Academic Confusion...Class DISMISSED!

Although I feel that a "higher education" in ministry is not required to be an effective minister, pastor or church leader, I certainly do not discourage them that pursue this avenue. However, and with that said, I feel for some of our families who send their children to Universities expecting that their faith in Jesus and in the bible to flourish often are disappointed when those same children come back confused and sometimes disillusioned by professors that are either agnostic about God or just flat out atheistic in their approach to explaining away the bible and the God presented within it.

Individuals such as Dr. Hector Avalos, a Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, who is an atheist (see my debate with him HERE, HERE and HERE) and Dr. Robert Price, who was once the Chair of Theological Studies at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary, and of course, Dr. Bart Ehrman who is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.(Evidently a position of certain distinction) Along with Dr. Ehrman at UNC is Mr. "Jesus Dynasty" himself, Dr. James Tabor who continues to attempt to prove that not only is Jesus buried, but he was not the Messiah, is of no special concern upon history, certainly is not God, had a human father that was certainly not God and had a secret family here on earth. You certainly don't expect to be confronted with atheist dogmas when trying to learn the bible, but that's par for the course.

Dr. Ehrman, who is a sort of a reluctant favorite of mine, as I will purchase a book here and there to see his latest and greatest mis-hits, or should I say, mis-directions, is one that is a preeminent scholar in New Testament Literature and, whether you agree with him or not, is a staunch advocate for a real Jesus as opposed to the Jesus mythers who seem to believe the garbage and stink of Richard Carrier's ideas are somehow "fresh" and enlightening. 

So, even though I gave Dr. Ehrman my anti-Christ Advocate award, I will commend him for vehemently arguing the historicity of Jesus. It seems that when Dr. Ehrman believes something to be true, he acquiesces to that truth and what he believes, as long as there is evidence in support of his position. So all of my critique of Dr. Ehrman is not necessarily negative, and if we were to meet, I would be honored to discuss matters with him I'm sure. (provided that he didn't charge me like he does to be a member of his blog)

WITH THAT SAID, I MUST still continue to condemn atheists and agnostics in seminary leadership positions such as Ehrman, for making it a mission to de-convert students who have trusted that they will grow in their faith and learn truth. It seems that many will be confronted with a healthy dose of misdirection, confusion and flat out deceit.

There are two things to be said about this however. First, it could be that some non-believing individuals attend seminaries directed by atheists, so that they can further develop their unbelief. There are some individuals who graduate from seminary, see opportunity to only make money in and from ministry. I am reminded of a theology school student who said, he didn't believe in God, but he was only taking the course because the church offered him a pastoral leadership job. For these hirelings, there is no conviction or call of God. It is only a money making venture, or a place to gain accolades and attention. Still there are others who only want to expand there pursuit of seeking to "bring down" the Christian faith. Teachers and professors such as Ehrman are the gurus they need to employ to help them increase in knowledge and to gain some sort of credibility.

Secondly, and this may be the case, maybe the expectations of sincere students and families are misplaced. It comes down to this for them, they should do better research,  I believe that it is ultimately the responsibility of the student and their family to research these institutions just like they research everything else. So I can't lay the total fault at Ehrman's feet.However, having placed a child in college, I understand that sometimes individuals are so overwhelmed with college acceptance and the name and prestige of a University acceptance or chance to be a part of a University, that research sometimes takes the back seat and emotions take control.

The Opportunity

This is where Professor Ehrman comes in. As I've stated, I believe that studying under him will   enlighten any student to certain truths and also certain errors. Certain materials that students would not normally be exposed to, appear to be discussed indepth. In addition I believe that he has a command of history and literature and would not relish a debate him on those singular issues. However, Dr. Ehrman's interpretation of biblical fact is very problematic and from the way his written material reads, the Professor seems to make whole cases off of a partial interpretations of scripture, and that is my problem with his presentations in general.e

Although I have never sat in or been a part of his class, I have however read some of his books and continue to review them from time to time (too much mis-information at once makes my head hurt) Dr. Ehrman does examine some complex Christian biblical "difficulties" but in most cases he conflates these "difficulties" to the level of faith breakers. In other words his presentation is one in which it would seem that he is saying, because this alleged "discrepancy" or proposed "contradiction" exists (whatever they are according to him) that the bible should be abandoned as the word of God and that the early church leaders did not know what Jesus they were referring to. Of course, this sort of narrative fits snugly into his overall premise as he seeks to hold out for his German predacessor, F.C. Bauer's theory of "competing Christianities", which seems to have been debunked ad nauseum by many in the scholarly community and especially by many of the fine authors and graduates of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and Biola University graduates, who's scholars produce some of the best reading available on religious studies. 

