Scot McKnight on the Demise of the Quest for the Historical Jesus

In the latest issue of Christianity Today, Scot McKnight has an outstanding overview of the current state of historical Jesus research - pretty much dead. And to McKnight, that's a good thing. After reading McKnight, I think you'll concur.

A sample:

As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification.

In the final analysis, argues McKnight, we must answer this question:

Whose Jesus will we trust? Will it be that of the evangelists and the apostles? Will it be that of the church—the creedal, orthodox Jesus? Will it be the latest proposal from a brilliant historian? Or will it be our own consensus based on modern-day historical scholarship? 

Indeed, whose Jesus will we trust? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, be sure to check out the rejoinders from N.T. Wright, Craig Keener, and Darrell Bock on the issue.

John MacArthur in Washington Post

While I'm may not see eye-to-eye with John MacArthur on every issue, he's clearly a man who is not afraid to speak what he believes with conviction. His recent invited editorial in the Washington Post confirms it. Highlighting Jesus' strong and consistent message of repentance, MacArthur takes to the woodshed the popular vision of Jesus as a hippie guru preaching unconditional tolerance. He shows that whatever Jesus may be, he is not consistent with the modern politically correct ethos. It's worth checking out.