The quest to know the Historical Jesus has lots to do with the Divinity of Christ because both touches the same question of “who is He?”. However, since they both deal with the same question but on different aspects and dimensions, therefore either one will affect the other. It can’t be denied that both are important and relevant and neither should be discarded, therefore the question is can the two be independent of each other, and if not, which one should precede and lead the other?
The reality of the person of Christ must be based upon historical events and the actual person of Christ himself, not myths or fairy tales. Therefore, the Historical Jesus has partly to do with the actual reality of the person of Jesus in that point of history as well as the events of his life, which includes, of course his life itself (what he did and what he said), his death, and his resurrection. These three events are the basic things on which the Christian faith stands on.
No one wants to believe a Jesus who was only a myth, therefore the historicity of Jesus is of great importance. However, neither does anyone wants to believe in the historical Jesus that is purely from a naturalistic point of view. A naturalistic point of view would discredit the attributes of his divinity and anything supernatural of Him, which would include discrediting his virgin birth, his miracles, his resurrection, etc, making Him just a mere human. It doesn’t make sense to trust in a mere human as our Lord and Saviour. Therefore, the Historical Jesus is of great importance, but it is even more important that the quest of finding it must be first based upon the Divinity of Christ. The two must simply go hand in hand, with the latter leading the former and the former subordinated to the latter; faith must precede reasoning in this matter.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeletegood write up you have here. Hope you will continue to post more for the benefit of the readers.
As for the last paragraph, I would assume that it is more of a wishful thinking that people would agree to your conviction that we need to be assured of both the Historical Jesus and the Divinity of Christ. Since early times, there are people who would ignore or discredit one aspect of the historical or the divinity of Jesus but still believe that they are Christians. The Monarchians, Deism and Unitarians are but few of the examples of those who does not believe in the historical or divinity of Christ. And yet they believe that they are true believers.
Having said that, I agree that in order for us to have a solid faith, we need to be assured of both.
Hey Jason,
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, just the plain investigation for a Historical Jesus would only result on writing of a man likened to an investigation to the Historical John Calvin. With just a plain, untainted intention to search for a historical Jesus would result in just a man. But such a search may result in various questions that we can find no answers for as such questions are matters of faith. But wouldn't you say that when we search for a historical Christ with His Divinity in mind, wouldn't that make your search bias as we then would already have a presupposition and thus, the reconstruction of Jesus would be built on that presupposition?
Just a thought. Cheers!
Hey Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for ur comment.
To me, i personally don't think presuppositions are that bad a thing, especially if they are good ones. i think we can see presuppositions as guidelines to limit one's quest yet at the same time it allows great creativity within those limits. if you have a guideline that purposes not to compromise with the divinity of Christ, then when you come in confrontation with that guideline, you'll just have to explore another way out or an alternative creatively which will lead to new discoveries, yet at the mean time maintaining the conviction of the divinity of Christ. so therefore in my opinion, good presuppositions can actually encourage creativity and freedom to explore different perspectives.
By the way, can i say that a plain investigation for a historical Jesus doesn't really mean no presuppositions at all on their part.
Hi Jase
ReplyDeleteJust to add on to the whole ide of presupposition. You mentioned that it sets a premise for resarch and allow great creativity within its boundaries. But then when it comes to contradictory research and results we find ways around it? Isnt tht not ethical and even wrong on the basis of research and science? since in the end we need to prove Him, then the presenttion of purely objective facts need to be there. and then we find a reason for it, find the grounds to why the results present itself in a different way. That is the proper presentation of research isn't it?
The danger of finding wys round objections is that we cloud our own judgement in research.
Hi Lionel,
ReplyDeleteSo than what then would you suggest? you can't possibly suggest a purely scientific research along with all its ethics for the quest of the historical Jesus can you? Science can help explain a lot of things but definitely not all things right? using a purely scientific method will not prove the divinity of Christ at all as we have already seen in the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. By the way, don't you think that when they in their research come to contradictory terms with the divinity of Christ, they find ways around it too in the name of their science, if to be fair, it is the accompanying presuppositions of their purely scientific methods. in other words they are trying to put Jesus, the creator of the universe in a scientific box.
