A
Ahimsa
Guest
But did He know Kung Fu?
- Status
T
tdgesq
Guest
I … um … well, I will get back to you.
B
buffalo
Guest
Being a carpenter he knew Kung Fu.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
Only if He knew the future. Boddhidarma didn’t show up at Shaolin Temple until a few centuries after the Crucifixion.
B
buffalo
Guest
Christ knew the future.
But Kung Fu really means skill cultivated through hard work and dedication.
T
tonyrey
Guest
"CCC 461, Taking up St. John’s expression, “The Word became flesh”,82 the Church calls “Incarnation” the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.83"
G
GEddie
Guest
He knew of it, by means of His divine mind.
But He would not have “known” it as a skill through training for it; as physical fighting was no part of HIS task in human life.
ICXC NIKA
While we are busy trying to discern what his mind knew and discern the nature of it all I find it interesting that no one disputes that he changed water into wine or ascended into heaven. No one says ‘His divine nature did x…’
Neither of these are human capabilities, but Jesus did them.
And no one is claiming only a specific nature behind the act.
So why the need to parse out natures concerning what he knew?
Jesus is God.
Scripture bears out many instances of Jesus acting in a way only God can do.
Is it really such a leap that the man that made water turn into wine, rose himself from the dead, and ascended into heaven also knew quantum mechanics and kung fu?
Neither of these are human capabilities, but Jesus did them.
And no one is claiming only a specific nature behind the act.
So why the need to parse out natures concerning what he knew?
Jesus is God.
Scripture bears out many instances of Jesus acting in a way only God can do.
Is it really such a leap that the man that made water turn into wine, rose himself from the dead, and ascended into heaven also knew quantum mechanics and kung fu?
J
JimG
Guest
And Luke’s infancy narrative notes that Jesus grew in knowledge and wisdom. His humanity was not an illusion. As man, he learned things the same way we learn them, by observation, study, practice. Jesus was a divine Person, the Word. He was also fully human. The Word became man.
One can discuss the two natures of Jesus, and the acts proper to each of them. But only Jesus can get inside the mind of Jesus.
Consider an analogy. Suppose a human being had the capacity to take upon himself a canine nature. If you, while remaining fully human, also became fully dog, how would that affect how you as a dog perceived the world? You could not fully “fit” all of your human nature into a dog, so as a dog, you would be limited to perceiving and knowing, as a dog. Yet the person you are, would still retain a full human nature.
It’s probably best not to try to psychoanalyze the mind of Jesus. He did and does have two natures. But perhaps one of the best discussions of this is by Fr. William Most, “The Consciousness of Christ.”
Fair enough, then Jesus is limited in the knowledge that is within the capacity of a perfected human being to know.
However, that does not account for Jesus readily doing things no human is capable of.
I agree that his humanity was no illusion.
But I fail to see why a dual nature should be restrictive in any way.
Perhaps this dual nature is a sum total and not a subtraction.
Clearly this taking on of humanity did not limit his ability…else the water would have remained water.
I would suggest that God took on human nature and restricted himself as he saw fit to provide for our salvation and his own Glory.
Did he know kung fu? Yes, although he never acted upon this knowledge he still had a nature that provided for it…since a demonstration of such knowledge was not necessary for our salvation and likely would not have contributed to Glory, he did not.
Did he know Quantum mechanics? Yes, for the same reason.
Did he change water into wine? Yes, although it is not humanly possible, God had a nature that allowed him to do this and it was necessary for him to use it at that time for our salvation as well as his Glory.
Same with walking on water, healing the sick, and raising Lazerus from the dead.
S
someguy14
Guest
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
I think we need to take the two natures of Christ into consideration here: His human nature, as Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary of Nazareth, likely didn’t know quantum mechanics per se. but due to being also the Son of God, he likely had some insights that were waaay ahead of his time.
As the Son of God: know it? He invented it! :: Laughs gently::
As the Son of God: know it? He invented it! :: Laughs gently::
A
Abba
Guest
I see a problem with this analogy. God did ‘fit’ his divine nature (he emptied Himself) and the comparison of divine/human to human/canine, although I appreciate your efforts, is not applicable. For I would say, various reasons, but, briefly, a dog is an animal and a human being is a creature made in the image of God with an immortal soul and intelligence and the ability to receive the Holy Spirit which gives Gifts such as Wisdom.
Jesus was a perfect human being as he was the sacrificial lamb without blemish. Jesus’s sacrifice was not simply replacing a sacrifice of an animal - let’s say a lamb. It was not that a human body was being sacrificed in place of a lamb. It was Christ that sacrificed himself in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. What was sacrificed was his body, blood, soul and divinity. Hence, he had to be in his human nature without blemish not just in his body, but also in his soul. So, emotionally, psychologically and intellectually he was without blemish. It was a human being that was sacrificed without blemish. Above that, he was God, although his human nature was intact, nonetheless, he was God. The human soul shared the same body as the divine spirit. God did not give Jesus’s human nature the Holy Spirit in measure, as quoted earlier, so he was infused with knowledge.
