Did Jesus always recognize His Divinity?

[guanophore]

• is with a range of options, from which I must choose. I think that is a fate worse than death for many Catholics, as is apparent from postings on the Forum. There is almost an obsession about being correct, being absolutely correct, and being seen to be, in complete union, absolutely correct.

I don’t have that experience. I also don’t feel that I have to choose. If my own understanding is not consistent with divine revelation, I just assume I don’t understand it yet.

For the moment, I choose to remain with the idea of Christ’s gradual understanding, regardless of Popes and saints (ineradicable or just stubborn heterodoxy?).

I am sure that God will meet you where you are, Carol, and if your mind needs to change on something, He will lead you into it. You are to be commended for your passionate seeking, efforts to use all the resources you can find, and your persistent research.

It is no wonder he cried ***Eloi, eloi ***- for he had been for an instant separated from God by the sins of mankind which he had willingly taken upon himself. At that point, he suffered as any human would suffer. His divinity did not save him from that exquisite physical torture and unimagineable burden of sin.

It is no wonder that He cried out, nad that he was suffering, but He was never separated from HIs Father, or His own divinity.

In this sense his suffering and death become the supreme sacrifice of one who could, like you and me, suffer spiritual doubt (as in Gethsemane), separation from God the Father (on the cross and therefore descent into hell or its parallel), and physical pain (as at Golgotha).

He was indeed suffering in Gethsemane, but it was not from spiritual doubt. His divine will was never in conflict with his human will, or vice versa.

But according to Catholic doctrine/dogma, I am not allowed to make a choice, am I? When confronted by conflicting views/evidence/dictats, what does one do? Go to the buffet counter like a Protestant?

Blessings

You HAVE to choose. You are an intelligent person and God gave you a mind so you could use it. Right now, your mind is not entirely consistent with the teaching of the Church. However, be encouraged, because you are WAY AHEAD of most “Catholics” who have never even begun the exploration of their own faith, much less put this much work into learning it.,

 

[Cranch]

As a forum member once wisely advised me, “when in doubt, go to the catechism.” There is a nuance in the Church’s understanding of this question which should be noted:

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

**471 **Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.

**472 **This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.

**473 **But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.” Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

**474 **By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thank you for moving to a new thread.

You may not have heard this before, but I have heard it here (in South Africa) from several religious, and I have passed it on to you: that Jesus’ perception of his nature, his mission and his divinity was in fact a process of gradual growth and understanding. Dominican Albert Nolan, in his new book *Jesus Today, *suggests that the reason we read so little of Jesus until he was 30 and beginning his mission, is because he spent a great deal of time alone, in isolation, in contemplation, in prayer, in intimacy with God, learning, learning, learning.

It would help if posters would not just say *This is not true. *It would help me if you could comment more on the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth as man, and Jesus Christ as divine Son of God. At this point, I do not believe that from birth Jesus knew he was divine. He may have been ultimately divine, but he did not know this.

Blessings

Maybe someone can explain how an embryo without a developed brain-stem could know anything ​

The belief defended by Pius X (assuming it to be that of some Fathers at least) grew up in a culture which had some inadequate & mistaken ideas about the formation of the unborn. If they got their embryology wrong, it’s hard (to say the least) to see how that idea can become a doctrine which must not be revised: otherwise, the Church is obliged to maintain as true something which depends upon ignorance & misunderstanding which can now easily be corrected.

If the unborn Jesus had no brain-stem, there would be no individual Jesus to enjoy the Beatific Vision in the first place, because if the biological capacity for a human intellect has not been formed, there is a Divine Person, & a human soul, but no human body developed sufficiently to be the body of the human being Who is the unborn Jesus. Without sufficiently advanced development of the human physiology, there is no human intellect of the Word Incarnate as the man Jesus, to enjoy the BV.

ISTM that either

• 1. one ignores what is presently known about human development after conception & before birth, & keeps the doctrine
  or
• 2. one accepts the medical knowledge, & revises or rejects the doctrine
  or
• 3. ignores both (except that this is not suggested as a possibility)
  or
• 4. one accepts both the modern knowledge, & the doctrine (but how ?)
  Are there any other possibilities ?

