Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Would the real Jesus please stand up
Who was the real Jesus, anyway? Perhaps, if you’re at all like me, you’ve struggled with this same question. You feel as if the church and your pastor are somehow hiding the real Jesus behind all the hand-stitched banners, large wooden crosses and out-dated pulpits. Certainly, there’s got to be some remnant of the real Jesus kicking around, beyond all this spiritual clutter – right?
I mean, Jesus was a man. A living, breathing, thinking, feeling man. Certainly he could tell me what this life is all about and how I am meant to live. Knowing that man has got to be the key to true religion – true faith. I’m taking a class that centres on this topic: the historical Jesus. Surely it doesn’t get any closer to the heart of our faith than that.
I expect that many of you have sat in a class here at Trinity and heard seemingly blasphemous words come out of your professor’s mouth telling you that Genesis 1 – the creation account – is fictional (at least in the historical sense). And I expect that many of you felt like your faith was being ripped from underneath you. Perhaps you even felt a little bit angry. Sound familiar?
Well, how would you feel if someone told you that Jesus very likely did not say or do half the things that the writers of the New Testament said he did? Getting squeamish?
What if I told you that the evidence supports this hypothesis? With a post-Enlightenment, modernist view of the Gospels, through the lens of scientific empirical method, you will find historical discrepancies. In other words, in light of modern scientific method, there’s not a great case left for the Jesus we’ve come to know through the gospels. Now I’m feeling squeamish too.
What does this mean for our faith? Is it all null and void? How can we reconcile truth and fact? Maybe we can’t. But, then again, maybe we can.
We need to remember that the gospels were written by first century Christian theologians predominantly living in the Greco-Roman world: they did not care about our post-Enlightenment approach to understanding reality. They didn’t even know about it.
The Bible is not a history textbook. It is a religious book. Its purpose is not to regurgitate fact. Its purpose is to convey truth.
You wouldn’t dissect Aesop’s Fables in search of historical veracity in order to validate the morals. A moral is a moral. A truth is a truth. Not to say facts and truth cannot walk hand-in-hand, but they needn’t be co-requisites.
So, if you happen to take a class on the historical Jesus, and your professor happens to let you in on the widely-accepted scholarship which says that Jesus never really talked to that adulterous woman and never really said to those Pharisees, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” remember this one thing: it is all speculation.
Just because the story does not “fit” into the writing style of the Apostle John doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You cannot prove nor disprove what Jesus said or did, just like you cannot prove or disprove the creation account. Ultimately, you’re going to have to live by faith, regardless of modern scholarship.
I went into this class hoping to discover the historical Jesus and, consequently, discover what it really means to be a follower of Christ. All it has really taught me is that the historical Jesus is dead. Now I can breathe a sigh of relief and return my attention to the living Christ – Jesus, the Son of Man, the Messiah, the Son of God, my Lord – regardless of what those titles “really” mean.
I’m having a little bit of a hard time understanding this “it is all speculation” in light of this “What if I told you that the evidence supports this hypothesis?”
I’m not saying I think the Enlightenment search for the historical Jesus is all perfect and great, I think we just ought to be careful about categorizing everything that is said as speculation.
Also, do we really need to pit faith against scholarship? “Ultimately, you’re going to have to live by faith, regardless of modern scholarship.”
But, it is speculation. They are just theories. Yes, sometimes convincing ones, and there may be some truth to them, but there’s no reason to believe them hook, line and sinker like is the case for a lot of students taking these classes.
I think April’s article makes a really good point. Trinity is all about deconsructing your beliefs, and this is her reconstructing them and holding on to faith, amidst the deconstruction. How many people have you heard of that go through classes like this that have lost their faith? If too much is deconstructed, sometimes you have nothing left. There’s not enough in the way of reconstruction.I don’t think April is rejecting scholarship, I think she’s rejecting the kind that seems to almost seek to usurp your faith by shaking up your foundational beliefs, especially because the modern lense we’re analyzing the Bible with was not present back then. There’s also much to be said about using the Bible for what it was NOT meant to be, which is a historical advice. Sure, we do get some history from it, but its meant to be a powerful, life-changing, beautiful piece of literature–not a history book. I think this is article is a strong statement of faith, because she is showing where she puts her faith and focus into, and its not in every passing Biblical theory–it’s in Jesus, no matter what.
“But, it is speculation. They are just theories.”
Is not the Christ of faith (of the Church) theological speculation whereas the former is historical speculation? Seems like one could easily lump dogma into the theological speculation of the Church. The christology of the early Church was the result of fleshing out Scripture, no doubt, into doctrine, but I’d still much of it is speculation, unless one holds to an Orthodox or Catholic ecclesiology.
“Trinity is all about deconsructing your beliefs, and this is her reconstructing them and holding on to faith, amidst the deconstruction.”
Is it really all about deconstruction? Maybe the first step of reconstruction is to be utterly deconstructed.
“How many people have you heard of that go through classes like this that have lost their faith?”
I’ve heard of many, including myself. Yet unlike some, I have not given up on reconstruction, but I also know that I needed the utter deconstruction so as to begin anew.
