Yes and no. "HUH? What do you mean?" you may ask. Before I go on to explain what i meant, let me first establish a basic premise in which I will answer this question. Christianity is Christocentric - which means Christianity revolves around Christ. You remove Christ away from Christianity, you basically strip Christianity from every thing it believes in. As an Evangelical, we believe that all Scripture is inspired by the God (2 Tim 3:16). We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, which according to Erikson means the Bible is truly truthful in all of its teachings. In a basic sense, it means the Scripture does not err in fulfilling its purpose, which includes the revelation of God to us, God's visions, God's purposes and God's good news to us. With this premise erected, we can then proceed to answering why I answered yes and no.
The Bible gives us a sketch of Jesus. In it is written who Jesus was, His ministry, His words, His teaching, His deeds, His miracles, His resurrection and His death. The Bible also attests to the divinity of Christ and also His humanity. If the Bible is to be inerrant, then, the historic Jesus would be able to prove the humanity of Christ, thus showing that the Bible is inerrant in that respect. The question is, did Jesus actually walk the earth? Answer is yes. Historians affirm and do not deny the fact that Jesus did walk the earth. People like Tacitus and Josephus testify that Jesus did walk the earth. If so, then the historic Jesus would prove the Bible to be true in this sense. If the Bible is to be inerrant, it cannot be that half of it is inerrant while the other half is a mythical story. If it really is so, the Bible is not inerrant. What is the point in believing something that is only half true. Therefore, the premise here is that the Bible is inerrant. Does the Historical Jesus have an importance and relevance to the divinity of Christ? Yes, in the sense that it proves the Bible inerrant, that Jesus walked the earth therefore, this inerrancy attests also to the divinity of Christ.
In what sense do I answer no? The investigation for the historical Jesus has a problem. It cannot investigate matters like miracles and Christ divinity, matters of faith, and strikes them off as untrue. But is that necessarily the case? Does the limitation of historical investigation and the limitation and science mean that matters of faith like miracles and Christ divinity is untrue? In fact, they wouldn't be able to test or investigate matters of faith like such. Let me give an example of the limitation of science and its investigative methods. Can science really prove the wind? The wind is something we cannot see, even at a molecular level. Science cannot see the wind. But does the wind exist? Yes it does! Just because Science cannot bring in concrete evidence on the substance of the wind does not mean is not there. Just like dreams. Can science and any form of investigation prove the existence of dreams? The most they can prove is that there is activities of the brain during sleep but they can't prove that dreams exist. Does that mean dreams do not happen? Does the limitation of science prove that dreams do not happen? Place what I have said into miracles and Christ's divinity, it is the same way. The investigation for the historical Jesus does not prove the divinity of Christ wrong, no matter what the claim. In fact, in my opinion, religion should not be able to be tested fully by men. If so, then, the religion we believe in is not that great after all. In fact, for us to fully comprehend our religion and our god, he musn't be too great. But God, being god, we can never fully understand and comprehend Him and His ways. Likewise with the divinity of Christ and miracles as well. All these requires one element vital for religion - faith.
In conclusion, the historical Jesus gives us an assurance that Jesus really did exist and that He once walked the earth. This then attests to the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Bible is inerrant, then the divinity of Christ must be real. From an internal evidence or external evidence, the divinity of Christ is attested for. That, it the link between the historical Jesus and the Divinity of Christ, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI see that you said that "we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible". that is a premise and also a presupposition that you have. According to a totally pure scientific research method, you are to strip of yourself of all presuppositions, but i think that that is a good presupposition or guideline to begin our quest for the historical Jesus. don't you think so?
Dear Bryan,
ReplyDeleteSorry I am uncertain about your claim: Bible inerrancy is the presupposition for the search of historical Jesus, or historical Jesus proves that bible inerrancy is true hence attest the divinity of Jesus?
I personally believes that historical Jesus cannot prove that Bible is inerrant; but presupposition that bible is inerrant should be the starting point for historical Jesus, from which I hope the results gathered will deepen our understanding on the message of Jesus and hence enhance our faith in the deity of Christ.
Taa!
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Hmm.. Science does require us to strip ourselves from any presupposition but like it anot, matters of faith (and in fact, many other natural things like dreams) cannot be tested by science. In fact, unknowingly, there are few presuppositions that science does have eventhough they claim not to have any, for example: the presupposition of everything in the world having a cause and effect, or even there is a rational and logical explanation for everything, without which means that it does not exist. These are only a few 'silent presuppositions' that science has. But if we really want to find out who Christ was, we sing the same tune, bro. The inerrancy of Scripture is a good and probably vital presupposition to have.
Hi Cheryl,
I think you have misunderstood my claim. I did not claim that inerrancy of Scripture was the presupposition for the search of Jesus. Let me put it this way: If lets say we read a document about Adolf Hitler and his massacre of The Holocaust, amounting to 11 million to 17 million deaths. Then we do our research and we find out that during the Holocaust, 5.9 million Jews, 3 million Soviet POWs, 2million Poles, 1.5mil Romani, 250000 disabled, 200k Freemasons, 15k homosexuals and 5k Jehovah's Witnesses were killed making the total number of deaths 12.87 million,would that not make the document read true? It is the same with what I meant. If what they find about the historical Jesus is the same with who Jesus is in the Bible, and nothing can disprove it, then, the Bible still remains true thus strengthening the doctrine of inerrancy.
In my point of view, the quest for the historical Jesus, which is supposed to be a form of science, should not and cannot start off with inerrancy of Scripture as a presupposition as then it will result in bias results. But rather, we have to realize the limitations of science. Also, when it comes to matters of faith and religion, science cannot test it due to its limitations. These all need faith. Now, with this, we can and should have the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture as our presupposition. As I wrote in my post,
"religion should not be able to be tested fully by men. If so, then, the religion we believe in is not that great after all. In fact, for us to fully comprehend our religion and our god, he musn't be too great. But God, being god, we can never fully understand and comprehend Him and His ways. Likewise with the divinity of Christ and miracles as well. All these requires one element vital for religion - faith."
Science has brought about vast advancement to mankindby revolutionise it from agricultural to industrial, information age to biological age in genetic engineering. Man who are atheist embrace scienism. They think that the only answer to mankind needs and woes is through science discoverd through time. Such people dont believe in God and will use whatever available as in the Apocryphal Gospels to discredit the historiucal Jesus. Because if Jesus truly exists, it means his humanity in his redemptive work and his divinity for the atonement of sins exist too.
ReplyDeleteDear Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThx for your clarification. I hope this time I catch you correctly: it is a mutual support between bible inerrancy and historical Jesus. Inerrancy can be the presupposition for historical Jesus, and vice versa, historical Jesus can strengthen the doctrine of inerrancy. Thanks!
You got it right on, comrade!
ReplyDeleteCheerios!
Great explanation. You expressed your thoughts very well and with flair to make us understand clearly. You make clear remark to state your point further rather than argue your point through. Very deep thought and very well thought.
ReplyDeleteGreat job, salute salute, make me happy reading it. Learned much myself and reminded us all about thinking deeply and thoroughly while able to express it in simple form with clarity when asked :)
Hi ApologeticLearner,
ReplyDeleteThank so much for the compliment. Appreciate it. Yet, at the same time, there is also much more for me to learn. The quest and journey never ends. As much as I enjoy penning my thoughts with my flair for blogging, yet, I still realize and recognize that what I know is only but a fraction of a whole larger picture. Thanks for your complement anyways.. =)