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?

[polonius]

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.

RESPONSE: But not factual history. That's the point.