“I think she’s rejecting the kind that seems to almost seek to usurp your faith by shaking up your foundational beliefs”
But should we be afraid of a scholarship that seeks to deconstruct? Are we really that afraid that Jesus is going to some how crumble in the wake of criticism? Are we really afraid that God is going to cease to exist simply because our “faith” or more properly, our intellectual “beliefs” (foundations) are being questioned? If we believe we have the Truth, then the Truth we have ought to be able to withstand the intensity of doubt, criticism, disbelief, and skepticism that has been thrown in its direction since the beginning of time. If Christ is who he says he his, we needn’t be afraid of the most difficult criticisms…because they do exist…and people do believe them…and they will be asked…and they will expect an answer.
“it’s in Jesus, no matter what.”
…who *is* Jesus? :-)
It is about deconstruction and reconstruction. President Raymond talks about that all the time.
Don’t you see that this does seem to be her reconstruction?
Academics and faith don’t always coincide. Are you saying that they do? Also, it sounds like you’d rather chose scholarship over faith, or you think that scholarship will always, unfailingly prove the truths of the Bible. If you’ve taken any RELS classes here past 101 and 102, you’d see that this isn’t true. And yes, I do think some of the profs try show us facts purely for deconstruction, as a way of rattling our faith without helping us reconstruct it, and I don’t think that’s right.
If you want to explore all the new ways to tear the Bible apart, and you’re confident that you’ll find the answers you’re looking for, go ahead. I’d just appreciate it if you didn’t criticize the way some people have chosen to reconcile the conflicting messages they’ve heard. I’m sure this article was very helpful for people who have been struggling to answer how they can still have faith in light of what they’ve learned in the RELS classes here.
“Don’t you see that this does seem to be her reconstruction?”
I think it’s great that she’s trying to reconstruct. Isn’t that what we are all trying to do?
“Academics and faith don’t always coincide.”
They may not always agree in a one-to-one way, but that doesn’t mean that I ignore historical details or try to sweep them under the bush because they create difficulties for my faith (I’m saying this in general, not in reference to something that either you or April have/are doing). Like I said earlier, non-Christian scholarship is aware of the issues, but are we? If Christianity is true, it ought to be able to reconcile itself with the issues that are made apparent by examination of it. So my answer to your question “Are you saying that they do?” is yes/no.
Yes in the sense that we need to be aware of what scholarship at ANY point in human history has demonstrated so as to understand the biblical witness in such a way that doesn’t ignore the issue for example that Luke and Matthew don’t agree on the timing of Jesus’ birth, or the poetic nature of the Creation account…I don’t need to list them, I think you have probably heard many of them.
No in the sense that scholarship is going to say that the Jesus of faith is different that the Jesus of history whereas the Church would say quite the opposite (or at least some in the Church would say so). No in the sense that scholarship and faith are not always going to agree, but that means that reconciliation is still necessary, not unnecessary and pointless.
“Also, it sounds like you’d chose scholarship over faith, or you think that scholarship will always, unfailingly prove the truths of the Bible.”
Actually, no, no, and uh…no. Please don’t put words into my mouth. Thanks! :-)
“If you’ve taken any RELS classes here past 101 and 102, you’d see that this isn’t true.”
I’m a Christianity & Culture major, and I would agree, but I would also disagree and say that we don’t necessarily need to discredit the findings or the benefits that serious study does provide.
“And yes, I do think some of the profs try show us facts purely for deconstruction, as a way of rattling our faith without helping us reconstruct it, and I don’t think that’s right.”
(1) Do you know of any profs who have said that they do show us facts purely for deconstruction? Or is that something that you’ve been able to ascertain. I think you’d be very hard pressed to find a prof who deconstructs for the sake of deconstruct or for the sake of seeing freshmen flounder. (2) I don’t think its right either to deconstruct without reconstruction. But that leads me to the next point: how many people who have been ‘deconstructed’ (for lack of a better term) actually take the time, the effort, and the dedication to pursue reconstruction. And more specifically, how many people have actually walked into their prof’s office to talk with them about the ‘deconstruction’ that is going on (or what the student perceives to be deconstruction, but the prof perceives as getting people to think about their faith and to move from a faith founded on one’s parents, to a faith more firmly based on a personally understood and experienced Truth).
“If you want to explore all the new ways to tear the Bible apart, and you’re confident that you’lll find the answers you’re looking for, go ahead.”
Don’t mind if I do…with one caveat…I’m not intent on tearing apart the Bible. In fact, I’m interested in understanding what it is, what it means for us, who wrote it, when it was written, why it was written, and most importantly to whom does it speak of.
“I’d just appreciate it if you didn’t criticize the way some people have chosen to reconcile the conflicting messages they’ve heard.”
Who said anything about criticizing? I’m just applying what I’ve learned from my classes: to think, to question, to probe deeper into why people think the way they think and why they do what they do.
I’m trying to ‘reconstruct’ too. I have been journeying alongside about five other people who have also had parts of their faith ‘deconstructed.’ We meet and talk. We’re all at different points. We may not always agree, but that doesn’t prevent us from honestly engaging one another and their discoveries. We do this out of love for one another and love for the Truth.
Am I not allowed to voice my opinion?
“I’m sure this article was very helpful for people who have been struggling to answer how they can still have the faith in light of what they’ve learned in the RELS classes here.”
As I did…because it helps me formulate more fully what I think! :-)