Acts 1:11 (Please Read)

[TimGreeley]

Firstly, I’m not sure what “an open heart” has to do with the idea of Jesus being reborn - it’s not an emotional issue. Secondly, if Jesus were reborn, quite simply, he wouldn’t be and couldn’t be Jesus, since Jesus would no longer exist. He might be the Second Person of the Trinity incarnating himself as a different person, but he would no longer be Jesus. It’s not possible to have two personhoods. That was a huge debate in the early Church, remember.

In many ways it is an emotional issue Jonathan. As it was for the Pharisees when Jesus was alive. Their rejection wasn’t intellectual, but completely emotional as the message of love and selflessness Christ was spreading was explicitly not what they expected the Messiah to bring…

Jonathan, do you really think Jesus exists bodily as we are discussing today? As the resurrected, physical Christ in the spiritual realm? If you agree that Jesus is with the Lord spiritually, as that is the only answer to where he’s gone–the spiritual realm–then he’s no longer Jesus the human, bodily man we knew. He’s like he always was before** he was born–the spiritual Word at the right hand of God. From this, it does not seem incredible that he could incarnate himself–just like he did before. He would be the exact same person. The Church at the Council of Chalcedon affirmed this nature of Jesus–having both a spiritual and a human self–as Dyophysitism. Now from this position you have to understand that this does not lead to Docetism–as the Church condemns. Jesus is very human, and when and how he incorporated his spiritual side in his life through miracle-working is a sheer mystery to us. For all we know, he may have been ignorant of who he really was at least at one point of his life. His spiritual struggle is very evidential in the Gospels, as his supernatural ministry only begins after he goes into the desert and fasts…

Jonathan, the Second Person of the Trinity is Jesus. Your argument is purely semantical. Let me ask you this, why didn’t Jesus arrive from the sky in the first place? Do you not understand his entire message to you–by that action and everything else–that he’s humility incarnate?

 

[TimGreeley]

How did they watch Jesus go into heaven? That’s the way he will return. That is what the two men in white said–correct?

The two men in white did not tell the men of Galilee not to look into the sky–they asked a question as to why they were. You are drawing a conclusion from this that I am not sure the text indicates and really does not seem in keeping with other passages or tradition. We all know Jesus will return from the sky–should we all be standing around looking up at the sky watching for his return or should we be busy doing the work of Christ?

Peace of Christ,
Mark

Mark, why didn’t Jesus arrive from the sky in the first place?

 

[TimGreeley]

…if he was reborn, he would have to adopt a new personhood, since the person of Jesus of Nazareth would no longer have essentially properties that match with this reincarnated person: Jesus’ mother was Mary; this new person’s mother is someone else; Jesus died on a cross in AD 30 or 33, this new person did not; and so on.

A personhood is one’s entire identity. That’s why we know that the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnated as Jesus and remained incarnated as Jesus because he is now Jesus. If he became reborn, he would have to be incarnated as someone else, and thus lose that essential identity of Jesus. I mean, how could you be entirely Jesus of Nazareth and James Smith of Croydon at the same time? It’s just not possible. It’s different from having two natures, since nature has to do with one’s substance and properties, not one’s identity.

God, specifically, the Second Person of the Trinity, cannot do what is logically or metaphysically impossible. Just as he can’t make either of us two persons, he can’t make himself two persons.

This second person could be the judge of mankind, but he wouldn’t be Jesus.

“Essential properties”? Jonathan, God is God. Do you doubt that if God wanted to reincarnate you in the future by method of the same or different parents, he couldn’t do it? You’re qualifying God. This is the same line of argument Muslims use when they that Jesus couldn’t be God. He would have to be a "different personhood". Which is ridiculous–as we know–because Jesus is God.

 

[jonathan_hili]

In many ways it is an emotional issue Jonathan. As it was for the Pharisees when Jesus was alive. Their rejection wasn’t intellectual, but completely emotional as the message of love and selflessness Christ was spreading was explicitly not what they expected the Messiah to bring…

Sure, for the Pharisees but not in this case - it is precisely intellectual because a reincarnated Jesus is ontologically impossible.

