What is meant by the jesus of history and the christ of faith

[PattyPryor]

I have to do an assignment for class. I read the gospel of mark and now i have to answer the question

what is the connection of the jesus of history with the christ of faith. I guess U don’t understand what is meant by

Jesus of history and christ of faith

 

[Rolltide]

I can’t be 100% sure, but the “Jesus of history” probably refers to an interpretation of the book from a purely historical view, using only what can be definitively proven. In other words, what parts could be proven as historically accurate without question by professional researchers. The “Christ of faith” would be an interpretation of the book from the religious standpoint. It would accept things like miracles without question on faith alone. It would be the interpretation of mainline Christian denominations, who don’t require physical proof of every single passage and event.

 

[Joe_5859]

This terminology is most often used by those who approach Scripture with skepticism as their beginning point. In their view, the “Jesus of History” is the actual living, breathing figure who existed 2000 years ago, while the “Christ of Faith” is the puffed up image that has evolved over those 2000 years as a result of “religion”.

In general, the people who use this term believe there is a vast difference between the two. In reality, it is a false distinction. We know that the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith are indeed the same person.

Unfortunately, a good number of high school theology books and other Christology books have adopted this language (some even use it as their title!). This is very unfortunate.

Consider what Pope John Paul II says about the false distinction in 6Redemptoris Missio:

1. To introduce any sort of separation between the Word and Jesus Christ is contrary to the Christian faith. St. John clearly states that the Word, who “was in the beginning with God,” is the very one who “became flesh” (Jn 1:2, 14). Jesus is the Incarnate Word-a single and indivisible person. **One cannot separate Jesus from the Christ or speak of a “Jesus of history” who would differ from the “Christ of faith.” **The Church acknowledges and confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16): Christ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth: he is the Word of God made man for the salvation of all. In Christ “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9) and “from his fullness have we all received” (Jn 1:16). The “only Son, who is the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18) is “the beloved Son, in whom we have redemption… For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his Cross” (Col 1:13-14, 19-20). It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance, whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history’s center and goal:7 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rv 22:13).

Thus, although it is legitimate and helpful to consider the various aspects of the mystery of Christ, we must never lose sight of its unity. In the process of discovering and appreciating the manifold gifts-especially the spiritual treasures-that God has bestowed on every people, we cannot separate those gifts from Jesus Christ, who is at the center of God’s plan of salvation. Just as “by his incarnation the Son of God united himself in some sense with every human being,” so too "we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in the Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."8 God’s plan is “to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10).

Good luck with your assignment! I suggest you start by saying they are the same person.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Jesus of History: A man who lived 2,000 years ago, was an inspirational teacher and preacher, was crucified, and has had a profound impact on humanity and history since.

Christ of Faith: God incarnate who came to live among humanity 2,000 years ago in Israel.

 

[Newbie2]

Consider also that there are WAY more “ancient” documents that exist that “prove” Jesus existed and what he did vs.well accepted secular documents, some cases in which there are only single copies.

Interesting that the hundreds of documents that exist that support the “historical” Jesus are not considered valid because they’re “religious” in nature, while a single secular document “proves” a historical event. Go figure.

 

[JimG]

The “Jesus of history” is the man that the Apostles walked around with and ate with and listened to for three years.

The “Christ of faith” is the man that the Apostles walked around with and ate with and listened to for three years, and believed to be the Messiah.

 

[annem]

what is the connection of the jesus of history with the christ of faith. I guess U don’t understand what is meant by

Hi–maybe I can help a little. The search for the so-called “historical Jesus” has been going on for about 150 years. That was when various scholars began to write biographies of Jesus. Perhaps one of the earliest was David Friedrich Strauss. He and other scholars of the new historical school claimed the bible was full of myth and therefore scholars needed to study it to find the real, the historical Jesus buried under the layers of myth. All sorts of methods have been used to try and tease out the true historical Jesus, including textual study, etc.

Opposed to this, of course, was the Jesus of faith–the one people have believed in for the last 2,000 years.

Martin Kahler wrote a book called “The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ” in 1896 which argued that you cannot separate the Christ of faith from the Christ of history. It was very influential but has not done anything to stop the unending search for the real, the historical Jesus by scholars who don’t believe in the Jesus of faith.

I’d be glad to give a more detailed explanation if you like,’’

God bless, Annem

 

[PattyPryor]

ummm thanks everyone but I don’t really think this is the idea I was going at. It was seeing jesus in history and chrsit of faith through the Gospel of Mark.

I’m a theology major but sometimes even this sites answers are way over my head

 

[mathteacher1]

Hi–maybe I can help a little. The search for the so-called “historical Jesus” has been going on for about 150 years. That was when various scholars began to write biographies of Jesus. Perhaps one of the earliest was David Friedrich Strauss. He and other scholars of the new historical school claimed the bible was full of myth and therefore scholars needed to study it to find the real, the historical Jesus buried under the layers of myth. All sorts of methods have been used to try and tease out the true historical Jesus, including textual study, etc.

Opposed to this, of course, was the Jesus of faith–the one people have believed in for the last 2,000 years.

Martin Kahler wrote a book called “The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ” in 1896 which argued that you cannot separate the Christ of faith from the Christ of history. It was very influential but has not done anything to stop the unending search for the real, the historical Jesus by scholars who don’t believe in the Jesus of faith.

I’d be glad to give a more detailed explanation if you like,’’

God bless, Annem

I am a member of our RCIA group and I have to present on the topic of the “Christ of Faith”. Last week someone presented on the “Jesus of History”. The above info is helpful – any more would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. T.N. or any directions to other sources?