Jews and the Divinity of Christ

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

I said, "Wow! The Jews actually did what God commanded when they put Jesus to death for revealing that He is God. A “god” they had not previously known.

Firstly, i believe the tone your replies to the Jewish CAF members who have taken the time to reply to you to be quite uncharitable.

I guess we all have an opinion.

Secondly please read the Catechism before throwing around statements like the Jews put Jesus to death.

The Catechism does not dispute the Scriptures, does it?

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, 16 trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them.

Show me the Catechism or any other Catholic Teaching which denies this verse.

 

[De_Maria]

I’m not sure I agree 100% with Isearch’s opinion on Jesus’ will being “locked” like an angels, but I’m also fallible. I think there is something different at work in why Jesus could not have sinned. It’s not because there was no capacity in his human nature to sin, but because God cannot sin and so in his foreknowledge assumed a human nature that would freely cooperate without coercion. Our teaching on the angelic will is different than what’s going on here.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? Why is that not enough?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I’m not sure I agree 100% with Isearch’s opinion on Jesus’ will being “locked” like an angels, but I’m also fallible. I think there is something different at work in why Jesus could not have sinned. It’s not because there was no capacity in his human nature to sin, but because God cannot sin and so in his foreknowledge assumed a human nature that would freely cooperate without coercion. Our teaching on the angelic will is different than what’s going on here.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? Why is that not enough?

There have been Church councils about these very topics, and I find the specifics interesting and enlightening.

As for the NT broadly referring to “the Jews,” that generally means the “Jewish authorities” of the time who rejected Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. His mother and father were Jews. His first disciples and missionaries were Jews. There were even certain Jewish scribes and pharisees who considered themselves disciples of him. A rich Jewish man purchased a tomb for him rather than let the Romans dispose of the body.

 

[BenYosef]

I took some time off from my preparation for Passover to reply to De_Maria who claimed repeatedly that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church actively teaches this. De_Maria even stated:

Show me the Catechism or any other Catholic Teaching which denies this verse.

Meaning St. Paul’s words at 1 Thessalonians 2.14-15 where it states that “the Jews…killed…the Lord Jesus…”

The Catholic teaching that changed the view pronounced in that verse came in the repudiation of 1965 entitled Nostra Aetate. The document stated that modern-day Jews could not be held accountable for Jesus’ crucifixion, but that is not all. It also declared that not all Jews alive at the time of the crucifixion were guilty of the crime.

Furthermore, in 2015, the Vatican published “The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable.” In reference to the Jewish people it stated:

It does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. also Jn 4:22)…From this it is self-evident that Paul in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people. Just as decisively he asserts: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

 

[meltzerboy2]

I must disagree with your first statement, namely, that modern-day Jews believe that the Jews who lived during the era of Jesus knew nothing about Judaism. What exactly does this mean? Modern-day Jews base their entire religion on the Jews of ancient times except for the Temple, which no longer exists. But the Scriptures, particularly the Torah, and the Oral Law which was transmitted throughout the generations of Jews from the ancient era, even before Jesus, to the present day, are still adhered to by many modern Jews. The latter did not change the religion, nor do they disparage Ancient Judaism. They practice the religion of their ancestors, just as modern Catholics do.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Wesrock:

I’m not sure I agree 100% with Isearch’s opinion on Jesus’ will being “locked” like an angels, but I’m also fallible. I think there is something different at work in why Jesus could not have sinned. It’s not because there was no capacity in his human nature to sin, but because God cannot sin and so in his foreknowledge assumed a human nature that would freely cooperate without coercion. Our teaching on the angelic will is different than what’s going on here.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? Why is that not enough?

There have been Church councils about these very topics, and I find the specifics interesting and enlightening.

Ok.

As for the NT broadly referring to “the Jews,” that generally means the “Jewish authorities” of the time who rejected Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. His mother and father were Jews. His first disciples and missionaries were Jews. There were even certain Jewish scribes and pharisees who considered themselves disciples of him. A rich Jewish man purchased a tomb for him rather than let the Romans dispose of the body.

True. But it should have been obvious that I was not referring to the Jews that converted to Christianity. Or are we still talking about Jews and the Divinity of Jesus?

 

[De_Maria]

…The document stated that modern-day Jews could not be held accountable for Jesus’ crucifixion,

Lol! Sounds like a pretty good railroading job. Please quote when I said that modern-day Jews should be held accountable for Jesus’ crucifixion.

but that is not all. It also declared that not all Jews alive at the time of the crucifixion were guilty of the crime.

You’re on a roll. Please quote when I said that all Jews alive at the time of the crucifixion were guilty of crucifying Jesus.

