One Jesus or two Jesuses?

[thistle]

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?

There is only ONE Jesus! You are the one who appears to think there are two.

Is it possible you are confusing two natures and two persons?

 

[RandomAlias]

The discrepancy is not between faith and reason, but between faith and historical facts.

One must be careful how to define reason, because reason may be exercised imperfectly. It is possible for human reason to contradict faith. Not so truth. Contrary to what our politicians say, from Pontius Pilate to Donald Trump, there is one truth. Returning to the topic of the thread. Faith is truth. Historical events are truth. One cannot contradict the other. This is what I meant by citing CCC 159.

 

[curious_cath]

Historical events are truth. One cannot contradict the other. This is what I meant by citing CCC 159.

In that case it seems to be even more important to separate things about Jesus which are historical from those which are not.

 

[RandomAlias]

How can you be Catholic or even a non-Catholic Christian if you do not believe Jesus is God?

Is that a rhetorical question? Read more closely and you will see that I didn’t deny that Jesus is God.

Let me ask it more clearly: How can history address the question of whether Jesus is God? How would you propose to show by historical events that Jesus is God?

For the moment, let’s consider the separate (and easier) question of the resurrection of Jesus. This is a matter that could be amenable to historical inquiry. History can tell us whether it was truly Jesus who died on the cross, whether he truly died, and whether he was seen alive – and bodily – some days later.

The divinity of Jesus is not so easy to establish historically. One might say the resurrection proves it, but I’m not sure. Lazarus died and then lived, yet he is not God. What other historical events could prove that Jesus is God? I am guessing that history alone cannot prove it, and revealed truth is necessary.

 

[RandomAlias]

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.

You should start a different thread on that. It is a completely different topic.

 

[RandomAlias]

In that case it seems to be even more important to separate things about Jesus which are historical from those which are not.

Please help me out by specifying some things about Jesus which are historical and some which are not. I still do not know what you are getting at, and I’m done offering guesses and asking you questions that you ignore.

 

[curious_cath]

Please help me out by specifying some things about Jesus which are historical and some which are not. I still do not know what you are getting at, and I’m done offering guesses and asking you questions that you ignore.

One thing that bothers me is the historical fact that Jesus loved His mother. On the other side, we read that one should hate his/her mother to become a disciple. (Luke 14:26) This is a contradiction that I cannot reconcile with an understanding of Jesus of high integrity. Someone seems to have added something to the Gospel that is not in line with the character of Jesus. Was it Luke?

I do not think the hate command is historically accurate.

 

[Elf01]

One thing that bothers me is the historical fact that Jesus loved His mother. On the other side, we read that one should hate his/her mother to become a disciple. (Luke 14:26) This is a contradiction that I cannot reconcile with an understanding of Jesus of high integrity. Someone seems to have added something to the Gospel that is not in line with the character of Jesus. Was it Luke?

I do not think the hate command is historically accurate.

He may have said it (I believe he did) but you are right, he showed love to his family and to all. The point he was making is that nothing and noone else should come before God in our lives.

 

[curious_cath]

You should start a different thread on that. It is a completely different topic.

I understand. But the corruption is a direct consequence of cutting off the historical Jesus who is the Son of God from the Jesus of faith! This latter is coming through the tenets, dogmas and CCC promulgated by bishops, cardinals and the pope in a way that they may exempt themselves from any discipline. Rather than following Jesus, they became free to follow their evil lusts! Somebody stole Jesus from the faithful and turned Him into a puppet who closes His eyes at the greedy desires and sinful fornications of the highbrow and red hat.

 

[curious_cath]

The point he was making is that nothing and noone else should come before God in our lives.

Loving your family is a most basic tenet of Christian life. Jesus showed high integrity of character, so it could not be Him who said that. You could have an evil family member but this cannot justify a general command of hatred! What Jesus teaches must be all well-rounded and fitting reflecting a high integrity character, not a fake one!

At the time of Luke, a fetish of community building took over the early church and they wanted to justify their fetish by inventions that was edited among the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel. This is how historical accuracy might help to discern what is of truth and what is of untruth about Jesus.

 

[Elf01]

Loving your family is a most basic tenet of Christian life. Jesus showed high integrity of character, so it could not be Him who said that. You could have an evil family member but this cannot justify a general command of hatred!

You love them, but don’t put them before God.

 

[thistle]

On the other side, we read that one should hate his/her mother to become a disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Jesus did NOT tell us to hate our parents.

D-R Bible, haydock Commentary:

Ver. 26. Hate not, &c. The law of Christ does not allow us to hate even our enemies, much less our parents: but the meaning of the text is, that we must be in that disposition of soul so as to be willing to renounce and part with every thing, how near or dear soever it may be to us, that would keep us from following Christ. (Challoner) — The word hate is not to be taken in its proper sense, but to be expounded by the words of Christ, (Matthew x. 37.) that no man must love his father more than God, &c. (Witham) — Christ wishes to shew us what dispositions are necessary in him who desires to become his disciple; (Theophylactus) and to teach us that we must not be discouraged, if we meet with many hardships and labours in our journey to our heavenly country. (St. Gregory) — And if for our sakes, Christ even renounced his own mother, saying, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? why do you wish to be treated more delicately than your Lord? (St. Ambrose) — He wished also to demonstrate to us, that the hatred he here inculcates, is not to proceed from any disaffection towards our parents, but from charity for ourselves; for immediately he adds, and his own life also. From which words it is evident, that in our love we must hate our brethren as we do ourselves.

