Searching for the “historical” Jesus is a psychological operation that is DESIGNED into historical-criticism (i.e. spawned by Spinoza) so that the searcher is conditioned to think that knowledge of Jesus cannot be obtained directly in the Gospels!
Psy-Ops in biblical criticism? Why not!
CLICK ABOVE LINK TO READ!
Whenever evangelicals “search for the ‘historical Jesus'” as well practice historical-critical hermeneutical ideologies, knowingly or unknowingly, they fulfill Baruch Spinoza’s high-handed intention of creating an endless nominalistic barrage of questions focused soley on issues behind the text rather than allowing the text of Scripture itself to speak. His ultimate purpose: TO SILENCE SCRIPTURE IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE OT & NT INFLUENCE OVER SOCIETY. HE ACCOMPLISHES HIS GOAL EVEN IN HIS GRAVE EVERYTIME SOMEONE ENGAGES THESE APPROACHES.
RIGHT: SPINOZA’S GRAVE in the churchyard of the Christian Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague
LEFT: THE FATHER OF MODERN OT & NT CRITICISM
Heinrich Heine, famous German Philosopher and theologian, said . . .
“All of our contemporary philosophers, perhaps often without knowing it, see through the lenses ground by Baruch Spinoza.”
For the tremendous influence of Spinoza on subsequent philosophers in Germany, see Heinrich Heine, On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany and Other Writings. Ed. Terry Pinkard (Cambridge: University Press, 2007) xx, 50-54, 59, 99, 108, 110 (quote from p. 187).
Left: Jesus-hated by men, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief
Right: Spinoza: “the ‘prince’ of philosophers”
Spinoza: considered by men to be the Great Scholar with the greatest influence today. He did more to destroy the influence of God’s Word in society through historical-criticism than any modern scholar
Spinoza said that that one could commit BIBLIOLATRY: “Still, it will be said, though the law of God is written in the heart, The Bible is none the less the Word of God, and it is no more lawful to say of Scripture than of God’s word that it is mutilated and corrupted. I fear that such objectors are too anxious to be pious, and that they are in danger of turning religion in to superstition, and worshipping paper and ink in place of God’s Word.”
Spinoza, A Theological-Political Treatise, Chapter XII (Elwes Translation, p. 166)
IN CONTRAST TO THE GREAT SCHOLAR,
GREAT MEN OF GOD WHO DID THE GREATEST THINGS FOR GOD
LORDSHIP . . .
“I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.” (Psa 138:2 NAU)
Isaiah the Prophet:
“The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” (Isa 40:8 NAU)
The Lord Jesus:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Mat 24:35 NAU)
“However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith [“the faith”] on the earth?” (Luk 18:8 NAU)
The Apostle Paul:
“And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. (1Co 2:1-5 NAU)
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ” (1Co 2:14-16 NAU)
” It is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy” (1Co 4:2 NAU)
“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Ti 2:2 NAU)
“For to me, to live is Christ” (Phi 1:21 NAU)
“More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish (DUNG) so that I may gain Christ” (Phi 3:8 NAU)
“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” (Heb 4:12-13 NAU)
For, “ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER.” And this is the word which was preached to you.” (1Pe 1:24-1 NAU)
Jesus’ warning to Laodecia:
14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.'”(Rev 3:14-16 NAU)
A British Thespian who dropped out of Cambridge-George Whitefield:
“It is better to be a saint than a scholar; indeed, the only way to be a true scholar is to be striving to be a true saint“
Whitefield, along with Jonathan Edwards, sparked the Great Spiritual Awakening of the 18th Century in Britain and America
Muzzled by historical-critical ideologies: What the earliest church fathers, who lived closest to the writings of the gospels, had to say about gospel origins
above: Clement of Alexandria
c. 150-c. 215
Clement of Alexandria: “The Gospels with genealogies were written before the Gospels without”
PLEASE READ THIS-click on the following link immediately below:
The FACTS . . . AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS . . .
The search for the “historical Jesus” centers in the 2 & 4 source hypothesis for its operation that Mark is the earliest, most “primitive gospel”
2/4 Source is historical-critical nonsense!
- Never, ever once was the Gospel of Mark said to be written first in church history
- Matthew was always considered to be written first and John last in terms of chronological order
- Luke was said to be written second, with Mark third (although later in early church history sometimes Mark was thought to be second at times)
- IT WAS THE ENLIGHTENMENT that caused a total dismissal of what the earliest men in church history had to say about Gospel origins.
- LOGIC would indicate that those closest to the times in which the gospels were written would know more than those who lived in the 1700s during the Enlightenment!
HISTORY IS NOT ON THE SIDE OF British-Influenced critical scholarship regarding the 2/4 Source hypothesis
Historical critical scholars would have someone believe that modern theories of gospel origins developed “scientifically”
Such an assertion is not based in history.
No inductive, scientific search was ever conducted
Just assumptions after assumption.
READ THE FOLLOWING:
Left: The Book that catalogued the First “Search For Jesus”–they never found him.
Right: Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)
READ ABOUT HOW THESE SEARCHES
WERE STIMULATED BY CLICKING ON THE LINK IMMEDIATELY BELOW:
P.S. I love the German liberals. WHY? They are honest men. They tell someone up-front that they don’t believe the Bible. They are open and honest. I can accept that.
I like honesty in chaps. Pip pip ol’ boy. Good show! and all that rot.
I struggle with British critical scholars. Why?
As a group, British critical scholars are much more moderating in assertions, less candid, and are far more cryptic in their unbelief making them far more dangerous.
How unscholarly and judgment of me; what a brash YANK!
BUT Jesus didn’t like lukewarmness either . . .