It seems that Dr. Ehrman's objective is to encourage believers to jettison the bible if something does not make sense to him or doesn't fit what he views as "evidence" for the Christian faith and faith belief. Rather than look for and present solid answers to his question, even if he maintains his question, Professor Ehrman takes the route that Christianity and the search of God through and by it is some kind of hopeless venture and that we are ultimately left to follow the dictates of our own minds and hearts.

The Heart Of The Matter

In this article, I will present one such topic about which Professor Ehrman makes a whole case without a thorough examination of the evidence and a point which may catch some of his students unprepared.

When Was Jesus God, Son Of God And Messiah?

Once such subject that Dr. Ehrman confuses the biblical text on is what the bible teaches about the deity of Jesus. This is the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. One cannot be a Christian unless one considers Jesus as divine. Professor Ehrman however believes that Jesus being divine was nothing that was attributed to him in life but was only attributed to him after his resurrection. This is his argument in his book "How Jesus Became God" . The book Description says this:

"Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.

As a historian—not a believer—Ehrman answers the questions: How did this transformation of Jesus occur? How did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? The dramatic shifts throughout history reveal not only why Jesus’s followers began to claim he was God, but also how they came to understand this claim in so many different ways."

Ehrman makes somewhat of the same argument in his book, "Jesus Interrupted" [Harper Collins 2009].

On pgs. 94-95 speaking of Paul's preaching and teaching about Jesus, Ehrman notes:

"In Paul's speech to potential converts in Antioch of Pisidia, he speaks of God's raising o Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture: "What God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, "You are my Son, today have I begotten you'(Acts 13:32-33)"

He then goes on to say:

"In this text the "day" Jesus became begotten as God's son was the day of the resurrection. But how does that square with what Luke says elsewhere? In Luke's gospel the voice utters the same words, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"(Luke 3:22) when Jesus is baptized"

He draws it out further by pointing to Gabriel's instructions to Mary in confirming that the child that she would have would be divine (Lk. 1:35) saying:

"In this instance it appears that Jesus is the Son of God because of virginal conception: he is physically God's son"

He concludes by asking:

"How can Luke say all three things? I'm not sure its possible to reconcile these three accounts: it may be that Luke got three different traditions from three different sources that disagreed with one another on the issue."

This appears to be the argument that Professor Ehrman is making in his book, "How Jesus Became God" 

A student may have a difficult time answering this. Ehrman, certainly takes literally the term "this day" as to mean, that precise moment, locking Paul into a narrative that he taught that Jesus was only Messiah after his resurrection which may be in conflict with what the gospel writers contend. Again Ehrman sews the seed of hopelessness and non clarity. 

Are things as hopeless as Ehrman claims?

I think NOT. Here is the primary reason why:

Interestingly, in the same book, "Jesus Interrupted", Ehrman lists a number of reasons why he does not believe in the authority of scriptures and why he believes that the church has either mis interpreted Jesus words, or that Jesus words just do not exist to affirm that Jesus was deity prior to his resurrection. 

