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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Ok, cool. So just for the record, are you acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth (the man) as a historical figure?? Yes or no.

[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.

Ok, cool. So just for the record, are you acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth (the man) as a historical figure?? Yes or no.

RESPONSE: I'm acknowledging that that Jeses was an itinerant preacher who lived between approximately 3 and 33 AD, But he clearly wasn't divine. Nor did he rise from the dead.

[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.

Ok, cool. So just for the record, are you acknowledging Jesus of Nazareth (the man) as a historical figure?? Yes or no.

RESPONSE: I'm acknowledging that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who lived between approximately 3 and 33 AD, But he clearly wasn't divine. Nor did he rise from the dead.

If you have documentary historical evidence to the contrary, please present it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

RESPONSE: I'm acknowledging that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who lived between approximately 3 and 33 AD, But he clearly wasn't divine. Nor did he rise from the dead.

If you have documentary historical evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Ok, but before we get to the historical evidence of the Resurrection per se, we have some ground work to cover. Now, you acknowledge that Jesus existed. Now, please answer the following questions..

1. This Jesus that you acknowledge existed...is this the same Jesus of whom the religion of Christianity originated from (to ensure we are talking about the same person).

2. Do you accept the historical evidence which supports the fact that his (Jesus') followers believed that they saw him alive and doing just fine after he was crucified?

Keyword: "Believed".

[polonius]

RESPONSE: I'm acknowledging that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who lived between approximately 3 and 33 AD, But he clearly wasn't divine. Nor did he rise from the dead.

If you have documentary historical evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Ok, but before we get to the historical evidence of the Resurrection per se, we have some ground work to cover. Now, you acknowledge that Jesus existed. Now, please answer the following questions..

1. This Jesus that you acknowledge existed...is this the same Jesus of whom the religion of Christianity originated from (to ensure we are talking about the same person).

2. Do you accept the historical evidence which supports the fact that his (Jesus') followers believed that they saw him alive and doing just fine after he was crucified?

Keyword: "Believed".

RESPONSE: I can't answer your question until you tell me precisely which "historical evidence" you are claiming. (I hope it isn't 2 Corinthians 15 - but it is interesting to analyze Paul's story written 20 years after the event by a non witness with a Christian agenda).

[For_The_Kingdom]

RESPONSE: I can't answer your question until you tell me precisely which "historical evidence" you are claiming. (I hope it isn't 2 Corinthians 15 - but it is interesting to analyze Paul's story written 20 years after the event by a non witness with a Christian agenda).

Any historical evidence.

[polonius]

RESPONSE: I can't answer your question until you tell me precisely which "historical evidence" you are claiming. (I hope it isn't 2 Corinthians 15 - but it is interesting to analyze Paul's story written 20 years after the event by a non witness with a Christian agenda).

Any historical evidence.

RESPONSE: There isn't any historical evidence besides the New Testament written by non witnesses very long after the fact in order to make converts. That's the point.

Since you don't cite any evidence yourself, you are, as they say in law and history, " asserting a fact without evidence."

These are "dismissed out of hand."

[For_The_Kingdom]

RESPONSE: There isn't any historical evidence besides the New Testament

Can you please explain why the New Testament needs external sources to validate its claims?

Do you need external Egyptian source to validate the claims that King Tut was a boy King?

written by non witnesses very long after the fact in order to make converts. That's the point.

Can you please give reasons why you believe that the Gospel writers were non witnesses...or is the fact that the books were written "very long after the fact" one of the reasons.

If so, please explain your "very long after the fact" time frame, and where did you come up with it.

Since you don't cite any evidence yourself, you are, as they say in law and history, " asserting a fact without evidence."

These are "dismissed out of hand."

I do have evidence that I can cite, but again..ground work first.

[polonius]

For the Kingdom asked:

Can you please explain why the New Testament needs external sources to validate its claims?

RESPONSE: Kingdom’s post asked a number of questions. I’ll answer one at a time in separate messages or my post will way too long.

1. The New Testament was first written 37 – 65 years after the death of Jesus by non witnesses and contain a number of contradictions.

Introduction to Matthew (New American Bible)
“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

The gospel we call Matthew’s was written anonymously, and was named in 135 AD by Papias.

2. Of the four gospels “Matthew� probably contains the most contradictions and errors.

Example: The four evangelist all have the account of Jesus sending for an animal and riding into Jerusalem seated on it. Matthew tries to fulfill a prophecy which he misquotes introducing a second animal.

Matthew 21:1-11 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
21 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.[a]� 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,

5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.�
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

From a footnote to the New American Bible

] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Is 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zec 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).


Question:
Was this scripture “God breathed�?

(To be continued)

[dio9]

I am convinced the Jesus we know is the Christ of faith. This we know, The historic Jesus remains someone we know little about. Don't get me wrong , he did exist and work but the Gospels are documents of faith.