Difference between Jesus of history and Jesus of faith?

Answer 1

Strictly speaking, there is not really a Jesus of history, only a Jesus of the gospels. There is no historical evidence outside the Bible for the existence of Jesus. However, the Jesus of the gospels is certainly the Christ of modern faith. Scholars are less certain as to whether there were two or more Jesus or Christ movements in the middle of the first century.

Answer 2

Answer

Burton L. Mack sees the earliest forms of Christianity as consisting of two quite different schools, which he calls the "Jesus Movement" and the "Christ Cult". He says that the Jesus Movement arose around a holy preacher who lived in Palestine in the early part of the first century and taught moral truths, but was not divine and was not necessarily crucified. The Christ Cult arose in northern Syria and spread quickly into Asia minor, based on a spiritual, rather than human understanding of Jesus. On this hypothesis, Paul must have been a follower of the Christ cult, while the gospels were written from within the Jesus movement after it began to assimilate much of the teachings of the Christ Cult.

Others say that the Christ Cult is older than the Jesus Movement and that Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, was assimilated into the Christ Cult, thereby developing the concept of Jesus as the Christ.

Answer 3

There is no difference. The Jesus of history is the Jesus of faith, and faith in him is not blind but based upon history.