呵呵，又一個自由主義出來了！
※ 引述《rehoboth (火流星！降臨！)》之銘言：
: 老魚這篇介紹提到了【基督復活和升天後，仍然是人.....
: 而在另一篇對自由神學的看法中，卻對
: The Quest of Historical Jesus/追尋歷史的耶穌，過度抹黑。
: 追尋歷史的耶穌，強調的是"耶穌身為人"的一面，
: 但卻無法必然的推論"耶穌只是人，不是神"
呵呵，看來星火真的不了解『歷史的耶穌』的背景誒！
Theological Studies 51 (1990)
THE HISTORICAL JESUS: RETHINKING SOME CONCEPTS
JOHN P. MEIER
The Catholic University of Americ
這篇文章有一段話：
。。。phrase "the historical Jesus" or "the Jesus of history"4 is freely
used, though all too frequently without detailed methodological discussion of
the origin and meaning of the category. Often there will be a passing
reference to the fact that the "historical Jesus" is distinguished from the
Christ of the kerygma, the Christ of faith, Jesus as presented to Christian
faith in the Gospels, or simply the Christian faith.
這段話論到『歷史的耶穌』的背景，就是歷史的耶穌把自身與教義的耶穌或信仰的耶穌，
或福音書中基督教信仰展現的耶穌，或基督教的信仰分別開來。
The Quest for the Historical Jesus:
What Is It and Why Should I Care?
Jared Compton
Instructor in New Testament
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
這篇文章有一段話：
H. S. Reimarus (1694–1768)。。。Reimarus sought to show that the
Christianity of his day (i.e., continental Protestantism) was a ruse, resting
on a Jesus created by the earliest Christians.9 The “real” Jesus, according
to Reimarus, was a failed Jewish reformer, who’d met his end on a Roman
cross just outside Jerusalem. Instead of cashing in their revolutionary
hopes, the disciples decided rather to steal Jesus’ body, invent the story
of his resurrection, cast Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures,
and, as a result (and with considerable help from Paul10) to found the early
Church.
Reimarus想要告訴當時的基督教，耶穌是早期基督徒創造出來的人物。『真正』的也是是
一個失敗的猶太教革新者，死在十字架上。門徒決定偷走耶穌的屍體，發明了他復活的故
事，把基督塑造為應驗猶太教經典的人物，結果就是建立了早期教會。
還有一段話：
Strauss argued that much of what the Gospels record did not literally happen;
rather—and here he and Reimarus walk together—the stories were invented
(this time “unconsciously”17) by the earliest Christians in an attempt to
relay the true significance of Jesus’ life.18 Thus to uncover the historical
Jesus, the Gospels must be demythologized. (You can imagine how subjective
the criteria for such work must be.) For his labors Strauss lost his post at T
übingen.19
Strauss認為福音書的記者從未發生過，那些故事都是早就基督教編纂出來的，嘗試建立
基督的生命。所以，如果要重新發現歷史的耶穌，福音書必須被去神話化。
MSJ 23/1 (SPRING 2012) 7–42
THREE SEARCHES FOR THE “HISTORICAL JESUS”
BUT NO BIBLICAL CHRIST:
THE RISE OF THE SEARCHES (PART 1)
搜尋『歷史的基督』，但不是聖經的基督：搜尋的開始（第一部分）
F. DAVID FARNELL, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT
THE MASTER’S SEMINARY
還有一段話：
Robinson continues regarding the first alleged quest that “[t]his was in
fact the assumption of the nineteenth century quest of the historical Jesus.
For this quest was initiated by the enlightenment in its effort to escape the
limitations of dogma . . . . unrestricted by the doctrinal presentations of
him in the Bible, creed and Church.”[4] Since no perceived agreement or
consensus exists as to who or what the “historical Jesus” is or even if
such a definition can even be determined, the consequence appears to be that
it is to be defined negatively since a general agreement exists among
questers that whatever the “historical Jesus” is or was, He is not, indeed
cannot be, equated fully with the Jesus who is presented in the gospels.
