> And why would Stephen Froehlich wonder why we are concerned with the
> "historical Jesus" when we have him with us? Isn't it clear that
> Christianity is a historically-based religion, and if God did not act in
> history as Scripture says he did, then our faith is of no more
> credibility than that expressed in the bumper stickers "Love your Mother"
> or "Believe the Children."
>
> It is the historiocal rootedness of the Judeo-Christian tradition that
> makes it above all a rational faith (as compared to all other religions)
> and also makes it critical that we understand the historicity if
> revelation--which of course is why we spend so much time asking what the
> historical import of the early chapters of Genesis really is.
I beg to differ, and here's why: The reason I trust the accounts
that are found in the Bible is because God revealed himself to me. (In
several ways, including a reading of the Scriptures, but most palpably in
a gathering of Christians.)
It is on this basis that I was able to make a leap of faith that the
accounts are accurate (in the sense that they were accurate back then,
not as a scientific truth. They were telling a true story and added
perspective and embellishment as things were revealed to them by the Holy
Spirit.) Look at John, which is as much a document on the nature of the
Incarnation of God as a document about Jesus the man. (Its instead about
Jesus the Son of Man.)
We can't prove Christianity, if we could, then it would be a
philosophy and not a journey. One of the important things in this to me is
that we often apply the epistomology of our fields of study/work to the
living God, and I'm afraid its a very bad fit.
I apologize if my tone is a bit strong in this letter. I am, after
all, a romantic undergrad fizix student, but I do feel strongly on this
point.
In his love,
Stephen