Jonathan, do you really think Jesus exists bodily as we are discussing today? As the resurrected, physical Christ in the spiritual realm? If you agree that Jesus is with the Lord spiritually, as that is the only answer to where he’s gone–the spiritual realm–then he’s no longer Jesus the human, bodily man we knew. He’s like he always was before** he was born–the spiritual Word at the right hand of God. From this, it does not seem incredible that he could incarnate himself–just like he did before. He would be the exact same person.

From this view, yes. But this view is anathema to the Catholic faith. Jesus is bodily resurrected: he has a human body, although glorified. Jesus is not with the Lord - he is the Lord! And no, not just spiritually, but physically - materially - substantially. Yes, he still is Jesus the human, bodily man the disciples knew.

Jesus cannot be now like he always was before he was born, for the very simple reason, he wasn’t Jesus before the incarnation! Yes, he was the Word at the right had of God, but now he is the incarnated Word, made flesh, at the right hand of God.

I can see how you’re arguing this from the perspective you’re taking. But this means that Jesus no longer exists now - that is, the human Jesus. If so, it wasn’t the human Jesus who was resurrected and ascended to heaven. If so, human nature is still unglorified.

Jonathan, the Second Person of the Trinity is Jesus. Your argument is purely semantical. Let me ask you this, why didn’t Jesus arrive from the sky in the first place? Do you not understand his entire message to you–by that action and everything else–that he’s humility incarnate?

Sure, the Second Person of the Trinity is Jesus now but wasn’t Jesus before the incarnation. This is not semantics but an important philosophical and theological distinction.

“Jesus” didn’t descend from heaven (the sky) in the first place because there was no Jesus, there was only the Second Person of the Trinity. He had to take on human form to be human, which entailed being born of a human, and living and dying as a human. I wouldn’t say Jesus is “humility incarnate” (since I’m not sure what exactly that means - unless you’re saying that his actions show the complete humility of God) but rather he is “human incarnate”.

 

[TimGreeley]

Yes, but it’s quite a stretch to say that the angels meant by “in just the same way” to mean “as a human being”. What’s the point of making such an obvious metaphysical comment when the entire context of the passage has nothing to do with it?

Jonathan, I’m only reading the sentence*** in context*** of what’s said right before it–which is a question as to why they’re looking in the sky. Jesus has prepared them for 3 years before this moment, and immediately after it Peter takes charge in full confidence of the Apostles by replacing Judas with Matthias. If they meant what you think they say, why didn’t they phrase it on more discrete, clear terms to remove my interpretation? Do you really thing Angels came down to say this: ***“Why are you looking outside? He’ll be arriving from outside.” ***And then be gone?

Most interestingly, in the NASB, the DRA, and KJV, it’s quoted as "They also said, 'Men of Galilee why do you…". Have you thought about this construction before? It’s not like their comment was even an imperative to stop them tarrying–as they weren’t (*“looking intently into the sky while he was going…” *NASB)–and get on with their mission!! This is absolutely amazing to me!!

 

[jonathan_hili]

“Essential properties”? Jonathan, God is God. Do you doubt that if God wanted to reincarnate you in the future by method of the same or different parents, he couldn’t do it? You’re qualifying God. This is the same line of argument Muslims use when they that Jesus couldn’t be God. He would have to be a "different personhood". Which is ridiculous–as we know–because Jesus is God.

Sure, God is God but he can’t do the logically or metaphysically impossible. If it is an essential property of Jesus that he was born, let’s say, between 4 and 6 BC, then he cannot have been born in the year 2013. That would be a logical contradiction, and God can’t do logical contradictions. Yes, God could reincarnate Himself in different years, but He would then be born as different people. A human being who is reincarnated is a different person - that’s the whole point of reincarnation.

Yes, Jesus is God, but is also a human being. How can a human being be reincarnated as the same human being, since the essential properties and identity markers that belong to that human being would be completely different? It’s like the old philosophical problem: if you have a ship and over time replace every single piece of that ship, such that you are able to build a new ship out of the old replaced parts, which is really your original ship - the old or new one. Well, it’s the new one, because all the essential properties and identity markers have been replaced. It would be the same with Jesus.

 

[TimGreeley]

Sure, God is God but he can’t do the logically or metaphysically impossible. If it is an essential property of Jesus that he was born, let’s say, between 4 and 6 BC, then he cannot have been born in the year 2013. That would be a logical contradiction, and God can’t do logical contradictions. Yes, God could reincarnate Himself in different years, but He would then be born as different people. A human being who is reincarnated is a different person - that’s the whole point of reincarnation.

Yes, Jesus is God, but is also a human being. How can a human being be reincarnated as the same human being, since the essential properties and identity markers that belong to that human being would be completely different? It’s like the old philosophical problem: if you have a ship and over time replace every single piece of that ship, such that you are able to build a new ship out of the old replaced parts, which is really your original ship - the old or new one. Well, it’s the new one, because all the essential properties and identity markers have been replaced. It would be the same with Jesus.

Jonathan, you’re doubting God. And I think your argument is only semantical. Do you really think Jesus had memories of him being the Word as a teenage boy? And also, even though it’s not really your argument, God can–if he wanted to–do all of what’s impossible in your mind. He can make my finger into a Spanish Galleon, and he can make 2 apples equal 3. Remember when Jesus was passing around the Fish and Loaves, he made what was only several, discrete pieces of food into more. That’s the same logical impossibility you’re talking about. ; )

 

[Hishumbleservan]

In order to interpret Sacred Scripture correctly you must:

1. Discover the human author’s intention.
2. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.”
3. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.”
4. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.
5. Use the four senses of scripture.

Tim, you seem to assume the Apostles completely understood the Ascension while it was happening by stating, “they weren’t tarrying”. However, as we read a little further into Chapter 2 of Acts we are told: “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (D-R)

I believe the original interpretation is correct because “being attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” leads me to believe that the “men in white” knew that the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost had yet to take place and as such, the angels knew their guidance was needed to keep the Apostle’s on course toward their mission in Christ because the Apostles WERE tarrying and very likely did NOT have full faith in Jesus’ return as promised! Keep in mind, until Pentecost, the Apostles human weakness of doubt was always present. Put yourself at the Ascension, seeing the Son of the true God leaving you alone back in the material world. Your human weakness of doubt will lead you to a paralysis of feeling alone and helpless - that is until the enlightening brought on by the Holy Spirit!

I hope this helps! God bless you and please keep your passion to grow closer to the Lord Our God!!!

 

[TimGreeley]

“Jesus” didn’t descend from heaven (the sky) in the first place because there was no Jesus, there was only the Second Person of the Trinity. He had to take on human form to be human, which entailed being born of a human, and living and dying as a human. I wouldn’t say Jesus is “humility incarnate” (since I’m not sure what exactly that means - unless you’re saying that his actions show the complete humility of God) but rather he is “human incarnate”.

Jonathan, this is semantics. Jesus, Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, are all names for God. God came down as a human–not from the sky, as you think he will next–but from the earth and died in selfless agony on it to show that Love and Selflessness are your salvation. What is Jesus’ message? You are a Catholic, right? You don’t think he went to cross for Penal Substitution, correct? He went to show you the paradigm against all your sins, the paradigm of Love and Humility. That’s what God wants from you, and what was lost in the Fall.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, you’re doubting God. And I think your argument is only semantical. Do you really think Jesus had memories of him being the Word as a teenage boy? And also, even though it’s not really your argument, God can–if he wanted to–do all of what’s impossible in your mind. He can make my finger into a Spanish Galleon, and he can make 2 apples equal 3. Remember when Jesus was passing around the Fish and Loaves, he made what was only several, discrete pieces of food into more. That’s the same logical impossibility you’re talking about. ; )

Hang on a sec, Tim. Are you saying God is able to do the logically and metaphysically impossible? Yes, God can make anyone’s finger into a Spanish Galleon but that’s not impossible (only “impossible” for us in a colloquial sense), that is, not logically or metaphysically impossible. For example, God couldn’t make dry water or somebody be black all over and red all over at the same time.

I have no idea what memories Jesus had a teenage boy (though I would suggest that, as God is outside of time, technically He doesn’t have memories since all moments are present to Him).

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, I’m only reading the sentence*** in context*** of what’s said right before it–which is a question as to why they’re looking in the sky. Jesus has prepared them for 3 years before this moment, and immediately after it Peter takes charge in full confidence of the Apostles by replacing Judas with Matthias. If they meant what you think they say, why didn’t they phrase it on more discrete, clear terms to remove my interpretation? Do you really thing Angels came down to say this: ***“Why are you looking outside? He’ll be arriving from outside.” ***And then be gone?

Most interestingly, in the NASB, the DRA, and KJV, it’s quoted as "They also said, 'Men of Galilee why do you…". Have you thought about this construction before? It’s not like their comment was even an imperative to stop them tarrying–as they weren’t ("looking intently into the sky while he was going…" NASB)–and get on with their mission!! This is absolutely amazing to me!!

Be that as it may, and I’m willing to concede for the discussion that there can be a better interpretation of this passage, I’m not sure that your interpretation in any better. In fact, I don’t see how you derive that interpretation from the passage at all.

 

[TimGreeley]

In order to interpret Sacred Scripture correctly you must:

1. Discover the human author’s intention.
2. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.”
3. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.”
4. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.
5. Use the four senses of scripture.

Tim, you seem to assume the Apostles completely understood the Ascension while it was happening by stating, “they weren’t tarrying”. However, as we read a little further into Chapter 2 of Acts we are told: “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (D-R)

I believe the original interpretation is correct because “being attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” leads me to believe that the “men in white” knew that the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost had yet to take place and as such, the angels knew their guidance was needed to keep the Apostle’s on course toward their mission in Christ because the Apostles WERE tarrying and very likely did NOT have full faith in Jesus’ return as promised! Keep in mind, until Pentecost, the Apostles human weakness of doubt was always present. Put yourself at the Ascension, seeing the Son of the true God leaving you alone back in the material world. Your human weakness of doubt will lead you to a paralysis of feeling alone and helpless - that is until the enlightening brought on by the Holy Spirit!

I hope this helps! God bless you and please keep your passion to grow closer to the Lord Our God!!!

Hishumbleservan, please begin with the verse and read it to Pentecost:

*"And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.” *
(NASB)

I emboldened two elements of the passage. These elements completely dissuade the idea that they were tarrying and the Angels were giving them an imperative. ***"…while he was going" ***and "They also said…". Right after this scene, Peter takes full command of the Apostles after 3 years of Jesus preparing their mission and replaces Judas with Matthias while quoting scripture. There is no hesitation implied from here until Pentecost. Please read it again.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, this is semantics. Jesus, Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, are all names for God. God came down as a human–not from the sky, as you think he will next–but from the earth and died in selfless agony on it to show that Love and Selflessness are your salvation. What is Jesus’ message? You are a Catholic, right? You don’t think he went to cross for Penal Substitution, correct? He went to show you the paradigm against all your sins, the paradigm of Love and Humility. That’s what God wants from you, and what was lost in the Fall.

Firstly, “the sky” is not really a relevant point. Jesus didn’t ascend into the stratosphere. He ascended into Heaven, which, for all intents and purposes, is another universe, dimension, realm, etc. not just a different geographical location. Likewise, the Second Person of the Trinity actually did come down (in a qualitative hierarchical sense) from that universe, dimension, realm, etc. to become incarnate.

I don’t think Jesus suffered and died merely to show that love and selflessness are salvation. After all, that’s not what he said. Even John the Baptists pointed to Jesus as the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. I don’t think the penal substitution interpretation is enough, but then, neither is what you’re saying. I think interpreting Christ’s Passion and death is quite complex, and many paradigms can help illuminate the past and present reality of the event.

Quite a few things were lost with the Fall, not just love and humility. I wouldn’t presume to know precisely what God wants in these cases.

However, I do again want to draw the distinction between the Second Person of the Trinity/the Word (Logos) and Jesus. Yes, they are the same person, however, there was a point in time when “Jesus” did not exist, then he came into existence as a human being when the Word became flesh, and now continues in existence.

Here’s a question for you, Tim: If the Second Person of the Trinity was reborn, could he be reborn a woman? Or Asian?

 

[TimGreeley]

Firstly, “the sky” is not really a relevant point. Jesus didn’t ascend into the stratosphere. He ascended into Heaven, which, for all intents and purposes, is another universe, dimension, realm, etc. not just a different geographical location. Likewise, the Second Person of the Trinity actually did come down (in a qualitative hierarchical sense) from that universe, dimension, realm, etc. to become incarnate.

I don’t think Jesus suffered and died merely to show that love and selflessness are salvation. After all, that’s not what he said. Even John the Baptists pointed to Jesus as the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. I don’t think the penal substitution interpretation is enough, but then, neither is what you’re saying. I think interpreting Christ’s Passion and death is quite complex, and many paradigms can help illuminate the past and present reality of the event.

Quite a few things were lost with the Fall, not just love and humility. I wouldn’t presume to know precisely what God wants in these cases.

However, I do again want to draw the distinction between the Second Person of the Trinity/the Word (Logos) and Jesus. Yes, they are the same person, however, there was a point in time when “Jesus” did not exist, then he came into existence as a human being when the Word became flesh, and now continues in existence.

Here’s a question for you, Tim: If the Second Person of the Trinity was reborn, could he be reborn a woman? Or Asian?

Firstly, I’m obviously not challenging that Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm–and not just the sky. But he chose to physically ascend into the physical sky as his route into heaven! *“He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” *(NASB). Also, are you not taking the interpretation as we’ve argued that he’s coming from the sky? Just like the Angels said–in your opinion.

I take the opinion that John the Baptist is inferring that God’s miracle-working ministry of love, selflessness, and its apogee of sacrificial death is what removes the sin of the world. And how does it remove the sin of the world? By us trying to emulate Christ after he proved to us that he is God.

Your last question is very thought-provoking, but it does not preclude God from creating what you think are absurdities. God is God. And he could make Jesus come back as a talking dog if he liked. I do believe scripture leans towards the interpretation that his body will be the same as it was known.

 

[Hishumbleservan]

Tim, first of all - peace be with you. God bless you in your quest to be enlighten with the Truth!

I believe there was hesitation up until the angels guidance was given. “And while they were gazing into heaven as he went,…” (Acts 1:10 - RSV-CE) indicates a “hesitation” while they were “gazing”. They were not praying, praising or discussing they Ascension as it unfolded, they were only gazing - likely in awe due to the scene being played out before them - a scene of a great miracle! They had seen Jesus’ physical body on the cross, they had even spent time with the risen Lord - some very spectacular events. However, they had never seen Jesus’ physical body be taken up to Heaven! That is something quite different then they were use to believing. That the resurrected body of Christ could be taken to Heaven was a very new concept - one that likely caught their faith off guard and caused them to tarry. That is when the angels reminded them of the end time spoken of later in Revelation - re-focusing them on their mission in Christ to bring His teachings to the ends of the Earth.

God bless and take comfort in the fact that I am not saying you are wrong - just not entirely accurate with regards to, what I believe, to be the teaching of the Church. No one is passing judgment on you - we’re just trying to help your understanding.

Take care.

 

[TimGreeley]

Tim, first of all - peace be with you. God bless you in your quest to be enlighten with the Truth!

I believe there was hesitation up until the angels guidance was given. “And while they were gazing into heaven as he went,…” (Acts 1:10 - RSV-CE) indicates a “hesitation” while they were “gazing”. They were not praying, praising or discussing they Ascension as it unfolded, they were only gazing - likely in awe due to the scene being played out before them - a scene of a great miracle! They had seen Jesus’ physical body on the cross, they had even spent time with the risen Lord - some very spectacular events. However, they had never seen Jesus’ physical body be taken up to Heaven! That is something quite different then they were use to believing. That the resurrected body of Christ could be taken to Heaven was a very new concept - one that likely caught their faith off guard and caused them to tarry. That is when the angels reminded them of the end time spoken of later in Revelation - re-focusing them on their mission in Christ to bring His teachings to the ends of the Earth.

God bless and take comfort in the fact that I am not saying you are wrong - just not entirely accurate with regards to, what I believe, to be the teaching of the Church. No one is passing judgment on you - we’re just trying to help your understanding.

Take care.

Hishumbleservan, I would have hoped you had the careful eye to notice that every Bible including the NASB finishes that line with “while he was going…”. The Bible you quoted is the only one that doesn’t–that I’m aware of. If it’s true that it was “while”, then they weren’t tarrying–they were watching God’s glorious departure. And I don’t think Jesus would have wanted them to miss that. Also, are you forgetting that the Angel’s lines are introduced with these opening words ***“They also said…” *? Their message was clearly not an imperative, as it is in your interpretation. I’m sorry but I’m only faithful to Scripture and sacrosanct Tradition. Your interpretation is patently not ** an inviolable Tradition of our Church.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Firstly, I’m obviously not challenging that Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm–and not just the sky. But he chose to physically ascend into the physical sky as his route into heaven! *“He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” *(NASB). Also, are you not taking the interpretation as we’ve argued that he’s coming from the sky? Just like the Angels said–in your opinion.

I am, but I think his mode of being (that is, as the incarnated and resurrected Jesus) is more important than his mode of transportation, that’s secondary.

I take the opinion that John the Baptist is inferring that God’s miracle-working ministry of love, selflessness, and its apogee of sacrificial death is what removes the sin of the world. And how does it remove the sin of the world? By us trying to emulate Christ after he proved to us that he is God.

Your last question is very thought-provoking, but it does not preclude God from creating what you think are absurdities. God is God. And he could make Jesus come back as a talking dog if he liked. I do believe scripture leans towards the interpretation that his body will be the same as it was known.

I’m not sure about your interpretation of what John the Baptist is saying about Jesus as the Lamb of God. This image for Christ is very prominent in John’s Gospel and is connected with the sacrificial Passover Lamb.

Again, God cannot do the logically or metaphysically impossible, not because it limits God but because such things are nonsense. If Jesus came back as a talking dog, he wouldn’t be Jesus as Jesus is a human being.

 

[Hishumbleservan]

Tim - I’m sorry but the NASB is NOT a translation approved for Catholics. Please see the following: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=574455&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

The RSV-CE however is approved for Catholic use.

 

[TimGreeley]

Hang on a sec, Tim. Are you saying God is able to do the logically and metaphysically impossible? Yes, God can make anyone’s finger into a Spanish Galleon but that’s not impossible (only “impossible” for us in a colloquial sense), that is, not logically or metaphysically impossible. For example, God couldn’t make dry water or somebody be black all over and red all over at the same time.

I have no idea what memories Jesus had a teenage boy (though I would suggest that, as God is outside of time, technically He doesn’t have memories since all moments are present to Him).

The story of the Fish and Loaves is a logical impossibility. You can’t make 1+1=3. But that’s what Jesus did. As for dry water and seeing something as discrete colors at the same time, this is not impossible for God. God is God. If it required your eyes and the object itself to have physical properties not found on Earth–to look at something as two colors at the same time–I’m sure God can do it.

Are you a Docetist? You do know Jesus had a human body? With a human brain–correct? How could Jesus have all memories, let alone–all moments–present to him in a human body? Are you aware of what you’re saying? Look at this relevant quote from C.S. Lewis:

“And I certainly think that Christ, in the flesh, was not omniscient–if only because a human brain could not, presumably, be the vehicle of omniscient consciousness, and to say that Our Lord’s thinking was not really conditioned by the size and shape of His brain might be to deny the real incarnation and become a Docetist.” (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis)

 

[Hishumbleservan]

C.S. Lewis was not a Catholic theologian - he was Anglican - and he rejected many of the Catholic Church’s teachings as seen in the following quote:

“The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specifically from apostolic Christianity I reject. Thus their theology about the B. V. M. [Blessed Virgin Mary] I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament: where indeed the words ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee’ receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St. Paul towards St. Peter in the epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way which the New Testament seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is. I must therefore reject their claims: though this does not mean rejecting particular things they way.”
Sourced at:intotheexpectation.blogspot.com/2011/10/c-s-lewis-on-roman-catholicism.html