Which version is true?

[polonius]

Perhaps the essential “truth� of Christianity is the Resurrection of Jesus.

We are told that there is a “Christ of Faith’ and a �Jesus of History.�

Into which category does the Resurrection fall?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

clearly the Christ of faith is all we have since the Christ of history ended when he was executed.
We can only guess what could have happened, how history could have been changed , if Jesus had not been betrayed arrested and executed but had lived and been accepted as a traditional historic Jewish Messiah , one who changes the world.
We can only be thankful for the continuing work of the risen Christ carried on by his apostles to the best of their ability.
We can only imagine what the historic world would have been like.

[101G]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

clearly the Christ of faith is all we have since the Christ of history ended when he was executed.
We can only guess what could have happened, how history could have been changed , if Jesus had not been betrayed arrested and executed but had lived and been accepted as a traditional historic Jewish Messiah , one who changes the world.
We can only be thankful for the continuing work of the risen Christ carried on by his apostles to the best of their ability.
We can only imagine what the historic world would have been like.

Greeting, not saying that your assessment are right or wrong, but consider this.

He lives after his resurrection, and we have proof of this in the epistles, (hard data) of the apostles, and disciples.

example it was Jesus the Christ who healed the lame man, Acts chapter 3, ater his resurrection. it's the Lord Jesus who baptizes with his Spirit. and there are many acts of the Lord through people recording. people who have encounters with the risen Lord, even today.

[marco]

Perhaps the essential “truth� of Christianity is the Resurrection of Jesus.

We are told that there is a “Christ of Faith’ and a �Jesus of History.�

Into which category does the Resurrection fall?

Well the resurrection, like Muhammad's Night Journey to chat with Allah, is not an event in history. It would be absurd for historians to name the claim in 33AD as a specific event on history's timeline. Obviously believers would want their beliefs recorded as fact but it is sufficient that people accept there was a Jewish preacher who walked around with a following of simple converts, one whose message was somewhat distorted and adopted by the most powerful Empire of the time. He would be baffled at what his words have become. The Resurrection, like the heel of Achilles, is a nice idea and makes a good story. So does the resuscitation of Lazarus, but that's not history either. People didn't think that bringing a rotting corpse to life was worth noting. A pity.

[polonius]

101G posted:

He lives after his resurrection, and we have proof of this in the epistles, (hard data) of the apostles, and disciples.

RESPONSE: No, we don't have any "hard" data only stories written 20 to 70 years after the event by non-witnesses.

Paul about 55 AD
Matthew about 80 AD
Mark about 70 AD
Luke about 80 AD and
John about 95 AD


Are you claiming that these are reliable historical evidence?

As one theologian/historian summarized:

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."

[Elijah John]

Perhaps the essential “truth� of Christianity is the Resurrection of Jesus.

We are told that there is a “Christ of Faith’ and a �Jesus of History.�

Into which category does the Resurrection fall?

The resurrection fallis into the "Chirist of Faith" category.

Yes, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead seems historical enough.
But belief and documented event are two very different things.

The Resurrection has not, and perhaps cannot be, proved or documented by historical means.

It is entirely a matter of faith, and as Thomas Paine would say, "hearsay".

[polonius]

He lives after his resurrection, and we have proof of this in the epistles, (hard data) of the apostles, and disciples.

Is this epistle (data?) really historical proof or wishful thinking? Is it supported by logical evidence?


No accounts of the Resurrection precede Paul’s 1 Epistle to the Corinthians written between 53 and 55 AD.

Paul’s epistle:1 Cor 15
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Question: Do you think this to be historically sound, or are there some obvious historical problems?

[101G]

101G posted:

He lives after his resurrection, and we have proof of this in the epistles, (hard data) of the apostles, and disciples.

RESPONSE: No, we don't have any "hard" data only stories written 20 to 70 years after the event by non-witnesses.

Paul about 55 AD
Matthew about 80 AD
Mark about 70 AD
Luke about 80 AD and
John about 95 AD


Are you claiming that these are reliable historical evidence?

As one theologian/historian summarized:

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."

History is a record. so are we to ignore what was written about it?.

and two, the gospels and the epistles was meant for us to believe. John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed".

this is an eye witness account that was written down. so not only by FAITH I believe, but written record of my belief.

[polonius]

101G tells us that:



History is a record. so are we to ignore what was written about it?.

RESPONSE: Only if what it says can be confirmed and is not illogical. For example, if I claim that the North beat the South in the Civil War because the North had jet fighters, that can be shown not to have been true or historical.


and two, the gospels and the epistles was meant for us to believe. John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

RESPONSE: Yes. my friend Ralph is writing a a gospel about himself being the Second Coming. It's meant for people to believe. Do you? Will you buy a copy and read it to others?

John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed".

RESPONSE: Really, who wrote the account?

this is an eye witness account that was written down. so not only by FAITH I believe, but written record of my belief.

RESPONSE: Who actually wrote it, when was it written, and is it in all four gospels?
And does't the gospel we call John's have Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation, the day before the Passover, and doesn't if omit any account about the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper? Do you consider this writer to be a good historical source, and the writers of the other three gospels to be in error?

And, finally, do your really believe everything you read without evaluating the source and the veracity? Do you believe that the writing about Washington chopping down the cherry tree is a true historical account?

[101G]

101G tells us that:



History is a record. so are we to ignore what was written about it?.

RESPONSE: Only if what it says can be confirmed and is not illogical. For example, if I claim that the North beat the South in the Civil War because the North had jet fighters, that can be shown not to have been true or historical.


and two, the gospels and the epistles was meant for us to believe. John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

RESPONSE: Yes. my friend Ralph is writing a a gospel about himself being the Second Coming. It's meant for you to believe. Do you?

John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed".

RESPONSE: Really, who wrote the account?

this is an eye witness account that was written down. so not only by FAITH I believe, but written record of my belief.

RESPONSE: Who wrote it, when was it written, and is it in all four gospels?

yes, that's right history is a record. and the gospel are confirmed for we have FOUR which collaborate each other. and we have epistles that do the same.

and Thomas is an EYE witness, so is John so is Peter, so is Paul... should I go on?.

there are a plenty accounts of the Lord Jesus in history.