Jesus transfigured

[The_Rock]

I heard a talk by a former Priest saying that Jesus needed to hear from God the Father that he was his beloved son. He made it sound as though in order to be transfigured Jesus need to hear this beforehand, even though the Gospel has the Transfiguration happening first and the words were directed not to Jesus but to the apostles. He also alluded to the Baptism of the Lord when God the Father said “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” I have heard similar homilies from a Deacon saying that these words at his Baptism somehow transformed Jesus so he could start his ministry.

Is there any sound Theological basis for these type of “homilies”? It seems to me that Jesus was fully aware of his Divinity and son-ship prior to his Baptism (finding at the temple). Are these just Theologically unsound homilies that stress the humanity of Jesus and minimize his Divinity?

Am I in error?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I heard a talk by a former Priest saying that Jesus needed to hear from God the Father that he was his beloved son. He made it sound as though in order to be transfigured Jesus need to hear this beforehand, even though the Gospel has the Transfiguration happening first and the words were directed not to Jesus but to the apostles. He also alluded to the Baptism of the Lord when God the Father said “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” I have heard similar homilies from a Deacon saying that these words at his Baptism somehow transformed Jesus so he could start his ministry.

Is there any sound Theological basis for these type of “homilies”? It seems to me that Jesus was fully aware of his Divinity and son-ship prior to his Baptism (finding at the temple). Are these just Theologically unsound homilies that stress the humanity of Jesus and minimize his Divinity?

Am I in error?

No–not error, You’re dealing with theolegumenon (theological opinion). The supposed lack of knowledge by Jesus of who he was before the baptism, is a point that is extremely unsound. See the Finding of Jesus in the Temple; that clearly refutes the point … as to him learning who he was; there is a human component in him which learned wisdom and knowledge; so there was a time as an infant where he did not know in human memory, how he would describe himself. There are some things the Father does not reveal even to his son as man-God; Eg: Jesus says this of the end of the world (No one knows, not even the Son…)

Second issue: The transfiguration on the mountain is EXPLICITLY called a “vision”; and visions are not the seeings of physical things; they are things God gives to ones mind/inner eye. It is not necessary that Moses and Elijah were there on the mountain in the flesh – nor is it even clear that Jesus experienced the vision with the disciples at that time. The reality return appears to be when the glory cloud overshadows Jesus, and then God spoke of who he was. His voice, of course, being carried out by angels.

Did you bring this point up because of today’s readings at mass?
eg: are you comparing how Abraham knew who he was in his Conversation with God, and perhaps how he knew about the resurrection beforehand (he’s a smart GUY!) ?
Or is this from some other inspiration?

 

[The_Rock]

No–not error, You’re dealing with theolegumenon (theological opinion). The supposed lack of knowledge by Jesus of who he was before the baptism, is a point that is extremely unsound. See the Finding of Jesus in the Temple; that clearly refutes the point … as to him learning who he was; there is a human component in him which learned wisdom and knowledge; so there was a time as an infant where he did not know in human memory, how he would describe himself. There are some things the Father does not reveal even to his son as man-God; Eg: Jesus says this of the end of the world (No one knows, not even the Son…)

Second issue: The transfiguration on the mountain is EXPLICITLY called a “vision”; and visions are not the seeings of physical things; they are things God gives to ones mind/inner eye. It is not necessary that Moses and Elijah were there on the mountain in the flesh – nor is it even clear that Jesus experienced the vision with the disciples at that time. The reality return appears to be when the glory cloud overshadows Jesus, and then God spoke of who he was. His voice, of course, being carried out by angels.

Did you bring this point up because of today’s readings at mass?
eg: are you comparing how Abraham knew who he was in his Conversation with God, and perhaps how he knew about the resurrection beforehand (he’s a smart GUY!) ?
Or is this from some other inspiration?

I did bring this up because of today’s Gospel reading, but without a connection to the first reading. The point the ex-priest was trying to make was that each of us needs to be “transfigured” by the knowledge of our son-ship relationship with the Father. I have no question that our realization of the great paternal love that God has towards us brings about a transformation in us. I do not however agree with the ex-priest that the Transfiguration was a necessary transforming moment for Christ himself. I would tend to think that the experience of the Transfiguration was a mystical experience meant to strengthen the apostles prior to the impending death of our Lord.

I have noticed a reoccuring theme in many of the homilies and talks by various not so orthodox clergy and lay people that portray Jesus as being changed by his public ministry experiences. They say he was un-aware of his son-ship until his Baptism, they say he was discriminatory towards the woman at the well until he “learned” from his experience with her, and now this ex-priest asserts that Jesus needed confirmation of his Father-Son relationship at the Transfiguration in order to endure death on the cross.