Since Ehrman contends that the gospels are late creations "around" what is believed about Jesus and are an amalgamation of sources, then let us revert to a minimal facts argument. Let's agree that there are other works that are not in dispute which may help us settle this issue. Surprisingly enough, without saying a word, Professor Ehrman agrees that there are such books which are authentic and not in dispute about what is said within them 

On Pg. 112 of the same book in the chapter "Who Wrote The Bible" under the section, "Are There Forgeries In The New Testament?" Professor Ehrman states the following:

"Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) and the Revelation of John (although we aren't sure who this John was)"

Interestingly, in most scholarly circles, it is believed that these letters, the ones that Ehrman names, were written prior to the gospels. In fact according to the late F.F. Bruce in his 1943 work, "The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?" the most preeminent work and authority on New Testament documents and their dating, the dating of the works that Ehrman names are as follows:

Romans: 57 AD

1 Corinthians: 54-56 AD

2 Corinthians: 54-56 AD

Galatians: 48 AD

Philippians: 54 AD

1 Thessalonians 50 AD

Philemon: 60 AD

Now, that creates somewhat of a conundrum for Ehrman at this point. He has previously argued that the gospels were late developments. (I mean read the book and his works on the subject and you'll see). However, these works, some of the first that Paul wrote, were early developments. Most if not all prior to AD 60 and one, Galatians some 15 to 18 years after Jesus crucifixion (depending upon the date) Because of this, Ehrman, like most critical scholars would contend that what these books say are the actual teachings of the early church on the subjects that they embark upon. 

Paul On The Deity Of Christ

Interestingly enough, Paul says specifically what he means about Jesus and who he was and when he was deity. 

Philippians 2:5-11 ~ 5-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6-Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 

This what scholars have deemed a "hymn" was delivered to the New Testament church by Paul from an early account within ministry. It is clear that Paul did not contend that Jesus was deity only after the resurrection. He contends, rather clearly that Jesus was deity, PRIOR to his virgin birth because he was/IS God!

Here is another that conforms to the thought that Jesus was pre-existent as God:

1 Cor. 8:6 ~ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Remember, Paul was a monotheist in the most strict sense of the word. The attribution of the one God by "whom are all things" is not in contradiction or contrast to the Lord Jesus Christ "by whom are all things, and we by him". The statements are in accord with one another. 

Then  Paul further affirms that Jesus was the "Son", once again, from the beginning and not just after his birth or resurrection. 

Gal. 4:4 ~ But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)

According to what Paul alludes to, his teaching did not just simply begin with him. He says in 1 Cor. 11:23. "For I have received of the Lord..." Certainly the resurrected Christ met Paul on the road to Damascus. This would allow a further revelation of Jesus to Paul as he records in Galatians 1.

There is somewhat of a scholarly consensus that Paul receives his instructions directly from the Lord in regards to the sacrament of the church that was already in existence as something commonly held and believed among the church. In other words, what Paul receives, by revelation, is in accord with what the believers of the "Way" were already practicing and teaching among one another. This would be a confirmation to believers that Paul had indeed either met Jesus by revelation or had been with church leaders and was versed in the early creed of the faith. 

I present the 1 Cor. 11 passage to address issues that the church was not aware of these things and that these issues were developed by Paul. Clearly they were not his creation. The church already had a "high view" of Jesus prior to Paul's interaction with them.  

Conclusion

Here we have a claim of Ehrman that the church and followers of Jesus was inconsistent as to when Jesus was God and Messiah. However, when we examine the scripture it does not display the discord that Ehrman claims. 

We see that from early documents, agreed upon to clearly have been written by the person claiming to have written them, that Jesus was taught to be not only God at birth or resurrection, but also preexistent and God before he came to earth. 

I haven't touched on the book of Revelation but if we go there, it is chalk full of more of the same information. At either rate, we do not see a church in conflict over when Jesus was Lord, Messiah or God. We see a church accepting that Jesus was God in a preexistent form, working miracles on earth and rising again from the dead to demonstrate his power over all life and death, ie: acting as God!

What are we to make of Luke's account in Acts 13 that Paul invoked Psalms 2 to say that "this day" or the day that Jesus was resurrected that he became the Messiah? Or that Jesus was somehow the Messiah only because he was born of a virgin?

Personally, I say not much!

Obviously, Paul taught that Jesus was God in a preexistent condition and therefore the Messiah at birth. To the Jews or Greeks who did not know, which was the context of Paul's preaching at Antioch, the resurrection, though having occurred prior to that day, would have been the day in which this revelation would have been made known unto them. Paul did not teach, in the early letters, neither did the church contend that Jesus became Lord or Messiah over time or because of some event that occurred during his lifetime no matter how special that event was. 

