb of Jesus. None of the other scriptures make this claim. And that was not what Pilot directed. It must be remembered that the Temple had its own soldiers or guards.

Matthew 27 -The Guard at the Tomb (NRSV)
62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.� 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard[t] of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.� 66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... -the-tomb/

“Rather the more serious difficulties with the story are two: (1) it is not related in the pre-Markan passion story nor in the other gospels, and (2) it presupposes not only that Jesus predicted his resurrection in three days, but also that the Jews understood this clearly while the disciples remained in ignorance. With regard to the first, it is exceedingly odd that the other gospels know nothing of so major an event as the placing of a guard around the tomb. This suggests that the account is a late legend reflecting years of Jewish/Christian polemic. The designation of Jesus as an impostor is in fact an earmark of Jewish polemic against Christianity (Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi) 16. 3). But perhaps this polemical interest supplies the very reason why this event, even if historical, was not included in the pre-Markan passion story. “