I consider for a moment, when Jesus was ‘lost’ and Mary and Joseph found him at the temple teaching the scribes. He was only twelve, how did he come to know so much? A little boy from Nazareth, the son of a carpenter.
I have never heard of Jesus taking classes any where or of having had some great teacher. When Jesus needed to prepare or consult he went to his Father. He went to the desert or he prayed.
Peace,
Abba
A
Abba
Guest
Why are you quoting this here?
Are you implying that people who participate on this forum will/may be spoiled?
If so, I disagree with you and it is to mis-apply the wisdom of the article here.
1 Peter 3:15
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect”
T
tonyrey
Guest
It was unnecessary for Jesus to know quantum mechanics - and many other scientific facts - because He did not come to teach us about the things of this world. He had far more important “things” in mind! 
J
JimG
Guest
Of course there are several problems with the analogy. Chief among them is that human beings and dogs both have bodies. A human person could not fully assume the nature of a dog unless he retained both bodies.
But that is not a problem with the Word becoming man. For the Word is the second Person of the Trinity, having the one nature of God. And God is pure spirit. God has no body in his own nature.
When the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, therefore, there was no “divine” body, but rather the Person of the Son assuming a human nature, which is comprised of a human body and a human soul.
At the same time, the divine nature is infinite, the human nature is finite. A human nature compared to a canine nature is but a small gap compared to the infinite difference between a human nature and the divine nature.
A person is not a distinct entity. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinct Persons but not distinct beings.
When acting as a human being, Jesus was limited to using his human nature. But perfected human nature is far less limiting than fallen human nature. (Adam & Eve before the Fall possessed the preternatural gifts, for example.)
It’s impossible to “fit” all of divinity fully into a human nature. Thus, Jesus may have had perfect human intelligence, but He could not have had infinite human intelligence. It just wouldn’t fit into human nature. Of course he is a Person who also is fully God and possess, as God, infinite knowledge.
So how does Jesus’ divine nature and his human nature “work”?
It is here that I think we need to take Someguy14’s quote from Collosians into account, as a warning about the limits of human philosophy. No one of us has any experience of assuming a second, lower, nature than the one we possess as humans. When we speak of such matters, it’s rather like our pet cat trying to explain how human psychology must work.
S
someguy14
Guest
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This isn’t the first time that Bohm Bawerk, a proclaiming(atheist), asked such a question and we have responded truthfully with scripture.
He refuses to accept the truth of scripture. That is evident by him posting another thread questioning truth of scripture.
1 John 4:6
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
Paul warns in Colossians.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying , Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance , whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 Peter 3: 15 thru 16
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
Proverbs 9:8
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Chi Kung. Better than Chi Kung. Better than anything you find in this world.
Actually it was He who invented Kung Fu and Chi Kung and Karate, little techniques for His Infinite Power.
S
Sam_777
Guest
A
Abba
Guest
Dear someguy14,
I disagree with your evaluation of Bohm Bawerk. I do not think that we can decide when it is useless to assist someone in their search for God. According to you, how many questions can an ‘atheist’ ask after which we should turn our back on him or her? I don’t think that Bohm Bawerk is here to offend, attack, and do evil. He is just a young man seeking for answers and that’s what we are here for. There isn’t a limited amount of questions or post that an atheist has here nor or time. Your quoting of the articles above are out of context, and I believe once again as when you quoted Colossian 2.8. To quote articles of references to ‘evildoers’ and apply that directly to Bohm Bawerk I find to be offensive. If you have participated on other threads of Mr. Bohm Bawerk and are tired of answerng his questions given that you answer them correctly, well, you are under no obligation to continue to participate in his threads but, neither do you have the right to make a judgement on his soul just because he is not agreeing and seeing the light based on what you consider to have been sufficient information. Did you ever have to search for God? How would you have liked for someone to decide that enough was enough and you were not worthy the continued effort and are a lost cause?
Again, I find that your quote of Colossians 2.8 out of the blues a matter that needs to be addressed as it can be misleading. Especially, as it is being used in the internet to attack the Catholic Church and furthermore, because it should be clearly understood that Paul was warning the Colossians about ‘vain speculations’ not right philosophy which I believe according to Saint Thomas reflects God. I have so much to say about the good of philosophy and would like to make clear what Paul was referring to which is made clear if your read the whole book of Colossians. Nonetheless, I have to go to work now but, just wanted to make a preliminary comment.
Peace,
Abba
- Status