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.” (Rev 3:15-16 NAU)
Well, her majesty will be reissuing the warrant for my arrest due to my British ancestry!
WHO LEADS THIS “THIRD QUEST” for the “historical Jesus”?
“Where’s Waldo” becomes “Where’s Jesus” for British-Influenced NT academic critical scholars
Braaten observed, “now at the end of this century [twentieth] a ‘Third Quest’ is underway. Its headquarters are no longer in Germany, but in the English speaking realm of theology.” Carl Braaten, “Jesus and the Church, An Essay on Ecclesiastical Hermeneutics,” Ex auditu (January 1994), 61.
The Third Quest: A BRITISH ENDEAVOR
This Third Quest has received its major impetus and name from British theologian Tom Wright, proposing this new term “Third Quest” in a 1982 article and also in his update of Stephen Neill’s work on a historical sweep of New Testament study, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1961-1986. It has become an all-inclusive term to designate all historical Jesus research since the late 1970s and early 1980s. In this latter work, Wright said the following,
“Stephen Neill was correct to write in 1962 that ‘the historical reconstruction of the life and history of Jesus has yet hardly begun,’ but he could not have written those words today. For, while the so-called ‘New Quest’ was still cautiously arguing about presuppositions and methods, producing lengthy histories of tradition out of which could be squeezed one or two more drops of authentic Jesus-material [Schillebeeckx], a quite different movement was beginning in a variety of places and with no unified background or programme. Fortified by Jewish materials now more ready available, these scholars worked as historians, under no doubt that it is quite possible to know quite a lot about Jesus of Nazareth and that it is worth- while to do so—the two things which the orthodox Bultmann school had denied. This movement of scholarship has become so pronounced that it is not fanciful to talk in terms of a ‘Third Quest.’
For Wright, this third quest could be separated from the other quests for three essential reasons:
First, much of the last century (from Schweitzer to Käsemann, if you like) has not been trying to find Jesus—in fact, it has been spent by theologians actually trying not to find him, lest they base their faith on history and so corrupt it. Secondly, this non-quest of the first half of the century was undertaken (if one may so speak) for. . . the desire to preserve orthodoxy and to protect ordinary Christians from the ravages of historical criticism. Conversely, where the Quest has been and is undertaken, the pious and orthodox are not noticeably welcoming it with open arms. One does not see copies of Vermes’s Jesus the Jew or Sander’s Jesus and Judaism on too many church bookstalls. Thirdly, actual historical enquiry after Jesus has not reached an impasse: it could not have, since until a few years ago it had hardly started, and in fact shows every sign of healthy young growth, needing pruning sooner or later no doubt, but at the moment to be encouraged.
Wright’s profound influence today among theologians has been a major factor in what is now seen as another attempt at searching for the historical Jesus.The “Third Quest” has its special emphasis centering in the relationship of Jesus to Second Temple Judaism and its Literature and therein finds its distinctiveness.
Who is negative toward NT Wright . . . in his own words:
“the more distressing difficulties lie in [his] relationships with conservative Christians” for he relates that “I am wryly amused, and sometimes a little frustrated, when I see would-be orthodox people saying, ‘Oh dear, have you seen what Tom Wright is doing? Are you quite sure he’s an evangelical?”[i]
[i] Stafford, “The New Theologians,” Christianity Today 43/2 (February 8, 1999): 46 (30-49)
 John Reumann, “Jesus and Christology,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. Eds. Eldon J. Epp and George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989). 502.
 See N. T. Wright, “Towards a Third ‘Quest’? Jesus Then and Now,” ARC 10/1 (Autumn 1982):20-27; Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986. New Edition. Second Edition by Stephen Neill and Tom Wright (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988 .
 Beilby and Eddy, The Historical Jesus Five Views, 29.
 Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986, 379.
 Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986, 379-380.
 Christianity Today in 1999 declared N. T. Wright one of the “top scholars” in the church at the end of the Twentieth century. His influence has been profound. See Tim Stafford, “The New Theologians (February 8, 1999) 30-49.
HOW MANY “HISTORICAL JESUSES HAVE BEEN FOUND BY RECENT BRITISH INFLUENCED CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP?
Using historical-critical ideologies . . .
HUNDREDS OF JESUSES have been found!
All, of course, except the Gospels’ Jesus–they’re not looking for Him!
The Gospels’ Jesus is not in the “picture”
John Dominic Crossan–Searching has become a “scholarly bad joke”
The current situation of widely conflicting views on whom the “historical Jesus” was has prompted Jesus Seminar participant John Dominic Crossan to comment that “Historical Jesus research today is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke” and “an academic embarrassment” as well as giving the “impression of acute scholarly subjectivity in historical research.” He goes on to note, however, something he deems positive, “the number of competent and even eminent scholars producing pictures of Jesus at wide variance with one another.”
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) xxvii-xxviii.
“THE EXISTENIAL JESUS”–find the Jesus most pleasing to you!
As a result, the term “historical Jesus” is best perhaps termed the “existential Jesus,” for, as will be seen, a close examination of the questing reveals that the “historical Jesus” is whatever the quester a priori determines Jesus to be or wants him as somehow significantly in distinction from the biblical documents. This subjectivity is highlighted in reviewing terms used today in the “third search” to define the “historical Jesus”: an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occult magician, an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious eschatological agent, and the list would go on and on. No one embraces all of these images but they are presented by their advocates as the most reasonable reconstruction of “the historical Jesus.”
 For these various portraits of what or whom the “historical Jesus” has been in the search since its beginnings to the present day, consult Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery from the first German edition, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (1906). Introduction by James M. Robinson (New York: MacMillan, 1968); Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century 1900-1950 (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 1999); John K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity International, 1993); Eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009).