John Dickson has an excellent post on why Christians should not fear historical questions about Jesus. He writes:
Jesus’ residence in Nazareth of Galilee, his baptism by John, his kingdom eschatology, his critique of Israel, his clash with the priestly elite, his establishment of the Twelve, his friendships with sinners, his extraordinarily high view of himself in the divine purpose, his (broadly) salvific understanding of his looming death, the crucifixion itself, and the claim of his followers afterward that they saw him alive again: All of this and more would be accepted by mainstream scholars, whether Jewish, agnostic or Christian, as historically sound. Admittedly, this doesn’t include the doctrines of sin, penal substitutionary atonement, or free grace, but their absence is due to the epistemological limits of the historical disciplines per se, not some lurking contrary evidence. You and I can preach Christ in the happy confidence that Jesus’ life and teaching, his reputation as a healer, his death by crucifixion, and the near-immediate claim of his resurrection all look pretty solid when viewed from a purely historical point of view.
See “The Christ Files: Why Historical Questions Aren’t Going Anywhere and Shouldn’t Trouble Us Anyway.”
Hey Paul,
Thanks for the link. John is an impressive scholar but even more impressive is the manner in which he brings the fruit of that scholarship down to where lay people can benefit from it. We’ve had him in the store twice and are planning on having him back in May.