Catholics/Why is the historical Jesus avoided?
Why is the "historical" Jesus avoided in homilies and catechism and only the Jesus of faith portrayed? It seems obvious to me and a number of ancient historical professionals, in reality Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who suffered from manic delusions. His ethics and messages of repenting were only to Jews in preparation for the immediate End Time. His apocalyptic beliefs are recorded first in the earliest Christian documents the authentic Pauline epistles, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and then later in Jesus' preaching in the earliest Christian gospels: the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew. Paul's epistles and Jesus' preaching indicate Jesus believed the Son of Man would soon arrive, and all present powerful nations would fall and God's kingdom would be established on earth. The twelve disciples would each he get a throne along side the Son of Man and judge each of the twelve Jewish tribes. [Matt 19:28] Jesus may have come to believe he was to be the Son of Man. This seems deceptive to me. I do not understand this. Where is the Church's honesty? Don't faith and historical honesty have like value? In a time of modern medicine and psychiatry the Church refuses to admit Jesus was mentally ill? Why?
The historical Jesus has been the topic of much scholarly discussion for a century or more. As one might expect, positions have covered the colors of the rainbow.
However, followers of Jesus have been accused for centuries of being deluded or maskers of the truth or who knows what.
The truth that sets one free is still abroad and can be found on the basis of very significant evidence.
Concerning the end time, how do you understand Mt 24:36 and Acts 1:6-7?
Concerning Jesus Himself being the "son of man," how do you imderstand Mt 11:18-19 and Lk 7:35-37?
Historical evidence provides a strong argument for the historical reliability of the basic events in the life and teachings of Jesus.
The pivotal, fundamental question is: Did Jesus rise from the dead?
If He did, we must with God's help find and accept Jesus.
If you think that He did not, then you have to convincingly show what drove a bunch of rural Jews and a rebellious rabbi [none of whom were obsessed with power or wealth] to undergo a complete change of character and devote their lives and their death to promote a hoax that would violate the principles that they taught and followed?
Moreover, how could these people have preached a recently raised dead man if the body was molding in a known grave?
Many scholars for many years in multitudes of books and articles have discussed the issues that you raise. In the bell-curve of all these, your assertions fall within the fringe percentage of conclusions.
I suggest that you read a middle-of-the-road introduction to the New Testament. Get a library loan of Raymond Collins: Introduction to the New Testament [Doubleday: Garden City, 1983].
If you would like a special bibliography on a specific topic, please let me know.
Best wishes, Charles, in your pursuit of truth.