Since historiography, i.e. hypotheses of what can take place in a time-space
continuum in reference to historical-critical ideology, cannot encompass the
supernatural, indeed, rules it out from the very beginning, whatever the “
historical Jesus” is, He cannot be equated with the Jesus as He is presented
in the gospels.[5]
Robinson繼續論到所謂的第一個探索，說『事實上，這乃是對於十九世紀的歷史的耶穌的
探索的假設。因為這個探索乃是從啟蒙運動中，對於嘗試脫離教義捆鎖的嘗試所發起的。
。。。脫離他在聖經、信經和教會的教條中的描述。』因為，對於『歷史的耶穌』到底是
誰或什麼，甚至這個詞的定義當如何被確立根本沒有任何共識，這就導致這個詞被負面的
定義，因為在參與搜尋的人士間有一種共識，就是不過『歷史的耶穌』現今/曾經是什麼
，祂不是，也不能是福音書所展現的耶穌。因為，根據歷史編纂（historiography），例
如：根據歷史批判的觀念，在時間—空間的延續性中能夠發生的事件，不能包含超自然的
事件，就是，從一開始就排除了超自然的事件，不管『歷史的耶穌』是什麼，祂不能被視
為福音書展示的耶穌。
換句話說，耶穌的神蹟，復活，和耶穌為神這些『超自然』的事件都不可能被包括在『歷
史的耶穌』的框架裡面！
該文接下來繼續介紹：
As a result, the term “historical Jesus” is perhaps best 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.[6] No one embraces all
of these images, but they are presented by their advocates as the most
reasonable reconstruction of “the historical Jesus.” After an arbitrary a
priori decision has been made on a preconceived concept of Jesus, criteria of
authenticity, stemming from tradition criticism, can be applied to the
gospels and that concept of Jesus affirmed. Since the criteria are subjective
and conflicting, other criteria can be invented and applied to ensure the
desired outcome. The critical weakness, as well as subjectivity, of these
criteria lies in the fact that the same criteria can be applied or countered
with different criteria to ensure whatever view has already been assumed.[7]
The current situation of widely conflicting views on who the “historical
Jesus” was has prompted Jesus Seminar participant John Dominic Crossan to
comment, “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.”[8]
這就造成，『歷史的耶穌』這個詞或許最好被稱之為『存在主義的耶穌（existential
Jesus）』，因為，正如同我們將會看見的，對於搜尋更為仔細的檢視揭示『歷史的耶穌
』就是搜尋者預設的耶穌，或希望在某種意義上與聖經文獻間產生巨大差異的耶穌。這個
主觀性愛今日的『第三個搜尋』中所使用定義『歷史的耶穌』的名詞中被凸顯出來：一位
末世的先知，一位加利利的聖人，一位神秘的魔術師，一位啟迪人的拉比，一位讓人精神
恍惚的心理治療師，一位猶太人的智者，一位政治革命家，艾賽尼派的陰謀家，四處遊蕩
的驅魔人，一個歷史的神秘人物，解放神學家的原型，一位農奴工匠，一位遵守可拉的法
利賽人，一位類似犬儒派的哲學家，一位自我啟發的末世代理人，這個清單還沒完。沒有
人接受這所有的描述，但是它們代表了它們的提倡者的觀念，他們用最為理性的方式重建
了『歷史的耶穌』。在針對一個預設的耶穌觀念做出一種隨心所欲的預設立場手，可靠性
的準則就從傳統的批判主義遠遠而出，被應用在福音書並耶穌的觀念上。因為標準是主觀
的，並自相矛盾的，其他的標準也能夠被發明，並用於保證產生合乎個人理想的結果。那