Further, Psalm 2 is a prophetic Psalm and was also alluded to by the writer of Hebrews to point to the deity of Christ as well. Similar to Peter's use of the book of Joel in Acts 2, Luke displays that Paul alludes to the time in which Jesus would reveal himself to the world, even the unbelieving Jew, by the irrefutable fact of the resurrection. 

What neither he nor Luke intend to convey is that the resurrection is the time in which Jesus would be made Messiah. While some would say that interpretation renders the use of the word "day" or "Yom" in Hebrew with undue ambiguity, because of the prophetic intent it is a moot point and one that does not have any bearing on the communication that Jesus was deity before he was born, was Messiah when he was born and is our savior because he shed his blood and demonstrated who he is through the act of resurrection. 

Clearly, that is what the church taught and what the church believed. Paul affirms this early as recorded in Acts. 

Blessed!

Read more!

I WAS An Atheist

If one were to listen to the atheist rhetoric of authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and the propaganda that fills the internet, one would think that all "thinking and rational" individuals are simply evolving into a condition of atheism or non theistic belief. After all most who don't believe in God, claim that non-belief is somehow a default system or normalcy of human existence. Many also believe that people are only trained to be believers by their culture, family or environment. Still others believe that theism or belief in God is only a product of birth, location and circumstance. To confirm this many point to the growth of religions such as Islam claiming that the only reason for its growth is the high birth rate within Islamic nations. Others apply the same rationale to Christianity. The metaphysical naturalist believes however that the more men learn the less religious they will be.

All of these assertions are simply weak postulations to explain away what is obvious; 1- man lives in a world that includes much more than the materialistic components and 2- what we see comes from a source that we do not see. In fact the bible being ages ahead of this type of argument, applies the eternal existence of that which is not seen (God) to the concept of faith as follows:

2 Corinthians 4:18 ~ "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal."

As I've discussed in 'Does Science Presuppose Atheism' a common thought of unbelievers is that science will somehow eventually answer all questions and that whatever can't be proven by science is somehow illusionary. Well, aside from that fact that science can't prove itself and that many theories of science begin with presumptions that remain unproven, the interpretations of science are said to only solidify natural laws and solidify materialism.

God Is

For many, the assertions I've outlined above were thought to be common. However all of those thoughts, previously said to be rational, have come under serious scrutiny from individuals that the materialists, and especially metaphysical naturalists don't like to talk about much. With the conversion of scientists like Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Allister McGrath and Dr. Dean Kenyon the scientific community has been set on its ear for quite some time with quite some time more to come.

Read more!

Does Eternal Really Mean Eternal In Hell? Pt. 2

This article is continued from Pt.1

Objection III: Hell wasn't created for men therefore men won't suffer or continue to suffer in it.

One of our regular readers holds that since hell was created for the devil and his angles, that the suffering of men in it will at best be limited because hell was not designed for men. This is a scripture used to support the assertion at times:

Matthew 25:41~"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the DEVIL AND his angels:"

Variation:

Some promoters of this argument also state that even if men do go to hell, the punishment of it is temporary in duration because hell was not made to house men. I call this the "temporary hell thesis" The temporary nature of hell will be dealt with in Objection IV listed below however, in this section,  I will deal with hell as an abode for anyone including rebelling angels.

Hell, The Abode Of The devil And Rebelling demons Or Unrepentant Men?

There are a number of things to say about this argument, but I believe that the assertion itself begs the question "If the suffering or better described torment of hell is somehow limited, and is not intended for men, why should men suffer in hell at all?" Was God somehow caught in an unready state or condition for unrepentant and sinful men? This is highly unlikely since Jesus was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8). In other words if God made preparation for sin why would he not have made preparation for the judgement of man. As we'll see further in the article, annihilation is inconsistent with the judgement of God as revealed within scripture.

Read more!