I know that Jesus grew in human wisdom and knowledge in his hidden life before his public ministry. I however do not tend to believe that he was un-aware of his Divinity (and his son-ship) at any time during his public ministry. Nor do I believe that he “learned” how to be more compassionate by his public ministry. It is just portrayed that way so often that I want confirmation by others that I am not in error and perhaps that they have noticed the same theological opinion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I did bring this up because of today’s Gospel reading, but without a connection to the first reading …[snip]… I would tend to think that the experience of the Transfiguration was a mystical experience meant to strengthen the apostles prior to the impending death of our Lord.

I would agree. It also makes Peter’s denials that much more painful.

I have noticed a reoccuring theme in many of the homilies and talks by various not so orthodox clergy and lay people that portray Jesus as being changed by his public ministry experiences. They say he was un-aware …[snip]… and now this ex-priest asserts that Jesus needed confirmation of his Father-Son relationship at the Transfiguration in order to endure death on the cross.

The time that is most important to look at for confirmation is when Jesus was in the Garden with Peter, James, and John – and they were unable to stay awake. Jesus himself wanted to share with them the inception of his kingdom – and they were unable. I don’t know exactly how to describe this – but they had already received the Eucharist is fullness for the first time, just prior to this point; The body of Christ was conceived, and the communion of saints had begun. And there in that moment, Jesus found himself so utterly alone with the three most trusted of his friend-priests. ( I have trodden the wine-press, alone. ) His mother could not help him in that moment; and if prayer is out of the realm of time, I wonder if my prayers for him at that moment might be heard by him and felt by him.

May I ask, why did this man leave the priesthood? And where was he originally consecrated / practicing?

I know that Jesus grew in human wisdom and knowledge in his hidden life before his public ministry. I however do not tend to believe that he was un-aware of his Divinity (and his son-ship) …[snip]… It is just portrayed that way so often that I want confirmation by others that I am not in error and perhaps that they have noticed the same theological opinion.

Consider your basic opinion confirmed; although I am not a priest – and that may be more satisfying to you if one answers here as well… (no promises)

I’d like to point out, that Jesus in his ministry, may have fine-tuned his compassion or even multiplied it willingly (not out of ignorance); for example, Jesus saw a flock of people in the desert for three whole days before the sight of them made him “moved with pity”; Recall, also that he didn’t go out to the desert to teach a crowd, he went there for a respite and short time for prayer.

As an Itinerant preacher, Jesus didn’t have microphones or amplifiers to speak to crowds of 3000 at a time; He rejected the use of his divine power when not strictly necessary; and that means he would have to repeat himself to different groups of people throughout the day with his disciples helping repeat the message (but he only took a few on that trip).

I agree, that these extremes you are talking about (however) are undermining the understanding of Catholics by inserting frivolous speculation into the place where sound teaching belongs.

Peace to you, and I hope you find comfort in affirmation.
–Andrew.

 

[mercytruth]

“Thou art my beloved Son, listen to him” is the gospel passage.

One must remember that God promised that another prophet like unto Moses would be raised up from Israel, and this prophet must be heeded:

Douay-Rheims Bible

“The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear”. (Deut. 18:18)

This is what St.Stephen told the Jewish people before he was stoned to death:

Douay-Rheims Bible

This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel: A prophet shall God raise up to you of your own brethren, as myself: him shall you hear. (Acts 7:37)

So, it would seem that Peter, James and John were given a direct revelation from God that Jesus Christ is the prophet that was promised to Moses and that they were to listen to him. This is a commmandment not only for the apostles, but for us. If one was to read the consequences in Deuteronomy !8:19 of not heeding his voice, we would be more diligent in obeying Him: **“And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger”. **

May God give us the faith and grace to obey the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[bmonk]

I did bring this up because of today’s Gospel reading, but without a connection to the first reading. The point the ex-priest was trying to make was that each of us needs to be “transfigured” by the knowledge of our son-ship relationship with the Father. I have no question that our realization of the great paternal love that God has towards us brings about a transformation in us. I do not however agree with the ex-priest that the Transfiguration was a necessary transforming moment for Christ himself. I would tend to think that the experience of the Transfiguration was a mystical experience meant to strengthen the apostles prior to the impending death of our Lord.

Perhaps we do need to be transfigured by the knowledge of our sonship as members of God’s household–but then we are only adopted sons and daughters of God. Jesus was the sole-begotten and beloved Son of God. There is a difference.

There might be more of an argument if the preacher had used the Baptism as recounted in the Gospel according to Mark (“You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” 1:9-11), where the voice apparently speaks only to Jesus, but in the transfiguration it is clearly a public announcement, directed to the disciples: “This is my beloved Son, listen to him.”