Is the "Christ of Faith" an idol?

[Elijah John]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

[marco]

It seems that the Holy Spirit is, as the Jehovah's Witnesses hold, the manifest power of the Father Jehovah. In this, I think they are right. The Father and the Spirit are one in the same, one transcendent in Heaven, and one, immanent on Earth, in us and with us. One and the same. "Both" Spirit.

Well treating the matter as textual analysis, without placing credence on what is concluded, I agree that the Spirit is the inspirational power of the single God. Your interpretation is what one would take were one predisposed to belief in the whole picture. The important thing is the divine declaration that he's the one God, and it is wrong to worship any other gods. This would presumably include humans regarded literally as his son. Given the confusion, his words from the sky might have cleared matters up had he defined Jesus as an unrelated, but favoured, human being.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

Anything which is used as a medium between any idea of GOD (Such as YHWH) and the individuals relationship with GOD can be considered an idol, if not in most cases literally then at least in some cases, potentially.

Mediums are representations of ideas, so all mediums are essentially potentially idols when used by humans as interceding devices bearing messages from an idolized idea of GOD, to the individual.

The way around this dilemma is for one to understand that human consciousnesses are aspects of GOD consciousness and in that, the individual is free have relationship with the vast aspect of themselves without the requirement of any particular medium claiming otherwise in order it be positioned as the medium between GOD-consciousness and all aspects of GOD-consciousness. The understanding of itself makes sure that no idolized GOD need be considered a real GOD.

One must - of course - be willing to understand one is an aspect of GOD-consciousness before one is able to realize and adjust accordingly in relation to the depth, length and breadth etc that understanding is able to take the willing one.

One obvious obstacle in relation the the idea of YHWH as GOD, is the teaching that it is blasphemy to think of oneself as an aspect of GOD consciousness as this kind of conditioning works to prevent the individual from approaching such understanding, and learning of its liberating beauty. Thus - as a medium - such teaching points to a false idea of GOD, which as is obvious from the stories of Jesus, he was attempting to point out to the Jews.

The downside to being a messenger of GOD who moves people to reconsider their whole approach is that inevitably humans wanting it otherwise will create an idol out of the messenger in an effort to plug the breach.
Even so, a few manage to see the way through such barriers, in the same way the truth manages to not be completely obliterated by such mediated deviousness.

[Elijah John]

Matthew’s Gospel alone says that there were Roman soldiers at the tomb of Jesus. None of the other scriptures make this claim. And that was not what Pilot directed. It must be remembered that the Temple had its own soldiers or guards.

Matthew 27 -The Guard at the Tomb (NRSV)
62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.� 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard[t] of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.� 66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... -the-tomb/

“Rather the more serious difficulties with the story are two: (1) it is not related in the pre-Markan passion story nor in the other gospels, and (2) it presupposes not only that Jesus predicted his resurrection in three days, but also that the Jews understood this clearly while the disciples remained in ignorance. With regard to the first, it is exceedingly odd that the other gospels know nothing of so major an event as the placing of a guard around the tomb. This suggests that the account is a late legend reflecting years of Jewish/Christian polemic. The designation of Jesus as an impostor is in fact an earmark of Jewish polemic against Christianity (Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi) 16. 3). But perhaps this polemical interest supplies the very reason why this event, even if historical, was not included in the pre-Markan passion story. “

Did you accidently post this on the wrong thread? I'm scratching my head trying to understand how your post here relates to the OP, whether the "Christ of Faith" is actually (in effect) an idol and an invention. Seems this here post or yours which I quote would be a better fit on your thread "Are the Gospels historical or allegorical?".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by William]

I disagree William, with the very notion you are suggesting that any "medium" is an idol. And it seems that you are attempting once again to expand this topic beyond it's intended parameters. The OP is focused on whether Jesus has been idolized into the "Christ". NOT "what is an idol?", or "is everything an idol?". And by "idol", you include the name of God. Here's the difference. With Jesus, conventional Christians (Trinitarians) ascribe perfection to Jesus which really belongs to God alone. The Name is beyond such designations. Even King David who employs the Name over and over again in the Psalms (LORD=YHVH), does not worship the Name, but embraces it as an invocation in order to connect with the the One, the Source who is perfection. Trinitarians, by contrast, embrace Jesus not as simply a medium (the Way) but rather as the object of worship itself. They have ascribed perfection to an imperfect human being, and in the process, Divinize him, worship him, and preach him. As Thomas Paine put it, "instead of God, a man is preached".