The four passages quoted from the CCC seem to be compatible with revising the doctrine, because they give the conditions within which He lived as a man; ignorance of His Divinity in the womb before He was physiologically capable of knowing anything, is - it can be argued - exactly that sort of condition. The embryo is always that of the Word - it need not follow that the foetus in Whom the Word is Incarnate, is from the first instant of His conception capable of knowing Himself to be the Word Incarnate. ##

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

No, that is not what is taught by the Catholic Church, Jesus being God from all Eternity knew everything God knows.

But since he came to Earth as a human infant; and since we believe in the hypostatic union, Jesus when He became man most certainly had to develop into a functional adult. IMO this means that He had to obey His mother and Earthly father because as the Author of the Law He would have followed it when He came to the realm of the Law. The gnostics however take this concept a little bit too far, with some apocryphal stories of Jesus killing His cousins and then bringing them back to life (these stories are just that though).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Maybe someone can explain how an embryo without a developed brain-stem could know anything ​

How does a pure spirit, like an angel, know anything, since they also do not have a developed brain-stem? Perhaps when you answer this question, you can know how a rational human (spiritual) soul could also “know” despite the lack of a fully formed body.

Since St. John the Baptist lept with joy in the womb, I find no reason to discount that with God, all things are possible.

For more, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, where he addressed the topic: The knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul of Christ,** and here, he addressed the topic of the knowledge of Beatific Vision in Christ’s soul***. ***

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… I hope also that you will understand the practical situation here that makes the ideal difficult to perform.

I agree. Everytime I contemplate the way of the cross, it is indeed difficult. But it seems that the only way we are saved is by that difficult way.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This may sound silly,

his divine side would have always known who he is.

his human side had to develop, grow to a point, to make the connection.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How does a pure spirit, like an angel, know anything, since they also do not have a developed brain-stem? Perhaps when you answer this question, you can know how a rational human (spiritual) soul could also “know” despite the lack of a fully formed body.

Since St. John the Baptist lept with joy in the womb, I find no reason to discount that with God, all things are possible.

For more, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, where he addressed the topic: The knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul of Christ,** and here, he addressed the topic of the knowledge of Beatific Vision in Christ’s soul***. ***

There is a crucial difference between the Incarnation of the Word as a man, and the angels - they are unembodied spirits, who are constitutionally complete as spirits; their intellection does not rely on the senses. They don’t have or need brain stems.​

The Incarnate Word, by contrast, is exactly that - He’s incarnate. So He is true man. And men are composites, of the spirit we call the soul, & a material body. And as a man, He has a human soul, with the powers of a human soul. And that affects the mode of His intellection, & so, of His mode of cognition. And human cognition is through the senses, which requires a body. To have no body, means to have no power of cognition proper to man, which means no enjoyment of the Beatific Vision by the Word Who is as truly man as He is God.

Infused knowledge is no solution, because it is possible to beings without bodies - & the problem is to give an account of the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision by the God-man which does not ignore the consequences of His Incarnation.

St. Thomas is still helpful on abstract issues, such as the simplicity of of God or the Hypostatic Union - not so helpful, on matters in which non-theological learning can increase. If he known what can be known about embryology now, he might be useful here - he is valuable here for the theological principles, more than for their application.

As for St. John, the account of his movements doesn’t imply anything about his physiology. There is no reason to think he had the Beatific Vision - the problem concerns the relation between the physiology & the cognition & the BV in their relation to the Incarnate Word.

Appeals to the omnipotence of God are equally unsatisfactory, because they too are irrelevant - God “could have” been incarnate as a fish, but He wasn’t; He was made man, and that means that He was a man, & not a fish, a wombat, a Gruyere cheese, or anything else one cares to name. God “could have” done all sorts of things He has not. What of it ?

The appeal to omnipotence too easily becomes an excuse to ignore hard questions - & there are consequences in believing certain things. If we believe certain things, we have to take responsibility for them: “I must believe that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ, but I have no idea why, except that the Church says people have to; & you must too” is not a very convincing encouragement to believe such things. People have intellects; & unless our intellects are not to be redeemed, ignoring the intellect or feeding it nonsense is not a good idea. St. Thomas used his - he did not dismiss hard questions by appealing to authority or God’s attributes. Fobbing people off by ignoring difficulties does nothing to show that the teaching of the Church is coherent, worthy of belief, true, or worth bothering with - nor does it solve people’s intellectual difficulties. What became of “instructing the ignorant” ?

 

[Odell]

If John the baptist knew from his mothers womb and leaped for joy how much more would Jesus know?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is a crucial difference between the Incarnation of the Word as a man, and the angels - they are unembodied spirits, who are constitutionally complete as spirits; their intellection does not rely on the senses. They don’t have or need brain stems.​

The Incarnate Word, by contrast, is exactly that - He’s incarnate. So He is true man. And men are composites, of the spirit we call the soul, & a material body. And as a man, He has a human soul, with the powers of a human soul. And that affects the mode of His intellection, & so, of His mode of cognition. And human cognition is through the senses, which requires a body. To have no body, means to have no power of cognition proper to man, which means no enjoyment of the Beatific Vision by the Word Who is as truly man as He is God.

Infused knowledge is no solution, because it is possible to beings without bodies - & the problem is to give an account of the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision by the God-man which does not ignore the consequences of His Incarnation.

St. Thomas is still helpful on abstract issues, such as the simplicity of of God or the Hypostatic Union - not so helpful, on matters in which learning can increase. If he known what can be known about embryology now, he might be useful here - he is valuable here for the theological principles, more than for their application.

As for St. John, the account of his movements doesn’t imply anything about his physiology. There is no reason to think he had the Beatific Vision - the problem concerns the relation between the physiology & the cognition & the BV in their relation to the Incarnate Word.

Appeals to the omnipotence of God are equally unsatisfactory, because they too are irrelevant - God “could have” been incarnate as a fish, but He wasn’t; He was made man, and that means that He was a man, & not a fish, a wombat, a Gruyere cheese, or anything else one cares to name. God “could have” done all sorts of things He has not. What of it ?

The appeal to omnipotence too easily becomes an excuse to ignore hard questions - & there are consequences in believing certain things. If we believe certain things, we have to take responsibility for them: “I must believe that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ, but I have no idea why, except that the Church says people have to; & you must too” is not a very convincing encouragement to believe such things. People have intellects; & unless our intellects are not to be redeemed, ignoring the intellect or feeding it nonsense is not a good idea. St. Thomas used his - he did not dismiss hard questions by appealing to authority or God’s attributes. Fobbing people off by ignoring difficulties does nothing to show that the teaching of the Church is coherent, worthy of belief, true, or worth bothering with - nor does it solve people’s intellectual difficulties. What became of “instructing the ignorant” ?

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I agree.

Everytime I contemplate the way of the cross, it is indeed difficult. But it seems that the only way we are saved is by that difficult way.

This is exactly where the problem lies. Yes the way of the cross is difficult. But WE know we have already been chosen, and WE know we are already saved, if WE turn and confront God.

But you have used the word WE - meaning you and me and others we know - but I am referring to all the others who are NOT you and me. The wretched of the earth who believe nevertheless. Who live lives of sheer horror. Who die in poverty and degradation. Who are buried in the mealie fields because their small children cannot afford a grave. Wrapped in the family’s only blanket.

I am trying to put this discussion into the realm of the reality of 98 per cent of the world’s population. WE are the two per cent who can afford computers, and have the luxury of time to post letters on this forum.

THEY - the others - travel the way of the cross in a far different way. And they may not have access to the ideal, or the authoritative, but they live in hope that their Christ will deliver them to their idea of heaven, where all burdens will be laid down.

I believe that our dual-natured Christ has not forgotten these His children. His humanity, his suffering, his divine understanding heals and sustains and promises. As I have said elsewhere, I do not think that He intervenes directly in individual lives very often, but His Presence is everywhere. Come and see.

This may seem somewhat off topic. But I originally suggested that it was sometimes difficult to imagine that 1.6 billion Catholics globally could all hold the same tenets - on a difficult question like this, for example - through a papal-bishop-priest chain of command, and that we should expect differences to occur, which is what has happened to me. What I have been taught differs apparently, from the ‘official’ and ‘authoritative’ line.

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

If John the baptist knew from his mothers womb and leaped for joy how much more would Jesus know?

Oh please! I am not sure you are a man or a woman. But if you are a woman, you will know that ALL babies leap for joy in the womb. They kick, they stick little feet into your diaphragm, they roll over and over, they move from head up to head down.

It was not only John the Baptist who bounded about in the confined space of a woman’s belly, and this joyful leaping should not be construed to mean anything else than that he was alive, a fine and healthy baby. Thank God.

