The Jesus of History or the Christ of Faith

[polonius]

I will attempt to write a thread which, depending on reader interest, might be somewhat long (or very short).

It has to do with the history of Christian religion in general.

Let me introduce it with a quotation from a more or less standard Catholic history.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

“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."

Being a history buff I prefer the historical approach.

Opinions?

[Divine Insight]

Being a history buff I prefer the historical approach.

Opinions?

This is a subject that had only confirmed my realization that this religion cannot be true.

Let's look at the "historical evidence" (or more precisely the lack of it).

The Gospels have Jesus going throughout the land miraculously healing people, and even raising some people from the dead. The Gospels claim that people from far off lands were traveling great distances to come to see Jesus because they had heard of his miraculous healing powers.

So where have we heard about this claim? In the Gospels.

Anywhere else? Nope.

There is no independent historical writings about people having heard of this miraculous healer. Why should that be the case? If these stories were true I would expect there to be historical evidence (i.e. at least some writings or rumors about a great healer named Jesus), but nope, no such historical evidence exists.

The Gospels claim that God spoke from the clouds, not once by on several occasions to confirm that Jesus is his son. Is there any historical writings that even remotely make these claims outside of the Gospels themselves? Nope.

The Gospels claim that Saints rose from their graves and went into the Holy City of Jerusalem specifically to show themselves to the people there. Has anyone reported having seen these risen Saints independent of the Gospels stories? Nope.

Paul wrote the some 500 people supposedly saw the risen Christ after the crucifixion.

Five hundred people? And there isn't so much as ONE independent historical rumor of this outside of Paul's writings?

It seems to me that there is actually overwhelming historical evidence that these events never occurred. I think that due to the extreme claims being made in the Gospels absence of independent rumors is evidence of absence of the events.

After all, if these events had actually occurred, we should surely expect to have seen independent historical stories about these events. Even if they could not be confirmed to be anything more than rumors they should still exist.

Yet we don't even have rumors of such events.

So it seems to me that this is actually quite strong evidence that these events never actually occurred.

In short, historically the only realistic conclusion to be had is that the Gospel rumors represent a very limited story-telling that is far more likely to have been nothing more than either total fiction, or extreme exaggeration.

[steveb1]

I will attempt to write a thread which, depending on reader interest, might be somewhat long (or very short).

It has to do with the history of Christian religion in general.

Let me introduce it with a quotation from a more or less standard Catholic history.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

“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."

Being a history buff I prefer the historical approach.

Opinions?

When I was a Christian, I understood that there was a pre-Easter Jesus and a post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter Jesus had a body and a human nature, got angry, got hungry, and physically suffered. The post-Easter Jesus became coterminous with God, had a spiritual or resurrection body, lived in heaven next to God, received prayers and would come "to judge the living and the dead".

Obviously, it was the post-Easter Jesus - liberated from the body and from death - whom Christians believed in, and still believe in - the risen Christ who makes his home in the hearts of believers. The pre-Easter Jesus was seen as exemplary toward showing us how a life totally immersed in God would look like, and the Carpenter-Sage of Galilee serves as a revealer of God's Kingdom on earth, teacher of parables, reform movement founder, charismatic mediator, transformative sage, and as having all the other attributes the Gospels apply to him. But the "real" Jesus who lives in believers' hearts each day is obviously not the pre-Easter Jesus, but rather the post-Easter Risen One, not the Galilean sage who died and is no more physically on earth.

(Personally, for me, this question has become a moot point because I follow the Christ Myth theory, which maintains that there never was a historical/Gospel Jesus, but only the spiritual, non-material, celestial, pre-existent "Son".)

[Elijah John]

I will attempt to write a thread which, depending on reader interest, might be somewhat long (or very short).

It has to do with the history of Christian religion in general.

Let me introduce it with a quotation from a more or less standard Catholic history.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

“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."

Being a history buff I prefer the historical approach.

Opinions?

I think people should have faith in the real Jesus of history and not so much in the legendary "Christ of Faith".

Hopefully this thread will provide more reasons to put more stock in the Jesus of history.

Woudln't it be great it we had a church called "The Church of the Historical Jesus", which preaches, (as Jesus preached) the simple love of God and neighbor without all the complex and confusing theology of Paul?

[polonius]

I think people should have faith in the real Jesus of history and not so much in the legendary "Christ of Faith".

Hopefully this thread will provide more reasons to put more stock in the Jesus of history.

Woudln't it be great it we had a church called "The Church of the Historical Jesus", which preaches, (as Jesus preached) the simple love of God and neighbor without all the complex and confusing theology of Paul?

RESPONSE:

Actually, there are two historical references (not scriptural writings) of the existence of Jesus. One is that of the Rpman historian Tacitus who reports that Jesus was executed by the governor, and the second is from Joseph reporting the death of James the Just, Jesus' brother.

There is another longer writing of Josephus about Jesus that has been highly interpolated so has very doubtful historical value.

Jesus was one of four "messiah-candidates" of his era. All were executed as insurrectionists by the Romans.

[steveb1]

I will attempt to write a thread which, depending on reader interest, might be somewhat long (or very short).

