Could Our Lord have failed His mission?

[johnnyjones]

Some would hold that Jesus’s mission did fail - he saw all his plans turned to dust and ashes with his arrest and the scattering of his followers. His spiritual agony was therefore, in this view, even deeper than customarily imagined. His kenosis (self-emptying and entrusting of all things to his Father) was absolute. And the Father, in response, vindicated his Son’s trust through the resurrection and the unexpected wroughting of the Church (rather than a transformed Judaism) from the hopelessly wrecked remains of Jesus’s earthly ministry. Satan never saw it coming.

This is a false view. Jesus did not see his plans turn to dust in some unaware fashion. He was quite aware of what would happen to him and he told the disciples the Son Of Man would be persecuted and beaten even to the point of knowing his death (Luke 9:22). He had for-knowledge. He knew he would be raised to life again after being killed, also stated in Luke 9:22.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Jesus did not see his plans turn to dust in some unaware fashion. He had for-knowledge. He knew he would be raised to life again after being killed, also stated in Luke 9:22.

Jesus did not see his plans turn to dust in some unaware fashion.
This is not what they are saying above. Jesus could well have become aware that God had dashed his plans, like Abraham having to kill his son. Jesus is only left with hope against hope and faith in faith. That is tough, real tough. But dying with a dream intact is much easier don’t you think? Jesus took it tough in my book.

He had for-knowledge.
Did He?

He knew he would be raised to life again after being killed, also stated in Luke 9:22
Did Luke write before or after the resurrection?
Is there any truth in the addage “the winners write/pick/edit the history?”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Jesus did not see his plans turn to dust in some unaware fashion.
This is not what they are saying above. Jesus could well have become aware that God had dashed his plans, like Abraham having to kill his son. Jesus is only left with hope against hope and faith in faith. That is tough, real tough. But dying with a dream intact is much easier don’t you think? Jesus took it tough in my book.

He had for-knowledge.
Did He?

He knew he would be raised to life again after being killed, also stated in Luke 9:22
Did Luke write before or after the resurrection?
Is there any truth in the addage “the winners write/pick/edit the history?”

1. Are you saying that Luke added something that wasn’t true?
2. I think what you’re saying is wrong. Jesus always knew about the Resurrection, because He always knew about the Crucifixion, and there’s no point in Him going through with the Crucifixion if there’s no Resurrection. He would have tried to avoid it rather than accept it.

Whether He knew about the Resurrection or not is besides the point; his death was real. If one of us feels a sense of relief at knowing we will come back from the dead after dying, that is because we do not know what death is like (at least before the Fall). Jesus knew, and it obviously frightened His human nature immensely, to the point that he literally sweated blood. But He died for us anyway, so that He could come back and save the rest of us.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. Are you saying that Luke added something that wasn’t true?
2. I think what you’re saying is wrong. Jesus always knew about the Resurrection, because He always knew about the Crucifixion, and there’s no point in Him going through with the Crucifixion if there’s no Resurrection. He would have tried to avoid it rather than accept it.

Whether He knew about the Resurrection or not is besides the point; his death was real. If one of us feels a sense of relief at knowing we will come back from the dead after dying, that is because we do not know what death is like (at least before the Fall). Je sus knew, and it obviously frightened His human nature immensely, to the point that he literally sweated blood. But He died for us anyway, so that He could come back and save the rest of us.

"Are you saying that Luke added something that wasn’t true?"
Was Luke like a Policeman reading objective facts out of his notebook in a modern day court of law?
Or was he more like a teacher using the acceptable (and understood) techniques of his time to reach his targeted audience and achieve his theological and kerygmatic purposes - just like we see happening in the Old Testament.

"He always knew about the Crucifixion"
Did he?

"…there’s no point in Him going through with the Crucifixion if there’s no Resurrection."
Its probably good to distinguish between “knowledge of reality” and reality itself here.
If the proponents of the above view are even half right then the darkness of the Passion is so immensely soul destroying and unacceptable (as you indeed agree) that, yes, only a God-Man with immense faith and love in His Father (and us/creation) could do it.

