Do Jesus-worshipers have any interest

[Elijah John]

Do those who consider Jesus to be God, and the worthy object of worship and devotion, have any interest in historical Jesus research and scholarship?

1) After all, how can one prove that Jesus is God by historical critical methodology?

2) And isn't it possible, even likely that the findings of HJ scholars would provide evidence that:

-Jesus never claimed to be God.
-People in his own day did not ever call him God or refer to him as "God".

3) Wouldn't findings such as this threaten orthodoxy, and the desire to worship Jesus as God? And standing to preach Jesus as God?

4) In light of all this, don't Evangelicals and other orthodox Trinitarian Christians have an interest in ignoring, attacking or suppressing historical Jesus scholarship findings or positions?

5) Or conversely, if you take the position that historical Jesus scholarship upholds the position that "Jesus is God", how so? Please explain.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

Yeah, Brown was, imo, mostly an outstanding scholar, but with some issues, his faith-commitments prevented him, as you said, from taking his research to its logical conclusion. That's one area in which I agree with the Mythers - that most historicists have in the past been affiliated with Christian or Christian-based teaching institutions, and even signed contracts that stipulate that they not cross the Faith Line.

Also, thanks for your insightful comment about L. T. Johnson - yes, he certainly identifies the Gospel Jesus with the Jesus of history. And gets upset with less historicist scholars such as Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, when they separate the pre-Easter Jesus from the post-Easter Jesus and point out the NT's parabolic and mythical aspects.

I side with Borg and Crossan on this. I believe in the historical Jesus, and try to keep and open mind about the "Christ of Faith", though I have my doubts.

Yeah, me too. If new data turns Christ Myth on its head, then I would happily fall back on the Borg-Crossan historical Jesus. I'm keeping it on the back burner for just that scenario, since it makes a lot of sense to me.

Re: the Christ of Faith - seems that the earliest and only report of it is from Paul's "seven authentic letters". We don't have any info from the Jerusalem disciples on just what it was that they believed - except for Paul talking about them.

However, Paul seems in accord with them as regards Jesus's resurrection. Unlike issues of Torah observance, Kosher and table fellowship with Gentiles, Paul seems to have no conflict about the reality of Jesus's resurrection. So we might be enabled to assume that on at least that one, single point, Paul and "the Apostles" were in agreement.

But as everyone knows, the interpretation of the revealed heavenly risen Christ was apparently vastly different, the Apostles saying that it did not replace Judaism, the Torah, circumcision, Temple worship, Kosher or "the customs" - whereas Paul thought that Jesus's resurrection + his crucifixion - = "freedom from the Law". I have no idea why and how the interpretation of a claimed identical experience could vary by such a degree. Maybe someone could make an OP/thread on that subject, because when I think of it, I just draw a blank.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Do those who consider Jesus to be God, and the worthy object of worship and devotion, have any interest in historical Jesus research and scholarship?

Yes. N.T. Wright is paramount, because popular, but there are numerous others.

1) After all, how can one prove that Jesus is God by historical critical methodology?

One does not; historical inquiry looks into events and "social atmospheres". The status of Jesus is an ontological question. It cannot be proved by historical inquiry. It, unlike historical questions like the empty tomb, belong (in my opinion) quite firmly in the region of faith: the early church believed he was God; unlike any other human being, he alone was resurrected from the dead; the gospels portray him as behaving with unparalleled audacity for a Jew. But these cannot prove an ontological confession.

-Jesus never claimed to be God.
-People in his own day did not ever call him God or refer to him as "God".

This of course discounts the fourth gospel. It is also guilty of what scholars call the Word-Thing Fallacy, i.e., that because the word is not there, therefore the thing is not there. The logion "Before ABraham I am" does not contain the statement "I am God"; but in the mouth of a Jew, it is hard to dismiss this as a poetic expression of a mere man's intimacy with YHWH.

3) Wouldn't findings such as this threaten orthodoxy, and the desire to worship Jesus as God? And standing to preach Jesus as God?

It is hardly a "finding". The gospels (and the problems here observed) have been around centuries.

4) In light of all this, don't Evangelicals and other orthodox Trinitarian Christians have an interest in ignoring, attacking or suppressing historical Jesus scholarship findings or positions?

Depends on the Evangelical. Just as historical research cannot prove Jesus was God, nor can it disprove. I think more sober-minded Christians are aware of this and smile at the sensationalist claims made (supposedly) on historical research. The real historians know what can and can't be proved by historical inquiry.

5) Or conversely, if you take the position that historical Jesus scholarship upholds the position that "Jesus is God", how so? Please explain.

I fully admit that the belief in Christ's divinity involves more faith than does the belief in historical claims: i.e. certain logion of Jesus; death by crucifixion; empty tomb; sensory experiences of his resurrected body by numerous disciples. However, historical research does prevent us from assigning Jesus to the category of "A good old fashioned pious Jew". I remain convinced of Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" options. The historical Jesus was like no other Jew in history: the prophets seem meek and mild compared with him.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by liamconnor]

I would agree that historical methodology supports the notion that early believers believed in the empty tomb and resurrection.

I do not agree that historical methodology supports the notion that early believers believed that Jesus was God. At least not universally. Paul's sect, perhaps, John's more likely. But not the Ebionites, not the early Judaizers, not the community which produced the Didache, not the Jerusalem community of James the just, etc.

They seemed to have believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but that did not, in and of itself, make him "God".

Yes, I think John's Gospel should be discounted, at least viewed with a degree of skepicism. It is an outlier. After all, where in the Synoptics do they make the claims that John's Jesus makes? The" I AM" statements, the teaching to pray in Jesus name, etc.

There are no parables in John, and not many pithy maxims, but rather mostly rambling discourses and lofty claims.

Something's going on there. Either the Synoptics or the GoJ better represents the real voice of Jesus.

I think methods like muliple attestation and historical, cultural context favor the Synoptics, and not the Gospel of John.

Folks who put forward the notion that "Jesus is God" as historical, or a claim that the historical Jesus made, are removing Jesus from his Jewish cultural and religious context, it seems to me.

Regarding the Lewis "Lord, Liar or Lunatic trilemma, both you and Lewis, (as well as apologists like Josh McDowell) overlook a fourth likelhood. That some of the claims that Jesus supposedly made about himself he never actually made. They were put on his lips by Gospel evangelists, especially John.

What is more likely, that a Gospel evangelist would embellish? Of that a first century Jewish Rabbi would claim to be "God"?

If the latter, why would any good, Shema-believing Jew listen to anything he had to say?