| Historical Jesus Introduction |
| Historical Jesus . |
|
INTRODUCTION The first time I saw something called the 'Historical Jesus' (HJ), I thought it was in support of Jesus. Yep. Jesus truly and historically lived and died for our sins! But nooooo. That is NOT what they meant at all. I was a little surprised. In our little town, a local church paired up with a 'Q' group (who viewed 'Q' as the real gospel), and invited one of the 'Historical Jesus' professors to town for a 2-day presentation (Stephen Patterson). I thought ... well, it's at the Episcopal church, and not the 1928 kind either ... how bad could that be? Again, I was regretfully wrong. God Doesn't Do Miracles? The good professor began by defining history as 'no miracles'. I certainly didn't want to argue in front of the local church members, but it seemed to me that if miracles indeed 'happened', then by definition they would be 'historical'. Only by denying miracles, could one simultaneously define history as 'no miracles'. That seemed pretty obvious. And even more obvious, if miracles were from 'God', and one could happily deny them, one must also deny God's ability, or at least interest, in doing miracles. Goodness, that must be a real slap in God's face (especially since He essentially created history). But the good professor was fearless againt the Divine Anger that must surely follow. After the professor snipped out the miracles from the gospel accounts, just about anything else was fair game. His 'historical Jesus' professors got so carried away with snipping and slicing, that they had to vote on what might be left over. Jesus had become 'sliced liver'. Conflicting Accounts But in defense of the HJ professors, the 'historical' issue of Jesus has existed from almost 'day-one' and the issue is essentially conflicting accounts. Where was Jesus born? Who were his parents? What did he do for 90% of his lifetime? Where did he teach? What did he teach? This last question should have been 'the easy one'. Surely, all of these questions should have been pretty easy questions for 1st century believers. But it's clear that they didn't really seem to know. Then, there's Jesus' disciples. What were their names? Where did they live? Were they younger teens as would be expected of a jewish rabbi? And why were they following Jesus around? If Jesus was teaching them, why were they always confused (though again, continuing to follow Jesus)? If indeed Jesus did 'historical miracles', why were almost half of them 'disbelieving' by the time of Jesus' 'Last Supper'? Next, you have 'Paul'. Elsewhere on this site, we note that Paul seems to be almost militantly disinterested in the 'historical Jesus'. All he cared about was Jesus' death and resurrection. Done. Jesus taught something?? Paul even bragged that he didn't bother talking to any of Jesus' disciples until after 3 years ... and then only Peter and James (Gal 1:18-19: I'm guessing both were the only adult disciples, plus Jude who died). What Happened to the Gentiles? Finally, you have your 'gentiles'. The whole Jesus account sequence was almost totally 'jewish', with a few gentile soldiers and non-jewish women thrown in. After Jesus' exit and on the jewish 'Feast of Weeks', the Kingdom of God descended to planet Earth along with the Holy Spirit (this was promised by Jesus multiple times; see our discussion on Jesus' prophetic accuracy). The funny part, though, was that the disciples didn't seem to want gentiles IN the 'Kingdom of God'. AT ALL. Indeed, there were apparently no gentiles to be had, for almost 25 years after Jesus' death. Even when Peter had THREE dreams about gentile food (what a clue!), the jewish Christian leaders refused the idea ... Jesus' disciples! Only when James, Jesus' brother and non-disciple, turned to the greek translation of Amos 9:12, did it become obvious that the 'Kingdom' was meant for gentiles. It had all depended on a single greek word. (Or our hebrew-based OT wiped out the gentiles on its own.) Well, duh! Paul bragged that he had been happily baptizing gentiles for years ... apparently without any authorization from 'Jesus' disciples. Huh? Sooo ... who WAS Jesus?? Don't you see just a LITTLE problem in the accounts? I do. I'm just not satisfied with Jesus being 'historical chopped liver'. My goal, and the remainder of this section is to iron out 'approximately' what Jesus was about. And that's the subject here. (next page please). |
| Copyright ©, 2011, dmbarnhart |
| Prev Back Next |