 

[BartholomewB]

www.libreriaeditricevaticana.com

Unfortunately I can’t get your link to work. That is to say, I can’t find this book there. Can you please confirm that the passage you are quoting is from Henry Wansbrough’s book, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible ? Is there a website where I could read the book onllne?

Thanks for your help.

 

[ltwin]

In other words, do some Protestants disagree with Catholicism on this point, or are they on the same page, at least in this matter?

In general (while also acknowledging there may be a Protestant somewhere with eccentric beliefs), I think Protestants are mostly in agreement with Catholics on this (unless I’m wrong about what Catholics believe) . . .

John Piper is a prominent evangelical pastor and he has this to say about the possibility of Jesus committing sin:

Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

It depends on how you define “possible.”

If “possible” means, “Did he have the brain and the natural capacities to discern a temptation and choose it,” then yes. He had a brain and he had a will. If he didn’t, he would not have been a human being.

[skipped over this]

But historically, the word “possible” has another meaning, a very important meaning—namely, a moral ability. There’s a natural ability, which he must have in order to be accountable and human, and a moral ability, which he did not have.

A moral ability is when you are bad enough to choose sin. There’s enough badness in you that you can choose sin. Jesus didn’t have it. There was no badness in Jesus.

Therefore he did not ever, in his willing and feeling and in his perception of temptation, he didn’t ever rise to the point of going there. Because that’s evil in us!

Evil is not just acting. Evil is wanting to act in a certain way. Craving money is as bad as having money that you stole. “I want the praise of man, I want that money, I want that lustful object”—and those wants are evil.

Jesus never had any of those. He was perfect. And if you don’t have those, you can’t do it!

You can’t choose to sin if there is no desire to sin. And Jesus never had any desire to sin. Therefore he couldn’t sin.

And so, in those two ways, it was possible and it wasn’t possible for Jesus to sin.

 

[ltwin]

Further, would it be impossible to believe in the Divinity of Jesus if one were also to believe in His potential to sin in His human nature according to Protestant teaching,

From the evangelical Protestant perspective, Jesus is both God and man, and he lived a sinless life. His sinless life was crucial to the purpose for which he lived and died, for his perfect, sinless life as God and man is the basis for his substitutionary atonement (his taking upon himself the punishment for our sin and we taking upon ourselves his righteousness). As the Piper quotation states above, an evangelical Protestant could distinguish between the natural ability to commit sin (which Jesus had) and the moral ability to commit sin (which Jesus lacked because he was perfectly holy and righteous).

So, we’d say that it’s possible to believe both in Christ’s divinity and his potential to sin (while affirming that he never sinned nor would want to sin).

 

[Wesrock]

meltzerboy2:

In other words, do some Protestants disagree with Catholicism on this point, or are they on the same page, at least in this matter?

In general (while also acknowledging there may be a Protestant somewhere with eccentric beliefs), I think Protestants are mostly in agreement with Catholics on this (unless I’m wrong about what Catholics believe) . . .

John Piper is a prominent evangelical pastor and he has this to say about the possibility of Jesus committing sin:

Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

It depends on how you define “possible.”

If “possible” means, “Did he have the brain and the natural capacities to discern a temptation and choose it,” then yes. He had a brain and he had a will. If he didn’t, he would not have been a human being.

But historically, the word “possible” has another meaning, a very important meaning—namely, a moral ability. There’s a natural ability, which he must have in order to be accountable and human, and a moral ability, which he did not have.

A moral ability is when you are bad enough to choose sin. There’s enough badness in you that you can choose sin. Jesus didn’t have it. There was no badness in Jesus.

Therefore he did not ever, in his willing and feeling and in his perception of temptation, he didn’t ever rise to the point of going there. Because that’s evil in us!

Evil is not just acting. Evil is wanting to act in a certain way. Craving money is as bad as having money that you stole. “I want the praise of man, I want that money, I want that lustful object”—and those wants are evil.

Jesus never had any of those. He was perfect. And if you don’t have those, you can’t do it!

You can’t choose to sin if there is no desire to sin. And Jesus never had any desire to sin. Therefore he couldn’t sin.

And so, in those two ways, it was possible and it wasn’t possible for Jesus to sin.

This sounds like the Catholic conception of concupiscence (though we could nuance it a bit more) which we don’t think is sinful in itself, and in fact, we believe Jesus was subject to certain types of concupiscence by virtue of being human.

 

[Isearch]

we believe Jesus was subject to certain types of concupiscence by virtue of being human.

Concupiscence is the result of Original Sin, so Jesus didn’t have that. He could be tempted because He was directly tempted by the Devil, just as the concupiscent-free pre-fallen Adam and Eve were tempted.

 

[AlNg]

Why do Jews not recognize that Jesus is God?

