Finding the Historical Jesus

This is an blogpost that BK published several years ago. The original posting has somehow been deleted, but it is the original piece. Please note that the links are from the original, and the links may not all work as of today's date.

=======

Bill Tammeus, a columnist for The Kansas City Star, has written an interesting piece entitled "For all we know, Jesus may have been apocalyptic prophet", in which he opines on the work of historians seeking the historical Jesus starting with Albert Schweitzer. After noting that Schweitzer concluded (wrongly, in my opinion) that history can tell us nothing about the historical Jesus, Mr. Tammeus then makes a rather interesting observation.

The authors of [Jesus biographies based upon a search for the "historical" Jesus], it turned out, were using new scholarly tools called historical and textual criticism — ways to dig beneath the words to understand more about their historical context.

But there was something odd about the Jesus these writers found: He very much resembled them. This Jesus easily could have taught theology in a German seminary and fit right in.

In other words, historians looking for the historical Jesus inevitably found, instead, the historian’s Jesus. And that Jesus might not have much to do with the person Christians call son of God, lord and savior.

So scholars began to divide Jesus. They spoke of the Jesus of history on one hand and the Christ of faith on the other, as though the two had precious little to do with one another.

This is a remarkably accurate assessment. Marcus Borg, one of the scholars in the process of redefining Jesus, talks about his own struggles with orthodox Christianity in his book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time : The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith . In this book, Borg admits that he is not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the word. Borg is quoted on Faith Future's Marcus Borg biography page as saying:

When I was a child, I thought that being a Christian was about "believing," and belief was no problem. When I was an adolescent and young adult, I struggled with trying to believe, and finally was no longer able to do so. Now I see that it is not a question of belief, and there is much that I do not believe. I do not believe that Christianity is the only way of salvation, or that the Bible is the revealed will of God, or that Jesus was the unique Son of God. Rather, I now see that the Christian tradition—including its claims about Jesus—is not something to be believed, but something to be lived in. I see the Bible and the tradition as "icons," mediators of the sacred. The point is not to believe them, but to be in relationship to that which they mediate: God, the Spirit, the sacred. My own journey has thus been "beyond belief." It has moved from belief through doubt and disbelief to relationship. For me, to be a Christian is to be part of a community that tells these stories and sings these songs. It feels like home.

Apparently, Borg didn't like Christianity as it has been passed down through the ages, but he wanted to continue to be associated with the Lutheran Church where he was raised. Thus, being unable to broaden his mind enough to intellectually reconcile his doubts with the Jesus taught in the Bible, he began the process of redefining that historical Jesus in order to justify his "faith" in whatever it is he has faith in. By redefining Jesus as something other than the unique Son of God (as clearly taught in the Bible), Borg is able to create God in his own image. Or, to paraphrase Mr. Tammeus, "Borg looking for the historical Jesus inevitably found, instead, Borg's Jesus. And that Jesus did not have much to do with the person Christians call son of God, lord and savior."

In my view, Marcus Borg -- like all of the scholars of the Jesus Seminar vein -- is not really interested in the historical Jesus. He is interested in reinventing the Jesus of the Bible -- who is the historical Jesus -- in order that he can pick and choose from His teachings while still being able to sit around the campfire and sing "Kum Ba Ya". The only trouble is that the Jesus he is calling upon, if he is as Marcus Borg claims, is incapable of kum ba yahing because the Jesus of Marcus Borg was just another human being who could do nothing to save himself or Borg.

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe/BK: By redefining Jesus as something other than the unique Son of God (as clearly taught in the Bible), Borg is able to create God in his own image.

Where is that taught in the Bible?

Paul for one believed God would adopt everyone (or the righteous anyway) as his sons, just as he had for Jesus. Jesus was the prototype - the first fruits - for what would happen to all the faithful. Borg's position is closer to Paul's than modern Christianity is.

Joe/BK: In my view, Marcus Borg -- like all of the scholars of the Jesus Seminar vein -- is not really interested in the historical Jesus. He is interested in reinventing the Jesus of the Bible -- who is the historical Jesus -- in order that he can pick and choose from His teachings while still being able to sit around the campfire and sing "Kum Ba Ya".

Borg has done for himself what Christianity has done collectively. Christianity is not interested in the historical Jesus either, it is just interested in the Jesus it has invented, that it has massaged into the image that it wants.

Jesus instructed his followers to give away all their worldly goods. Christians do not want to do that, so Christianity has contrived reasons for Christians to ignore what Jesus said. Just like Borg, Christians pick and choose from Jesus' teaching. The only difference is that Christianity did it en masse a long time ago.
The Pixie said…
Joe/BK: By redefining Jesus as something other than the unique Son of God (as clearly taught in the Bible), Borg is able to create God in his own image.

Where is that taught in the Bible?

John 3:16 for one place.Matthew 3:17,Hebrews 1:5,Matthew 17:5, if you want more I can give you a long list,



Paul for one believed God would adopt everyone (or the righteous anyway) as his sons, just as he had for Jesus. Jesus was the prototype - the first fruits - for what would happen to all the faithful. Borg's position is closer to Paul's than modern Christianity is.

It is orthodox teaching to say we are adored as sons of God, Adoption ecclesiology is sophistical and orthodox, the only difference is Paul did not say Jesus was adopted.

Joe/BK: In my view, Marcus Borg -- like all of the scholars of the Jesus Seminar vein -- is not really interested in the historical Jesus. He is interested in reinventing the Jesus of the Bible -- who is the historical Jesus -- in order that he can pick and choose from His teachings while still being able to sit around the campfire and sing "Kum Ba Ya".

I had nothing to do with writing the paper, that;s all Bills ideas I do agree qiththis

Borg has done for himself what Christianity has done collectively. Christianity is not interested in the historical Jesus either, it is just interested in the Jesus it has invented, that it has massaged into the image that it wants.

There is a grain of truth in that. But doctrines that embrace you such as quire SN elements are not latter inventions, They were from earliest times, Jesus as Son, deity of Christ, death, burial, and resurrection. These are not the historical Jesus,by that I not mean they were not part of historical Christina faith they were there from the beginning and I affirmed their truth, But they are not part of the picture of Jesus that is possible to paint historically, These fall into Moltmann's category as history making." That means some realities cannot be admitted by historians but they are true and shaped the history of the faith,

Jesus instructed his followers to give away all their worldly goods. Christians do not want to do that, so Christianity has contrived reasons for Christians to ignore what Jesus said. Just like Borg, Christians pick and choose from Jesus' teaching. The only difference is that Christianity did it en masse a long time ago.

No Jesus never did that,He told a rich guy to give his goods because that guy needed to,he told another to give half his goods because he was not making a rule He was giving advice,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger