Historical Jesus

[Galloglasses]

No, i mean, he's asked the Historical Jesus question in four topics which I had to topic hop with the same arguement to stop him argueing someone else into the ground with a question that was already answered.

I also just realised he's very good at changing the subject. I've fallen for it several times now @_@

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1586247' date='Jun 29 2008, 11:38 AM']No, i mean, he's asked the Historical Jesus question in four topics which I had to topic hop with the same arguement to stop him argueing someone else into the ground with a question that was already answered.

I also just realised he's very good at changing the subject. I've fallen for it several times now @_@[/quote]

When I was in Scotland I got into a great debate with a few athiests in the bar in the basement of the hostel I was staying at (which in the greatest irony the hostel used to be an old Church...with a steeple and stained glass and everything). They just kept laying out the same unfounded proposition that Christ utterly did not exist. But they had no 'evidence' that he didnt' exist. I mean by their logic we cannot really know ANYTHING about the past or present for that matter with any substantial veracity. Socrates may not have really existed...he may have been the whimsical creation of Plato and everyone just fell for it!!!!!

[Galloglasses]

I remember getting into one debate with an athiest who tried switching the realm from theology into philosophy, (after starting the arguement about theology in the first place), and then tried to argue that "None of us could be right in the end! There could be no objectivity at all!" To which I replied, "If that was true, then the Nihilists would be right" The conversation ended =/

Edited June 29, 2008 by Galloglasses

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1586295' date='Jun 29 2008, 12:31 PM']I remember getting into one debate with an athiest who tried switching the realm from theology into philosophy, (after starting the arguement about theology in the first place), and then tried to argue that "None of us could be right in the end! There could be no objectivity at all!" To which I replied, "If that was true, then the Nihilists would be right" The conversation ended =/[/quote]


Haha! That's great! Silly Nihilists.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586100' date='Jun 29 2008, 01:45 AM']I think you are failing to recognize the profound underlying differences between Catholicism and the 'denominations' which you casually include within blanket of "believers" and "each other." There is a lot of Protestant being bashed by Catholics and a lot of Catholic-bashing by Protestants (by their very name they 'protest'). Hence, in defense of the Catholic Faith the abovementioned scripture passage is easily applicable. We have hope in Jesus Christ and his Church and his Sacraments and we must defend them.

Anyway, Jesus existed as an historical figure. Period. It is a weak historical argument that he didn't exist. Historians may argue about everything we can really know with veracity concerning his life, but there can be little doubt in my opinion and based on my reading of the writings of people who specialize in early Chrisian studies that he DID in fact exist.[/quote]


[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1586247' date='Jun 29 2008, 12:38 PM']No, i mean, he's asked the Historical Jesus question in four topics which I had to topic hop with the same arguement to stop him argueing someone else into the ground with a question that was already answered.

I also just realised he's very good at changing the subject. I've fallen for it several times now @_@[/quote]

[indent]I am not debating you as if other believer of this historical Jesus or non believer of true Jesus Christ is doing.I am just informing you. I want you to realize the truth that is written in the scripture. This is the reason why I insist on ‘[post="1444259"]other Jesus’ [/post]that Apostle Paul is saying hence this discussions and arguments which you called ‘debate’.

I know you loved the truth but the truth you are saying is not the Truth according to Apostle Paul. Seek it and you will find.

Many times I have told you that this historical Jesus is just an interpretation or rendtion or conclusion to the scripture but not necessary mean 'historical reality'.

Now, if you really believe that there is a historical Jesus and we all know that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was based on this premise, can you please explain to me why Apostle Paul and all the prophets and all witnesses did not believe on this trinity? ( I am reminding you again, that [post="1439060"]Holy Prophets are Christians [/post]in its truest sense for they have the spirit of Christ.).

Can please explain it to me, why they are not Trinitarian?[/indent]

Edited June 30, 2008 by reyb

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1586670' date='Jun 29 2008, 07:48 PM'][indent]I am not debating you as if other believer of this historical Jesus or non believer of true Jesus Christ is doing.I am just informing you. I want you to realize the truth that is written in the scripture. This is the reason why I insist on ‘[post="1444259"]other Jesus’ [/post]that Apostle Paul is saying hence this discussions and arguments which you called ‘debate’.

I know you loved the truth but the truth you are saying is not the Truth according to Apostle Paul. Seek it and you will find.

Many times I have told you that this historical Jesus is just an interpretation or rendtion or conclusion to the scripture but not necessary mean 'historical reality'.

Now, if you really believe that there is a historical Jesus and we all know that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was based on this premise, can you please explain to me why Apostle Paul and all the prophets and all witnesses did not believe on this trinity? ( I am reminding you again, that [post="1439060"]Holy Prophets are Christians [/post]in its truest sense for they have the spirit of Christ.).

Can please explain it to me, why they are not Trinitarian?[/indent][/quote]

The reality is that no individual Apostle or Holy Prophet had complete inerrant access to divine revelation in its entirety. Had this been the case Christ could have just had a single dude sit down and write the whole Bible. The fact is that God chose to reveal different things about himself to different individuals in different times. The entirety of revelation is confluent, but to try to place each evangelist and apostle and prophet as an individual source of complete revelation is just nonsense. I would argue that the early Christians did have an [i]implicit [/i] Trinitarian theology, but it couldn't be clearly articulated until the entirety of Sacred Scripture could be viewed in light of Sacred Tradition. Each book of scripture expresses revelation using the conventions and styles of the individual writer in his own time while at the same time expressing some portion of the great picture of the eternal truth of the nature of God. Theological development of implicit revelation does not separate earlier writers and Christians from the 'spirit of Christ.' For example, Thomas Aquinas theologized against the Immaculate Conception, but this does not mean that he was utterly separated from the spirit of Christ because the dogma had not been defined so he could not be consciously bound in his error. Christians do not have to be prescient to be saved.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

I hope that addressed your query...I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make anymore to be honest...

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586708' date='Jun 29 2008, 09:28 PM']The reality is that no individual Apostle or Holy Prophet had complete inerrant access to divine revelation in its entirety. Had this been the case Christ could have just had a single dude sit down and write the whole Bible. The fact is that God chose to reveal different things about himself to different individuals in different times. The entirety of revelation is confluent, but to try to place each evangelist and apostle and prophet as an individual source of complete revelation is just nonsense. I would argue that the early Christians did have an [i]implicit [/i] Trinitarian theology, but it couldn't be clearly articulated until the entirety of Sacred Scripture could be viewed in light of Sacred Tradition. Each book of scripture expresses revelation using the conventions and styles of the individual writer in his own time while at the same time expressing some portion of the great picture of the eternal truth of the nature of God. Theological development of implicit revelation does not separate earlier writers and Christians from the 'spirit of Christ.' For example, Thomas Aquinas theologized against the Immaculate Conception, but this does not mean that he was utterly separated from the spirit of Christ because the dogma had not been defined so he could not be consciously bound in his error. Christians do not have to be prescient to be saved.[/quote]

[indent]When you said, ‘[color="#0000FF"]The reality is that no individual Apostle or Holy Prophet had complete inerrant access to divine revelation in its entirety[/color].’ You are simply saying ‘different pieces of revelations’ were given by God to Holy Prophets and Apostles. Or the revelation of God as a whole was given by God ‘parts by parts’ to Holy Prophets and Apostles hence, the fullness or maybe near fullness of revelations were already given to us in our generation. And this revelation, if I will follow your idea is about God Himself as you have stated ‘[color="#0000FF"]The fact is that God chose to reveal different things about himself to different individuals in different times.[/color]
In short, God reveals himself in many ways to different individuals in different times and thus, ‘God reveal himself or a piece of himself’ to a holy prophet although this holy prophet may have not known Jesus.

Is this what you are saying?[/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1586847' date='Jun 29 2008, 11:37 PM'][indent]When you said, ‘[color="#0000FF"]The reality is that no individual Apostle or Holy Prophet had complete inerrant access to divine revelation in its entirety[/color].’ You are simply saying ‘different pieces of revelations’ were given by God to Holy Prophets and Apostles. Or the revelation of God as a whole was given by God ‘parts by parts’ to Holy Prophets and Apostles hence, the fullness or maybe near fullness of revelations were already given to us in our generation. And this revelation, if I will follow your idea is about God Himself as you have stated ‘[color="#0000FF"]The fact is that God chose to reveal different things about himself to different individuals in different times.[/color]
In short, God reveals himself in many ways to different individuals in different times and thus, ‘God reveal himself or a piece of himself’ to a holy prophet although this holy prophet may have not known Jesus.

Is this what you are saying?[/indent][/quote]

As far as I can tell I think we are on the same page with that. It's getting late so hopefully I'm not agreeing with something I shouldn't be...but yeah I think what you recapped sounds about right. Not sure precisely what you meant by "the fullness or maybe near fullness of revelation were already given to us in our generation" I think there is some verb/gerund/somethign confusion in there I'm having a hard time deciphering.

Also, don't fail to remember that my understanding of God revealing himself throughout time has an inherent confluence to it. It is not as if God reveals himself 'differently' as if he could somehow contradict himself throughout time. The greater scope of revelation demonstrates an inner continuity between the individual inspired books of the bible. Ultimately, we can never truly KNOW God utterly until we are dead and hopefully experience the beatific vision where we will come to know fully rather than partially.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Veridicus

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586710' date='Jun 29 2008, 09:29 PM']I hope that addressed your query...I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make anymore to be honest...[/quote]
[indent]My point is to seek for the real Jesus and I am not referring to historical Jesus.[/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1586851' date='Jun 29 2008, 11:47 PM'][indent]My point is to seek for the real Jesus and I am not referring to historical Jesus.[/indent][/quote]

It is my contention and that of many that we do to some level 'have' to rely on the historical method (notice I didn't say MODERN historical method) in order to set the frame of reference from which to base our understanding of how Scripture had meaning in its own time and how we make meaning from it today. I think a respectful historical approach to Jesus can enrich our own personal encounters with the 'real Jesus' in our daily lives.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586848' date='Jun 30 2008, 12:41 AM'][color="#0000FF"]As far as I can tell I think we are on the same page with that[/color]. It's getting late so hopefully I'm not agreeing with something I shouldn't be...but yeah I think what you recapped sounds about right. Not sure precisely what you meant by "the fullness or maybe near fullness of revelation were already given to us in our generation" I think there is some verb/gerund/somethign confusion in there I'm having a hard time deciphering.

Also, don't fail to remember that my understanding of God revealing himself throughout time has an inherent confluence to it. It is not as if God reveals himself 'differently' as if he could somehow contradict himself throughout time. The greater scope of revelation demonstrates an inner continuity between the individual inspired books of the bible. Ultimately, we can never truly KNOW God utterly until we are dead and hopefully experience the beatific vision where we will come to know fully rather than partially.[/quote]

[indent]Okay we agree on the above statement.

Now, It is written in Matt 11:27

[color="#FF0000"]27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [/color]NIV

My question is – In what way this holy prophet who do not know Jesus reveal Himself (God)? [/indent]

Edited June 30, 2008 by reyb

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1586859' date='Jun 29 2008, 11:54 PM'][indent]Okay we agree on the above statement.

Now, It is written in Matt 11:27

[color="#FF0000"]27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [/color]NIV

My question is – In what way this holy prophet who do not know Jesus reveal Himself (God)? [/indent][/quote]

I'm not sure what you are asking specifically...let me rephrase and then you tell me if it is the question you are asking and then I'll respond.

Do you mean...

"In what ways does this holy prophet (meaning specifically the evangelist matthew) who does not 'know' Jesus reveal God Himself?"

[reyb]

[indent]This is what I am trying to say.....

In the days of the prophets, God reveal himself to Jacob in Gen 32:30 and also He reveal himself to Moses as it is writtein in Num 12:6-8.

[indent][color="#FF0000"]"When a prophet of the LORD is among you,
I reveal myself to him in visions,
I speak to him in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face ,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?" [/color]NIV[/indent]

We all know that there is one and only mediator between God and Man and that is Jesus Christ as it is written in 1 Tim 2:5. While it is written in Matt 11:27 only the son (referring to Jesus Christ) has the power to reveal His Father (referring to God).

Now, in the above verses it is clear, God reveal himself to Moses. Now, how come Moses saw ‘the form of the Lord’ in the absence of your historical Jesus? How come God reveal himself to Moses without His Son (if Jesus Christ is the historical one)?[/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1586960' date='Jun 30 2008, 04:46 AM'][indent]This is what I am trying to say.....