I do not know exactly the answer to this. But I do know some of the points raised by some such as JW or Muslims as to why they believe that Jesus (pub) was a great Prophet, but not equal to God. I.e., they will deny the Trinity. For example, one point raised quite often by Muslims is that in the NT, Jesus (pub) says that only the Father knows the day or the hour. If only the Father knows the day or the hour, then this means that the Son and the Holy Spirit do not know the day or the hour. If the Son and the Holy Spirit do not know the day or the hour, it means that the Son is not omniscient, and it means that the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. But God is omniscient. Therefore, they conclude that the Son is not God and that the Holy Spirit is not God. And they will then give that as one reason to deny the Trinity.
They will also mention:
Mark 12:29, Gospel
“The first of all the commandments [is], 'Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” They interpret that to mean One Person and not Three Persons.
Matthew 19: 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. "
1 Kings 8: 60 Then people all over the earth will know that the LORD alone is God and there is no other.
Revelation 19: 10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said, “No, don’t worship me. I am a servant of God, just like you and your brothers and sisters who testify about their faith in Jesus. Worship only God.”

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

we believe Jesus was subject to certain types of concupiscence by virtue of being human.

Concupiscence is the result of Original Sin, so Jesus didn’t have that. He can be tempted because He was directly tempted by the Devil, just as the concupiscent-free pre-fallen Adam and Eve were tempted.

Jesus humbled himself to assume our nature, and concupiscence is not sinful.

To quote Thomas Aquinas:

It is written (Hebrews 2:18): “For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted.” Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him (Psalm 120:1): “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me.” Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.

I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another’s sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Romans 5:12: “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death.” Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Isaiah 53:4, “Surely He hath borne our infirmities.”

And

The Apostle says (Romans 8:3) that "God"sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Now it is a condition of sinful flesh to be under the necessity of dying, and suffering other like passions. Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in Christ’s flesh.

And

The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite; but the flesh of man, who is a rational animal, seeks this after the manner and order of reason. And thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite Christ’s flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is sought in right reason, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 14)

There was no sin in Christ, and he had such fortitude that there was no just nor gluttony nor any such thing in him. But he did assume (rather than contract) the penalties of sin, including concupiscence.

 

[Isearch]

If only the Father knows the day or the hour, then this means that the Son and the Holy Spirit do not know the day or the hour. If the Son and the Holy Spirit do not know the day or the hour, it means that the Son is not omniscient, and it means that the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. But God is omniscient.

When Christ said that only the Father knows the day and hour of the Final Judgement, this means that the information about the the day and hour is absent from the Son’s human mind. But His Divine Mind is the same as that of the Father.

The Holy Spirit was not yet revealed by the Son to be a distinct Person or Hypostasis when He told the apostles about His human ignorance of the Day of Judgement.

 

[Isearch]

But he did assume (rather than contract ) the penalties of sin, including concupiscence.

Ohh I do concede to this. I was assuming that you have stated that Christ’s Human Nature contracted these weaknesses, instead of Christ voluntarily subjecting Himself, in His Human Nature, to the sufferings of human beings.

 

[De_Maria]

meltzerboy2:

Further, would it be impossible to believe in the Divinity of Jesus if one were also to believe in His potential to sin in His human nature according to Protestant teaching,

From the evangelical Protestant perspective, Jesus is both God and man, and he lived a sinless life. His sinless life was crucial to the purpose for which he lived and died, for his perfect, sinless life as God and man is the basis for his substitutionary atonement (his taking upon himself the punishment for our sin and we taking upon ourselves his righteousness). As the Piper quotation states above, an evangelical Protestant could distinguish between the natural ability to commit sin (which Jesus had) and the moral ability to commit sin (which Jesus lacked because he was perfectly holy and righteous).

So, we’d say that it’s possible to believe both in Christ’s divinity and his potential to sin (while affirming that he never sinned nor would want to sin).

I don’t think the Catholic Church makes it that complicated.

Have you ever seen the joke in the office which says:

1. The Boss is always right.
2. When the Boss is wrong, refer to rule #1.

Jesus is God. Since Jesus is God, He is incapable of sin. Whatever He does becomes right because God has done it.

Nonetheless, however, the Catholic Church Teaches that God is not capricious. God has given us rules which He will not break because His rules are absolute. Basically, God’s Word is God.

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Please show me the post where I said that. To the best of my knowledge, I never said such a thing, and it is not the type of comment I would make. You may be confusing me with someone else.

 

[AlNg]

The Holy Spirit was not yet revealed by the Son

But did the Holy Spirit exist at that time?

 

[Isearch]

Yes! The Holy Spirit exists without a beginning nor an end.

But the apostles didn’t know yet that there is a Divine Person other than the Father and the Son during the Olivet Discourse. Sure, the Holy Spirit had been mentioned many times in the Old Testament, but many in that era still interpreted it as the temporal presence of God on earth, not a distinct Person.