Richbee

"From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians," which aired originally on Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations in 1998, is repeated again this Easter season. It was originally intended to bring the public up-to-date with the latest "new and controversial historical evidence" about Jesus and the establishment of the Christian church.

This is a classic debate about the Jesus Christ of Faith, Vs. the Jesus of History. (Note this discussion need not be limited to the PBS series. J.D. Crossan has written many books and represents the views of many "skeptics". ABC News released “The Search For Jesus.” with Peter Jennings playing host.)

Quote:

For the scholars on "From Jesus to Christ," Jesus was just a man who preached about the coming kingdom of God. He was not the incarnate Son of God. But he had enough charisma that he was able to gather about himself a group of people who were attracted to his ideas, and who sought to keep his memory and teachings alive after he died. As time went by, legends began to develop as words and actions were attributed to Jesus which weren't really his. The new Christians needed Jesus to speak to their own difficulties, so they put words in his mouth or invented miracles to address whatever the difficulty was.

The views aired on "From Jesus to Christ" are widespread among mainline scholars, and they are the views typically heard on college campuses and in the media. Two assumptions are made about the life of Jesus, and they are considered such common knowledge that they typically aren't defended. They are: first, that the Gospels aren't reliable historical documents; and second, that there was no real supernatural element in Jesus' life and ministry. In fact, the belief that Jesus really didn't perform miracles or rise from the dead is part of the reason many scholars reject the Gospels as historical documents. One of the participants in the program, John Dominic Crossan, wrote in one of his books,

"I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life."

(John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), 95.)

If one begins with anti-supernatural assumptions, that will affect how one reads historical accounts such as those in the New Testament. (end of quote)Hotlink: Rick Wade

Discuss these and any more observations about the Historical Jesus and the Christ of the Christian faith.

Any fans here of J.D. Crossan? Jesus Seminar? John "Jack" Shelby Spong? Elaine Pagels?

Seriously, are there any True(TM) Christians here who can argue that the Jesus of history is the same as the Jesus Christ of the faith?

RUmike

My professor of a Jesus class is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar (since it started, I believe). We do a sort of mock Jesus Seminar in class, by discussing a particular pericope, giving things pro and con regarding its historicity, and then giving a color rating (black, gray, pink or red...and even "bright pink", "light gray", etc) based on all the discussion. It's a really great thing -- everyone debates, brings out ideas others had not though of, and all sides get to be heard. I think the Jesus Seminar gets A LOT of unwarranted heat for all this. Its main fault is that most of the members are on the liberal end. HOWEVER, anyone who wants to participate is allowed!! It is not an exclusive club. If all the scholars who despise the findings of the Jesus Seminar wanted to, they could participate and try to get their views heard, too.

Richbee

Yawn.

:0

The JS is so over and done. [period]

Now, what we have represented on PBS is public money funding heretics and ex-Christians (Apostates) like Elaine Pagels and J.D. Crossan.

They and ohers go on and on, without even one real Christian Biblical scholar presented to counter some of the odd ball notions.

I liked Elaine Pagels asserting that the Gospel of Thomas finding, reprsented evidence for another forum of or a different brand of Christainity, when in fact it was just plain old heresy. (Yawn)

RUmike

Why the hell would you mention the JS, then shoot down any discussion of it when brought up? Pretty rude.

Are you trying to say that the Gospel of Thomas didn't represent "another forum of or a different brand of Christianity"?

Doug Shaver

If one begins with any assumptions at all, that will affect how one reads any document of any kind.

For example, if one begins with the assumption that the New Testament writings are historical accounts, that will affect how one reads the New Testament.

post tenebras lux

Hiya Richbee!

When you were cutting and pasting from Rick Wade's article, did you happen to read the following paragraph?Can I ask you if you agree with Rick Wade on this particular point?

Sans historical backup, is your faith 'just another set of beliefs'?

Richbee

One of my points about the PBS.org is that with over 2,000 Biblical scholars, they could pick one from outside of the field of liberal Professors or Apostates FROM the Christian Faith?

R. T. France, a British New Testament scholar, has written,

At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.... Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts [as the Gospels], written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. Beyond that point, the decision to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by openness to a supernaturalist world view than by strictly historical considerations.

R. T. France, "The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity," Truth 1 (1985): 86.

Now a show stopper would have been inviting Professor of History, Edwin Yamauchi to add some "balance" to the Anti-Christ party.

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History? - refuting the Stacked Deck of Canards at PBS

Richbee

Robert Funk? I guess J.D. Crossan is an over lap but still a small minority of so called "scholars" on the JS.

Heretics are not Christians, and non but Gnostics would have "followed" the GoT. (NOT Gospel and NOT written by Thomas)

Richbee

Yes, I do believe in the Jesus Christ of History, and this is the same as the Jesus of the Faith, IMO.

F.F. Bruce addresses these points:

That Christianity has its roots in history is emphasised in the Church's earliest creeds, which fix the supreme revelation of God at a particular point in time, when 'Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord . . . suffered under Pontius Pilate'. This historical 'onceforallness' of Christianity, which distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of firstrate importance.

It may be replied that while admittedly the truth of the Christian faith is bound up closely with the historicity of the New Testament, the question of the historicity of this record is of little importance for those who on other grounds deny the truth of Christianity. The Christian might answer that the historicity of the New Testament and the truth of Christianity do not become less vitally important for mankind by being ignored or denied. But the truth of the New Testament documents is also a very important question on purely historical grounds. The words of the historian Lecky, who was no believer in revealed religion, have often been quoted:

'The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the ample record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortation. of moralists."

But the character of Jesus can be known only from the New Testament records; the influence of His character is therefore tantamount to the influence of the New Testament records. Would it not, then, be paradoxical if the records which, on the testimony of a rationalist historian, produced such results, were devoid of historical truth? This, of course, does not in itself prove the historicity of these records, for history is full of paradoxes, but it does afford an additional reason for seriously investigating the trustworthiness of records which have had so marked an influence on human history. Whether our approach is theological or historical, it does matter whether the New Testament documents are reliable or not.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/librar...i/ntdocc01.htm

Joan of Bark

Heresy and heretics ... oh, no, not those! Because we get so little exposure to Christians in the media. How are the righteous brothers of truth to get their holy words across to the public when these ... HERETICS and APOSTATES (oh, it makes my skin crawl just to say the words!) ... are actually allowed to counter the claims of the poor, persecuted Christians.