Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Povijesni Isus" in Croatian language version.
...I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology [a faith-based study of Jesus Christ]...
...The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship...
...There seems to be a widespread assumption that academics who speak publicly about religion should keep their views to themselves if they might be unsettling to the beliefs of mainstream Christians...
...The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice...
|journal= (pomoć)CS1 održavanje: arhivirana kopija u naslovu (link)The Gentile mission was at most peripheral to Jesus' earthly ministry....CS1 održavanje: nepreporučeni parametar - authorlink1 (pomoć)
|journal= (pomoć)He made no statements about Gentiles (non-Jews.)Jesus is thinking of Israel, so he doesn't have to plan out any structures. He did one seemingly structural thing by calling the 12 apostles, which was a symbolic body. Jesus chose the 12 to "sit on the 12 thrones to judge the tribes of Israel," a symbolic role as the judges of the house of Israel.
Jesus doesn't leave any writings/ instructions on founding a church. He doesn't talk directly about any of these foundational concerns or organizational matters (establishing feasts, priests, holy days, etc.) Why? Because he didn't have to. Israel already had Jesus in place structures and the organization of life: feasts, priesthood, etc. Jesus said, "I come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His whole ministry was in Israel.
He made no statements about Gentiles (non-Jews.)Jesus is thinking of Israel, so he doesn't have to plan out any structures. He did one seemingly structural thing by calling the 12 apostles, which was a symbolic body. Jesus chose the 12 to "sit on the 12 thrones to judge the tribes of Israel," a symbolic role as the judges of the house of Israel.
Jesus doesn't leave any writings/ instructions on founding a church. He doesn't talk directly about any of these foundational concerns or organizational matters (establishing feasts, priests, holy days, etc.) Why? Because he didn't have to. Israel already had Jesus in place structures and the organization of life: feasts, priesthood, etc. Jesus said, "I come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His whole ministry was in Israel.
|journal= (pomoć)|journal= (pomoć)CS1 održavanje: arhivirana kopija u naslovu (link)...I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology [a faith-based study of Jesus Christ]...