Maybe you are being overly literal with the song lyrics or something, I am just not seeing the problem. Help me out.

As far as need goes, I think of the Psalms where we read how as a deer pants for water so the soul longs for God. I think of Jesus in John 4 and John 6 where he says we are thirsty and in need for the water that he gives for it only can satify; he says we hunger and are in need of the food that only he can be.

I don’t see how any of what is in the post takes away from the “real jesus in time and space.” Like ‘ham says, we don’t have objective modern historical accounts of JC’s life. We have (in the canonical gospels) four interpretations of his ministry. Furthermore, if you want a historical, historical account (i.e. what was most likely to happen, playing the historical game) get in line with the Jesus Seminar Folks, Crossan et.al. What I am trying to say is that we simply don’t have direct access to the historical Jesus. We do have four interpretations of his life and ministry that I absolutely accept (on faith). If you wanna play the real historical game, know what you are getting into.

Is that really the case though? I don’t see how there’s anything objective about the portrayal of Jesus in the Bible (and I don’t see this as a bad thing at all!). Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John portray Jesus very differently. Jesus’s mission is different, his teachings to his disciples differs, and questions of the very nature of his existence are approached differently. Each author composed their text with their own personal motivations and presuppositions based on unique contexts and communities. There is indeed a good deal of continuity among the biblical accounts of Jesus (thanks in large part to the politically selective canonization process), yet the diversity is quite astounding (and important!), especially when you compare the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) with John.

The whole point to his post was that to render Jesus to a subjective state-of-mind/teacher disregards the objective and real Jesus of space and time.

I’d say that the only "real Jesus" is the Jesus we experience here and now. Jesus is found in the space and time of our communion with God, with fellow Christians in the present, and with those who have passed before us by means of the texts and teachings they leave behind.

The Bible isn’t a history textbook, and it is inappropriate to treat it as such. Even more, trying to establish some "objective" historical Jesus more often than not is a bankrupt enterprise IMO, and reveals far more about the author than about whatever the "real Jesus" of "history" was.  This notion of "objectivity" in large part is a fallacy that is really only a rhetorical tool to try and say "I’m right and you’re wrong" under false pretenses.

P.S. – Sorry if I’m being overly combative…I’ve had a long day and this is a somewhat theraputic outlet. I love you people. :)

I think it is unfair to Hank to refer to the way he uses “Biblical Jesus” as being “his Jesus.” The whole point to his post was that to render Jesus to a subjective state-of-mind/teacher disregards the objective and real Jesus of space and time. The fact of the matter is there is only one Jesus. Sure, there can be an infinite number of ways of representing him, but the way that God wants us to see him is the way he actually was. And it is this objectively true Jesus that we see in the Bible.

Of course the Jesus of space and time was a very simple and yet very complex man. I mean, he was God and Man. So the correct representation of him is going to be paradoxical, but of course, not formally contradictory.

Let’s be fair here…you are simply using "biblical" as a veiled way of saying your Jesus. Biblically, Jesus is quite multiform…teaching often times very different messages in the different gospels.  Then we have the different way that Paul portrays (uses) Jesus. Then there’s the pastorals epistles and on to Revelation…all with unique (and often somewhat contradictory) understandings of Jesus. If Mark’s idea of who Jesus is was "good enough," we wouldn’t have Matthew, Luke, and John (and the many dozens of other excluded texts).

Fact is, people have been coming to very different conclusions about Jesus since the earliest days of Christianity, and our Bible documents some of this (contested) dialogue. The term "biblical Jesus" in this case seems to be more a device of saying "my Jesus" than to accurately assess the biblical representation(s) of Jesus.

the Bible’s use of the metaphor of marriage in describing our relationship to Christ.

Even that metaphor is pluriform. The gospels and Revelation portray the relationship with us being guests to Christ’s wedding. Even so, the marriage metaphor which you refer to (IMO) illustrates much more ideas of love, sacrifice, and above all covenant (which incurs responsibilities for both parties)…I’m not familiar with ideas of need being involved.

I enjoy you guys.
casey

I assumed that the biblical notion of husband and wife (i.e. in the 1st century AD) was understood. Shame on me.

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by “biblical notion of husband and wife.”