 

[johnnyjones]

"Are you saying that Luke added something that wasn’t true?"
Was Luke like a Policeman reading objective facts out of his notebook in a modern day court of law?
Or was he more like a teacher using the acceptable (and understood) techniques of his time to reach his targeted audience and achieve his theological and kerygmatic purposes - just like we see happening in the Old Testament.

"He always knew about the Crucifixion"
Did he?

"…there’s no point in Him going through with the Crucifixion if there’s no Resurrection."
Its probably good to distinguish between “knowledge of reality” and reality itself here.
If the proponents of the above view are even half right then the darkness of the Passion is so immensely soul destroying and unacceptable (as you indeed agree) that, yes, only a God-Man with immense faith and love in His Father (and us/creation) could do it.

Your saying the words recorded by Luke, that he would suffer, die, and rise again because they were written at a time not to your liking means that Jesus didn’t know what he was saying? That is a shocking statement.

If your unhappy with the recordings of Luke, are you also put off by the words of St. Mark (8:31) or Mark 9: 11- where Jesus in red a red letter Catholic bible says, “Elias is to come first and will restore all things. But how then is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be despised.”

YES, Jesus always knew about his crucifixion and resurrection because He knew the scriptures, and remember the people were astonished at his knowledge. Isaiah 53:4 is a prophesy about Jesus that Jews could not see but Jesus knew- " Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows:and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.But He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins: by His bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

This portion is entitled “Christs Satisfaction” in a Rheims bible. Further prophesies of Isaiah 53:7-12 go onto describe the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Jesus knew this was about Him because He said so in Mark 9:11 as I said.

You have been shown that Jesus was aware of his destiny. This is a bedrock of Christianity. Please do not twist this into some story that Jesus didn’t know His mission or what would happen to Him

 

[PeterGStanley]

He rose from the dead opened the gates of heaven for us - its the basis of our whole faith - mission complete.The rest relys completely on us in our choices.

If he didn’t - then the whole christian faith is bogus and were all wasting our time.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Your saying the words recorded by Luke, that he would suffer, die, and rise again because they were written at a time not to your liking means that Jesus didn’t know what he was saying? That is a shocking statement.

If your unhappy with the recordings of Luke, are you also put off by the words of St. Mark (8:31) or Mark 9: 11- where Jesus in red a red letter Catholic bible says, “Elias is to come first and will restore all things. But how then is it written of the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be despised.”

YES, Jesus always knew about his crucifixion and resurrection because He knew the scriptures, and remember the people were astonished at his knowledge. Isaiah 53:4 is a prophesy about Jesus that Jews could not see but Jesus knew- " Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows:and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.But He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins: by His bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

This portion is entitled “Christs Satisfaction” in a Rheims bible. Further prophesies of Isaiah 53:7-12 go onto describe the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Jesus knew this was about Him because He said so in Mark 9:11 as I said.

You have been shown that Jesus was aware of his destiny. This is a bedrock of Christianity. Please do not twist this into some story that Jesus didn’t know His mission or what would happen to Him

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your saying the words recorded by Luke, that he would suffer, die, and rise again … that Jesus didn’t know what he was saying?

JJ I am observing, as many middle of the road Catholic Biblical Scholars do, that Luke didn’t actually “record” Jesus’s words. They are actually Luke’s words aren’t they? Written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. So here is a very basic level of intermediation between us and Jesus “ipissima verba.” Further, Luke wrote maybe 30-40 years after Jesus died. No doubt he formed the basic buidling blocks of his Gospel from oral stories about Jesus doing the rounds and also from associating with high level Church figures. There look to have been some isolated and fragmentory short texts available to him as well. Finally he had his own personal understanding of the meaning of Jesus’s life death and resurrection (i.e. a theology).

Many different theologies exist in the New testament. Each teacher systematises his material and teaches effectively by means of their own theology (just as you are doing with me). He injects his own faith point of view into his material. It is not pure history. So when we think about all these mediating processes between us and the unknown actual words of Jesus (and I have ommitted many other levels of such intermediation) we have to do our homework before assuming the literal meaning really is always what Jesus said or what the Evangelist really meant to communicate.