些標準批判主義弱點，以及主觀性都是建立在同一個標準能夠被用於，或被視為其他的標
準之上的事實，這樣做是為了保證已經被假設的觀點。目前這種廣泛的，對於『歷史的耶
穌』具有相互衝突觀點的情況，都是由John Dominic Crossan所參加的耶穌學會（Jesus
Seninar）所鼓吹的，他評論到，『今日歷史的耶穌的研究已經成為某種學術上的醜惡笑
話』並且『一種學術上尷尬結果』還造成『一直對於在歷史研究領域中的學術具有尖銳主
觀主義的印象』。
請注意，『歷史的耶穌』所尋找的，可以是：一位末世的先知，一位加利利的聖人，一位
神秘的魔術師，一位啟迪人的拉比，一位讓人精神恍惚的心理治療師，一位猶太人的智者
，一位政治革命家，艾賽尼派的陰謀家，四處遊蕩的驅魔人，一個歷史的神秘人物，解放
神學家的原型，一位農奴工匠，一位遵守可拉的法利賽人，一位類似犬儒派的哲學家，一
位自我啟發的末世代理人。。。。。。但，就是『不是神』。
這也是為什麼，早期華人教會受基要主義影響的基督教領袖，都異口同聲的把高等批判/
歷史-文法批判/自由主義神學稱之為『不信派』的緣故。因為他們的信仰是建立在唯物主
義/唯理主義之上，不承認任何超自然的事件，所以，耶穌對他們而言，只不過是一個‘
歷史的人物’——這是『歷史的耶穌』名稱的由來，而不是神。
當星火宣稱我『抹黑』The Quest of the Historical Jesus，我引用Albert
Schweitzer 1910年倫敦英文版的資料。
Pg。1 The greatest achievement of German theology is the critical
investigation of the life of Jesus. What it has accomplished here has laid
down the condition and determined the couse of the religious thinking of
future.
史懷哲說的很清楚，德國神學最為偉大的貢獻就是批判學，而批判學為研究耶穌生平墊底
了基礎，環境而發展的方向。
接下來的段落：
In the history of doctrine its work has been negative; it has, so to speak,
cleared the site for a new edifice of religious thought. In describing how
the ideas of Jesus were taken of by the Greek spirit, it was tracing the
growth of that which must necessarily become strange to us, and as a matter
of fact, has become strange to us.
史懷哲在此說到，教義在歷史中的工作是父母的，而批判學澄清了這種被改造過的宗教思
想。批判學描述了耶穌的觀念如何被希臘的精神吸收。。。。換句話說，基督教是希臘文
化的產物——這正是後來哈拿克的立場。
Pg.3-4 That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus
Christ of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident…. The historical
investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its rise from a purely
historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of history as a ally in the
struggle againt the tyranny of dogma. Afterwards when it was freed from this
dogma it sought to present the historic Jesus in a form inteliigible to its
own time.
歷史的耶穌與我們如今認為不辯自明的，教義上的具有二性的耶穌基督不同。對於基督生
平的歷史研究為的是擺脫教義對歷史耶穌真相的暴虐統治——哈那克也採用了，後來演變
成為今日『聖經神學』所謂：讓聖經的本文說話——而當真相脫離了教義之後，它就能夠
根據自身的時代用理性的形式展現歷史的耶穌——換句話說，19世紀的歷史的耶穌，20世
紀的歷史的耶穌，和21世紀的歷史的耶穌因為處境不同，當時人們理解不同，而成為三位
能夠滿足三個不同時期的耶穌。
請問，星火『認可』上述的一對觀點嗎？
當星火宣稱：
: 追尋歷史的耶穌，強調的是"耶穌身為人"的一面，
: 但卻無法必然的推論"耶穌只是人，不是神"
那麼，請問，那一位『歷史的耶穌』學者承認『耶穌是神』的？請舉例？
: 挪用"強調耶穌是人的一面"的研究結論去主張"耶穌只是人不是神"，是個人層級的事
: 老魚的滑坡推論把一堆人拉黑。
: 至於對形式批判和強調文法解經的過度抹黑，是同樣的手法，以後再談。