It has to do with the history of Christian religion in general.

Let me introduce it with a quotation from a more or less standard Catholic history.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

“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."

Being a history buff I prefer the historical approach.

Opinions?

I think people should have faith in the real Jesus of history and not so much in the legendary "Christ of Faith".

Hopefully this thread will provide more reasons to put more stock in the Jesus of history.

Woudln't it be great it we had a church called "The Church of the Historical Jesus", which preaches, (as Jesus preached) the simple love of God and neighbor without all the complex and confusing theology of Paul?

Since I'm a fan of the Christ Myth theory, I speculate that Paul's words were the earliest and they describe a wholly celestial Christ whose "incarnation", Passion, death and resurrection were real, but not historical, because they took place in the realm of the lower heavens. That's why Paul has no awareness that Jesus had an earthly ministry and never once cites Jesus's sermon on the mount, the parables, the miracles, the raising of Lazarus/the son of the widow of Nain, his conflicts with his family, disciples, and the priests, scribes, and Pharisees, his final discourses about the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world, his arrest and trial, his story of the Good Samaritan, etc.

However, if that's incorrect, then, yes, the Church should embrace the Gospel Jesus's mysticism, his protest against hypocrisy, and his ethic of compassion. One interesting book on this subject of "Jesus vs. Paul", although written by an evangelical-fundamentalist, makes some very good points -

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by steveb1]

Do you think Paul fabricated the Jesus myth knowing that he was indeed fabricating? Or was it all based on the vision that he truly believed.

Also, does that Evangelical author actually see a "vs" in comparing Jesus and Paul? That would be unique considering..and refreshing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

RESPONSE:

Actually, there are two historical references (not scriptural writings) of the existence of Jesus.

Actually, there are six historical references of the existence of Jesus (actually, there are more): The four Gospels, and both Tacitus and Josephus.

Just because Gospels are "scriptural writings" doesn't make them any less historical.

If you feel otherwise, then you are obviously partial in your consideration for writing this "History of Christianity" piece...thus starting off on the wrong foot.

There is another longer writing of Josephus about Jesus that has been highly interpolated so has very doubtful historical value.

Um, Josephus' account still has historical value...we (they:scholars) know what parts of the passage was interpolated...and when you remove the interpolated parts, you are still left with the historical Jesus.

Jesus was one of four "messiah-candidates" of his era. All were executed as insurrectionists by the Romans.

The fact that Jesus was one of four "messiah-candidates" would presuppose his existence, wouldn't it?

[polonius]

The fact that Jesus was one of four "messiah-candidates" would presuppose his existence, wouldn't it?

RESPONSE:

Er? The question being debated is if Jesus was divine, not if such a man existed. Jesus was one of the so called messiah candidates executed by the Romans as insurrectionists.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 6 by steveb1]

Do you think Paul fabricated the Jesus myth knowing that he was indeed fabricating? Or was it all based on the vision that he truly believed.

Also, does that Evangelical author actually see a "vs" in comparing Jesus and Paul? That would be unique considering..and refreshing.

I would judge from Paul's fierce devotion to his mystical living Christ - his sufferings, his danger-fraught travels, his sacrifices, his claimed absorption in the person and "body" of Christ, his Christ-based good will toward all (until they preached "another Christ", that is), his subjugation to the synagogue whip, etc., that yes:

Paul did claim to have real visionary experiences of his heavenly Christ. Perhaps, as with most such mystical encounters, Paul's experiences were originally undomesticated, raw, and ineffable;
then Paul pondered them, tried to fit them into a more psychologically religiously/socially domesticated format;
channeled what his visions told him about Jesus's heavenly incarnation, death and resurrection into more normative Jewish categories about a Messiah who had died, "according to the scripture", for the remission of humanity's sins.

The original experiences, raw and unformed, needed an interpretation. Paul's interpretation of the experiences then became his own, novel - "Pauline" - faith. So I think that both the experiences and their interpretive faith were genuine for Paul.

The paradox is that, while both Paul and the Jerusalem disciples shared an identical or at least similar view of their visionary risen Christ, their interpretive faiths differed wildly - with Paul saying that Jesus's heavenly death/resurrection did away with Judaism and the Temple, whereas the Jerusalem community's interpretive faith stolidly held on to Judaism, Torah/Law, circumcision, kosher, and Temple (a scenario that is strongly supported by Acts 21:20ff). A single, very similar set of resurrected-Jesus experiences, followed by two abyssally divergent interpretations.

Yes, I can recommend that book mentioned above -, as long as I caution would-be readers who are not fundamentalistically-oriented that they will need to wade through a little bit of evangelical "faith-statement-defense" and some fundamentalist textual reading. But the author does a fine job in delineating the almost violent opposition between the Jewish Jesus and the Jewish "renegade" Paul. He even "has the gall" to identify Paul with the Antichrist of the book of Revelation! So this particular evangelical author is not a standard evangelical in that he rejects the received tradition of the words of Paul grotesquely being given - because they are "the Word of God" - equal weight with Jesus's words and faith as depicted in the Gospels.