YES, Jesus always knew about his crucifixion and resurrection. Please do not twist this into some story that Jesus didn’t know His mission or what would happen to Him

One does not have to be particularly wise to foresee that Jesus was getting himself into trouble. The particulars of the denoument? … I believe one can still be a faithful Catholic and opine that Jesus did not know the particulars, did not know he would be crucified or scourged or crowned with thorns.

 

[johnnyjones]

JJ I am observing, as many middle of the road Catholic Biblical Scholars do, that Luke didn’t actually “record” Jesus’s words. They are actually Luke’s words aren’t they? Written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. So here is a very basic level of intermediation between us and Jesus “ipissima verba.” Further, Luke wrote maybe 30-40 years after Jesus died. No doubt he formed the basic buidling blocks of his Gospel from oral stories about Jesus doing the rounds and also from associating with high level Church figures. There look to have been some isolated and fragmentory short texts available to him as well. Finally he had his own personal understanding of the meaning of Jesus’s life death and resurrection (i.e. a theology).

Many different theologies exist in the New testament. Each teacher systematises his material and teaches effectively by means of their own theology (just as you are doing with me). He injects his own faith point of view into his material. It is not pure history. So when we think about all these mediating processes between us and the unknown actual words of Jesus (and I have ommitted many other levels of such intermediation) we have to do our homework before assuming the literal meaning really is always what Jesus said or what the Evangelist really meant to communicate.

One does not have to be particularly wise to foresee that Jesus was getting himself into trouble. The particulars of the denoument? … I believe one can still be a faithful Catholic and opine that Jesus did not know the particulars, did not know he would be crucified or scourged or crowned with thorns.

No, this is not acceptable. Of course you can believe this but it is foolish theology. There are many corrupt theologies and one true theology of the Catholic church . The words of Jesus suffice by the inspired authors of canon which is detailed in any Catholic bible. If your theology were embraced the epistles would be useless. If St. Luke, St. Mark, St Paul wrote that Jesus said something or conveyed a message, that is to be believed and it makes no sense not to believe this essential of Christianity. These are not difficult passages.

You have avoided the OT prophesies of messiah as well .The “homework” was done by Jesus who proclaimed Himself the messiah and the current body Of Christ that recognizes that. It is disgraceful to project that Jesus did not know who He was. He was one filled with the TRUE knowledge of OT prophesies in scripture as opposed to a Hebrew misreading of who messiah would be.

There is NO denying the actual words of Jesus in Mark 9:11 "But how then is it written of the Son of Man, that He should suffer many things and be despised?"

It is important as a Catholic that you stop misleading others into strange doctrines about Jesus’ own knowledge of His mission. You must read Isaiah 53 1 through 12 of which Jesus proclaimed he was knowing all suffering.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, this is not acceptable.

JJ can you state in a brief sentence what exactly it is you find unacceptable?

There is NO denying the actual words of Jesus in Mark 9:11 “But how then is it written of the Son of Man, that He should suffer many things and be despised?”

JJ Whether Mark put these words from the OT on Jesus’s lips as a literary device or whether Jesus actually spoke them we will never know for sure and I don’t really think it is a big deal either way here is it? Of course Jesus knew he was going to get it from the authorities - as I stated above it isn’t rocket science to work that one out in advance!
I think Mt 16:21 would make your point better but maybe I do not understand exactly what your point is here.

 

[johnnyjones]

JJ can you state in a brief sentence what exactly it is you find unacceptable?

JJ Whether Mark put these words from the OT on Jesus’s lips as a literary device or whether Jesus actually spoke them we will never know for sure and I don’t really think it is a big deal either way here is it? Of course Jesus knew he was going to get it from the authorities - as I stated above it isn’t rocket science to work that one out in advance!
I think Mt 16:21 would make your point better but maybe I do not understand exactly what your point is here.

This type of talk questioning whether Mark or any other of the NT writers got Jesus’ words right is off the charts from a Christian perspective. Why are you even saying such things? The writers are inspired by the Holy Spirit, their words matter, this is basic Christian teaching. So whether the words were a “literary device” or actually said does not detract from the clarity of their meaning.