In the days of the prophets, God reveal himself to Jacob in Gen 32:30 and also He reveal himself to Moses as it is writtein in Num 12:6-8.

[indent][color="#FF0000"]"When a prophet of the LORD is among you,
I reveal myself to him in visions,
I speak to him in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face ,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?" [/color]NIV[/indent]

We all know that there is one and only mediator between God and Man and that is Jesus Christ as it is written in 1 Tim 2:5. While it is written in Matt 11:27 only the son (referring to Jesus Christ) has the power to reveal His Father (referring to God).

Now, in the above verses it is clear, God reveal himself to Moses. Now, how come Moses saw ‘the form of the Lord’ in the absence of your historical Jesus? How come God reveal himself to Moses without His Son (if Jesus Christ is the historical one)?[/indent][/quote]

That's a good question. I suppose we must first agree on what "the form of the Lord" entails. Obviously in the grand scheme of salvation history, Moses was speaking to a pre-Incarnation God so form could not truly mean 'physicality' in the proper sense of a physical 'face.' This passage clearly expresses that Moses had a truer vision and more intimate relatioinship of God than anyone else in his time, but to what extent 'form' implies and understanding of the Trinity or not is mere speculation. In fact, it is entirely possible that Moses was speaking to the pre-Incarnate Word that is Jesus Christ as an individual person of the Trinity rather than God the Father. Because the Old Testament lacks explicit references to the Trinity (as in God chooses to reveal different things about himself over the course of human history) really even MORE opens the door to allowing the possibility that the pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ acted as the person interacting with Old Testament historical figures. This is all speculation of course and I am not trying to speak as any Church authority.

My point is that Moses may have seen the form of the Lord in the presence of the Eternal Jesus. You also have to understand that the Incarnate Jesus wasn't necessary utterly limited by time/space in the sense that the rest of us are. (Again I am speculating). It is possible for instance, that during the Transfiguration...when Christ 'spoke with Moses and Elijah' his experience transcended time in the sense that the was ACTUALLY speaking to Moses & Elijah in [i]their [/i]own times. If this supposition could possibly be true, then your entire conundrum would be solved in light of a historical Jesus.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1587031' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:03 AM']That's a good question. I suppose we must first agree on what "the form of the Lord" entails. Obviously in the grand scheme of salvation history, Moses was speaking to a pre-Incarnation God so form could not truly mean 'physicality' in the proper sense of a physical 'face.' This passage clearly expresses that Moses had a truer vision and more intimate relatioinship of God than anyone else in his time, but to what extent 'form' implies and understanding of the Trinity or not is mere speculation. In fact, it is entirely possible that Moses was speaking to the pre-Incarnate Word that is Jesus Christ as an individual person of the Trinity rather than God the Father. Because the Old Testament lacks explicit references to the Trinity (as in God chooses to reveal different things about himself over the course of human history) really even MORE opens the door to allowing the possibility that the pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ acted as the person interacting with Old Testament historical figures. This is all speculation of course and I am not trying to speak as any Church authority.

My point is that Moses may have seen the form of the Lord in the presence of the Eternal Jesus. You also have to understand that the Incarnate Jesus wasn't necessary utterly limited by time/space in the sense that the rest of us are. (Again I am speculating). It is possible for instance, that during the Transfiguration...when Christ 'spoke with Moses and Elijah' his experience transcended time in the sense that the was ACTUALLY speaking to Moses & Elijah in [i]their [/i]own times. If this supposition could possibly be true, then your entire conundrum would be solved in light of a historical Jesus.[/quote]

[indent]Okay so the 'form of the Lord' is Jesus Christ Himself.

Now, in Isa 63:11-14

[indent][color="#FF0000"]11 Then his people recalled the days of old,
the days of Moses and his people —
where is he who brought them through the sea,
with the shepherd of his flock?
Where is he who set
his Holy Spirit among them,
12 who sent his glorious arm of power
to be at Moses' right hand,
who divided the waters before them,
to gain for himself everlasting renown,
13 who led them through the depths?
Like a horse in open country,
they did not stumble;
14 like cattle that go down to the plain,
they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD[/color].[/indent]NIV
-----------------------------
Obviously in the above verses, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To refresh our memory.