Does Eternal Really Mean Eternal In Hell? Pt.1

There is a view espoused by many individuals within Christian circles who don't believe in the ongoing reality of hell neither it's eternal punishment. That view is called Annihilationism. Here is a working definition of this view:

Annihilationism ~"A Christian doctrine that sinners are destroyed rather than tormented forever in "hell" or the lake of fire. It is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy or annihilate the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists believe the wicked will be punished for their sins in the lake of fire before being annihilated, others that hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin."

Now, in my previous post, Does The Bible Teach A Literal Hell, we addressed the fact that hell is taught throughout the bible and that hell is a literal and not merely figurative place. In fact hell as is taught throughout scripture is a place of ongoing conscious reality and one of torment.

However under the annihilationist construct, there is an emotional appeal to a western sense of morality and guilt based righteousness. Hell either does not exist as a literal place or abode, or is a temporary place of punishment described with figurative terminology specifying extinction rather than an ongoing conscious reality of suffering. Scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 9:5,  Ecclesiastes 9:10, which are used to claim that there is no consciousness or pain beyond death and  Malachai 4:1,  and Mt. 10:28,  claiming that the destruction of the individual in hell is actually the extinction of the individual rather than eternal ongoing punishment.

Read more!

Sin, Mistakes & Jesus

Heb. 4:15-16 ~ "15-For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16-Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

As I continue in the series I've subtitled "Atheism's Greatest Hits" It's my intent to present arguments and the resolution to those arguments so that Saints who are unfamiliar with these subjects won't be blindsided with attempts to undermine the Christian faith. We'll continue in this series by addressing and answering the question Did Jesus Make A Mistake?
We will deal with biblical inerrancy in a future post to refute the current demonically inspired lies regarding the reliability of the biblical texts themselves. For this writing I would like the critic to assume that what has been documented by biblical authors is fully accurate as written as I only wish to deal with the specific point of Sin, Mistakes & Jesus Words.

A Humanly Fallible Jesus?
Apostate Professor Of New Testament Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, asserts in his book Misquoting Jesus that his faith and belief was wrecked when he realized that Jesus made a critical mistake in reconciling Mark 2:26 with 1 Sam. 21:1-6, by claiming that David and his men ate the showbread "when Abiathar was the high priest." He goes on to claim that scripture records that when the event took place Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father) was actually the high priest. Therefore either Mark was wrong in his recounting or Jesus was wrong in reciting the passage. Either way, according to him, somebody was wrong.

Another popular criticism extends from the use of the term "this generation" in Mt. 24:34 ~ "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." The critic asserts that this passage is referring to the Great Tribulation and Judgement (Parousia) of the end times which would occur within a 40 year time frame. Further the critic asserts that there was a further promise of impending judgement upon Caiphas (Israel) in Mark 14:61-62 ~"61-But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62-And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

The assertion is that since the world yet exists Jesus was wrong about the impending judgement of the world and therefore made a mistake or certainly no less than mis-spoke and is simply a failed doomsday prophet as a result.

Read more!

The Raging Battle For The Jesus Of History

Of a certainty there has been no more controversial subject in historical studies than that of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the head and the Chief Cornerstone of the Christian faith. In Christianity almost every word recorded within the pages of holy writ refer ultimately to Jesus. For the skeptic, and agnostic this poseses a problem of epic proportions. For the question is asked how can we truely know this Jesus of history?

This sort of conundrum has led to a host of various interpretations of history and faith as it pertains to the discovery of the "real" Jesus. It was during the 18th Century Enlightenment that German, Deist scholar Dr. Hermann S. Reimarus (1694-1768) set forth a totally different and radical view of who Jesus was. He set forth the idea that Jesus was a political and social idealist who never intended to start a religion and failed in his mission to liberate the Jews politically. He gave no creedence to the Jesus of faith or miracles for that matter. (Please Go Here To See Why He Was Wrong)

Partially due to the era of Enlightenment, there have been countless individuals who have set out to define, shape and reevaluate who Jesus was. To display how heated and contentious this subject can be Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) reviving thoughts set forth by German Professor G. Wobbermin tried to solidify the idea that the "historical" Jesus was even different from the "historic" Jesus. The distinction, he claimed, was that the "historic" Jesus was responsible for untold evil and repression of individuals down through the ages, while the "historical" Jesus was a person of meekness who truely sought to help individuals. In essence, in this argument, the "historic" Jesus is a product of what Christians and the church "believe" about Jesus and that "belief" is not necessarily patterened after the "historical" person.

