Historical Jesus
Scot McKnight begins his article by pointing out that modern day Christians have a tendency to morph their perception of Jesus to reflect their own characteristics. He looped this theory around to apply to historical christian scholars who research the life and time period of Jesus. I disagree with McKnight's position against the teachings of these scholars because I believe that people SHOULD change their religious leader to someone that they may relate to.
The world is already to harsh and difficult for individuals to be altering the ways in which they connect to their faith. This applies to everyone, not merely the historical scholars. If a historian has a spiritual need to define Jesus in logical, historical terms (which may also reflect their belief system), then they should be allowed to do so. If someone with a lot of pent up guilt needs to view Jesus as a person capable of making mistakes as well, they should be allowed to do so. If an individual is weak and needs to be guided to their faith by a strong leader, their Jesus may reflect those traits. There is so much of the Bible which is up to interpretation. Therefor, Christianity cannot be so black and white; the gray area is where people are capable of finding a way to relate to a religion that they otherwise would be opposed to. By morphing Jesus to fit a characteristic that they may possess, they are making him worthy of their full faith. There is nothing wrong with some wiggle room in interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment