Jews and the Divinity of Christ

[De_Maria]

Jews and the Divinity of Christ - #110 by De_Maria

I misspoke. It is approximately 70% of humans which reject any form of Christianity in favor of another belief system.

The Global Religious Landscape | Pew Research Center

Sorry, I don’t see anything in that article which says that anyone rejects anything. What makes you think that these people, many of whom have not yet heard of Christianity, would reject it. There was a time when NO ONE had heard of Christianity. And now, 30% of the planet is Christian.

 

[Pattylt]

I wound up undergoing a seven year investigation of many religions though Christianity was the predominant one.

My story is one of wanting desperately to believe in the supernatural until I finally acquiesced and came to peace with agnosticism. I seem incapable of belief in any supernatural realm.

 

[De_Maria]

You assume wrongly, Kaninchen is Jewish, very Jewish as she puts it. I am Irish and nominally Catholic but regard myself as agnostic at this point.
[/quote]

So, I’m batting 500. Not bad.

Considering I’ve been active on the forums for a decade I would hope I did understand it was a Catholic website! However, prosleytising is forbidden yet funny enough conversations of this ilk about Jews often start wandering in that direction sooner or later.

[/QUOTE]
It’s easy enough to leave a conversation and go to another.

What’s the difference between “proselytising” and “evangelization”?

 

[De_Maria]

I wound up undergoing a seven year investigation of many religions though Christianity was the predominant one.

My story is one of wanting desperately to believe in the supernatural until I finally acquiesced and came to peace with agnosticism. I seem incapable of belief in any supernatural realm.

Sort of been there. I was an atheist for many years. About 17 years. I don’t really know how to teach people that God exists. I’ve tried. They won’t listen. All I can do now is tell them my experience.

At the time, I was a very happy atheist. Then, one day, I came home from work and my wife told me that she was pregnant. At that moment, I went into a sort of mesmerized state. My senses were sharpened, but my wife’s words faded away. I walked outside and for the first time since I was an infant, I could see the hand of God in every aspect of the world. Especially the clouds and a leaf that I focused upon.

It took me five more years to accept the Catholic Church, but I’ve been a believer, ever since.

Not that I’m trying to convince you or anything. But that’s why I believe. I think it’s a matter of grace. When you’re ready to accept it, God is offering it to you. If you’re never ready, God won’t force it on you.

 

[Pattylt]

When you’re ready to accept it, God is offering it to you. If you’re never ready, God won’t force it on you.

I never wanted to lose my faith in the first place. I was happy and felt full of Gods love until I didn’t. I wasn’t looking elsewhere at the time and had no trauma or “mad at God” crisis. I just lost my belief and desperately wanted it back.

After years of prayers and pleading and discussions with others and tears, I finally accepted it. I still wouldn’t refuse a personal experience, I’d welcome it! I hear others tell their stories and plead with God to give me one, too…silence. It’s been almost 50 years since then and here I am. Still looking but never finding. I figure if God is there, it’s in His hands now.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes and you’re going wrong with insisting on your plain text reading of this verse, which we’ve gone round and round again on.

If apologetics allows for the supposed real meaning of text to mean the exact opposite of what it says, then what chance is there of knowing what the text actually means. By this reasoning “The meek shall inherit the Earth” can mean “The meek shall not inherit the Earth.” By this reasoning “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you” is really a call to be selfish. There is no limit to what apologists will do to language (create word meanings, add to scripture, etc.) to make the pieces fit together. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Only in apologetics are we supposed to accept that no means yes and that none means some.

 

[De_Maria]

Wesrock:

Yes and you’re going wrong with insisting on your plain text reading of this verse, which we’ve gone round and round again on.

If apologetics allows for the supposed real meaning of text to mean the exact opposite of what it says, then what chance is there of knowing what the text actually means. By this reasoning “The meek shall inherit the Earth” can mean “The meek shall not inherit the Earth.” By this reasoning “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you” is really a call to be selfish. There is no limit to what apologists will do to language (create word meanings, add to scripture, etc.) to make the pieces fit together. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Only in apologetics are we supposed to accept that no means yes and that none means some.

That’s not the case in this scenario. What we have here is your resistance to the Catholic Doctrine of the dual nature of Christ.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

Now, this being the case, it is absolutely possible that the knowledge of the endtimes exact day and hour might not be included in the human brain tissue of Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ, the Son of man could truthfully say that:

Mark 13:32Need for Watchfulness. “But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The case is bolstered because Jesus Christ Teaches that half truths are not half lies. They are merely truths that have not been revealed to their entirety. Thus, Jesus, on many occasions makes partial revelations but gives us the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide us to the fullness of truth.

John 16:13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

So, although you may not like or understand the answer, it is true nonetheless.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I understand this and I always agreed with the explanation that Jesus was referring to His human nature. However, now that I see the text from Mark that you provided, I am puzzled in the sense that it says “no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Why does Jesus say “nor the Son”? Does “Son” refer to the human nature of Jesus in addition to the divine nature? I thought it meant Son of Gd, the Second Person of the Trinity, particularly in the context of the preceding angels in heaven and the following Father. Please clarify.

 

[De_Maria]

I understand this and I always agreed with the explanation that Jesus was referring to His human nature. However, now that I see the text from Mark that you provided, I am puzzled in the sense that it says “no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Why does Jesus say “nor the Son”? Does “Son” refer to the human nature of Jesus in addition to the divine nature? I thought it meant Son of Gd, the Second Person of the Trinity, particularly in the context of the preceding angels in heaven and the following Father. Please clarify.

In my opinion, Jesus is saying, “no one will reveal this to you, except the Father”. And He leaves it at that. Remember that Jesus speaks in parables.

Matthew 13:9 Whoever has ears ought to hear.”

The Purpose of Parables. 10 The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 He said to them in reply, “Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. 12 To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’

 

[meltzerboy2]

You may very well be right. I am certainly no expert on The New Testament, or the Hebrew Bible for that matter. Is the context of the verses surrounding this verse part of a parable? In other words, what is the style of writing here, because, while Jesus did speak in parables (that much I do know), did He usually do so?

 

[PhiriTalk]

Jews and the Divinity of Christ Non-Catholic Religions

Sorry, I don’t see anything in that article which says that anyone rejects anything. What makes you think that these people, many of whom have not yet heard of Christianity, would reject it. There was a time when NO ONE had heard of Christianity. And now, 30% of the planet is Christian.

It’s not maybe they will, maybe they won’t think. They literally aren’t Christians of any flavor. If they were Christians, then they’d be Christians.

There’s nothing wrong with not being Christian, God loves all of his creations equally. Yelling “I’m Christian!” louder than everyone else isn’t going to get you into heaven any faster. Catholic theology requires, along with the belief that Jesus is God, that people be good people. Being a Christian isn’t good enough in and of itself and it’s certainly possible to be a good, moral, loving human being who simply chooses not be Christian.

Jesus’ primary message was basically “don’t be douche”. It really is that simple. The worst thing about protestants and more evangelically minded Catholics is that they think that they can be terrible human beings, but as long as they claim to belief that Jesus is God that will be rewarded will immortality. The gift of heaven isn’t a super power to be attained through obedience, it’s an effort on the effort of the creation to further know God and become closer to God. When something dies it is returned to God and made anew, that is all.

 

[Kaninchen]

But having said that, there are subjects which are more likely to create heat. Like religion and politics. But should that make them off liimits?

I’m a Jew who has been discussing religion online with Christians for something like two and a half decades (12 years here on CAF), so ‘heat’ isn’t something I’ve been avoiding.

On the other hand, I don’t talk about American political issues and refuse to talk to American Conservatives about anything political at all - the former because, despite having lived in the US a couple of times, I really am not interested, the latter because we don’t even speak the same language and, if we did, we’d just annoy each other for no good purpose.

In other words, I think some things can be discussed to some good purpose but not others - when posters cross the border of:

tell them my experience

into the world of proselytising, discussions go to pieces.

I remember one poster here who got extremely cross because he thought that I wasn’t answering his questions, then I got one of those ‘insights’ one gets from time to time and made the observation (one that, certainly, applies to me as well) that, if you’re not getting answers to your questions, you probably need to discern better questions.

For example, when wondering about why other people don’t believe in Jesus, it might be more profitable for enthusiastic Christians to investigate just what it is that other religions believe in. I once got suspended here for arguing that the great leap forward for Christianity was by diagnosing an illness (“you’re all doomed!”) and prescribing itself as the only cure (“just believe and you’ll be saved”). Given the haziness of ancient beliefs in an afterlife, it was a clever move.

Ok, that was a cynical argument but reflected a kind of frustration about always being expected to discuss things where the agenda always being set by Christians.

 

[AlNg]

Yes and you’re going wrong with insisting on your plain text reading of this verse, which we’ve gone round and round again on.

Because there is still a problem. You say this means that the human Jesus, as human, did not know the day or the hour. But the Son, with His divine Nature, did know the day or the hour.
So you have two Divine Persons who knew the day or the hour.
The Divine Father, or God the Father knew the day or the hour.
The Divine Son, or God the Son knew the day or the hour.
But Jesus says that only the Father knows the day or the hour. That would be one Person only and would rule out anyone else, including the Divine Son, would it not? Isn’t that what "only " means?
But you say that two Persons knew the day or the hour, the Divine Father and the Divine Son, not one.

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m a Jew who has been discussing religion online with Christians for something like two and a half decades

Ha! You’re just a kid, then.

On the other hand, I don’t talk about American political issues and refuse to talk to American Conservatives about anything political at all - the former because, despite having lived in the US a couple of times, I really am not interested, the latter because we don’t even speak the same language and, if we did, we’d just annoy each other for no good purpose

But you have some wisdom for a kid. I think you are right. I determine to follow your example in future.

 

[Isearch]

Did Jesus say that the Son did not know the day or the hour?

This is similar to the orthodox (as oppose to heretical) formulation:

God died on the cross.

