Wednesday, April 14, 2010

This Historian in me...

...REALLY liked this:

As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. At some point, historical methods run out of steam and energy. Historical Jesus studies cannot get us to the point where the Holy Spirit and the church can take us. I know that once I was blind and that I can now see. I know that historical methods did not give me sight. They can't. Faith cannot be completely based on what the historian can prove. The quest for the real Jesus, through long and painful paths, has proven that much.

Read the whole thing.


Rhett said...

I read this an NT Wright's reply. It was an interesting little back and forth.

Got me wondering if Scot McKnight's new years resolution was to really just put it all out there this year.

BJ said...

...and then McKnight replied...its kinda funny - the historians that he WASN'T dissing were the ones who replied!

Rhett said...

Oh cool, I did see the reply to the reply.

And yup, Wright and him seemed to be saying much the same thing. It's: yeah historical Jesus studies are interesting and helpful. But don't build your faith on them.