Resurrection: Its Fuller and Original Meaning (some hints from critical Biblical Studies)

 (JKK's Notes)

-Julius-Kei Kato, PhD

"Easter" ... You know that this refers to Jesus's resurrection, right? Have you ever wondered what “resurrection” really means … I mean, its full implications? Many think, it simply means that Jesus who was crucified and laid in the tomb just got up and walked out by his own divine power. And this proves his divinity, that he was God-walking-on-earth, so the argument goes. (I'm reminded here of the last scene in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.) Well, if you thought that was all “resurrection” meant, think again. It's not all that simple.

In these notes, let us deepen our knowledge of Easter and of what resurrection means … in a fuller sense.

SOURCE: I am heavily dependent on New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan and the various points he makes in his work: Resurrecting Easter: How the West Lost and the East Kept the Original Easter Vision (2018). Other resources mentioned below.

[1] Clarifying Terms: Resurrection vs. Ascension

Many modern Christians—and even some scholars—use the term “resurrection” without understanding its original meaning in the Mediterranean world of Jesus and the first Christians. So, let's clarify first and distinguish between the precise meaning of—what we refer to in English as—"resurrection" with some related but different concepts.

In the first-century Mediterranean world, there was already a widespread belief that special individuals (such as Moses in the Jewish tradition or Romulus for the Roman empire) could be taken up to the divine realm after death. This phenomenon is known as apotheosis, a Greek word that literally means "the process of becoming divine." In practice though, apotheosis referred to an extraordinary person being accorded a kind of exaltation or going up into heaven after their earthly lives.

The more proper English words to express what apotheosis means could be: “ascension” or “assumption.” In fact, these words have been appropriated in the Christian tradition to refer to: (1) Jesus' going back up into heaven (ascension) and (2) his mother Mary being "assumed" body and soul into heaven after her death (Mary's assumption). 

However, neither "ascension" nor "assumption" is what the New Testament refers to when it refers to what happened to Jesus after his death on the cross. The New Testament uses the Greek word anastasis (regularly translated as "resurrection"). That word literally means: "to rise", "to stand up."

To summarize:

·       Apotheosis as ascension or assumption is not the same as resurrection.

·       Apotheosis was a common concept across Mediterranean cultures as a way of glorifying special, exceptional people after their earthly existence.

·       Anastasis as Resurrection, by contrast, was not universally accepted in the Mediterranean world. Rather, its use was sectarian. That is, it was used by a sect within Second Temple Judaism.

[2] Resurrection as a Pharisaic, Eschatological Concept

Respected New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan argues that resurrection (anastasis) in the first century was used specifically by Pharisaic Judaism.

Its meaning was precise:

·       It referred to a future, collective event. This means: Anastasis (resurrection) was not originally an event that happened to an individual. It was a significant, big-time happening that the Pharisees thought would involve a large number of people.

·       Concretely, this is what anastasis referred to: At the end of time, God would:

o   Raise all humanity

o   Conduct final judgment

o   Assign reward or punishment. That eventually came to be understood concretely as “heaven or hell”

If you're a Christian, those concepts will be familiar to you. But now, you know their origins! What you probably don't know is that resurrection was not primarily about an individual returning from death in isolation. Rather, it was primarily about cosmic justice being fulfilled. This belief stood in contrast to another dominant party at the time, the Sadducees, who denied such a future resurrection and were generally aligned with the status quo under Roman rule.

[3] Paul’s Radical Claim in 1 Corinthians 15

It is logical to think that Paul the Apostle (who was a Pharisee before he encountered the risen Christ) uses the term resurrection (anastasis) in this full Pharisaic sense. Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus is raised (1 Corinthians 15), he is making a noteworthy theological claim. (Chronologically speaking, this passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is the earliest mention of the “resurrection,” even before the gospels were written.)

