The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  In the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "Historical Jesus," a side question.

  Let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical Gospels are not historical accounts of Jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of Christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but I'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.

  What do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of Christian faith:

  1. that there was no "historical Jesus" at all, and that the Gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the Word made flesh" so to say;

  or:

  2. that there was a "historical Jesus" completely different from the Christian Saviour -- for example, a Galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the Roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e. essentially Gentile) religion -- and that the Gospels (and the whole of Christian faith) actually misrepresent him and his views?

  I'm not saying those are the only two possible options, nor do I wish to discuss which of them is the more likely from a historical standpoint. I'm just asking which is the more tolerable, or untolerable, from a believer's perspective.

  If you say "none" you just choose not to play (which is your right of course).
• 

  nvrgnbk

  May God have mercy upon your soul for your blasphemies.
• 

  Double Edge

  I'm just asking which is the more tolerable, or untolerable, from a believer's perspective .

  I would think that only those two choices could be made from a "passive" believer rather then one who has had a genuine spiritual experience that confirms their faith. It would seem that for a passive believer either choice might be a big deal for the short term, but ultimately they would move on with an attitude of "whatever" and "what's next".
• 

  Leolaia

  It strikes me that one could theoretically endose (2) -- rejecting (1) -- and still believe that God worked in his own way through Jesus, tho unbeknownst to him. Couldn't one provisionally suppose that Jesus had no clue of his role in the "divine drama" but that the Holy Spirit later revealed the "true significance" of his life to the disciples, regardless of what Jesus himself thought? I think theology is flexible enough to theoretically allow this, even if it is not representative of Paul's views or those of the evangelists.
• 

  lovelylil

  Narkissos,

  I'll bite. I will say from THIS believers view #2 would be more tolerable.

  Disclaimer: Now, I am not saying I believe this to be true. But just what would be more tolerable for me as a follower of Jesus is to believe that Jesus was not a complete myth but that our modern view of him was shaped by the Christian church. So please fellow Christians, do not jump on me. I am simply playing along with Narkissos here.

  I also noted in another thread that dawg started addressed to Bible Believers that even though the bible is filled with allegories, some myth, illustrations, poetry, history, etc. (an ecclectic mix of books), and IF someone believed it was not inspired by God, it would still have merit as an ancient book of wisdom because it teaches literal truths that are practical for every day life, even in our modern times.

  And I could feel the same way about Jesus. I personally accept him as God. But even if I were to view him as just a prophet, good teacher or Rabbi, as many non-Christians do, his teachings would have merit for me and for the world in general. Because I find the principles found in his teachings to be very wise, sound and valid. And so did people like Ghandi and the Dali Llama. Peace, Lilly
• 

  nvrgnbk

  but ultimately they would move on with an attitude of "whatever"

  Isn't that the attitude of all believers when the facts don't support their beliefs?
• 

  MissingLink

  Personally I don't care either way. I just want "the truth" and some closure here.
• 

  SirNose586

  Well #2 would be better, of course....you would feel quite the fool for putting faith in an elaborate myth.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  If there was no historic Jesus (an idea that I reject outright due to the evidence), then there was no resurrection. If there was no resurrection, then I might as well find something else to do on Sunday mornings. What is more, if there is no historic Jesus and by extension no resurrection, then I have no choice but to be an atheist. What is more, I would not spend my time trying to convince others of their folly in believing in a non-historical Jesus. Since there is no afterlife, why waste time on them? Which is a question I continually ask myself when I read the posts of the anti-theists that inhabit this board.

  Secondly, if there was no historical Jesus, I would not wrap myself in a mythical Christ, as some of the humanistic Christians on this board do. Again, why waste your time believing in something that is not true?

  Neither would be tolerable. I guess I am one Christian that would not say "whatever" but instead live my beliefs out. Because as Paul said, if Christ did not raise from the dead then party on dudes (Bill & Ted's Version of 1 Corinthians 15, however I am being redundant, and I need to move on.
• 

  lovelylil

  Boy, am I glad I wrote that Disclaimer.

  For me Narkissos' Q is a big "IF" because I also accept the biblical evidence that the Jesus of the Christian faith does exist in the sense that we believers say he does. However, it does not bother my conscience in the least bit to just play along with this hypothetical Q. I doubt anyone who KNEW me in person would EVER say that I did not live my faith. On the contrary, I am probably one of the stonger defenders of the Christian faith on this board.

  Peace, Lilly