It is impossible for God to die as God, but it is possible for Him to die in His Human Nature; death is simply a separation of the human body and the human soul. In the Olivet Discourse, Christ was juxtaposing the Father’s Divine Intellect, which has infinite knowledge, with the limited and created intellects of men, angels, and the Son.

 

[Kaninchen]

Ha! You’re just a kid, then.

Deeply, deeply middle-aged.

I determine to follow your example in future.

It has the advantage of one-way annoying.

 

[PickyPicky]

It has the advantage of one-way annoying

I made the mistake of reading the Mueller Report and joining the discussion. Horribly unproductive.

Deeply, deeply middle-aged

Yeah, I can remember being deeply, deeply middle-aged. Don’t worry, it gets better.

 

[Wesrock]

I understand this and I always agreed with the explanation that Jesus was referring to His human nature. However, now that I see the text from Mark that you provided, I am puzzled in the sense that it says “no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Why does Jesus say “nor the Son”? Does “Son” refer to the human nature of Jesus in addition to the divine nature? I thought it meant Son of Gd, the Second Person of the Trinity, particularly in the context of the preceding angels in heaven and the following Father. Please clarify.

“Nor the Son” actually isn’t included in all manuscripts. But anyway, it must be taken with the rest of scripture, too. Not by itself. A traditional response from Bishop Haydock’s 19th century commentary:

Ver. 36. No man knoweth . . . but the Father alone. The words in S. Mark (xiii. 32.) are still harder: neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father. The Arians objected this place, to shew that Christ being ignorant of the day of judgment, could not be truly God. By the same words, no one knoweth, but the Father alone, (as they expound them) the Holy Ghost must be excluded from being the true God. In answer to this difficulty, when it is said, but the Father alone, it is certain that the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost could never be ignorant of the day of judgment: because, as they are one and the same God, so they must hove one and the same nature, the same substance, wisdom, knowledge, and all absolute perfections. 2. It is also certain that Jesus Christ knew the day of judgment, and all things to come, by a knowledge which he could not but have, because of the union by which his human nature was united to the divine person and nature. See Colos. ii. 3. And so to attribute any ignorance to Christ, was the error of those heretics called Agnoitai. 3. But though Christ, as a man, knew the day of judgment, yet this knowledge was not due to him as he was man, or because he was man, but he only knew the day of judgment, because he was God as well as man. 4. It is the common answer of the fathers, that Christ here speaks to his disciples, only as he was the ambassador of his Father; and so he is only to know what he is to make known to men. He is said not to know, says S. Aug.[5], what he will not make others know, or what he will not reveal to them. Wi. — By this Jesus Christ wished to suppress the curiosity of his disciples. In the same manner after his resurrection, he answered the same question: 'Tis not for you to know the times and the moments, which the Father has placed in his own power. This last clause is added, that the apostles might not be discouraged and think their divine Master esteemed them unworthy of knowing these things. Some Greek MSS. add nor even the Son, as in Mark xiii. 32. The Son is ignorant of it, not according to his divinity, nor even according to his humanity hypostatically united to his divinity, but according to his humanity, considered as separate from his divinity. V.

 

[Wesrock]

And some quotes from Church Fathers collected by Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea:

JEROME. Having then shewn that the Son of God cannot be ignorant of the day of the consummation, we must now shew a cause why He should be said to be ignorant. When after the resurrection He is demanded concerning this day by the Apostles, He answers more openly; It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in his own power. (Acts 1:7.) Wherein He shews that Himself knows, but that it was not expedient for the Apostles to know, that being in uncertainty of the coming of their Judge, they should live every day as though they were to be judged that day.

AUGUSTINE. (de Trin. i. 12.) When He says here, Knows not, He means,’ makes others not to know;’ i. e. He knew not then, so as to tell His disciples; as it was said to Abraham, Now I know that thou fearest God; (Gen. 22:19.) i. e. ‘Now have I caused that thou shouldest know,’ because by the temptation he came to know himself.

AUGUSTINE. (Serm. 97. 1.) He says that the Father knoweth, implies that in the Father the Son also knows. For what can there be in time which was not made by the Word, seeing that time itself was made by the Word!

AUGUSTINE. (Lib. 83 Quæst. q. 60.) That the Father alone knows maybe well understood in the above-mentioned manner of knowing, that He makes the Son to know; but the Son is said not to know, because he does not make men to know.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Yes and you’re going wrong with insisting on your plain text reading of this verse, which we’ve gone round and round again on.

Because there is still a problem. You say this means that the human Jesus, as human, did not know the day or the hour. But the Son, with His divine Nature, did know the day or the hour.
So you have two Divine Persons who knew the day or the hour.
The Divine Father, or God the Father knew the day or the hour.
The Divine Son, or God the Son knew the day or the hour.
But Jesus says that only the Father knows the day or the hour. That would be one Person only and would rule out anyone else, including the Divine Son, would it not? Isn’t that what "only " means?
But you say that two Persons knew the day or the hour, the Divine Father and the Divine Son, not one.

And the Holy Spirit. One God who knows. Jesus’ titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” isn’t always to be understood in a Trinitarian sense. They are also messianic and can be said of his human nature.