Blessings

 

[dcdurel]

Oh please! I am not sure you are a man or a woman. But if you are a woman, you will know that ALL babies leap for joy in the womb. They kick, they stick little feet into your diaphragm, they roll over and over, they move from head up to head down.

It was not only John the Baptist who bounded about in the confined space of a woman’s belly, and this joyful leaping should not be construed to mean anything else than that he was alive, a fine and healthy baby. Thank God.
Blessings

All babies move in their mothers womb, and they do not leap, and they move but not out of joy, as they are not that developed yet. On the other hand John the Baptist did, and it is implied that he did so at the sound of Mary’s greeting.

44 “For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”

Here scripture says the babe “leaped in my womb for joy.”

“For joy”, implies a specific reason for leaping, not just random movements as babies always do.
Thus, some type of infused knowledge.

By the way.
The bible uses the word “leap”, which is impossible in a womb, for leap means to jump high and leave the ground, not just move, or move suddenly as the word jump could mean.

The bible uses the word “leap” to make the connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, where David “leaped” before the Ark, so John the Baptist “leaped” before Mary, the new Ark of the Covenant.

 

[dcdurel]

If the unborn Jesus had no brain-stem, there would be no individual Jesus to enjoy the Beatific Vision in the first place, because if the biological capacity for a human intellect has not been formed, there is a Divine Person, & a human soul, but no human body developed sufficiently to be the body of the human being Who is the unborn Jesus. Without sufficiently advanced development of the human physiology, there is no human intellect of the Word Incarnate as the man Jesus, to enjoy the BV.

Nonsense.

According to your reasoning, embryos who died before they developed a brain could never learn anything of have any knowledge at all until the end of the world when they get their bodies.

This is faulty reasoning
The infused knowledge is not dependent on a brain or brain stem, but upon a human soul. Jesus had a human soul from His conception, even without any part of a brain present. Thus from His conception He had the beatific vision.

 

[guanophore]

I believe that our dual-natured Christ has not forgotten these His children. His humanity, his suffering, his divine understanding heals and sustains and promises. As I have said elsewhere, I do not think that He intervenes directly in individual lives very often, but His Presence is everywhere. Come and see.

you have said this before, but I get lost every time! What do you mean, He does not intervene directly in our individual lives very often? If His Presence is not an intervention, what else can it be?!

 

[guanophore]

Maybe someone can explain how an embryo without a developed brain-stem could know anything ​

If the unborn Jesus had no brain-stem, there would be no individual Jesus to enjoy the Beatific Vision in the first place, because if the biological capacity for a human intellect has not been formed, there is a Divine Person, & a human soul, but no human body developed sufficiently to be the body of the human being Who is the unborn Jesus. Without sufficiently advanced development of the human physiology, there is no human intellect of the Word Incarnate as the man Jesus, to enjoy the BV.

Nonsense.

According to your reasoning, embryos who died before they developed a brain could never learn anything of have any knowledge at all until the end of the world when they get their bodies.

This is faulty reasoning
The infused knowledge is not dependent on a brain or brain stem, but upon a human soul. Jesus had a human soul from His conception, even without any part of a brain present. Thus from His conception He had the beatific vision.

Verily, nonsense. It reflects a complete dependency upon the human brain for revelation, an instrument to which God is clearly not bound. Otherwise, how could a creature with no human brain stem like a donkey perceive the holy messenger of God? :

Num 22:23
23 And the *** saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road…and Balaam struck the ***, to turn her into the road. 24 Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. 25 And when the *** saw the angel of the LORD, she pushed against the wall, and pressed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again. 26 Then the angel of the LORD went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27 When the *** saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the *** with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the ***, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

Sometimes, people don’t even have the sense of a jackass It is a wonder the Lord can even put up with our nonsense. No wonder he says the rocks will cry out!

 

[Carol_Coombe]

All babies move in their mothers womb, and they do not leap, and they move but not out of joy, as they are not that developed yet. On the other hand John the Baptist did, and it is implied that he did so at the sound of Mary’s greeting.

44 “For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”

Here scripture says the babe “leaped in my womb for joy.”

“For joy”, implies a specific reason for leaping, not just random movements as babies always do.
Thus, some type of infused knowledge.

