Jesus of Faith and Jesus of History

[vladthecossack]

To whom it may concern:

 Today in lecture, our religion class all but broke out into theological and historical fisticuffs over something that our professor proposed to us. It was this: the Jesus of our faith is a very different Jesus than what history tells us. This is specifically in reference to Marcus Borg's "Meeting Jesus again for the First Time." The big debate involves multiple disagreements between biblical accounts and 'actual history' according to biblical scholars. These involve such things as the Jesus Seminar, the portrayal of Christ's passion as very different, etc. So my question(s) is/are: with all these scholars claiming that history unfolds very differently from what the bible tells us, to what degree do we as Catholics acknowledge this history as opposed to biblical history? Can the two be reconciled?  Has this topic been formally addressed before? I would love all the (name removed by moderator)ut I can get. Pax Cristi.

God bless,

David

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

Well when I was a fundamentalist protestant I was told that everything in the Bible was factual history. When I was a Roman Catholic I was told that I could take some things metaphorically but other things had to be taken super literally.

I learned about the historical-metaphorical interpretation of the bible through Marcus Borg.

 

[DOShea]

Do some research on the Jesus Seminar, who the people are, and how they come to their findings. If they weren’t poisoning so many minds it would be laughable.

What you will find is that they are a collection of liberal theologians/biblical scholars who believe they have a better, more modern explanation of the entire life of Christ. In other words, they have a desire to mold the historical Jesus into what they think He was or should be.

They use a voting system, it’s explained right on their website. They take a statement and they take a census on who thinks what about that statement. For them to conclude “Jesus never said that” only takes a majority vote of this group, and POOF! Jesus never said that.

Does that sound like scholarship to you? Can you produce a single validly recognized group that follows this same methodology in, say, Physics? Astronomy? Medicine?

Imagine for a second a group of physicists sitting around debating whether Issac Newton said this, believed that, or meant X when he said Y? Or Teller? Einstein? They would be laughed out of the lecture hall.

Or an even closer analogy. Socrates. He, like Jesus, never wrote anything. All we know of Socrates comes from three sources, two of them his close students (who could have embellished the story a LOT, just as our Gospel writers are often accused of). So imagine a group of philosophy professors getting together and trying to make the case that Socrates wasn’t a good teacher, didn’t say half the things his students said he did, and didn’t die drinking hemlock but accidentally fell off a cliff. Their “scholarly evidence?” A simple series of votes. The majority thinks he didn’t say X, therefore he didn’t. Aren’t we so smart?

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

If you compare the Jesus you find in Mark and with the Jesus you find in John you will see doctrinal development, history and theology combined. Religious books are different kind of writing, these scholars are just showing how they were meant to be read.

 

[diggerdomer]

To whom it may concern:

 Today in lecture, our religion class all but broke out into theological and historical fisticuffs over something that our professor proposed to us. It was this: the Jesus of our faith is a very different Jesus than what history tells us. This is specifically in reference to Marcus Borg's "Meeting Jesus again for the First Time." The big debate involves multiple disagreements between biblical accounts and 'actual history' according to biblical scholars. These involve such things as the Jesus Seminar, the portrayal of Christ's passion as very different, etc. So my question(s) is/are: with all these scholars claiming that history unfolds very differently from what the bible tells us, to what degree do we as Catholics acknowledge this history as opposed to biblical history? Can the two be reconciled?  Has this topic been formally addressed before? I would love all the (name removed by moderator)ut I can get. Pax Cristi.

God bless,

David

The Bible is about salvation history. The accounts there may or may not coincide with our understanding of history. What we know of Jesus from the Bible, from a critical, scholarly, historical (understood in our contemporary sense) point of view is far less than what we know of Jesus Christ by faith.

We are free to agree or not with scholars such as those involved with the Jesus seminar as long as they do not present conclusions contrary to faith.

The two can be reconciled.

 

[vladthecossack]

We are free to agree or not with scholars such as those involved with the Jesus seminar as long as they do not present conclusions contrary to faith.

The two can be reconciled.

That was perfectly said… I’m actually quite touched. Thank you very much! That was exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Kamalayka]

Here is my advice:

Don’t listen to them!

Most of them are atheists coming in with the assumption that there is no God, no supernatural, etc.

Here is what they literally do:

They pick a verse from the Bible, then they vote on it to determine how “likely” it was to have happened!

You read right- THEY VOTE!

It’s a joke, and that is why most scholars don’t take them seriously!

 

[Kamalayka]

If you compare the Jesus you find in Mark and with the Jesus you find in John you will see doctrinal development, history and theology combined. Religious books are different kind of writing, these scholars are just showing how they were meant to be read.

John was written by the Apostle John (died 100 AD)

Mark was written by a disciple of Peter.