 

[curious_cath]

that the hatred he here inculcates, is not to proceed from any disaffection towards our parents, but from charity for ourselves; for immediately he adds, and his own life also.

It is much simpler to explain that an early church fetish took over some words of our Lord from the Gospel that was tried to be concealed later. It resulted a back and forth play with the saying. What is left for us is to scratch our heads in disbelief and come up with some extremely exotic and surreal explanations.

Is it not much better to go with the history?

 

[Sedona]

I think you have to use common sense and go with probabilities based on what is known historically both about the times Jesus lived in and the habits of Hellenistic writers. Aldous Huxley once said that if someone in modern times were to rise from the dead, the Archbishop of Canterbury would be the first to deny it. I think he was on to something there.

All the best!

 

[RandomAlias]

This latter is coming through the tenets, dogmas and CCC promulgated by bishops, cardinals and the pope in a way that they may exempt themselves from any discipline […] free to follow their evil lusts! Somebody stole Jesus from the faithful and turned Him into a puppet who closes His eyes at the greedy desires and sinful fornications of the highbrow and red hat.

Really? I cannot recall anything in the Catechism that exempts priests, bishops, etc., from the Commandments or any penalties.

If there are loopholes, they are in the administrative procedures, not the Church teachings and dogmas.

 

[billsherman]

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?

Ah, I did not understand what you were asking the first time. You are asking how you can have a Christology that is not completely compatible with the historical Jesus. It is obviously really easy, because every Christian denomination has precisely that. Regardless of the denomination, there is something (usually many somethings) that have no basis in historically verifiable fact. This is where faith takes over. The most fundamental is whether or not Jesus was divine. There just is no way to verify this claim historically. You can’t, no matter how hard you try, because the supernatural exists outside the realm of history. There is no historical methodology that can deal with it. If you are going to worship a purely historical Jesus, than your Jesus must not be divine.

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.

Everyone falls into this trap sometimes. People like to use Jesus to justify their own thoughts and actions. Nothing new about this, it has been happening since the beginning. Few people want to confront the reality that Jesus just didn’t care about politics. The historical Jesus betrayed no evidence that he cared about Roman government or who sat on the US Supreme Court.

With that said, a Christology based on the historical Jesus would be incomparably more difficult to follow in the 21st century. Jewish dietary laws and a lifestyle that purposefully places the divine at the center while ignoring virtually all of modern life and culture are easier to follow in theory than practice.

 

[billsherman]

Also wondering how history can even address the first of those questions, whether Jesus is God.

It can’t. Good observation.

 

[curious_cath]

You are asking how you can have a Christology that is not completely compatible with the historical Jesus.

Thank you, yes, this is exactly what I am asking about! I only would like to add very shortly that our main source about the historical Jesus is the Gospel. I cannot accept the Jesus Seminary approach of stripping the historical Jesus down to a marginal Jew or an angry village peasant in Palestine. We have to include into history whatever is valid about Jesus in the Bible.

We still have to trim the Gospel narrative from obviously biased and self-serving quotes that were given into the mouth of the Lord with no regard to His character of high integrity. The hate-your-mother command and other “hard sayings” of Jesus, including racist or nazi overtones, should be severely scrutinized and abandoned.

Then we may end up with a purified historical character of the true Jesus that would better suit our faith than artificially blown-up theological assertions about Him.

 

[Dovekin]

We still have to trim the Gospel narrative from obviously biased and self-serving quotes

The four gospels are inspired accounts of the life and message of Jesus. They will always be more faithful to the life of Jesus than any historical account that we reconstruct by “trimming” the gospel. Our efforts are always betrayed by our own bias and our unwillingness to accept the gospels as written by God.

Our history of Jesus can certainly lead us to understand the gospels better. Sayings that have been distorted are corrected by the broader context of the sacrificial life of Jesus. But it always the gospels that have the most accurate accounts of the life of Jesus, as read within the Church. Our attempts at history rarely come close to the perfection of the gospels.

 

[curious_cath]

The four gospels are inspired accounts of the life and message of Jesus.

Yes, but the inspiration was written down by human hands, thus human distortions and biases are all present. The very reason we have four distinct Gospels is that they augment and counterbalance each other.

Our efforts are always betrayed by our own bias and our unwillingness to accept the gospels as written by God.

What does it mean “written by God”? Is there any meaningful interpretation of a statement like this? I take issue with the verb itself as being incompatible with the character of God. Writing is a specifically human endeavor, reflecting our limited, finite capacities. God as an unlimited and infinite entity does not need to write down anything.

That said, I agree that the Gospel story of Jesus is a historically eminent albeit not perfect source about His life.