They call this "perfect" Jesus, "Christ". But the real, historical Jesus never preached "Christ" (as far as we can tell). Rather, he preached the merciful Father, and His Kingdom.

[polonius]

RESPONSE:

It's posted on the correct board.

It addresses the lack of credibility of the gospels.

[Elijah John]

RESPONSE:

It's posted on the correct board.

It addresses the lack of credibility of the gospels.

So then, if you consider the Gospels as lacking credibility, is it fair to conclude that you believe that the "Christ of Faith" is, in effect, an idol?

Do you think the Jesus of the Gospels ever really preached the "Christ of Faith" or was he more concerned about the Father and his Kingdom? What do you think the Historical Jesus preached? Did the Historical Jesus preach the "Christ of Faith"? Himself? Or did he preach the Father?

Granted, John differs with the Synoptics on this, but how do you see it?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Seems to me (and I could be mistaken about their intent) that "Historical Jesus Scholars" did not intend to limit Christ to only what can be established via the historical method. Rather, that they intended to establish that such a man did indeed exist, shown via the historical method (perhaps in response to those who claimed He never existed to begin with). So they simply compiled what could be ascertained about the man via the historical method. Versus what can (or must) be known via faith.


This does not mean they are saying the truth is only what is shown via the historical method.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

Christ is not an idol.

But Jaheshua never claimed to be God Himself (JAH). To be the Son of God, yes; to be the Messiah (the Chosen One of JAH), yes; to be the Lord of whom David spoke (Psalm 110:1), yes.


He also never claimed to be just a man.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

Peace to you,

Seems to me (and I could be mistaken about their intent) that "Historical Jesus Scholars" did not intend to limit Christ to only what can be established via the historical method.

Some of the atheist scholars, (like Bart Ehrmann) would most likely focus on the "only", what we can know about Jesus via the historical-critical method. Others, such as the Theist Marcus Borg, would probably agree that some truth transcends reason.

Rather, that they intended to establish that such a man did indeed exist, shown via the historical method (perhaps in response to those who claimed He never existed to begin with). So they simply compiled what could be ascertained about the man via the historical method. Versus what can (or must) be known via faith.

And also that the real historial Jesus never claimed to be "God" and was in fact an apocalpytic Jewish preacher, "Jewish" being the key word. They agree he may have thought of himself as the Messiah, but not "God".

This does not mean they are saying the truth is only what is shown via the historical method.

Agreed, at least in some cases. HJ scholars do not deny the "Christ of Faith" but they do make the distinction between him and the historical Jesus. The Evangelist John, for example, does not make that distinction. John has Jesus saying "he came down from Heaven" and words to that effect.

Christ is not an idol.

When he is worshipped, he is idolized. In that case, he is an idol against his will and his teachings. Rocks are not intrinsically idols either, but when worshiped, they become such.

But Jaheshua never claimed to be God Himself (JAH). To be the Son of God, yes; to be the Messiah (the Chosen One of JAH), yes; to be the Lord of whom David spoke (Psalm 110:1), yes.

Agreed on the first three points. Regading David's "LORD"? Scant evidence. Even Jesus can be mistaken. Most of the Psalms support the idea that the only Savior David knew as YHVH, not the Messiah.

He also never claimed to be just a man.

He wouldn't have to. That is a reasonable, default assumption. Others have made supernatural claims for Jesus, on his behalf.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And to you, Tammy.

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

Peace to you,

Seems to me (and I could be mistaken about their intent) that "Historical Jesus Scholars" did not intend to limit Christ to only what can be established via the historical method.