What did Paul mean by saying “Jesus was raised”? He meant that:

·       Jesus’s resurrection is not an isolated event

·       Rather, it is the beginning of the general resurrection of all humanity (It is a collective event)

The essential point about Paul's logic, therefore, is that:

·       Both Jesus’s resurrection and the resurrection of all humans are just one thing: If there is no general resurrection, then there is no (individual) resurrection of Jesus! Try to wrap your minds around that. I’m sure it’s difficult if you are a Western Christian.

·       Conversely: Jesus’s resurrection only makes sense as part of the resurrection of all people at the end of time.

Crucially, JD Crossan argues the following point which might surprise you:

It never occurred to Paul that Jesus could be raised as a special exception (e.g., because he is Messiah or Son of God). Why? If one wanted to claim a unique privilege, the appropriate category to use in Paul’s world would be, as mentioned above, ascension (apotheosis), not resurrection (anastasis).

Jesus as Source of a Spirituality that Transforms the World

 

Christ of the Breadlines by Fritz Eichenberg

Jesus of Nazareth

Source of a Spirituality that Acts to Transform the World 

--Key Summary Statements: A Bare-Bones Description-- 

Introduction 

In this piece, I would like to propose Jesus of Nazareth as a major source of a spirituality that is both rooted in a non-dual/unitive consciousness of reality (everyone and everything as One in God) and acts to transform the world into a better place where “Shalom” is present. I will take “Shalom” to mean: the totality of all good and wholesome things, particularly, benevolence, social justice, peace, inclusivity, compassion, forgiveness, and harmony.

To that end, let me begin by stating that Jesus of Nazareth --acknowledged as “the Christ” (as recoverable by a balanced historical-critical study of the New Testament)-- is supposed to be the heart of Christian faith and spirituality. (This assertion is from Catholic theologian Hans Küng.)

Before going further, let us start by situating the figure of Jesus, his cause, his teaching, and ministry, within the context of the world’s great spiritual-wisdom traditions and the many spiritual masters throughout human history. In this way, we could see both the commonalities and the distinguishing characteristics that Jesus has vis-à-vis other sages and their traditions. Thus, we could also be more aware of both the commonalities that the Christian tradition shares with other wisdom-spiritual paths and the particular characteristics that give it its special character, albeit free of any claim of superiority. 

Let’s begin then by describing what many spiritual teachers have called “the Perennial Philosophy.” It is a theory that attempts to describe the common spiritual core present in all humans and all spiritual-wisdom traditions. It can also be considered the root of all spirituality.

For descriptions of what I mean by "religion" and "spirituality," consult my essay: Why Religion and Spirituality Matter as Part of One's Education

Part 1 – The Perennial Philosophy

Source for Part 1: Roger Walsh MD, PhD, Essential Spirituality: The Seven Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind (Wiley, 1999), pp. 6-9. I have done some minor annotations and revisions to the text. 

[1] What’s the “Perennial Philosophy”?|  Thanks to global communication, for the first time in history, we have all the world's religions, their wisdom and their practices, available to us.  ... What do the different [spiritual-wisdom] traditions have in common?

Beneath the hundreds of different cultures, claims, and customs, there lies a common core of both wisdom and practice at the heart of each authentic tradition. By "authentic tradition," I mean one capable of offering a direct experience of the sacred, and of fostering true spiritual growth and maturity in its practitioners. 

Many scholars and spiritual practitioners have called the essential common core of religious wisdom "the perennial wisdom" or "perennial philosophy" (PP). Why "perennial"? Because these profound insights into life have endured across centuries and cultures and have been taught by the great sages of all time

Developed over thousands of years, the perennial philosophy is a treasure house of humankind's curated wisdom. Vast in scope, profound in depth, it offers numberless insights into the nature of life and love, health and happiness, suffering and salvation.

At its heart lie four crucial claims--actually observations--since they are based on direct insights by advanced spiritual practitioners about reality and human nature.

For Further Elaboration: Materialist and Spiritual views of reality;

 

[2] (First Thesis of the PP) There are multiple dimensions in reality. (In Walsh's words: There are two realms of reality)

[jkk] In order to avoid being too “dualistic,” I would rephrase this to: Reality is greater than what we can access with our senses and what science can empirically prove at this point.