"Therefore, the Historical Jesus is of great importance, but it is even more important that the quest of finding it must be first based upon the Divinity of Christ. The two must simply go hand in hand, with the latter leading the former and the former subordinated to the latter; faith must precede reasoning in this matter."
ReplyDeleteFaith must precede reasoning...? You have faith in Jesus as the Christ, therefore you believe in the historical account (writings of witnesses) which support the existent of Jesus. It is true that rationalistic people push aside facts that support the divinity of Jesus...but may I say it is also true that believers of Christ also push aside facts that deny the divinity of Jesus?
Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but present blurry photos to boot!
If we can question these accounts, then why should we not question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.
Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts.
Of course a historical Jesus may have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every detail in the gospel stories occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.
errrr.... Just a thought, is it allowed (for class purposes) to disable Profile so that only students & "invited" people can access & comment on these blogs? Or perhaps it is up to the student itself where some can enable & some disable? Or not allowed to & meant for anyone to comment? No harm no foul asking... Just like Pastor Lim always say, "Asking only..." hehehe..
ReplyDeleteHi, Jason
ReplyDeleteindeed, i think you did a good job in explaining the historical Jesus and the divinity of Christ. However, just a thought come into my mind when i read your last paragraph, is that really a way that both of these two ideas and go hand and hand together?...(as what Bryan mentioned people might "bias").
If yes, I think we are no longer need to discuss/argue about it :)
I think you need to becareful with the idea of "Historical Jesus". This movement to critically studied on the historical of Jesus is base on human scientific methodology, hence denying any form of mtythological elements such as miracles, magic, supernatural power, and so on. As one reading the Bible, base on the "Historical Jesus" interpretation, it is full of myth and legend. So, if we are to suggest that both should be studied together, we need to redefine our understanding of historical Jesus.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I agree with Bultman. The faith Jesus is even more important than the historical Jesus. The reason for my bias is because our human methodology of studying history is limited with our five senses. God is beyond our human understanding at the first place. Moreover, the Bible was written not to give every single details of the life of Jesus Christ, but story of His life with theological teaching intention.
Hope my two cents of comment may help you in your spiritual journey.
Hi Apologetic Learner,
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting on my blog.
What can produce facts? Can science have the guarantee of producing facts? Take evolution for example, because it is so popular today, many people take it as facts today. But is it really facts, or is it ‘facts’ based upon faulty presuppositions. If it is, then isn’t it just another belief like every other belief although it claims to be based upon scientific evidence. What makes us think that science has the guarantee of producing facts? And what makes us think that hearsay has no chance of producing facts either? And even if we should test hearsay, why must we test it through the human scientific method which has no guarantee itself of producing facts? Perhaps the reasoning world has had the notion that the science is the supreme authority when in actuality, science is so limited because as all finite endeavours of mankind, it is finite. Science was not there either to witness the beginning of the world. Therefore if science were to form conclusion, they mount up to nothing but speculations as well. Or in other sense, speculations of 21st century man through the time-limited, time-bound lenses of science. Speculation is one thing, but ‘speculations’ through divine revelation (or sometimes I think of it as information from God above, who did witness it and not just that but was even responsible for it) which we belief that the writers were inspired by God is another, and could perhaps give more credibility than science from the below realm can.
When you say that “However we do have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus.”, may I ask on what are you basing this statement on? On the methods of historical form criticism? I personally think that form criticism has often been taken to an extreme and I largely disagree with it, especially with their “criteria of authencity”, and more particularly the criterion of dissimilarity. In this criteria, they discredit and render it as mythical or inaccurate anything of Jesus that has to do with the patterns of first-century Judaism and common tendencies of the early church. This method of proving is based on a very unfair presupposition and is no way to prove anything at all.
I think I can say as a conclusion that the argument is never ending, but we should come to recognize the limitations of human beings and their scientific methods. Therefore it also all bogs down to one’s choice, whether one wants to choose to have rationalistic reasoning be the supreme and primary authority over the mind; or to choose faith as the supreme authority over one’s mind.
Hi Cheryl,
ReplyDeleteya, i think that it would be good if the quest for the historical Jesus can help us know a little more about Jesus. however, it must still be subjected to the belief of the divinity of Jesus. Hand in hand but subordinated.
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! Good opinion.