Leaving Jesus of Nazareth in His Place and Time

[trickster]

Of course Jesus’ the man’ had limitations because he was fully human (and fully God). My impression was that you were having difficulty with the concept of the trinity. The point with the water analogy is that solid, liquid, vapor are one substance, manifesting themselves differently. Analogy’s with the trinity are always tricky but some Earthly reference’s can sometimes help. The egg is another one.

There were times Jesus acted as a man and other times acted as God. Sometimes Jesus called upon his divine nature. Example after example is presented in the scriptures.

You got me interested in the egg analogy

Bruce

 

[johnnyjones]

I think there are even more examples in nature that assist with the trinity. Man is “body, soul, spirit” (1 Thes 5:23). I think that’s why it make sense when God said “Let US make man in OUR image.” 3 equal is substance and nature - man became the same.

 

[tonyrey]

In a posting elsewhere I have been critisized as an Arianist, so I want to restate what I said and see how it resonates.

By indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was “fully human” that means he was also limited in his human form. That assumes that he operated within a given time, place and space in first century Israel. He operated within a socio-cultural context that was very patriarchial in its orientation and hence he chose men to be his followers and apostles…the church has since then argued that this meant an all male priesthood, etc.

Jesus had a pre-existence, a human existence and a cosmic or his existence as “the Christ”. The three states were eternal they had no beginning nor end, yet they had specific time frames…or at the very minimum the 30 or so years on earth was a specific time frame.

The basic thought, question or reflection that I have is this; could it be that we need to leave Jesus of Nazareth in his time and place (not to ignore or disregard) but to understand the selection of men as simply an act reflective of the time, space and socio-cultural context in which Jesus operated? If this is so, then does that mean Jesus as Christ would necessarily be bound to that socio-cultural context?"

Jesus was not “bound” to it but He was realistic. He would have been crucified much sooner if He had chosen women instead of men.

The “Beatific Vision” and the nature of his “fullness” as God are the two components that were used to say that the Jesus in human form could see the future and “knew that there would be feminists”, etc. and that Jesus in Christ form would not be contradictory - which makes sense to me - but it doesn’t mean that Jesus Christ would be limited to the socio-cultural context of first century Israel…

Also, Jesus of Nazareth, even with a Beatific Vision, how could he know the future when the future is dependent upon humanity’s decisions, their conscience or their choice not to obey God’s will…the best thing that the beatific vision could of offered Jesus was a “best case scenario”…or a scenario contingent upon human choices throughout the century…

It is impossible to know to what extent Jesus could see the future while He was on earth with human limitations.

 

[Gorgias]

The living Father is male in Spirit. That is why the priesthood is all males; so that the priesthood would resemble the Father in all aspects.

Umm… pardon? No… God (the Father) is without gender. However, using human analogies, we (and Jesus) call “him” “Father”. I think I would assert that the (Catholic) priesthood is male because it images Jesus, not the Father.

A male priest is more likely to be male in spirit than a female is to become male in spirit. If a woman wants to become a Father then she must become like a male in spirit. She must resemble a male. But to go further she must make the male appear as if it is neither male nor female. The same thing with a male, he must appear as neither male nor female.

This sounds gospel-of-peter-esque Gnostic…

 

[Qoeleth]

If I understand you then I agree with you. I did not mean leave Jesus of Nazareth behind…he in fact showed us how to be human, your right. Jesus of Nazareth also died on the cross and that was in redemption for our fallen nature…his after death fullness is the Christ or King…I believe Jesus operated within a given place and time and we ought to interpret and understand our Catholicism from this aspect of the limits of the Nazarene…if that clarifies things…

Bruce

I think JP II made the point that Jesus showed that he wasn’t bound by the historical or social conventions of his time- He associated with lepers and sinners, etc. So, on this basis we cannot claim (for example) that Jesus decision to have only male apostles was a matter of social convention.

I maybe do not quite understand the point you are making. Could you give me a pratical example?

 

[trickster]

I think JP II made the point that Jesus showed that he wasn’t bound by the historical or social conventions of his time- He associated with lepers and sinners, etc. So, on this basis we cannot claim (for example) that Jesus decision to have only male apostles was a matter of social convention.

