One Jesus or two Jesuses?

[RandomAlias]

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.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[curious_cath]

Vatican became a source of corruption of everything we have faith in. Not the last thing among the reasons of this fleshly corruption is an inadequate understanding of the historical person of Jesus. Vatican will go down deeper and deeper into this moral decay every tick of the clock precisely because the CCC, among others, is a perfect evidence of human inference, bias and fleshly self interest to distort the historical character of Jesus of very high integrity.

The divine nature of Jesus is expressed through this very high integrity. This integrity is being demolished by Vatican following a self-interest of lust of fornication by high ranking prelates. The Holy Mother Catholic Church is being defrocked to a place of enjoyment and entertainment for the powerful in high office. Although they seek self-justification in distorted Gospel-interpretations, what they obtain and promote is incompatible with everything we know about the true historical Jesus.

 

[RandomAlias]

Would I be correct to guess that you did not read that section from the Catechism?

I believe it answers your question about how God inspired the human authors of Sacred Scripture, and the related question of how the Holy Spirit helps us to understand it.

 

[curious_cath]

Would I be correct to guess that you did not read that section from the Catechism?

I have read a lot of CCC. How about this one at the link you gave me: “God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.” (CCC 102) What does this tell you? For me it says syllables (sentences, stories) do not make sense individually, only the whole thing together as one single Word of high integrity.

But whatever is useful and comprehensible from the CCC, we see that twisted and distorted these days by a corruption of the flesh. Even the words of the Bible is used against me, when I hear about “the devil trying to reveal the dirty secrets of rotten clergy”. Oh really? Is this truly the devil? I thought it is the angel of God trying to pierce the great dragon of lies and deceptions!

If this is the future of the church, then something must be badly wrong in Vatican or even in the Scriptures. We need the truthful historical character of Jesus to restore His church by separating the light from darkness!

 

[RandomAlias]

Is it not much better to go with the history?

everything we know about the true historical Jesus.

We need the truthful historical character of Jesus

What sources are available for truthful historical information about Jesus?

For instance, you wrote earlier that it is a historical fact that Jesus loved his mother. How do you know? Is it written somewhere? Did someone tell you? Do you just know?

What other historical facts do you know about Jesus? How did you come to know them?

 

[curious_cath]

What sources are available for truthful historical information about Jesus?

History books, gospels, reason, common sense. He was a person of high integrity. Whatever defies His image of high integrity should be taken with extra caution.

 

[RandomAlias]

History books, gospels, reason, common sense.

This, especially the common sense part, could easily lead you to accept the parts of the Gospels that make sense to you, and cut out the parts that don’t make sense to you. Someone else, with their own culture, upbringing, and common sense, will accept and cut out different parts than you do. Which one of you is right? What assurance is there that either of you is right? I don’t see how this can lead to a true historical Jesus.

 

[curious_cath]

I don’t see how this can lead to a true historical Jesus.

You are right that we need objective criteria for applying common sense on the Gospel sayings. This objective criteria could be the high integrity of the character of Jesus. He is divine so His integrity is also divine. Therefore He cannot say anything contrary to His high integrity.

Jesus should be given back to the people. CCC promulgates a ban on reading the true sense of the Bible by subjugating all biblical understanding to the control of “exegetes”. Basically, a caste of clergy is created telling you what should be your reading of Jesus. This is not only wrong, this also empowers clergy to control the faithful in a Middle Age fashion. We see unlimited power of high ranking prelates who cannot even be questioned. We also see a pope who would force his own biased interpretation of what the devil wants to do. Unlimited power corrupts without limit!

The self-interest of a corrupted clergy is also corrupting our faith. This is because the true historical Jesus was thrown out of the window and was replaced by a self-indulgent caste of abusive priests, bishops and cardinals. It is their power that should be restricted, not the free unlimited understanding of Jesus! The faithful should take back what rightfully belongs to us: our Savior., the Jesus of the people.

 

[RandomAlias]

Well, good luck and God bless.

 

[curious_cath]

Thank you and God bless you also!

 

[curious_cath]

So different, in fact, people have often taken to calling them “different Jesuses,” even though they are ostensibly all about the same historical person.

It is commonplace to distinguish the historical Jesus from Jesus the miracle worker assuming that miracles de facto contradict history. I don’t think so! For instance, the story of raising Lazarus is in complete harmony with other historical narratives. It has nothing that cannot be considered historically accurate and factual, following standard expectations from historical texts.

This is an evidence that the Gospel account can be viewed as a gold mine of historically accurate statements about Jesus. This is a fact that many historians ignore when they create a badly reduced, and therefore useless, historical image of Jesus.

My point is that what we know of the historical Jesus is incredibly rich and abundant. Even without separating from this character a distinct “Jesus of faith” character that is eminently a theological construct, we are still able to discern a divine historical Jesus who became redeemer of the humankind.

 

[MountCarmel]

One Jesus, one God - “I and the Father are ONE”. The Father said to Moses, “I AM” - Jesus said, “before Moses was, I AM”. Jesus has, like God also has, intimately bound together ‘aspects/personages’ - but these cannot ever be ‘prised apart’ - there is not even an interface, there is no separation what-so-ever.

 

[billsherman]

It is commonplace to distinguish the historical Jesus from Jesus the miracle worker assuming that miracles de facto contradict history. I don’t think so! For instance, the story of raising Lazarus is in complete harmony with other historical narratives. It has nothing that cannot be considered historically accurate and factual, following standard expectations from historical texts.

I highly recommend that you read some work on the historical Jesus before you issue such sweeping statements. I suspect that you’ve read a wikipedia article or two, but I recommend attacking some of the massive corpus because you are seriously confused on many fundamental points. Your understanding of historical methodology is just wrong.

 

[curious_cath]

Your understanding of historical methodology is just wrong.

I think historical methodology ignores miracles because they contradict common sense. I might be wrong but historical analysis usually concludes by excluding the transcendent.

I have read some books from the authors of the Jesus Seminar and I know about their infamous colored pebble voting system on the historicity of individual elements of the Gospel narratives. I am abhorred by this lax treatment of the Holy Scriptures. On the one hand, I found John Dominic Crossan a reductionist, who would reduce the historical Jesus to the tangible. On the other hand, I like Marcus Borg’s Q, the Lost Gospel. John Meier’s Marginal Jew is remarkable, but it is also reductionist. Jesus was not a marginal Jew. Genetically, He was 50% Jew and 50% divine.