Jesus very own words seems to negatively cap this argument in some way:

Mt. 10:34-36 ~ "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35-For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36-And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household."

Again, there have been countless others such as E.P. Sanders and in more recent times apostates such as John Dominick Crossan, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar (The Who's Who Of Apostates), and a host of other agnostic professors some of which have been featured HERE, such as Elaine Pagels, Bart D. Ehrman and James D. Tabor and even atheists such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier that have set forth their own versions of the historical Jesus. So among scholars as we have noted, there is a battle for the historical Jesus.

Dr. John P. Meier, Professor of New Testament at the University Of Notre Dame, in his landmark works "A Marginal Jew- Rethinking The Historical Jesus" Volumes 1-3 Poses a question in Volume 1 of the Series as such:

• "...what do we mean when we say that we are pursuing the "historical Jesus" or the "Jesus of history"?..."By the Jesus of history I mean a Jesus that we can "recover" and examine by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." ~ Dr. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Rethinking The Historical Jesus Volume 1, (1991 Doubleday) pg. 25.

One of the primary influences within modern scholarship pronouncing the differences between the historic and historical Jesus was German Lutheran, New Testament professor and father of biblical form criticism, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) He rejected the historical Jesus as a basis for faith and claimed the genre of the gospels to be kerygma which he described as a development of preaching, having taken a literary form. Regarding the person of Jesus however, he set forth the following:

• "...we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary..." ~ Rudolf Bultmann "Jesus And The Word" pg. 14

One of the reasons this is so important and controversial is because we can't and don't necessarily know "everything" about the Jesus of history. For instance, we do NOT know his favorite colors, food, or shoes etc. Other even more significant historical information such as what Jesus did in his intermediate years is still a mystery to us. These are the things that we can only wonder about the Jesus of history, but yet we have received from him enough to evaluate and know the Jesus of our faith.

These thoughts and recent discoveries (1945) of alternate gospels at Nag Hammadi, Egypt have caused some scholars to proclaim that we now have the missing pieces necessary to help us find the "real" Jesus. These finds, however have been less than convincing and in many cases clearly legendary dated too late to shed any light on the person of the First Century Messiah and savior of the world, and contain messages more associated with gnosticism than Christianity in any era.

For the person who doesn't mind delving deeply into the epistemology of their faith and further past traditional biblical studies, these thoughts and this debate quite naturally lead to other questions that I pose and ask you to contemplate and respond:

• Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith?
• Whom must the Christian know in order to gain salvation, the historical Jesus or the Jesus of faith?
• Are we required biblically to know the Jesus of history in order to come to saving faith?

As you may tell this is and can be a rather complicated study. We know from scipture that we must believe God in order to receive:

Heb.11:6 ~ "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

However this verse addresses a matter of faith and not necessarily history.

In essence this post os for them that are into serious analysis of their faith and examination of Jesus. One thing I am confident of is that Jesus can stand any thorough examination that we require. He remains the only figure in history that invites us to emainine him and know his realness. Remember what Jesus said to Thomas:

John 20:24-29 ~ "24-But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25-The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26-And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27-Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28-And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29-Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

Thank God, Jesus can stand any examination whether one of history or one of faith.

Blessed!

Picture Courtesy of Greg Webb, Black Jesus Picture Collection

Recommended Resources:

The Case For The Real Jesus ~ Lee Strobel, 2007 Zondervan

Dethroning Jesus ~ Darrell Bock & Daniel B. Wallace, 2007 Thomas Nelson

Reinventing Jesus ~ Komoszewski, Sawyer & Wallace, 2006 Kregel

The Missing Gospels ~ Darrell Bock, 2006 Nelson Books

The Jesus Legend ~ Paul Eddy & Gregory Boyd, 2007 Baker Academic

Read more!