This seemed appropriate to the theme around here lately:
How have we learned Christ? It ought to be a startling thought, that we may have learned him wrong. That must be far worse than not to have learned him at all: his place is occupied by a false Christ, hard to exorcise! The point is, whether we have learned Christ as he taught himself, or as men have taught him who thought they understood, but did not understand him … The Christian religion, throughout its history, has been open to more corrupt misrepresentation. Have we learned Christ in false statements and corrupted lessons about him, or have we learned himself?
George MacDonald, The Truth in Jesus
Interesting take, but I think since the 60s, we have done far more biblical research than has been repressed by some of the older main stream Christian denominations. Luther was the first to bring attention to what was assumed to be the actual written word of God, which was a HUGE change. Before this, the Roman Catholic church relied on the belief that “called” people in an elite hierarchy (who’s calling could not be determined in any object manner) would be the arbiters of what God meant in the “official” Bible.
But Luther assumed that the Nicene ecumenical council, was perfect in their determination of the books of the Bible AND the versions of those books/letters were the most correct. We know now that they could have done a bit of a better job, and their assumption of authorship is a bit suspect.
That said, though more research dispels some of the tradtional assumptions of Christ’s life, we still BELIEVE. THAT is the most important part of the story. The gospels, despite when they were actually written down, still proclaim the same basic message of Christ and what HE taught. Mr. MacDonald makes a point, but my reading of his statement is a bit of a stawman. The educated Christian does not blindly follow a given church official or expert. In this day and age, we can read different interpretations of God’s Word from experts reading the actual Greek and Hebrew language!
JFH — I’m not reading this statement the same way you are at all. For me, he’s not talking here about intellectual knowledge or intellectual understanding of Jesus Christ.
There’s a difference, I think, between knowing about Christ, which is what I think you’re talking about, and knowing Christ, which is what I think he’s talking about.
The FOC knows about Christ, for instance, but I’m not sure most of its members know Christ himself.
That’s what this is about to me. Not intellectual understanding. Spiritual understanding.
Tracey,
I don’t think we are as far as our interpretation of the passage as you think.
How do we KNOW Christ? IMHO, it is through scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit. Those “men” that “have taught him who thought they understood” corrupted the interpretation and translation of the Bible to fit their definition of Christ. I seem to recall a post (or maybe a discussion in the comment section), where the FOC specified the ONE correct translation of the Bible. If one is to believe in a single “official” Bible, that intellectual understanding DRIVES the “correct” spiritual understanding.
I’m not explaining myself very well, but, bottom line if your “Christian” leaders can point to biblical text that makes you doubt your spiritual understanding and your personal relationship with Christ, that is something that needs to be challenged.
Am I making any sense?