The first is the everyday realm with which we are all familiar, the world of physical objects and living creatures. This is the realm accessible to us via sight and sound and studied by sciences such as physics and biology.

But beneath these familiar phenomena lies another realm far more subtle and profound: the realm of God, of “the Spirit” (also known as the realm of Consciousness, Mind, the “Ground of Being”, the “Sacred”, Tao [道- Japanese, michi – Way] and other names). This dimension cannot be known through the physical senses and only indirectly through the physical instruments of science. Moreover, this realm creates and embraces the physical realm and is its source. This domain is not limited by space or time or physical laws, and hence it is unbounded and infinite, timeless and eternal.

[3] (Second Thesis of the PP) Human beings partake of both realms

We are not only physical but also spiritual beings. We have bodies but we also have at the core of our being, in the depths of our minds a centre of transcendent awareness. This centre is described as pure consciousness, mind, spirit or Self and is known by such names as the neshamah of Judaism, the soul or “divine spark” of Christianity, the atman of Hinduism or the "Buddha nature" of Buddhism. This divine spark is intimately related to--some traditions even say inseparable from and identical with--the sacred ground or foundation of all reality. We are not divorced from the sacred but eternally and intimately linked to it.

[4] (Third Thesis of the PP) Human beings can recognize their divine spark and the secret ground that is its source  

What this implies--this is absolutely crucial--is that the claims of the perennial philosophy do not have to be accepted blindly. Rather each of us can test them for ourselves and decide their validity based on our direct experience.  Although the soul or innermost Self (because it is non-physical) cannot be known by the senses or the instruments of science, it can be known by careful introspection [jkk annotation] and by practicing some essential practices recommended by the world’s spiritual-wisdom traditions that could awaken heart and mind. (See the link below)

This is not necessarily easy. Although anyone can be graced with spontaneous glimpses, clear sustained vision of our sacred depths usually requires significant practice to clarify awareness sufficiently. This is the purpose of spiritual practice. When the mind is still and clear, we can have a direct experience of our “Self.” This is not a concept of, nor an intellectual theory about, the Self. Rather, it is an immediate knowing, a direct intuition in which one not only sees the divine spark but also identifies with and recognizes that one is the spark. Sages from Judaism and Sufism, from Plato to Buddha, from Meister Eckhart to Lao Tsu have agreed on this. 

…

Compared to this direct realization of the sacred, mere book learning and theoretical knowledge are very poor substitutes, as far removed from direct experience as a text on human reproduction is from the embrace of a lover. 

  

[5] (Fourth Thesis of the PP) The perennial philosophy's fourth claim is that realizing our spiritual nature is the summum bonum: the highest goal and greatest good of human existence   

Beside this, all other goals pale; all other delights only partly satisfy. No other experience is so ecstatic, no other attainment so rewarding, no other goal so beneficial to oneself or others.  ... 

Again this is not wild dogma to be accepted merely on the word of others or on blind faith. Rather, it is an expression of the direct experience of those who have tasted these fruits for themselves. Most importantly, it is an invitation to all of us to test and taste for ourselves. 

** [end of excerpt from Walsh’s work] **

 

How does one concretely go about—what the Perennial Tradition calls— realizing “our highest good” or waking up to our spiritual nature? The same Prof. Roger Walsh spent 3 years researching all the major spiritual and religious traditions of the world and he summarized what he calls “essential practices” that all the greatest sages and spiritual practitioners throughout history have engaged in for the purpose of awakening heart and mind. You can read a summary of these essential spiritual practices HERE 

For Further Elaboration: Spiritual Experience; Unitive, Non-Dual Consciousness;  

Let us now proceed to reflect on Jesus of Nazareth, the central distinguishing factor of Christian faith, within the context of spirituality outlined above and how Jesus himself can be the source of a spirituality that acts in order to transform the world into a better reflection of “the Reign (or Kingdom) of God.”