By the way.
The bible uses the word “leap”, which is impossible in a womb, for leap means to jump high and leave the ground, not just move, or move suddenly as the word jump could mean.

The bible uses the word “leap” to make the connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, where David “leaped” before the Ark, so John the Baptist “leaped” before Mary, the new Ark of the Covenant.

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

 

[Carol_Coombe]

you have said this before, but I get lost every time! What do you mean, He does not intervene directly in our individual lives very often? If His Presence is not an intervention, what else can it be?!

Oh dear me. Let me try - I am told it is heterodoxy anyway:

(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 (archaeology, core drills, rock formations, fossils tell us so).

(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?

(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.

(8) That means for example intelligent humanity challenging suffering in by alleviating the distress of those stricken by natural disasters and by addressing socio-economic problems which wreck the lives of 98% of Earth’s people.

(9) There is nothing we can do about global warming. But we can plan to decrease its speed and relieve those threatened by flooding (check out Bangladesh, Maldives). God is not going to stop global warming, just as He did not intervene in the Asian tsunami. But He hopefully and lovingly anticipates we will reduce suffering occasioned by such natural disasters.

(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).

(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.

(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.

(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.

Several people have replied that this is heterodoxy. Sorry for that.

One person suggested that it was not much to ask for one transubstantiation per week. Well count 20 transubstantiations per week at my Catholic church and if we assume maybe 1 million CCs globally, that means there may be 10-20 million transubstantiations going on each week.

Another person suggested, at my request for examples of changing laws of nature, that there stigmata, miracle healings etc. I thought about that: I don’t know the teaching.

But my reasoning (a) tells me that such miracles are generated exclusively within religious communities, and may related to the psyche rather than divine intervention. It also (b) reminds me of the words of an eminent American alternative healer (Weiss) who, in thinking about healing, suggested that if prayer is helpful and you get better, then pray; if peanut butter sandwiches make you feel better, then eat them.

Our understandings are so finite, our hope so great, our intelligence so limited, and our compassion so frail. I have answered your question, but hope this does not lead to another adventure into transubstantiation.

Blessings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nonsense.

According to your reasoning, embryos who died before they developed a brain could never learn anything of have any knowledge at all until the end of the world when they get their bodies.

The question is not about “anything”, but about the Beatific Vision - more specifically, the BV as said to be enjoyed by a newly-conceived “child” (that says too much, because it implies advanced physological development; but it’ll do, provided it’s explained) Who is both God & man. Which is not true of any of those embryos, because Jesus did not die before birth, nor was He still-born.​

IOW, it’s a complicated issue, which commits one to believing a number of things, not all of which are (AFAICS) compatible with the desired position - i. e. that Jesus had the BV from the very first instant of His existence as a human child. ##

This is faulty reasoning
The infused knowledge is not dependent on a brain or brain stem, but upon a human soul. Jesus had a human soul from His conception, even without any part of a brain present. Thus from His conception He had the beatific vision.

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.​

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 ? And if the man Jesus had that ability from His conception, that makes His development quite unlike ours. We take some years to develop a moral sense. And it is a true man that we are talking of - it seems rather odd (to say the least) to speak of God as having the BV; AFAICS, God’s vision of the Blessed in Heaven is what the BV is. But Christ, as God, is not man - God is not conceived in the womb, but the man Who is God. The BVM is the Mother of God because the Child she bore is the child Who is God.

The BV is not infused knowledge - IF is a far smaller thing than the BV. Someone else may have been equating infused knowledge with the BV; I don’t think I did.

I hope that makes some kind of sense ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Verily, nonsense. It reflects a complete dependency upon the human brain for revelation, an instrument to which God is clearly not bound. Otherwise, how could a creature with no human brain stem like a donkey perceive the holy messenger of God? :

Num 22:23
23 And the *** saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road…and Balaam struck the ***, to turn her into the road. 24 Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. 25 And when the *** saw the angel of the LORD, she pushed against the wall, and pressed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again. 26 Then the angel of the LORD went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27 When the *** saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the *** with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the ***, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

Sometimes, people don’t even have the sense of a jackass It is a wonder the Lord can even put up with our nonsense. No wonder he says the rocks will cry out!

How did you manage to write “jackass”, but not the three-letter word ?​

FWIW, Balaam’s steed was female, which makes it a jenny