Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17174)	4/21/2004 2:04:29 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

32. The Bible is both historical and theological. Ankerberg: One of the criticisms of a lot of the Jesus Seminar folks—not just those folks, but some scholars would say that the Christ of faith is not the Christ of history. They’re saying that statements such as Jesus being divine—these were the experience more than the historical fact of later believers. Can you tie what they were saying later on—Paul and other places—in terms of the divine Jesus? Can we get the stuff of the creeds in the historical Jesus, I guess is what I’m asking. Evans: To some extent, yes, but to another extent, no. History is history. And so, it’s a historical statement to say Jesus died on the cross. It’s a historical statement to say they found the tomb empty. It’s a historical statement to say that they claimed the risen Christ appeared to them. But, it’s no longer history when you say Jesus was the Son of God. That’s not history—that’s theology, that’s confession. To say that Jesus died on the cross to forgive sins—the first part is history, the second part is theology. So, sometimes that distinction that’s made is necessary and valid. But, I think if they go on to say that there’s no evidence that Jesus saw Himself as God’s son, or that there’s no evidence that He saw Himself as Israel’s messiah—that’s history, and in this case, it’s bad history.