One Jesus or two Jesuses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter curious_cath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

curious_cath

Guest
I have been puzzled for some time already about the question if Jesus of the Bible which is identical to my Jesus of faith and the historical Jesus are one and the same or two separate persons? Sometimes we take the historical Jesus as a “lower edition” of our Jesus of faith. But why would history be lower than anything else? Should not our faith be completely based on historically accurate accounts and thus on the historically understood person of Jesus? I am puzzled as ever.
 
Last edited:
To answer your question, there was only one Jesus. What historians and theologians are doing by talking about different “jesuses” is making the point that people try to reconstruct his life using methodologies that are sometimes incompatible.

To try and make sense of that, let me give a few examples. A Mormon theologian might look at the four Gospels in order to verify the theology of the Book of Mormon, whereas a Catholic theologian might be interested in hunting through the Gospels to show that Jesus required an all male priesthood. A historian, on the other hand, is going to try and apply the historical method to the best available sources and try to limit the influence of theology that developed after his death.

If you read books by people in these three categories, you could easily find three very different interpretations of Jesus. So different, in fact, people have often taken to calling them “different Jesuses,” even though they are ostensibly all about the same historical person.

The great historian John P. Meier writes a lot about this phenomenon. His series “A Marginal Jew” lays it out very nicely. You can find a small taste of his thoughts in this essay, especially under the “Faith and Reason” heading, but I recommend the books: https://www.franciscanmedia.org/finding-the-historical-jesus-an-interview-with-john-p-meier/

You can’t go wrong with Meier on the historical Jesus. He’s the only historian I know of who has been praised by a Pope (Benedict XVI)!
 
I read a bit of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict XVI) Jesus of Nazareth series, and it seemed to me that he was able to reconcile history and the Bible in a faith-affirming way. He cited historical facts to confirm what is written about Jesus in the Bible. So I am not convinced that there is a conflict between the two.

I am not sure if this answers or relates to your question.
 
Dear Bill, thanks for the feedback. I know abou Meier and his book. But my question is still there. How can you justify any theological claims, especially about the person of Jesus, without having supporting historical evidence through His life, including His life chronicle, the Gospels?

I see exaggerated statements coming from different denominations to hold up tenets that might be in conflict with a consistent view of the person of Jesus. We have to assume a person of great integrity as drawn in the Scriptures. Whatever is beyond might not be from Him! In particular, I don’t see Jesus saying anything about an all male priesthood. This is clearly a historical addition to church doctrine. Etc.

I see a Jesus who gave us enough in his earthly life to see Him as He was and as He is. Whatever is beyond that seems to be another Jesus who was created to satisfy earthly or special interest driven expectations of theologians and other faith speakers of 2000 years.
 
Last edited:
There is a curious train of thought called “modernism.” It is certainly not religious but appropriately recognizes the positive teaching and moral values taught by various faith traditions. In some bizarre twist of “separation of Church and state (of mind)”, they extract the supernatural elements and discard them, molding and shaping history so as to transform the hero into a merely human person. Oddly - or not - they are most busy deconstructing Christianity.

There is one Jesus, fully human and fully divine. This confounds not only believer and theologian, but is particularly vexing to the more rabidly secular analysts among us. Since they will not ascend to His level, why not pull Him down to theirs? There is another term for this.

Atheism.
 
Yes, thank you very much for this comment! Ratzinger’s Jesus series relates to the historical Jesus a lot, precisely because, as you say, he was able to reconcile the Biblical account with history. This reconciliation is my reason of not separating the Gospels from the historical Jesus, on the contrary, I see the Biblical account as greatly enriching our historical knowledge about Jesus.

The problem arises when we look at the Scriptures to justify theological claims that have been developed centuries later! The reference for these claims or dogmas is another Jesus, that is already beyond history and is encapsulated as the Jesus of faith. Is this Jesus truly distinct from the historical one?
 
I see this a harsh judgment on the modern world. I am sorry but we live in it…! The last time I checked the calendar, it showed 21st century!

Why is it a trouble for traditionalists to ask those who make exaggerated or interest driven theological claims about Jesus to show their historically verifiable reference to justify their claims? We need to hold accountable those who teach something about Jesus obviously contrary to a person with great integrity whom we see as historical reality in the Scriptures?
 
Do you mean dogmas like those concerning Mary? I know there is very little about Mary in the Bible, but many arguments/explanations of the Immaculate Conception, her virginity, and her Assumption begin with assumptions about Jesus.

Anything else?
 
Last edited:
If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first. John 15:18

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4

That was said in the first century. Nothing has changed. We are set against this world, all the while living in it, among those who hate us.
 
Is Jesus God? Which one? The historical one or the Jesus of faith?
 
James is no Gospel. I mean it is Scripture, but the account of Jesus is in the Gospels. Jesus does not say the world is enemy. He only says the world hated Him. So do not be discouraged when the world also hates you.

Increasingly, Vatican is becoming the world.
 
Sorry, but I’m not understanding your train of thought here. I’ve said what I had to say.
 
Last edited:
curious_cath said:
Is Jesus God? Which one? The historical one or the Jesus of faith?
Click to expand...
I too am not following you, but my answer to the third of these questions would begin with this passage from CCC 159 (incorporated as a quotation, cited in the footnotes as Dei Filius 4:DS 3017).
Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The discrepancy is not between faith and reason, but between faith and historical facts. I might be wrong here, though. It is precisely CCC that I would like to see established on a historically accurate understanding of Jesus. CCC places a lot of burden on the believer, while exonerates the clergy, especially in the higher eons of bishops, archbishops and cardinals, who openly and blatantly violate the teaching in CCC.

Clerical minds, as usual, preach water while drinking wine. The corruption of CCC teachings is well demonstrated in Vatican. It reveals the fact that nothing is truly based on a historically accurate understanding of Jesus. CCC, especially with its exceptions to bishops, cardinals and the pope, reflects a worldly understanding, driven by special interest and earthly passion. We see whatever CCC teaches can be twisted to satisfy fleshly desires of high ranking clergy.

This is definitely not of a Jesus of high integrity.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the clarification. Worldliness is definitely not an illness of Jesus that he condemned, but an illness of Vatican as we see it in daily scandals. This causes all the confusion.
 
po18guy said:
There is one Jesus, fully human and fully divine. This confounds not only believer and theologian, but is particularly vexing to the more rabidly secular analysts among us.
Click to expand...
I am not asking about the dual nature of Jesus here, as fully human and fully divine. I am rather asking about the two separate characters that seem to appear as a historical Jesus and a Jesus of faith.
 
RandomAlias said:
40.png
curious_cath:
Is Jesus God? Which one? The historical one or the Jesus of faith?
Click to expand...
Also wondering how history can even address the first of those questions, whether Jesus is God.
Click to expand...
I also wonder and I would appreciate any suggestion.
 
thistle said:
How can you be Catholic or even a non-Catholic Christian if you do not believe Jesus is God?
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing this out. I can only be a Catholic or Christian if I believe in Jesus as God. But isis this revelation coming from the historical Jesus or from the Jesus of faith?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top