Surely it is much easier for human beings to identify and believe in historical figures and of their existence who are confirmed by actual dates and of place and time. So as Christians, we believe in the person hood of Jesus and His divinity. He is both 100% man and 100% God. But most His existence were mainly affirmed by people who witnessed the events, also by His followers especially the namely Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who were authors of the gospel.
Our faith and belief in the existence of Jesus is first made known to us from none other than the gospel. The Bible, encompassing the gospels is known to us Christians doctrinally as the sole authority for our Christian faith. Yet that Jesus whom we believe in is only known to us as the Divine Christ that once lived on earth has now ascended to heaven. Little sources are founded historically apart from the gospels concerning Jesus. Therefore the search for the historical Jesus, seems to be a good place to start if it can help us reaffirm and solidify our belief in Him is not just another mythical illusion.
The research for the Historical Jesus had begun quite sometime back years ago. Many who have tried to reconcile the Historical and Divine Christ together were not quite successful. This is because of their rationalistic view of Christ in regards to His divine attributes and miracles. So they throw out almost anything that is considered uncomprehendable or beyond mind of reason about Jesus, treating Him just like any other common man on earth.
So this Jesus whom we profess our Christian faith, should our belief in Him only to be dictated by Historical assertions? or having unshaken faith in Divinity of Christ just as proclaimed in the gospels? I would like to believe that both are not mutually exclusive but should go alongside in understanding. Having said that, the relevance of the historicity should not take precedence over the divinity of Christ but serve itself as a complement to it.
Hi Kenrick,
ReplyDeleteAs you have said and I agree, the ongoing and previously began search for the historical Jesus, trying to reconcile the Historical and Divine Christ together not quite successful. As you have said, this is because of their rationalistic view of Christ and his Divinity and miracles. You then advocated for the historical Christ to be alongside the Divine Christ, with the Historical Christ not taking precedence over the divinity of Christ but complement it.
Your statement caused me to think and an issue came to mind. If, say, I am a new believer and I have been reading about the Historical Jesus and how, with their rational and logical (and sometimes scientific) methods and reasoning, have rejected the divinity of Christ and His miracles. I come to you as the pastor of the church and you tell me about the divinity of Christ should take precedence over that. Then, to me, wouldn't the rational and logical argument be easier to accept than to have a supernatural presupposition of Christ? Would that mean that Buddhism, to whom Gautama Buddha was given enlightenment, if we place his divinity before his historicity, then, he too is a god. Who then is the real god? Christ? or Buddha? Just an analogy but how would you handle such a situation?
Hi Kenrick,
ReplyDeleteYou said that, "Little sources are founded historically apart from the gospels concerning Jesus. Therefore the search for the historical Jesus, seems to be a good place to start if it can help us reaffirm and solidify our belief in Him is not just another mythical illusion."
but what if they say that the gospels or the bible itself is mythical ar? how to prove that it is not ler?
Hi Kenrick,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your article, I do believe that the historical Jesus started long ago in the purpose of trying to find evidences to prove if Christ is the real God as what we Christians believe. And this movement were not successful much in their efforts.
I know what you mean when you said they throw out...anything...uncomprehendable...beyond mind...treating Him just like any other common man. But how, then, would you said the the relevance of the historicity serves itself as a complement?
Hi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments:p I think to relate Buddha and Jesus with similar attributes is quite an interesting assumption!Haha ..though its possible for people to think as such. If I'm not wrong, Buddha himself who sought for enlightenment did not qualify himself as God. Wasn't it his followers who did deify him instead? Whereas Jesus although he may not make explicit claims of his divinity, clarifies that he is the son of God and son of Man. My point is that Buddha's and Jesus'claims and pursuit are not on the same page. Hope I answer your question. Trying my best yea:)
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteWah! Your question is too high sounding for me! Please have mercy! Oh well, I’ll try. First, I think I’m misquoted a bit (mind the inverted commas “ ” please:)). So to clarify: I meant that the initiated search for the historical Jesus was just a good avenue to start though the outside sources were scarce. I did not suggest: Not because of scarcity, therefore their only source is to look WITHIN the gospel in search for the historical Jesus.
Next, in regards to your main question as to proof that the Bible is not a mystical book. I think I will do grave injustice to prove the validity of the Bible in a blog judging by its vast historicity, content and research. So my take would be that to avoid further confusion, I’ll be basing my articles posted on the premise of the doctrine of inerrancy. Thanks for question anyways.
Hi Sophin,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that at least they did try to find out who really Jesus was on earth. Though they have went on the extremes by only accepting what was supposedly logical to them in the initial stage of research. Nevertheless, I still believe such findings have contributed to the real humanity of Jesus, the son of Man and not so much about His divinity existence. I can say that the facts were laid and found by them just as it is. It is their reasoning and presupposition that did not coincide with the gospel that questions them, which they ended with confused conclusions. Maybe the cause was not the Historical facts after all.
Kenrick,
ReplyDeleteYou did not answer Bryan's question... You just commented but did not answer his question... He is asking that if faith validates historical facts, can one's faith in Buddha validates his history thus also his claims?