 

Part 2 - Jesus of Nazareth as a Great Contemplative-in-Action

[6] Jesus as Sage and “Spiritual Master”

Jesus of Nazareth, believed in as “the Christ” (the anointed one), is often predominantly portrayed as divine in Christianity. That unfortunately obscures the fact that before he was worshipped as God, Jesus as a historical figure, as a flesh-and-blood Jewish person who lived in the First Century CE, was, without doubt, a profound mystical-contemplative “Spirit Person” (cf. Marcus Borg) who let his deep spirituality overflow into powerful action to realize concretely a kind of “order” that he called “the reign of God” (aka, “the Kingdom of God”) in his own concrete place and time. (Notice that the “reign of God” is, first and foremost, supposed to be present in the here and now and not in some otherworldly paradise or heaven.)

In other words, Jesus of Nazareth can very rightly be considered a “contemplative-in-action” or a model of the balance between contemplation and action. He is one of the great sages and spirit persons in human history (such as the Buddha, Lao-Tzu, the Prophet Muhammad, etc.) who were experientially connected to a greater reality and who made that non-dual/unitive experience the vision for transforming the world. By “non-dual/unitive experience” we mean: the experiential knowledge of sages and spiritual practitioners that everyone and everything are all united with “the ONE.” It is clear that these spiritual practitioners and masters are living embodiments of the principles of the perennial philosophy stated above.

For further elaboration: What is the “non-dual” or “unitive” experience or consciousness? How can we cultivate an appropriate spirituality? How to do a Meditation-Mindfulness practice? Lectio Divina? Discernment practices? Roger Walsh’s ‘Seven Essential Practices’ to Awaken Mind and Heart can be an important reference (see link above); Illustrate with a spiritual experience (e.g. Thomas Merton’s).

Consider the Catholic monk Thomas Merton’s “unitive” experience while walking on a city street:

In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all those people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious self-isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness…

This sense of liberation from an illusory difference was such a relief and such a joy to me that I almost laughed out loud… I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate. As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now I realize what we all are. And if only everybody could realize this! But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun.”

Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts, where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are.  If only we could see each other that way all the time.

(from Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, 1966)

[1] The Sixth Paradigm [R. Holloway--Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity] - Part 1

Source (in the public domain): http://radicalfaith.org/holloway/sixth%20paradigm.htm

From a talk Holloway gave in May 2003

Accessed: 2020-09-03

 

The Sixth Paradigm  [Different Paradigm Shifts in Christianity]

Richard Holloway (former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh)

 

I want to take a glance at the whole of Christian history because one of the things I'd like to get at is this widespread notion that Christianity is or ever has been a single thing.

To do this I'll use a large text, but I want to lead into it by addressing first a very slim text.

One of the most important and influential philosophical texts of the twentieth century was a short book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions written by an historian of science called Thomas Kuhn. Now Kuhn was a student at Harvard in the 1960s. He was a young physicist and was invited by the President of Harvard to teach a course on the history of science to humanities students who knew nothing about science. He said to himself, "You don't refuse the President of Harvard!"

In his researches and preparing the course he surprised himself. He came across something that he had not hitherto realised was the case. He had a notion of science as a kind of linear activity - a bit like those machines in a coal mine which eat into the coal face - which bites its way through the facts of the universe. He thought of science as a cumulative process in which these facts were gradually laid out.

He discovered that it was in fact a more violent, interruptive activity. Hence the title of his essay. He discovered that science operates by what he called "paradigm revolutions" or "paradigm shifts". He didn't actually coin the word "paradigm" but he did give it a new kind of meaning. He said that the scientific community worked within what it called a paradigm, a constellation of views based on experiment, a world view or set of assumptions that it operated within. This was the going, working science of the time.

The paradigm was operated until it stopped working - that is, until new questions or new discoveries began to collide with the given view. Let me give you a fairly obvious example.

Aristotelian astronomy, upon which the worldview of the entire Bible is based, proposed a three-decker universe with the earth at the centre and all the spheres going round it. The whole idea was that the earth is the centre of the system both physically as well as theologically.