First, Moses see the 'form of the Lord' or the 'image of God' which is Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 4:4-5).
Second, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And from the very beginning God is called 'Father' for it means lifegiver. Now,

Why then Moses never teaches about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity if he is truly looking at the pre-incarnate word which is the historical Jesus? [/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1587356' date='Jun 30 2008, 05:09 PM'][indent]Okay so the 'form of the Lord' is Jesus Christ Himself.

Now, in Isa 63:11-14

[indent][color="#FF0000"]11 Then his people recalled the days of old,
the days of Moses and his people —
where is he who brought them through the sea,
with the shepherd of his flock?
Where is he who set
his Holy Spirit among them,
12 who sent his glorious arm of power
to be at Moses' right hand,
who divided the waters before them,
to gain for himself everlasting renown,
13 who led them through the depths?
Like a horse in open country,
they did not stumble;
14 like cattle that go down to the plain,
they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD[/color].[/indent]NIV
-----------------------------
Obviously in the above verses, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To refresh our memory.

First, Moses see the 'form of the Lord' or the 'image of God' which is Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 4:4-5).
Second, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And from the very beginning God is called 'Father' for it means lifegiver. Now,

Why then Moses never teaches about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity if he is truly looking at the pre-incarnate word which is the historical Jesus? [/indent][/quote]

Your query really has to be taken up with God Himself. I am not competent or educated enough to try and assume the ration of Moses or God in the Old Testament. I am free to speculate, but truly this is question that lies outside my authority to speculate. My guess would probably be that Moses was incapable of truly distinguishing hypostasis from ousia in his experience with the Godhead and therefore he was unaware of the definitive nature of the Trinity even though the books attributed to him reveal implicit Trinitarian wording...but that is just a guess. It seems to me more like the question "why does the OT speak of the sun rotating around the Earth if God as the Creator knew that the earth revolved around the Sun when he created the universe." OT writers wrote in their own time with their own philosophical and theological backdrops...and we learn a bit about God through these perspectives, but not the WHOLE truth of God through any one perspective. As I've said in previous posts, God chooses to reveal various eternal truths about Himself at various points in salvation history and its only looking at the grander perspective that one can see the whole truth. It is easy to get muddled in the details if you dig in too deeply on one line of scripture and fail to see its place in the greater tapestry.

That's probably not a satisfactory answer.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Veridicus

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1587467' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:13 PM']Your query really has to be taken up with God Himself. I am not competent or educated enough to try and assume the ration of Moses or God in the Old Testament. I am free to speculate, but truly this is question that lies outside my authority to speculate. My guess would probably be that Moses was incapable of truly distinguishing hypostasis from ousia in his experience with the Godhead and therefore he was unaware of the definitive nature of the Trinity even though the books attributed to him reveal implicit Trinitarian wording...but that is just a guess. It seems to me more like the question "why does the OT speak of the sun rotating around the Earth if God as the Creator knew that the earth revolved around the Sun when he created the universe." OT writers wrote in their own time with their own philosophical and theological backdrops...and we learn a bit about God through these perspectives, but not the WHOLE truth of God through any one perspective. As I've said in previous posts, God chooses to reveal various eternal truths about Himself at various points in salvation history and its only looking at the grander perspective that one can see the whole truth. It is easy to get muddled in the details if you dig in too deeply on one line of scripture and fail to see its place in the greater tapestry.

That's probably not a satisfactory answer.

Peace,

Todd W.[/quote]
[indent]How about Apostle Paul? Why he never teaches the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? I just want to remind you again, this doctrine was based on a belief, idea, interpretation, conclusion, assumption or rendition to the scripture that Jesus Christ is the historical Jesus but they are not speaking of this historical Jesus because they are all witnesses of One True Jesus Christ.[/indent]

Edited July 1, 2008 by reyb

[mortify]

Just some of my observations about the "Jesus of history" vs "Jesus of faith."