Some of the atheist scholars, (like Bart Ehrmann) would most likely focus on the "only", what we can know about Jesus via the historical-critical method. Others, such as the Theist Marcus Borg, would probably agree that some truth transcends reason.

May I ask you to clarify what you mean by "transcends reason"?


Regardless, I think perhaps you are missing some of my point. In your OP you said this:

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

But this is not odd, because they 'realize' no such thing. Just because they have drawn up what they believe can be known via the historical method... does not mean they believe this is all that is true. Correct?

Rather, that they intended to establish that such a man did indeed exist, shown via the historical method (perhaps in response to those who claimed He never existed to begin with). So they simply compiled what could be ascertained about the man via the historical method. Versus what can (or must) be known via faith.

And also that the real historial Jesus never claimed to be "God" and was in fact an apocalpytic Jewish preacher, "Jewish" being the key word. They agree he may have thought of himself as the Messiah, but not "God".

I have to question this, EJ. I think you are giving far too much authority to this 'historical method' than is warranted. How can a historical method determine what a person thought about Himself?

This does not mean they are saying the truth is only what is shown via the historical method.

Agreed, at least in some cases. HJ scholars do not deny the "Christ of Faith" but they do make the distinction between him and the historical Jesus.

Or are they just emphasizing what parts of that person (they believe) have been established by the historical method (without stating there is nothing more to that person)? I apologize if I am not being clear.

The Evangelist John, for example, does not make that distinction.

Well of course not. This distinction between the "Historical Jesus" (one would think historical scholars would be a bit more accurate on the fact that this was never His name)... and the "Christ of faith" seems to be an arbitrary distinction that modern men have invented.

At least Christ is an accurate title to describe my Lord, and faith is praised by both Him and His Father.



(By the evangelist "John" I am assuming you mean the disciple Christ loved, the author of the fourth gospel, one of the twelve apostles and an eyewitness. He is simply giving us His testimony of what He witnessed; he has no reason to attempt to tell us about a person he never knew, or even a person that his contemporaries never knew.)

John has Jesus saying "he came down from Heaven" and words to that effect.

The disciple Christ loves (not meaning John) tells us what he heard from Jaheshua:

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38


You cannot really compare an eyewitness to someone who is attempting to establish historical likelihoods from two thousand years into the past.

But Jaheshua never claimed to be God Himself (JAH). To be the Son of God, yes; to be the Messiah (the Chosen One of JAH), yes; to be the Lord of whom David spoke (Psalm 110:1), yes.

Agreed on the first three points. Regading David's "LORD"? Scant evidence. Even Jesus can be mistaken.

So you agree that Christ claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah, but not the Lord of whom David spoke?

Or you agree that Christ IS the Son of God and the Messiah, but not the Lord of whom David spoke?

(Christ speaks as His Father tells Him to speak. He is the One to whom God told us to listen. So I must disagree with you that He can be mistaken, no more than God can be mistaken.)

Psalms support the idea that the only Savior David knew as YHVH, not the Messiah.

Psalms support the fact that David was referring to a Lord other than YHWH ('the LORD' said to MY Lord). Christ confirms that He is that Lord. Couple that with God telling us to listen to His Son... how many more witnesses are needed?

He also never claimed to be just a man.

He wouldn't have to. That is a reasonable, default assumption. Others have made supernatural claims for Jesus, on his behalf.

This is not the default position if He has claimed to be more than just a man, which indeed He did. If He made NO claim, sure that would be the default position (unless God said otherwise). But that is not the case here.

Regardless, my point was that it is not a choice between Him being either "God Himself" or "just a man". Christ claimed neither of those things.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And to you, Tammy.

Thank you EJ, and peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[showme]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

I think you are confusing the term "idol" which is an image, which can not see, hear, or walk (Revelation 9:20) with the term "god". The most common idol of wood, brass, or gold, being the cross. Both uses break two different commandments, 1 & 2.