Even if Buddha never said he is God, as long as I have faith in him, can I believe in all his historical claims because I have faith?
Ok and if I were to take your answer on Bryan's question... You basically said Buddha did not declare he is God & his disciples deify him...Isn't it the same with Jesus? He did not say he is God too & his believers were the ones who spread about his divinity right?
Don't get me started that just because Jesus clarify that he is God & his disciples confirm it, you expect me to accept it as truth. If I were to clarify I am God & my followers confirm it, can you accept it as truth? ....
Wah...Bryan and ApologeticLearner really bring out to point that made me rethink about the relationship between historical Jesus and the divinity of Christ. How we should perceived if one applying the same principle to another belief?
ReplyDeleteAnd here, i would like to say that "God" is not something that one claim He is then He is God because indeed we are not. however, many of times, cult do try to clarify that they are send by God and many followers confirms it and people start to follow. The people will him/her which i would called it as idol "god". however, truth is just not something that we agree and what we said so, because truth is way beyond the fact. Truth is in God, our creator.
Therefore, we shall not try to measure/claiming to be "god" when we are just incomparable to be.
Hi Kenrick,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all,I've got to have faith in what the bible tells us about the life of Jesus. The authors of the Gospels try to cause their readers to answer who Jesus is. Through miracles one afer another that He had performed prove His identity as Lord and Man. Again, faith is still count.
Hi Mr. Apologetic Learner,
ReplyDeleteI found such interest in your comment to Kenrick that I sincerely can’t resist interacting with you.
I do agree with you, sir, that there is some similarities to be found between the assertions of the disciples of Buddha and those of Christ’s disciples. Now having said that, do extend me the privilege of pointing to you where the differences lie between their claimants to deity. As these differences (which I shall shortly attempt to highlight) are of great significance, it would, I believe, validate the historical claims of Christ’s deity while simultaneously upholding the exclusivity of it.
Firstly, as mentioned above, there are some similarities between the Disciples of Christ and Buddha in the sense that both uphold the deity of their respective masters. Furthermore, as you state, it does seem as if both Christ and Buddha didn’t explicitly make any claimants to deity. Having said that let me move on to point out the major differences between these two systems.
One of the fundamental differences of Christianity and Buddhism is that the former, built on the foundation of ancient Judaism, is strongly rooted on the idea of a Personal and Omnipotent God while the latter is (at least by classification) recognized as atheistic or at least non-theistic. Buddha was certainly not one who went around promoting the idea of a Supreme Being called God. On the other hand, the historical crucifixion of Christ, which is recognized by almost any living historian (save the Muslim), would not have even occurred had not Christ been condemned of blaspheming or “or proclaiming to be God”. So therefore if one were to make the assumption that Christ never really claimed to be God, he or she would then have to figure out the cause of his crucifixion when virtually all historical accounts refer to Him as being a noble character.
Therefore with all due respect sir, I believe that you have made a fallacious assertion in stating that Christ “did not say he is God…” and that “his believers were the ones who spread about his divinity”.
This (above)is my response to your first question sir:
You basically said Buddha did not declare he is God & his disciples deify him...Isn't it the same with Jesus? He did not say he is God too & his believers were the ones who spread about his divinity right?
My response to your other challenge will follow shortly (I hope). Thanks.
“Don't get me started that just because Jesus clarify that he is God & his disciples confirm it, you expect me to accept it as truth. If I were to clarify I am God & my followers confirm it, can you accept it as truth?”
I shall answer in two parts. One dealing with the issue of Jesus been deified just as Buddha was and the other dealing with the issue of His claim of divinity as God. To keep it simple and direct to the question only, note that I shall not deal with the doctrine of Trinity here and the interpretation of Son of God. I am answering from my understanding of Jesus being the 2nd person in the Trinity Godhead.
ReplyDeleteQuestion : “You basically said Buddha did not declare he is God & his disciples deify him...Isn't it the same with Jesus? He did not say he is God too & his believers were the ones who spread about his divinity right?”
Yes, Buddha did not declare he is God as that was not what he believed in. Deep in meditation, he reached the highest degree of God-consciousness, known as nirvana. Thus he began spreading his teaching of how one can also achieve nirvana when one became enlightened as he was. He was simply showing the way and not declaring he is the way. Buddha simply means “enlightened one” and he did not claimed to be divine as God. But many years and centuries after his death, myth and folk stories creep in where his followers deify him, although not as God, but as the “enlightened one” – Buddha.
Thus no, it wasn’t the same with Jesus. His disciples did not deify Him but rather acknowledged and recognised His divinity as the Son of God, the Christ even BEFORE His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, NOT AFTER. Besides, for one human being to be deified and accepted as a deity by society at large such as Buddha have to take many many years and generations for such myth to be developed and believed in.
All of Jesus’ disciples as recorded in the Gospels and the Book of Acts (all written within a short 70 years after Jesus’ ascension) believed and accepted Jesus as the divine Son of God. It did not give people enough time to deify Jesus thus the concept of Jesus’ divinity was not the result of His disciples trying to deify Him but rather accepted by all His disciples as who He is.