You doing another twist, acting as though you didn’t originally question the foreknowledge of Jesus. You did. And you put forth the idea that Jesus didn’t know how His mission would go or that “middle of the road” Catholics weren’t sure. If you can’t accept the words of the Gospel as absolute truth (and again these are not verses that require some great study to explain) then the catechism of the church may be something you can accept that teaches Jesus knew prophesy, and all about the details of His life death, death , burial, and resurrection.

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

CCC 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

400 Cf. Mt 20:28.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is Catholic dogma that Jesus was incapable of sinning.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This type of talk questioning whether Mark or any other of the NT writers got Jesus’ words right is off the charts from a Christian perspective. Why are you even saying such things? The writers are inspired by the Holy Spirit, their words matter, this is basic Christian teaching. So whether the words were a “literary device” or actually said does not detract from the clarity of their meaning.

You doing another twist, acting as though you didn’t originally question the foreknowledge of Jesus. You did. And you put forth the idea that Jesus didn’t know how His mission would go or that “middle of the road” Catholics weren’t sure. If you can’t accept the words of the Gospel as absolute truth (and again these are not verses that require some great study to explain) then the catechism of the church may be something you can accept that teaches Jesus knew prophesy, and all about the details of His life death, death , burial, and resurrection.

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

CCC 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

400 Cf. Mt 20:28.

JJ you are all over the place here.
And I am still at a loss to know exactly what it is I said that concerns you so.
Can you give me one clear sentence?

I cannot see anthing in the CCC above that I have contradicted .
Let me summarise for you a third time: I see nothing in Church teaching than compells Catholics to believe that Jesus displayed clear fore-knowledge of the particulars of his death well before it actually happened. Yes Jesus had practical certitude re the general terms of how things would end (predicting his death at the hands of the authorities and confiding such to his closest followers) but that is hardly a fore-knowledge of particulars deriving from his Divine nature.

JJ remember this is an Apologetics Forum not a Dogmatic Theology Forum.
In apologetics we discuss from the point of view, at times, of a non-believer, that is, as if we did not have the additional certainties that the Magisterium and normative Catholic teaching provides us. And then we work back towards faith insights from there, putting them in a light and angle perhaps we have not reflected on before. This is also a supposition often used in acceptable Catholic Biblical exegetical studies as well.

In this light the NT record clearly shows discrepancies over what the apostles/disciples allegedly knew of the specifics of Jesus’s death and resurrection beforehand. For all intents and purposes they are recorded, at the time of Jesus’s death, as acting without any hope or even knowledge of these wondefully clear details you speak of. Therefore it is a legitimate exegetical question to ask "Did Jesus really talk to his followers in great and clear detail about these things before His death…or is it just a theological and very effective literary device (Look up “The Messianic Secret in Mark”) used by Matthew (or the other evangelists) to communicate what is in fact Matthew’s post-resurrection knowledge/faith to his reading audience? We do not actually seem to know the answer to that question with 100% certainty either way at the level of historical investigation alone.
Even with Church teaching I find it difficult to get a clear answer. We do know that God the Father had clear foreknowledge, but the man Jesus before his death? Difficult.
Have a look yourself at newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm. Perhaps you could find something clearer in this regard. I would be interested.

Anyway, this sort of discussion seems to disturb you, yet unnecessarily so. Just because the Bible may not clearly support a Church teaching (or even support it at all) does not mean the teaching is misguided or wrong. It simply means we are not able to get the easy historical certitude that we would like. So what? Faith is faith, not pure science/history. Its nice when they clearly accord - but they don’t have to do they?

 

[johnnyjones]

JJ you are all over the place here.
And I am still at a loss to know exactly what it is I said that concerns you so.
Can you give me one clear sentence?

I cannot see anthing in the CCC above that I have contradicted .
Let me summarise for you a third time: I see nothing in Church teaching than compells Catholics to believe that Jesus displayed clear fore-knowledge of the particulars of his death well before it actually happened. Yes Jesus had practical certitude re the general terms of how things would end (predicting his death at the hands of the authorities and confiding such to his closest followers) but that is hardly a fore-knowledge of particulars deriving from his Divine nature.

JJ remember this is an Apologetics Forum not a Dogmatic Theology Forum.
In apologetics we discuss from the point of view, at times, of a non-believer, that is, as if we did not have the additional certainties that the Magisterium and normative Catholic teaching provides us. And then we work back towards faith insights from there, putting them in a light and angle perhaps we have not reflected on before. This is also a supposition often used in acceptable Catholic Biblical exegetical studies as well.

In this light the NT record clearly shows discrepancies over what the apostles/disciples allegedly knew of the specifics of Jesus’s death and resurrection beforehand. For all intents and purposes they are recorded, at the time of Jesus’s death, as acting without any hope or even knowledge of these wondefully clear details you speak of. Therefore it is a legitimate exegetical question to ask "Did Jesus really talk to his followers in great and clear detail about these things before His death…or is it just a theological and very effective literary device (Look up “The Messianic Secret in Mark”) used by Matthew (or the other evangelists) to communicate what is in fact Matthew’s post-resurrection knowledge/faith to his reading audience? We do not actually seem to know the answer to that question with 100% certainty either way at the level of historical investigation alone.
Even with Church teaching I find it difficult to get a clear answer. We do know that God the Father had clear foreknowledge, but the man Jesus before his death? Difficult.
Have a look yourself at newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm. Perhaps you could find something clearer in this regard. I would be interested.

Anyway, this sort of discussion seems to disturb you, yet unnecessarily so. Just because the Bible may not clearly support a Church teaching (or even support it at all) does not mean the teaching is misguided or wrong. It simply means we are not able to get the easy historical certitude that we would like. So what? Faith is faith, not pure science/history. Its nice when they clearly accord - but they don’t have to do they?

This is an answers forum. I question your belief and “it disturbs me unnecessarily?” Your being highly tempermental with that comment.

Yes, Jesus talked in detail about His death. Your not seeing that? In addition he knew what would happen to Him based on His understanding of prophesy. He explained the truth of prophesy, that he was the true messiah. Why is it difficult to figure out with church teaching or the bible? I’m stunned your still perplexed by it.

What do you think foreknowledge is? Is it not knowing things before they happen? So if Jesus, as the church says, has the entire prophesy of Isaiah and several other books that he was well versed in regarding His arrest, trial, persecution, beating, crucifiction, death, burial, resurrection, He didn’t have foreknowledge? He came to FULLFILL the scriptures because He knew he was the messiah from prophesy and said so.

They, the apostles, knew what would happen to Jesus as well because he told them but they refused to believe it. These are your recent words: “I see nothing in Church teaching than compells Catholics to believe that Jesus displayed clear fore-knowledge of the particulars of his death well before it actually happened.” Ok, you’ve heard yourself, now lets look at the catechism one more time:

CCC 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

Now you see the underlined part. Jesus EXPLAINED the meaning of His life, death and resurrection. Does the catechism stop at life? No. Jesus explained His death and resurrection as well.

Back in post #24 You questioned if Jesus knew His ressurrection. You wrote, “Did he?” The OT prophesies that the church says Jesus knew point to crucifiction, especially the book of Zechariah. You continued in post #28 to say he didn’t know the particulars. What more particulars did you expect Him to know that haven’t been elaborated on by prophesy?

Jesus knew he was the suffering servant. Why sweat drops of blood when he wasn’t even told by the Romans what His fate was yet? He SAW the cross, and knew the devise of His death. Look up Catholic theology and stick with that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is an answers forum. I question your belief and “it disturbs me unnecessarily?” Your being highly tempermental with that comment.

Yes, Jesus talked in detail about His death. Your not seeing that? In addition he knew what would happen to Him based on His understanding of prophesy. He explained the truth of prophesy, that he was the true messiah. Why is it difficult to figure out with church teaching or the bible? I’m stunned your still perplexed by it.

What do you think foreknowledge is? Is it not knowing things before they happen? So if Jesus, as the church says, has the entire prophesy of Isaiah and several other books that he was well versed in regarding His arrest, trial, persecution, beating, crucifiction, death, burial, resurrection, He didn’t have foreknowledge? He came to FULLFILL the scriptures because He knew he was the messiah from prophesy and said so.

They, the apostles, knew what would happen to Jesus as well because he told them but they refused to believe it. These are your recent words: “I see nothing in Church teaching than compells Catholics to believe that Jesus displayed clear fore-knowledge of the particulars of his death well before it actually happened.” Ok, you’ve heard yourself, now lets look at the catechism one more time:

CCC 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

Now you see the underlined part. Jesus EXPLAINED the meaning of His life, death and resurrection. Does the catechism stop at life? No. Jesus explained His death and resurrection as well.

Back in post #24 You questioned if Jesus knew His ressurrection. You wrote, “Did he?” The OT prophesies that the church says Jesus knew point to crucifiction, especially the book of Zechariah. You continued in post #28 to say he didn’t know the particulars. What more particulars did you expect Him to know that haven’t been elaborated on by prophesy?

Jesus knew he was the suffering servant. Why sweat drops of blood when he wasn’t even told by the Romans what His fate was yet? He SAW the cross, and knew the devise of His death. Look up Catholic theology and stick with that.

JJ I do not think it is possible to have a rational discussion with you on this 150 year old debate. Its appears attention to detail is a challenge and if one is weak at listening one will have difficulty putting forward salient and relevant responses because the essential jist is lost.

For example, you write "Back in post #24 You questioned if Jesus knew His ressurrection. You wrote, “Did he?” "
Hmmnn. I do not believe so. I wrote “Did He?” concerning Jesus’s predicting he would be Crucified didn’t I?
This is one of a number of examples where you have missed my point.

To conclude, I am averting readers, who are comfortable with temporarily laying aside considerations of dogma (which is by no means 100% unified on this particular question) to a well established debate in Biblical historical/critical scholarship (both in Catholic and Protestant) circles. This debate (re the degree and quality of the historicity of the Gospels, which often centres on the “Messianic Secret”) discusses the likely detailed foreknowledge of Jesus before his death, how much he actually communicated to the Apostles before his death and how much may have actually been injected back into the Gospels by the Evangelists themselves who wrote between 40 and 80 years later (in the light of Jesus’s actual Resurrection). In Mark it appears that no human acknowledged Jesus’s Sonship before the crucifixion - its is known only to demons (and of course the reader).

It is not blasphemy to discuss the NT in this way. Of course one has to be circumspect in raising these (for some) uncomfortable problematics. I think it is acceptable to do so in an apologetics forum accessed by mature Catholics and respectful non-believers.

Readers who may like to review this debate for themselves may find the following material helpful (both duly Imprimatur-ed and Nihil Obstat-ed):
(1) The Jerome Biblical Commentary

• especially 41:4 (“Marcan Theology”), 81:16 (“Ministry Christology”), 81:10 (on Jesus’s Knowledge), 70:34 (20th Century Biblical Criticism: is the NT history, pure and simple?)
  (2) “Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine” (Raymond E Brown).

Brown was a renowned Catholic Biblical Scholar and the main editor of the JBC. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
Of him Cardinal Ratzinger said, “I would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown”.

 

[johnnyjones]

JJ I do not think it is possible to have a rational discussion with you on this 150 year old debate. Its appears attention to detail is a challenge and if one is weak at listening one will have difficulty putting forward salient and relevant responses because the essential jist is lost.

For example, you write "Back in post #24 You questioned if Jesus knew His ressurrection. You wrote, “Did he?” "
Hmmnn. I do not believe so. I wrote “Did He?” concerning Jesus’s predicting he would be Crucified didn’t I?
This is one of a number of examples where you have missed my point.

To conclude, I am averting readers, who are comfortable with temporarily laying aside considerations of dogma (which is by no means 100% unified on this particular question) to a well established debate in Biblical historical/critical scholarship (both in Catholic and Protestant) circles. This debate (re the degree and quality of the historicity of the Gospels, which often centres on the “Messianic Secret”) discusses the likely detailed foreknowledge of Jesus before his death, how much he actually communicated to the Apostles before his death and how much may have actually been injected back into the Gospels by the Evangelists themselves who wrote between 40 and 80 years later (in the light of Jesus’s actual Resurrection). In Mark it appears that no human acknowledged Jesus’s Sonship before the crucifixion - its is known only to demons (and of course the reader).

It is not blasphemy to discuss the NT in this way. Of course one has to be circumspect in raising these (for some) uncomfortable problematics. I think it is acceptable to do so in an apologetics forum accessed by mature Catholics and respectful non-believers.

Readers who may like to review this debate for themselves may find the following material helpful (both duly Imprimatur-ed and Nihil Obstat-ed):
(1) The Jerome Biblical Commentary

• especially 41:4 (“Marcan Theology”), 81:16 (“Ministry Christology”), 81:10 (on Jesus’s Knowledge), 70:34 (20th Century Biblical Criticism: is the NT history, pure and simple?)
  (2) “Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine” (Raymond E Brown).

Brown was a renowned Catholic Biblical Scholar and the main editor of the JBC. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
Of him Cardinal Ratzinger said, “I would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown”.

It is certainly possible to have a discussion on the topic in question. Attacking my attention to detail seems to be your way odd way of diverting attention from the scripture verses and catechism I presented.
Lets put your words in this post. Your right, you framed the “did he” question based on my crucifiction comment. But lets see if the outcome changes.
.
This is not what they are saying above. Jesus could well have become aware that God had dashed his plans, like Abraham having to kill his son. Jesus is only left with hope against hope and faith in faith. That is tough, real tough. But dying with a dream intact is much easier don’t you think? Jesus took it tough in my book.

He had for-knowledge.
Did He?

Did Luke write before or after the resurrection?
Is there any truth in the addage “the winners write/pick/edit the history?”
Last edited by Blue Horizon; Sep 29, '12 at 6:42 pm.

. Whether it was about the resurrection or the crucifixion, you don’t believe Jesus knew of either, right? Because you go onto frame the resurrection as questionable foreknowledge of Jesus as well with your last statement. Are you now saying there is a difference with the foreknowledge of Jesus with the resurrection vs. the crucifixion? This is no “missed point” You have continually said that there is a belief that God may have dashed Jesus’ plans or a variation of that.

My point is, which you keep missing, is that there may well be that belief, but it is wrong.

What are you basing Jesus’ non foreknowledge on? Commentary? Non canon and non catechism? The definitive answers lie the theology of the church. You want to lay aside dogma, why? It is fair to say other people may believe Jesus did not know any details of His mission, but you seem to be defending this position and that’s where I have strong concerns.

Jesus knew His outcome and explained it in some detail a few times. In addition He had all of the OT , about Himself! Finally, this constant claim that ideas of supposition were interjected into the gospels because they were written years later to prove your point is dangerous. We accept the words of the gospels as fact,** the inspired WORD OF GOD.** You write as one who does not embrace this and provide sources that are speculation and opinion. The religious have made many comments over the years that don’t always line up with church theology. All commentary is not orthodox theology. If the church says Jesus explained His LIFE, DEATH & RESURRECTION as the catechism does, it is clear.

Discussions can and have been had but we must return to church teaching for the final authority.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is certainly possible to have a discussion on the topic in question. Attacking my attention to detail seems to be your way odd way of diverting attention from the scripture verses and catechism I presented.
Lets put your words in this post. Your right, you framed the “did he” question based on my crucifiction comment. But lets see if the outcome changes.
.
This is not what they are saying above. Jesus could well have become aware that God had dashed his plans, like Abraham having to kill his son. Jesus is only left with hope against hope and faith in faith. That is tough, real tough. But dying with a dream intact is much easier don’t you think? Jesus took it tough in my book.

He had for-knowledge.
Did He?

Did Luke write before or after the resurrection?
Is there any truth in the addage “the winners write/pick/edit the history?”
Last edited by Blue Horizon; Sep 29, '12 at 6:42 pm.

. Whether it was about the resurrection or the crucifixion, you don’t believe Jesus knew of either, right? Because you go onto frame the resurrection as questionable foreknowledge of Jesus as well with your last statement. Are you now saying there is a difference with the foreknowledge of Jesus with the resurrection vs. the crucifixion? This is no “missed point” You have continually said that there is a belief that God may have dashed Jesus’ plans or a variation of that.

My point is, which you keep missing, is that there may well be that belief, but it is wrong.

What are you basing Jesus’ non foreknowledge on? Commentary? Non canon and non catechism? The definitive answers lie the theology of the church. You want to lay aside dogma, why? It is fair to say other people may believe Jesus did not know any details of His mission, but you seem to be defending this position and that’s where I have strong concerns.

Jesus knew His outcome and explained it in some detail a few times. In addition He had all of the OT , about Himself! Finally, this constant claim that ideas of supposition were interjected into the gospels because they were written years later to prove your point is dangerous. We accept the words of the gospels as fact,** the inspired WORD OF GOD.** You write as one who does not embrace this and provide sources that are speculation and opinion. The religious have made many comments over the years that don’t always line up with church theology. All commentary is not orthodox theology. If the church says Jesus explained His LIFE, DEATH & RESURRECTION as the catechism does, it is clear.

Discussions can and have been had but we must return to church teaching for the final authority.

JJ, for reasons stated above I am not going to engage you further on this. We seem to be going over the same old ground.

If you reflect on my distinction between “general” and “particular details” re the difficulty of Jesus’s scientific foreknowledge this may become clearer to you. The same holds for how much detail Jesus actually gave the disciples before he died/rose (as compared to how much detail he gave them afterwards on the road to Emmaus for example).If, for teaching purposes, the Evangelists “leaked” this later clarificatory teaching back into their record of Jesus’s earthly ministry (which seems probable according to accepted Catholic NT experts) that doesn’t make the Gospels untrue. Its not primarily a history book, its a book for inspiring true faith in a Jesus who was Resurrected by the Father. The matter of Jesus’s degree of foreknowledge of this fact before the fact seems somewhat irrelevent.

I really do recommend you catch up on modern Catholic, approved Biblical studies of the type I have sourced above. Most of what I opine above is not from me, its from accepted Catholic Biblical experts. Nothing dangerous, nothing to be afraid of. We do not need to be afraid that the NT does not always backup Catholic dogma so long as the NT doesn’t explicitly contradict it (which it doesn’t). Sometimes when we do this we find our own personal understanding of Catholic theology is not as perfect as we think it is. Sometimes Catholics are allowed to acceptably hold different positions on various topics.

 

[johnnyjones]

JJ, for reasons stated above I am not going to engage you further on this. We seem to be going over the same old ground.

If you reflect on my distinction between “general” and “particular details” re the difficulty of Jesus’s scientific foreknowledge this may become clearer to you. The same holds for how much detail Jesus actually gave the disciples before he died/rose (as compared to how much detail he gave them afterwards on the road to Emmaus for example).If, for teaching purposes, the Evangelists “leaked” this later clarificatory teaching back into their record of Jesus’s earthly ministry (which seems probable according to accepted Catholic NT experts) that doesn’t make the Gospels untrue. Its not primarily a history book, its a book for inspiring true faith in a Jesus who was Resurrected by the Father. The matter of Jesus’s degree of foreknowledge of this fact before the fact seems somewhat irrelevent.

I really do recommend you catch up on modern Catholic, approved Biblical studies of the type I have sourced above. Most of what I opine above is not from me, its from accepted Catholic Biblical experts. Nothing dangerous, nothing to be afraid of. We do not need to be afraid that the NT does not always backup Catholic dogma so long as the NT doesn’t explicitly contradict it (which it doesn’t). Sometimes when we do this we find our own personal understanding of Catholic theology is not as perfect as we think it is. Sometimes Catholics are allowed to acceptably hold different positions on various topics.

This is common much to often on these threads." I will not engage you any further". Lets not go over the same ground. Lets look at your source for alternative beliefs on Jesus foreknowledge, that is in opposition to church teaching. The modern Jerome Biblical Commentary.:
The most widely used Catholic commentary is probably the Jerome Biblical Commentary, now in a 2nd edition. There is also a summary version of it. This commentary is the work of well-known Catholic Biblical scholars and is filled with articles on historical, archaeological, linguistic and other subjects useful for understanding the background of the Scriptures. The JBC is, therefore, a valuable resource for those seeking such information. However, the textual commentaries use primarily the historical-critical method, and thus must be read with discernment. The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium.

Wheres the difficulty? You can learn some things, gain some new insights from commentary , but it does not trump the Magisterium. Yes there are different views, but only one final view, and that exists in church teaching. Jesus was messiah, and knew his mission, his arrest, persecution, crucifixion (even the spear in his side from prophesy), death, burial and resurrection. Period.