Along with svid’2s great answer, I 'd say it’s because he was a human being just like us. We seem to forget that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine. Humans have certain ways of expressing universal needs/wants. Most humans have rituals/traditions in their worship that are very similar. As Chesterton observed, this shows the universality of our need for such things, but it does not signify whose theology is most correct.
I have difficulty in assuming that it was his humanity that directed Jesus Christ to pray in the manner in which he did. I have difficulty in dividing Jesus into two persons, sometimes as one who is speaking as a human being, and sometimes as one who is speaking as the Son of God.Along with svid’2s great answer, I 'd say it’s because he was a human being just like us. We seem to forget that Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine. Humans have certain ways of expressing universal needs/wants. Most humans have rituals/traditions in their worship that are very similar. As Chesterton observed, this shows the universality of our need for such things, but it does not signify whose theology is most correct.
Well, it was Jesus’ “difficulty” to deal with not ours.
Remember that he was like us in all things except sin. His humanity was not swallowed up by his divinity or he would not have been able to suffer for us or become our high priest. It’s a great mystery how he functioned as both God and man. But, he often made the distinction himself. Scripture also tells us that he left his powers and his privileges as the Son of God behind and did not “grasp at equality with God” but rather gave his life as a ransom for many. As the Second Adam, he could do this by the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s why he told his Apostles that they would do greater works than he because of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them. They would do what he could not in the flesh–go into the whole world. God uses nature not negates it as he empowers us with his grace. If we spiritualize Jesus into divinity only we negate the Incarnation–something I rather doubt you wish to do. We do not divide Jesus into two persons. He is only one Person, but one Person with two natures; human and divine. In his human nature he learned like the rest of us.
Some of our great theologians and contemplative saints would say that Jesus suffered both in his humanity and in his divinity for our sins. Maybe we have spiritualized our concept of the kingdom of heaven, whereas Jesus said, “no one has ascended up to heaven, but he who has come down from heaven”. Thus, Jesus looked up to heaven as the Son of God who came down to this earth from his Father in heaven.Well, it was Jesus’ “difficulty” to deal with not ours.
Only when there are difficult sayings of Jesus to be explained.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Then we look to the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, and the Magisterium. There are good resources available online that can help us, as well, such as the Catholic encyclopedia or Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, and more officially the CCC, and the documents of the Church.
a few examples:
See my last post except this one.
Indeed.
I do like the quote by Pope Benedict XVI. There are profound mysteries which can notSee my last post except this one.
Thanks. Yes, I don’t know if it is possible for us to understand the mystery of the incarnation of God. There is no doubt that it is a mind blower. He speaks as a man and he speaks as God. He had to learn how to hold a spoon; He had to learn human language; He had to learn how to read; He had to learn Jewish customs. At the same time he could penetrate the human heart, walk on water, command the wind and the sea, heal the lame, give sight to the blind…
Yes, there are some things we won’t understand this side of heaven and some I don’t suppose we’ll ever fully grasp because we are finite beings.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. I don’t know what suffering in the divine nature could possibly be. As far as I understand, the Church rejects theopaschitism as a kind of metaphysical category mistake.
A theologian most respected by our past two popes has this to say about the suffering of the Son of God as explained in this article: