Clivedurdle

Phrase used by gdon.

If the common world view - and this still exists commonly - is that God sent his son to earth to die, and the thought scape includes ideas of resurrections and gods, is there not a basic confusion of real and unreal that makes the term "historicist xians" problematic? Was Luther a historicist xian? He believed demons lived above ponds.

It is historically recent - with the Renaissance and Enlightenment that formal separation of real and unreal has occurred, although there are probably earlier examples with people like Archimedes and Epicurus.

The Catholic Church has logically condemned the search for a historical Jesus because he is fully god and fully man.

There is a real problem here - I would argue there are very few if any historical Christians, because their definition of historical always - if they are not atheists - includes the supernatural.

I have not read any early christian writer who argued for example as cogently as Archimedes did, and although rational thinking is more common now, it is not that common on a world wide basis. So please, list some historicist Christians - it looks like an oxymoron to me!

dog-on

Clive, interesting dilema, isn't it?

Modern day "historicists" do something which I find very amusing. They use the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument.

I do, however, believe you are correct regarding "historicist Christians" as I have never heard an actual Christian demote the god-man, these guys are actually TJ'ers (Theological Jesus) as opposed to being HJ'ers, which is more of a sceptical position, though perhaps, not quite sceptical enough for some...

GakuseiDon

True, and the same confusion exists for how we use "MJ" on this board. In confines to the HJ/MJ debate though, I think the meaning is pretty clear. As long as we all understand what is being meant, then the debate can proceed. Outside of this debate however, I agree that different designations may be more appropriate.

GakuseiDon

John Shelby Spong?

aa5874

The HJ has already been denounced by the Church fathers, like Irenaeus, as heresy. Almost 2000 years ago, Cerinthus declared that Jesus was the natural offspring of reproduction and that Christ came into him when he was baptized by John, however Irenaeus considered Cerinthus as a heretic (book 1.26 Against Heresies by Irenaeus).

And Irenaeus ridiculed the HJers in book 3.19, "But again, those who assert that he was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son...."

It appears that no "true Christian" can be an HJer, according to Irenaeus.

Clivedurdle

Spong is probably an atheist xian.

It is crucial to be clear about someone's position on the supernatural or the man behind the curtain, as this causes real confusion.

Freke and Gandi are interesting on this as they argue that a mythical Christ fits better with supernatural leanings!:devil1: And surely a part god part man is by definition mythical?

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you please define what this particular argument is and then give us some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) who do indeed actually use it, as you say they do?

What "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology have you actually directly "heard"? That is to say, which of them, if any, have you actually read?

And would you be kind enough to list the ones you have directly "heard" who promote Jesus as "the god-man"?

I have a sense that you really haven't "heard" NT scholarship at all -- or that whom you've "heard" is a very very small circle of voices, and then only at second and third hand. But I'd be pleased to see that I am wrong.

Jeffrey

mountainman

It's also called "Follow the Leader".

Commentary on commentary on authoritarian leadership
by authoritarian followers descendant from that christian
leader Constantine, and his imperial scribe Eusebius.

Everyone is just a continuator of Eusebius via Bullneck's
stampof authority -- and did he hit hard or what. Bullneck
hit the easterm empire so hard, the dust is still clearing
almost 1700 years after the event of Nicaea.

Let's get real here Clive. The despotic presecution of the church
against "non-believers" has abated, that's what has changed.
They can no longer enforce the death penalty for antithetical
beliefs.

They condemned the search for the HJ because they
knew that - at some stage after the HJ is not 'found' -
the search for the Ahistorical Jesus would commence.

My opinion is that the search for the ahistorical Jesus
is destined for a glorious "solution", with all evidence
pointing straight at bullneck's innovative regime.


We should start then with that hit-man and rabble-rouser
the Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who is regarded as the father
of "modern NT Christological thinking".

Backed with the might and intolerant despotic regime of the
fifth century christian emperors, the bishop Cyrl bravely
refuted the manifest lies of the Emperor Julian who
had earlier written against the fiction of wicked men.

"Historicist" scholars who write on NT christology invariably
defer to the "Seal of the Fathers" (ie: the name given to
that murderer and terrorist boss, Cyril, to whom Sagan
attributed the burning of the Library of Alexander).

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

dog-on

Hi Jeffrey!

Forgive my unclear terminology.

In this context:

historicist = one who supposes that Jesus, (referenced in Christian writings), actually existed in some form.

historicist Christian = same as above, but also including the theological/supernatural.


Someone referred to Sponge...heretic...

Jeffrey Gibson

Thanks for this. But defining "historicist" or "historicist Christian" isn't what I asked you to do.

I asked you

1. to define "the man behind the curtain" argument;

2. to give me some specific examples of NT scholars who are "historicists" (and even better -- who write specifically on the Christology of the NT) whom you know for a fact indeed actually use, as you say they all do, "the man behind the curtain argument:;

3. to name the "historicist" scholars who write on NT christology that you yourself have directly "heard" (i.e., actually read);

4. to list the ones you have directly "heard" who actually promote Jesus as "the god-man" as you say "historicists" do?

As I noted before, I have a sense that your claim that "Modern day "historicists" ... use the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument", is as overblown as it is uninformed (much and greatly respectively), since it appears that you really haven't "heard" (read) any modern NT scholarship at all -- or that whom you've "heard"(read) is a very very small circle of voices, and then only at second and third hand.

The fact that you avoided answering my questions, and instead answered one that I didn't ask, seems to confirm what I suspect.

Jeffrey