That was the going paradigm. And it still works. The Ptolemaic version of Aristotelian astronomy can still operate for a yachtsperson. You can cross the Atlantic using Ptolemaic astronomy, guiding your boat by the stars. So to that extent it can still be a working paradigm.

But it was overtaken by the great Copernican discovery which was revolutionary because it said, "Ah! The earth is not the thing which everything else goes round. In fact, we go round the sun."

You'll recall the great struggle which then took place. This was because the new paradigm appeared to contradict both the biblical account as well as the going scientific paradigm. Interestingly, it was only fairly recently that the Pope gave the sun permission to be the centre of the solar system.

What happens then is that you get a working set of systems which operates quite satisfactorily until along comes new knowledge, usually discovered by creatures of genius. They begin to ask questions about the old paradigm. Those who use the old paradigm resist the new - and it is entirely right that they should do so. One doesn't want to keep changing a world view which works. It's a confounded nuisance if you're switching paradigms every few years. You need to get traction, a bit of tradition and leverage on the thing.

So you make it work as long as you possibly can. You use it to try to answer the new information which is coming in. There's also in some people a natural kind of conservatism which doesn't like any kind of change. They prefer the going paradigm to anything which is coming down the road. They do so for purely temperamental reasons - but it's also true that the scientific method itself inherently tests new data until it overturns the old. And then you get a paradigm revolution and you move on.

Kuhn's little book has influenced philosophers, culture critics and theologians since the early 1960s. I want to look now at a great text which has applied Kuhn's conclusions about paradigms to Christianity.

The greatest living theologian is Hans Kung, a Roman Catholic. His is the "large text" to which I referred earlier. He doesn't have the Pope's driving licence because he wrote a book in the seventies attacking the doctrine of infallibility and he had his licence to teach withdrawn.

He still teaches theology at Tübingen University but he teaches it in a secular setting (2020-no longer teaching). Quite movingly, he's an old man now and he would like to get his licence back. He'd like to die, as it were, in peace with the Roman Church. But he has been told that he will only get the licence back if he commits to the doctrine of infallibility.

So he will have to sacrifice his conscience to get back inside the Church (which shows you how corrupt churches are). I doubt if he will do that because his whole being has been one of challenge. He's been a sort of Protestant theologian in the midst of Catholicism.

Kung set himself a few years ago an enormous task. He wanted to describe the religious situation of our day. He conceived three volumes - one on Christianity, one on Judaism and one on Islam (2020-they are all published).

He applies paradigm theory to religion. He says that contrary to what we all think, religion has been a story of shifting paradigms - an essentially dynamic, changing enterprise.

I want to race through his application of paradigm theory to Christianity. He says there have been five Christian paradigms. As we'll see, these paradigms are all still in operation. In science, new paradigms succeed, complete and often oust those that came before. In Christianity, religious paradigms never seem to get discarded or superannuated. They simply get stacked up like trays in the trolleys of self-service restaurants.

[1] A Summary of the History of Christianity: A Paradigm Shift Approach (Part 1)

A Summary of the History of Christianity (by Hans Küng)

(with annotations and revisions done by Julius-Kei Kato)

Part I - the Original Paradigm (#1) : Jesus Christ - Earliest Christianity - the Christian Scriptures 

We will refer to sub-divisions of this article by the section numbers within square brackets (e.g. [1]).

Resources:

Original Link to this Summary (in the public domain / accessed 2020-09-20): https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-01-02-christentum/0b-01-0201-jesus.php

Paradigm Shifts in Christianity (a one-page visual diagram) https://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0b_weltethos-und-religionen/0b-pdf/paradigm-shifts-christianity.pdf

(HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!) Excellent survey by Bishop Richard Holloway of the six major paradigms in Christian history He also has a section at the beginning explaining paradigms and "paradigm shifts." HERE

[1]  Jesus of Nazareth--considered by his disciples as “the Christ” (the Chosen Messiah)

•         Place of birth: Bethlehem or Nazareth in Galilee. He grew up in Nazareth. (Historically speaking, ‘grew up in Nazareth’ is a more secure piece of data)

•         Year of birth: not after 4 BC, if Jesus was born under King Herod (27–4 BC).

