Should we distinguish between the historical (real) and the Christ of Theology?
Shoudn't they be the same?
If so, then a complete analysis on the Historical Jesus, such as found in the new book Salt & Light; The Complete Jesus, should describe the Christ then?
In a nutshell the so-called quest for the historical Jesus is attempt to remove theology from Jesus the 'man'. There have been a few so called quests.. First, new, second and third.
From weiss, schwietser, wrede (Messianic secret) through to bultman and his students kasemann etc, in the 70's and 80's Dunn, sanders and wright. Including the Jesus seminar - crossan and borg etc. Although Wright has written in defence of the supernatural ( compare his Green book)
Basically it's asupernatural if anything at all can be reconstructed of the historical Jesus. Jesus is a mere man - maybe a bit special or maybe a bit deluded - Schwietser wrote of a failed Messiah.
However the tide has turned with those who defend the supernatural in history of Jesus. Wright et Al. That is they don't seperate the theological from the historical.
An interesting point is Wredes view on the Messianic secret. He used it to show how Mark in his redaction could explain a later invented supernatural Jesus in early Christian tradition.
Would you agree or disagree with this? I don't agree, but the i can see a 'Messianic secret' but not to harmonise/hide/change a later church view with the earlier. Of course we have to ask who the secret is veiled from 'outsiders' or 'insiders'?
Anyhow, would make a good discussion..