[Hitman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"


I'm sorry, but I still must disagree. Ratzinger is expert in old languages, he even used his own translations of the old scriptures and bible-verses, he says, so when it is about reunite the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith, he really is serious in trying to point out that orginally, and in the meaning of the intention in which the gospels had been written, both the historical man and the theological object of belief were one and the same, once. The question if the reunification of both Jesus-"versions" is historically correct, is misleading that way, and distracts from his real intention. No matter if you believe in Jesus doing wonders, or just acting wisely, point is that it must have been historical fact that there was something special happening around him that left so much an impression in people, that the gospels were written the way they actuall had been written. So, they necessarily must describe both the to-be-believed-Jesus, and the historically correct Jesdus, necessarily.

I was trying to explain what I thought about Ratzinger's ideas before reading your comments on the book. May be I did not explain correctly that what you quoted above is just an expansion of that, to clarify, not a critic or reply to your previous message. That's why I started with "I meant that... ", indicating that I was just trying to explain better my previous position, before having read your comment on the book.

When you say Ratzinger does not care if his understanding of both historical Jesus and Christ to be believed is "historically correct", then you describe it wrong.

(Now entering the discussion and no longer explaining my previous ideas) The gospels were written by people who were taught about Jesus much later than Jesus died, so an "idealization" of the figure is more than logic. One of the catholic faith's assumptions is, however, that transmission of the facts is exact thanks to the holy spirit, and Ratzinger sticks formally to that. That's why he believes the coincidence of the historic Jesus with the gospel Jesus and also tries to proof that. I never said that according to his own texts and speeches Ratzinger does not care about the coincidence between historical Jesus and gospel Jesus, I meant instead that in my opinion Ratzinger thinks that internally, but obviously will never say it openly. That would be simply against the above mentioned faith principle of the exactitude of the gospels My bad if I did not explain well that I was referring to my conclusions about his real thoughts.

Again, I would need to read this book to be able to have a more accurate opinion and see if I change my thoughts about Ratzinger. But basically I still consider that internally he is not completely interested in the match between historical and gospel Jesus, however he externally uses arguments in favour of that match as a tool to strengthen the catholic faith.

I don't understand your distinction between religion and forms of religion here, becasue this or that theologian by definition is basing on a theoretical set up assumptions that in your description falls under the term "cult". Do you mean a culture-free form of spirituality, maybe? Or mysticism like in Christian mystic's understanding?

My bad for not being able to use precise concepts in english I meant religion in the sense of spiritual dimension of men, and "forms of religion" in the sense of different cults or forms of adoring a God.