•         First public appearance: around the 15th year of Emperor Tiberius (27/28 or 28/29 AD), when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

•         Public Life: as a wandering preacher and teacher in the region between Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee and Jerusalem – for a short time (some months?), at best not more than three years, during which time he gathered around himself a circle of disciples.

•         Year of Death: He was crucified when he was perhaps in his early 30s, most probably around 30 AD, under Pontius Pilatus (26–30). The exact date cannot be determined.

Christianity takes its name from Jesus of Nazareth who was called by his followers “(the) Christ” (Heb. Moshiach / Gk. christos) meaning “the anointed one.”

Jesus is not a mythical person. His history is situated in Palestine, a province of the Roman empire at the time. He had a short public ministry and then crucified under Rome for political provocation and alleged blasphemy.

 

[2.1] The Historical Life and Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew from the peasant class who proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God. 

He lived at a time when many people believed that God was going to let his “kingdom” come.

·         God’s will—he proclaimed—is for people to love God and their neighbour (indeed even their enemies! Matthew 5:44) as they love themselves.

·         Jesus practiced solidarity with everyone who cared to listen and come to his gatherings. He prioritized the disadvantaged, e.g., the poor and the marginalized.

·         The gospels record that he performed many healing actions on behalf of the sick.

·         He sometimes relativized certain Jewish religious laws when he thought that some greater value was at stake, emphasizing that the Law was for the sake of the person and not vice versa.

·         He prophetically provoked the Temple-establishment (the priests, the Sadducee party) and their business interests in the Temple (seen in the ‘purging of the Temple’ incident)

·         He publicly confronted the religious leadership (who were Jews) and the political authorities (who were Romans).

·         For this he was tried and sentenced to death on the cross.

After his death, his disciples had encounters with him that convinced them that he had been raised by God from the dead. This easter faith and proclamation that “Christ has been risen” became the foundation of Christian faith.

 

[2.2] Jesus Christ – Human and Divine  (this part by JK Kato)

One official doctrine (teaching) regarding Jesus in Christianity is that He is both human and divine. This is the result of decisions made in several important early church councils (particularly, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon [see below]) in which it was decided that, at the official level, Jesus Christ is to be believed by Christians as “one in essence with the Father” (hence, divine), and “one person having two natures—human and divine.”

It is important though to see how the thinking about Jesus evolved over time as a historical process. We can identify several stages:

1. ENCOUNTER: When Jesus began his public life, people perceived him first and foremost as some sort of charismatic “Rabbi” (teacher) who taught, healed, and shared fellowship with people, especially the disadvantaged.
2. MESSIAH? As time went on, some of his followers began to believe that this charismatic rabbi was the MESSIAH who many Jews at the time were waiting for—the one who was going to realize the reign of God in their midst. Jesus also probably thought so about himself. (Note that “Messiah” was NOT EQUAL to “God” in Jesus’ historical context)
3. POST-RESURRECTION: After Jesus’ death, the resurrection experience made the disciples identify Jesus more and more closely with YHWH, giving him exalted titles: Lord, Son of God, Saviour, Lamb of God, Prince of Peace, etc.
4. JESUS’ DIVINITY - This process of Jesus becoming more exalted in the thinking of Christians ultimately led (300+ years later) to a radically close identification between God ("YHWH" in the Old Testament) and Jesus as expressed in the faith-statement: Jesus is also divine  (i.e., that Jesus is “God the Son,” “God incarnate,” “the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,” etc. / aka the "deification" of Jesus). This identification happened over a period of time and was made correct and required (“orthodox”) belief only in the 300s of the Common Era or AD. Note that this deification of Jesus Christ is the unique characteristic of Christianity. It is what divides it from Judaism and Islam although the three religions are monotheistic. Christianity claims that it worships ONE God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
5. The roots of this belief in Jesus having some sort of divinity are already found in the New Testament – most notably, in the gospel of John.