Now as the above has been straighten out, let us look into whether Jesus did claimed divinity. But we need to understand that although Jesus did not specifically say with these exact words of “I am God”, it does not deny that He is. In fact, when asked whether He is the Christ, the Son of God, he answered yes! When people asked whether Pastor Lim is a chinese, he does not need to say with the exact words of “I am a chinese” to affirm that he is. A simple “yes” and “I am” will do as a confirmation answer that he is. Same applies to Jesus’ choice of words as a positive answer :
ReplyDeleteMatthew 26:63-64 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
Mark 14:61-62 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus.
Today, people demand that Jesus need to say “ I am the Christ” from His own mouth to validate that He was claiming so but such a demand isn’t new. Even the religious council at that time demanded the same thing but Jesus gave His reason why He do not need to say so while at the same time agreed with them that He is the Son of God :
Luke 22:67-68,70 67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
When Jesus asked His disciples who they believe He is, He agreed with Peter’s declaration that He is the Christ and affirmed that such knowledge is not a man-made idea but a truthful revelation of God the Father :
Matthew 16:13-17 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
There are many more instances (He accepted worship, forgave sins, commanded nature, etc..) and Jesus’ own sayings (the 7 “I AM” in Gospel of John) that indicate He claimed divinity as God.
So in conclusion to the question alone : No, Jesus was not deify by His disciples as Buddha was. Yes, Jesus did claimed His divinity as the Son of God by agreeing and also giving affirmative positive answer when asked about His divine identity.
Well said Josh...
ReplyDeleteThank you Joshua for simply answering my question without argumentatively directing it at me. It was straight to the point, supported your argument systematically and most importantly - giving an answer to the question clearly. I also appreciate the Scriptures you used to support your answer, at least I know where you are coming from.
ReplyDeleteI know you are coming from the stand of Jesus being the 2nd person in the Godhead but it would be great if you can prove that the claim of being the "Son of God" was referring to being God, even being the 2nd person in the Godhead. Did the people in NT understood "Son of God" as God the Son thus being God? Did they have the concept of Trinity yet?
For people who don't believe in Trinity, can that claim mean God the Son? Jehovah Witness use that same claim to prove that Jesus is just literary the Son of God, meaning a person created by God thus being God's son. So they can use all the verses you use to say that He did claim to be just God's son and make their belief in one God - Jehovah even stronger.
Just a food for thought. Anyone can help with this? Thanks.
Samuel... Good try and appreciate you helping your friend to answer. You have good english and writing can be a little bit more refine, little hard to understand you with those words and arrangement. But may I say that it is obvious where your interest lies by the way you write, the words you use and most importantly - the notion you give.
ReplyDeleteYou seem eager to argue and to prove me wrong more than trying to answer my question. You seem eager to attack me than helping me understand. Not to mention that you make a lot of statements without making your point clear, it is as though you are just saying all those things and not using them to make your point. Some are blatant all out errors.
Example : "the historical crucifixion of Christ, which is recognized by almost any living historian".... you sure??? You sure there are no one disputing that even skeptics and atheist? Statement with no supported facts. Then you said "when virtually all historical accounts refer to Him as being a noble character".... you sure??? You sure ALL historical accounts? You sure they say he is a noble person? Statements with no supported facts.
Even if there is for both statements...so??? How does "historical accounts refer to Him as being a noble character" have to do with "crucifixion of Christ... would not have even occurred had not Christ been condemned of.... proclaiming to be God”?
Then you challenge that "if one were to make the assumption that Christ never really claimed to be God, he or she would then have to figure out the cause of his crucifixion when virtually all historical accounts refer to Him as being a noble character." How does him being referred to being a noble character has to do with Christ claiming to be God? Oh ya, you sure the cause of his crucifixion is that he claimed to be God? I don't think so... Look carefully in the Bible as it is and understand their point of view and historical context, dont read into the Bible with your misinformed mind and say what the Bible did not say.
Sorry for being so personal in this response but I am offended. I am also upset at your accusation that I made a "fallacious assertion", I was simply asking a question and needed some clarification...it wasn't any kind of assertion at all. Thus you just "bear false witness"...and it is a sin.
If you don't allow me to ask question to clear my doubt... how am I suppose to know and believe? Then don't be a theologian, apologist, teacher and so on as you don't know what it means to be one and the noble purpose they carry. They don't attack, don't argue and don't silent people who are merely asking questions. They simply desire to lead them to understanding.
Oh ya, I don't see you quoting from Scriptures when you could have to make your point so....in what authority do you speak from when you make all those statements? Bible I know, people who quote Bible I know but WHO ARE YOU? When you play with fire, you get burn. When you attack, you may get hurt... Don't attack unless necessary, choose your battefield, don't attack at everything.
Next time just answer the question and please make them clear without unsupported claims and confusing flow of thought. You have potential but you need to chill and learn. Yes, you have much to learn my young padawan... and please LEARN, don't be stubborn & argumentative...
Good thoughts Kendrick. Also remember the Incarnation and the theological significance of that. Another point is that it is His-Story ultimately in Sacred and Secular History. Blessings on you! Teresa
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete