Did Jesus always recognize His Divinity?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I do apologise, but I cannot understand that belief in Biblical inerrancy and consideration of major issues like Christ’s suffering depend on this kind of *angels on the head of a pin *analysis of the verb to leap. I do not mean to be derogatory, but surely there are better things to be thinking about?

Surely we can assume that ‘leap’ meant that the baby made a BIG movement. How can we know it was with joy, unless someone heard him laughing or gurgling? If John leaped in the womb, of course he could not leave the ground and jump up high - why do you define leap in this way? I defer to your understanding of the connection of the two leapings, but am not convinced.

Blessings

ISTM it need not have been anything out of the ordinary: don’t unborn children change position in the womb ? Maybe it was a perfectly ordinary motion, which lent itself to being interpreted as caused by joy. That would make the passage a record of an interpretation of a detail about St. Elizabeth, rather than an unvarnished & straightfoward description. As is true of much of the Biblical text.​

It’s not exactly of the first importance - OTOH, nothing that has a bearing on the Bible is without importance (to paraphrase St. Robert Bellarmine) ##

 

[guanophore]

I do apologise, but I cannot understand that belief in Biblical inerrancy and consideration of major issues like Christ’s suffering depend on this kind of *angels on the head of a pin *analysis of the verb to leap. I do not mean to be derogatory, but surely there are better things to be thinking about?

I understand your objection, Carol. I can say this; the reason it is important to argue about biblical inerrancy is precisely BECAUSE there are better things to think about. If we cannot keep ourselves anchored properly in the revelation of Christ (found both in the written scripture and oral tradition) then we will not be on solid ground to address the issues of grave importance that you are facing every day.
Carol Coombe;2002220:

Surely we can assume that ‘leap’ meant that the baby made a BIG movement. How can we know it was with joy, unless someone heard him laughing or gurgling? If John leaped in the womb, of course he could not leave the ground and jump up high - why do you define leap in this way? I defer to your understanding of the connection of the two leapings, but am not convinced.

Blessings

Your question is of utmost and essential importance in this interpretation! How, indeed, can we know that baby “leaped with joy”??? Well, Scripture tells us that he did. Scripture accounts the words of Elisabeth, who experienced the “leap”. She was six months pregnant, and was aware of the daily movements. The teaching tells us that her baby was filled with the Holy Spirit at this moment (the prophesy states that he would be filled “from his mother’s womb”). why bicker on this point? A lot of reasons. The main one that pertains to your work is that pre-born babies are "human’ and annointed by God, known by God, and have a calling. This is the problem with pre-born babies is that we cannot hear their laughing and gurgling. And because of that, a great portion of the world thinks that they are not able to leap with joy! They are not considered human, or with soul, or chosen of God, or able to respond to the presence of “the mother of our Lord”.

 

[guanophore]

(1) Scientific research tells us that laws of nature are fixed. An apple does not suddenly fall up instead of down. Newton’s laws of gravity are laws; Einstein’s theory of relativity describes laws.

(2) I assume that these laws have not changed from time immemorial

(3) I understand that the material world is stable, and the apple will not fall up anytime soon and similarly that there are no known changes in material substances or actions that could not have been predicted.

(4) From this I understand God does not choose to intervene in the workings of his material creation: it works. If he intervened regularly or randomly, our world(s) would be unpredictable and unfathomable. God is smart: best leave it alone.

(5) There is a second aspect to God’s creation and that is the social world of humanity. God made us with free will; intelligence to decide, and capacity to serve Him or push off from Him and/or responsibility others. OK so far?

Yes, ok so far!

(6) It seems God DOES intervene in the social world of humanity, not that often, but often enough. His Presence is manifest in many ways, and those convinced of the power of prayer, the reality of miracles, and the immanence of divine support, attest His nearness.

(7) It is also possible to suggest that God created us with intelligence to keep this Garden of Eden operating equitably, *if *we got our brains, our will and our compassion on line and without waiting for divine intervention.

Of course it is possible! “All things are possible with God!”. But God did not design us to operate apart from HIs divinity. He designed us to work in complete unification and agreement with His divinity. So, whatever brains, will, and compassion we have are from HIm, for HIm, and through Him. WE ARE the vessels of his divine intervention. And no, we cannot wait. We need to act NOW!

There is nothing we can do about global warming.

This is a bit pessimistic, is it not?"

10) Likewise he anticipates that the intellect He has given us will seek ways to ensure that each human has enough food, education and access to health care, and is free from horrors of manmade war, starvation, and corrupt/negligent governments (check out Zimbabwe).

Yes, I believe that God expects us to use all of our capacities to seek ways to relieve suffering. On the other hand, all that we do has to be subjected to the work that He has already done on the cross to relieve human suffering permanently through His sacrifice. If we labor all day and night, but do not embrace the cross, then anything we do will be of little benefit.

(11) I sometimes wonder whether our brains have actually evolved enough, fast enough, to cope with the problems we have created for ourselves or have failed to address. We are young in evolutionary terms to cope adequately with the nature of this universe and its societies.

This is why it is so important for us to rely on the inerrancy of the scripture and tradition. the Revelation is not subject to our smallness, and we can count on guidance in matters beyond our limitations.

(12) So yes, God does intervene in his Creation: not on the material side, to which immutable laws apply; but on the social side, in response to disaster and consequent suffering, or to suffering consequent on our negligence and lack of compassion.

does that mean you believe NONE of the miracles in the New Testament!???

(13) I have supposed that as God does not intervene randomly in the laws of His material kingdom, the idea that transubstantiation is a difficult concept to conquer, for my tiny mind.

Then consider that maybe God does intervene, and that none of it is random! Also, please do not attempt to comprehend the miracles of God by your 'tiny mind". Of course none of us can? What need would we have of transcendent mercy, if we could comprehend it with the mind? there is a great fundamentalist bumper sticker. Now, bear in mind that I am not a person of fundamentalist values, however, at times, they really seem to hit the mark. It says “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. There are times when it is a simple matter of will. “I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!”

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I shall reply to issues later: late for mass.

The question I suppose that really troubles me is the meaning of the word ‘divine’. I cannot find a definition which is anything but tautological.

How do we define the word divine? What is its meaning? Do not define in terms of the word deity: ie divine is anything attributed to or emanating from a godhead.

Please help here: this search has been going on for a long time without fruit.

Blessings

 

[lak611]

I shall reply to issues later: late for mass.

The question I suppose that really troubles me is the meaning of the word ‘divine’. I cannot find a definition which is anything but tautological.

How do we define the word divine? What is its meaning? Do not define in terms of the word deity: ie divine is anything attributed to or emanating from a godhead.

Please help here: this search has been going on for a long time without fruit.

Blessings

Divine cannot be defined without mentioning God. Here’s the dictionary definition. “Main Entry: 1di·vine
Pronunciation: d&-'vIn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): di·vin·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English divin, from Anglo-French, from Latin divinus, from divus god – more at DEITY
1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b : being a deity c : directed to a deity
2 a : supremely good : SUPERB b : HEAVENLY, GODLIKE”
m-w.com/dictionary/divine

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Divine cannot be defined without mentioning God. Here’s the dictionary definition. “Main Entry: 1di·vine
Pronunciation: d&-'vIn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): di·vin·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English divin, from Anglo-French, from Latin divinus, from divus god – more at DEITY
1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b : being a deity c : directed to a deity
2 a : supremely good : SUPERB b : HEAVENLY, GODLIKE”
m-w.com/dictionary/divine

Oh gosh, do you not think I have tried dozens of dictionaries, on the Internet and off? And the supremely good part is not what we are talking about - ie pie for lunch.

Who can come up with a definitive definition here? Dictionaries I have.

And of course we can talk about divine without referring to *our *God. Every major faith/religion/belief system (just about) has some concept of the divine, and use the word regularly, just as we use the word grace, which is also difficult to define. So divine is an all-encompassing word which we must understand in the global paradigm.

Blessings

 

[dcdurel]

He had a human soul, certainly - but what about a human self-consciousness ? No body = no human self-consciousness. To have a body is an essential element of being human - that’s why death is unnatural for us, and why the Blessed are incomplete without their bodies. Men are not bodiless souls, and neither was He.​

No, but we as pure souls enjoy are in union with God in heaven, and full knowledge of what He wants us to know in heaven, thus a body is NOT necessary to come to knowledge.

Can there be enjoyment of the Beatific Vision, where there is no distinction between good and evil ? **If **not - how is it possible for a being who has not developed a moral sense, to distinguish between them ?

The Beatific Vision gives distinction between good and evil.

And if the man Jesus had that ability from His conception, that makes His development quite unlike ours.

Beyond ours in His intellectual developement. That is exactly what the Church teaches. Remember, Jesus was and is a Divine Person, he was NOT a human person.
Remember, Jesus is the only being who learned what He already knew. And He already knew everything.

 

[guanophore]

I shall reply to issues later: late for mass.

The question I suppose that really troubles me is the meaning of the word ‘divine’. I cannot find a definition which is anything but tautological.

How do we define the word divine? What is its meaning? Do not define in terms of the word deity: ie divine is anything attributed to or emanating from a godhead.

Please help here: this search has been going on for a long time without fruit.

Blessings

You have stumbled onto a gnarly one that the Early Fathers worked on for centuries. In this context, it means that Jesus IS God. Our conception of who God is came from the Jewish understanding, was informed by Jesus, and expounded by the Apostles. You will probably be helped in this by reading the EArly Fathers on the Arian heresy. In response to this heresy, the Fathers worked hard to define the two natures of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Who can come up with a definitive definition here? Dictionaries I have.

And of course we can talk about divine without referring to *our *God. Every major faith/religion/belief system (just about) has some concept of the divine, and use the word regularly, just as we use the word grace, which is also difficult to define. So divine is an all-encompassing word which we must understand in the global paradigm.

I think searching for a global paradigm will not be of much use to you in this context, Carol. It is an ambitious project, but if you want to understand the divine nature of Christ,it will be most useful to restrict yourself to the JudeoChristian teachings on the nature of God. I say this because the “God” that is Jesus is the last in millennia of revelation that came first to the Jews, and then to Christianity. Other sources of revelation will not be as definitive for you in understading this point of Christology.

Blessings

 

[Jerry_Mitchner]

An excellent article on this question can be found in the online CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA at newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

I believe Jesus recognized His divinity. He didn’t learn his divinity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

An excellent article on this question can be found in the online CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA at newadvent.org/cathen/08675a.htm

I agree this is a good article which explains Jesus two natures, his divine, and his human natures.