Ultimately a lot of this falls under the realm of disbelief in the supernatural. Many of these scholars already reject the possibility of miracles and so naturally the conclusion is many legends were invented about Jesus. The problem is to turn a simple rabbi into the Son of God takes time, and so these scholars will always take the latest dating of the gospels or offer the most liberal of speculations concerning their authorship, anything to promote some kind of historical uncertainty about Christ to allow as [i]evolution[/i] to take place. When textual criticism of the bible first began in the 1860's it was common to speculate that the bible itself was the result of centuries of compositions and adulterations of writings that were finally formulated some three hundred years after Christ. It wasn't until the discovery of many early manuscripts, early papyri fragments, and the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament (Letters of St Ignatius, St Clement;s first epistle, etc) that scholars began to accept that all the writings of the NT fell within the first century. Nowadays most gospels are dated to around 70 AD, and the reason is because many of them contain a prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus' couldn't have said and so the authors must have added it after it's destruction. The point however is that if Jesus resurrected around 33 AD that doesn't give us a lot of time to permit an evolution into a God-man by the time the gospels were written. Someone once said it would probably take at least three generations to pass before any such transformation could take place, and since in the year of 70 AD Apostles, their disciples, and many eye witnesses to Jesus were still alive, this is unlikely. It's hard to imagine this body of witnesses would stand to see the real Christ so radically transfigured.

The obvious answer is that the Historical Jesus *is* the Jesus of Faith.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588460' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:12 PM']Just some of my observations about the "Jesus of history" vs "Jesus of faith."

Ultimately a lot of this falls under the realm of disbelief in the supernatural. Many of these scholars already reject the possibility of miracles and so naturally the conclusion is many legends were invented about Jesus. The problem is to turn a simple rabbi into the Son of God takes time, and so these scholars will always take the latest dating of the gospels or offer the most liberal of speculations concerning their authorship, anything to promote some kind of historical uncertainty about Christ to allow as [i]evolution[/i] to take place. When textual criticism of the bible first began in the 1860's it was common to speculate that the bible itself was the result of centuries of compositions and adulterations of writings that were finally formulated some three hundred years after Christ. It wasn't until the discovery of many early manuscripts, early papyri fragments, and the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament (Letters of St Ignatius, St Clement;s first epistle, etc) that scholars began to accept that all the writings of the NT fell within the first century. Nowadays most gospels are dated to around 70 AD, and the reason is because many of them contain a prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus' couldn't have said and so the authors must have added it after it's destruction. The point however is that if Jesus resurrected around 33 AD that doesn't give us a lot of time to permit an evolution into a God-man by the time the gospels were written. Someone once said it would probably take at least three generations to pass before any such transformation could take place, and since in the year of 70 AD Apostles, their disciples, and many eye witnesses to Jesus were still alive, this is unlikely. It's hard to imagine this body of witnesses would stand to see the real Christ so radically transfigured.

The obvious answer is that the Historical Jesus *is* the Jesus of Faith.[/quote]


Very Well stated. You are rigth about the historical accuracy being consistent to across 3 generations. I've read about it before somewhere...there is a name for it..."Something" Rule...3rd person rule or something...

Anyway, from a historical perspective if you were to say interview someone for some event that happened in the past...your interviewees could not be greater than one person removed from an eye-witness. So for example...let's take the Apostle John who most likely lived well into the 70s, 80s, or 90s AD by modern estimates. John was an eye witness of Jesus Christ himself. Now John (and his first generation of individuals who knew Jesus personally) is entitled to the greatest degree of historical accuracy in terms of trusting his word over anyone else in that generation that DIDN'T know Jesus personally. So the disciples of John the Apostle would have been educated by the utmost authority (or one of the utmost authorities on who Jesus really was because he knew Jesus in life). The disciples can be said to have received authentic historical information about Jesus. So I am a historian who comes along...I want to speak at the very LEAST to John's disciples if I cannot talk to John himself. John himself would be able to provide the best information. John's disciples lie within realm of verifiable historical truth because their information came from an eye witness. John's disciples' disciples may be able to teach with authority...but they can no longer speak with [i]historical [/i]authority about the life of Jesus.

As mortify said, every book of the new Testament was written while either one of Christ's Apostles or immediate disciples were around to give historically accurate information...OR one of that first generation of disciples who learned truth from Christ's Apostles/disciples. The books were written within this timeframe and as mortify said and so I trust that their is no distinction between the "Historical Jesus" and the "One True Jesus Christ" which you seem bent on trying to artifically dichotomize from one another.