I maybe do not quite understand the point you are making. Could you give me a pratical example?

I’m not saying that social convention is the absolute right answer…but it has - in my opinion - the possibility of being an equally valid conclusion next to the idea that this was a deliberate decision by Jesus…especially when it is claimed by an all male priesthood in an patriarchial church…

Bruce

 

[davidv]

I’m not saying that social convention is the absolute right answer…but it has - in my opinion - the possibility of being an equally valid conclusion next to the idea that this was a deliberate decision by Jesus…especially when it is claimed by an all male priesthood in an patriarchial church…

Bruce

Given the constant teaching of the Church and her protection by the Holy Spirit, your possibility is highly improbable.

 

[trickster]

Given the constant teaching of the Church and her protection by the Holy Spirit, your possibility is highly improbable.

Ah David, thanks…so the fact that you use the word “improbable” you imply a probability… jokes…

Bruce

 

[fhansen]

The Beatific Vision, BTW, is nothing more or less than the vision of God, a vision which, I believe the Church teaches, Jesus beheld on a continuous basis.

 

[trickster]

The Beatific Vision, BTW, is nothing more or less than the vision of God, a vision which, I believe the Church teaches, Jesus beheld on a continuous basis.

I know that there is debate about that in theological fields…certainly the more conservative school of thinking holds that Jesus held the “vision” fully, but then the mystery becomes is that within human possibility? If it is, could we not hold the vision too…or perhaps more of the vision that traditional teaching has taught us…I don’t know, just saying and thinking in writing…

 

[fhansen]

I know that there is debate about that in theological fields…certainly the more conservative school of thinking holds that Jesus held the “vision” fully, but then the mystery becomes is that within human possibility? If it is, could we not hold the vision too…or perhaps more of the vision that traditional teaching has taught us…I don’t know, just saying and thinking in writing…

That’s a good question. Perhaps, if sin is what separates man from God, after all, then only one who was ‘like us in all things except sin’, could be united with God fully, holding the vision continuously.

 

[trickster]

That’s a good question. Perhaps, if sin is what separates man from God, after all, then only one who was ‘like us in all things except sin’, could be united with God fully, holding the vision continuously.

If the lack of sin is the only thing that separates us from Jesus, then once we are “purified” from our sin, we’ll we be like Jesus in the full sense of Jesus? Dumb question I know…but give it some thought…

Bruce

 

[Gblat]

If the lack of sin is the only thing that separates us from Jesus, then once we are “purified” from our sin, we’ll we be like Jesus in the full sense of Jesus? Dumb question I know…but give it some thought…

Bruce

Interestingly enough,you have stated the philosophy of an Eastern viewpoint (OK, I know Catholicism is and Eastern religion) and in a way, the conclusion of some Cathoilc mystics.

 

[LilyM]

Jesus WAS limited in his human form (physical pain, bowel movements etc.) but sometimes revealed his divine nature through his physical body. When he uttered words with his vocal chords (a human act) he made acts of God happen. He didn’t always say, “through God I make this happen.” John 18:6 - When he was arrested at the garden Jesus said, “I am he” then “they all drew back and fell to the ground”. His literal words bowled them over.

John 2:18 “Destroy this temple (temple of his body) and I will raise it up”. Not the father. Jesus in his human nature giving a command of a divine nature. He DID act from his own spirit. It was not always delegated to him. Col. 2:9 “in him (Jesus) DWELLS ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GOD-HEAD BODILY.” Jesus WAS God dwelling within the flesh. Your statement is incorrect. Having a duel nature allowed jesus to sometimes act as God and other times require Gods (seperate) power.

Jesus did His miracles of His own Godly power and will - at the Last Supper he said ‘No-one takes my life from me. Freely I lay down my life and freely I take it up again’ (John 10:18)’ So His resurrection, His taking ip again of life, was not the doing of another.

 

[trickster]

What do you make of Jesus’ statement about his apostles doing much greater things than he did as Jesus of Nazareth?

Bruce
Trickster