[ Note: This post appeared in the Lawrence Journal-World. I was asked to write it for the Faith Forum section. ]
Is it important, or possible, to differentiate between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible?
Is it important?
Depends on what you want.
If you want a religion and a Jesus you’re more comfortable with, then you must differentiate between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible. The Bible Jesus said outrageous things such as “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He claimed to come down from heaven. He accepted worship. He said those who did not believe in Him were condemned.
But, if you want the true Jesus—the Jesus who can give you eternal life—then it is important to know that the historical Jesus is the Bible Jesus.
Is it possible?
It is only possible to differentiate between the historical Jesus and the Bible Jesus if you are willing to ignore the facts—history and archaeology have confirmed the accuracy of the Bible.
You have to ignore the fact that the trustworthiness of the Biblical documents is well-established. You have to ignore the fact that the so-called scholars who differentiate between the historical Jesus and the Bible Jesus don’t stand on scholarship, but on presuppositions and opinions.
But, if you want the real Jesus—it’s not possible to differentiate between the historical Jesus and the Bible Jesus. They are one and the same. And, the implications are enormous: If the Bible does present the historical Jesus, then Jesus was not just an interesting historical figure or a great teacher. Either He was crazy and a great deceiver—in the same category as Charles Manson—or He is exactly who the Bible reports He is: God the Savior. The only way to God.