For a more detailed presentation of related points, see my article “Did Jesus Claim that He Was God?” in: http://www.catholica.com.au/gc4/jkk/016_jkk_240419.php

Some Useful Links on the Recent State of Research on the Historical Jesus

James McGrath in his Patheos blog says: There has been so much of interest related to the historical Jesus and the Gospels recently that a collection of links with a few quotes and discussions seemed in order. 
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2020/05/historical-jesus-may-2020.html?fbclid=IwAR0rvcHQbqiQIXLm9jsx29ileio2VGfLL-flaLUa6afKta8zlEPlEhgbZ8I


The different links provided by McGrath in this article are really fascinating and, if one is involved in historical Jesus study (as I am), they are worth checking out in detail one by one. This is a note to myself and an encouragement to others!

Who is a Christian? Who is Jesus, the Christ? What are the Practical Consequences of Christian Faith?

(These 20 theses were originally proposed by theologian Hans Küng in "The Christian Challenge" [1979], pp. 313-316, which in turn is based on his “On Being a Christian” [1974]. This version has been extensively revised by Julius-Kei Kato)

Yes, I know that all attempts at summarizing complex things are imperfect. But "summaries" have their own usefulness. You have to begin somewhere in order to get an idea of the WHOLE and having a sense of the whole is indeed an important thing. Only then can you begin to add and revise, subtract and challenge, and so forth. This summary of what it means to be a Christian (based on Hans Küng's proposals although extensively revised and rephrased by me) is meant to be just a "springboard" or a "working document." Do not treat it as written in stone.

      Who is a Christian?

#1 Being Human – Being Christian |  The most important thing about being human is striving to live one’s human and social life to the full in an ethical way. Being Christian is a particular way of being human that has distinctive characteristics. The Christian is someone who tries to live their human, social, and spiritual-religious life in the light of Jesus Christ. In practice, that means: following Jesus, living according to his teachings and example, and having a relationship with God through faith and hope in Jesus Christ.

#2 The Distinctive Christian Reality |  The distinctive Christian reality then is the very person of Jesus Christ himself. Hence, the Christian has to have a good familiarity with Jesus and this starts with a good knowledge particularly of Jesus’s historical context as we can deduce from a good study of the gospels.

#3 Being a Christian means… | In short, being a Christian means: FOLLOWING JESUS CHRIST (In Latin, Sequela Christi). By following Jesus Christ, Christians in the world of today can truly live their human lives to the full. In effect, that means that Christians can love, act, suffer, and die; they can go through joys and sorrows, through life and death while being helpful to others and sustained by God in all of these. 

Who is Jesus, the Christ?

#4  Jesus as Provocative |  Jesus of Nazareth, a historical person who lived in the first half of the first century Common Era, is believed by Christians to be “the Christ” (the anointed one of God). As a historical person, Jesus was neither a priest nor a political revolutionary, neither an ascetic monk nor just a devout ethical teacher of right or wrong. He was originally from the peasant class. At a certain point in his life, he became a public figure who healed, taught, and gathered people, especially the marginalized ones, into fellowship. In his lifestyle, Jesus was “provocative” especially for those who kept the established “status quo” and “order” of the times.

#5 Jesus proclaimed the reign of God |  Jesus did not primarily proclaim theological theories or new laws, nor did he explicitly proclaim himself (contrary to the impression we get particularly in John’s gospel). Rather, he proclaimed the coming of the “kingdom” (or the “reign”) of God. This refers to God’s cause-God’s “order”-God’s will, which—Jesus believed—would be soon realized here on earth, and which is identical with humanity’s cause (=humanity’s true well-being).

#6  Jesus’s struggle on behalf of humanity |  For the sake of human well-being which is what God wills (Jesus labeled this “for the Kingdom of God”), Jesus was prepared even to relativize sacred institutions, law, and cult. In a deep sense, we can say then that Jesus was a humanist, who believed that humans and humanity—a humanity that is in relationship with transcendent reality (=God)--is worth struggling and even dying for.