Was Jesus afraid to die?

[Michael19682]

It was actually John the Baptist who leapt in HIS mother’s (Elizabeth’s) womb when Mary entered her house.

Thanks again, MacQ!

 

[Michael19682]

It is called “quickening”. The moment the mother first feels her baby move.
Happens at around 16 weeks or so.
I don’t think it has much to do with the psychology of the baby.

The narrative appears to attach significance to it?

 

[MacQ]

The narrative appears to attach significance to it?

It is a very significant moment for any mother.
That it happened at the moment Mary came in was a blessed and wonderful thing, confirming for both of them the wonder of it all.

 

[Michael19682]

It is a very significant moment for any mother.
That it happened at the moment Mary came in was a blessed and wonderful thing, confirming for both of them the wonder of it all.

It emphasizes the prophetic nature of John’s soul, and his recognition of the divinity of Jesus, the special connection between them that would arise in the Jordan and beyond. My point originally was that it is significant in that regard, but not mature like later events. To say it was a confirmation coincidence is I think too far left, totally deemphasizing the divinity of Jesus, the prophetic nature of John the Baptist’s soul – trying to ensconce the meeting up of their lives in total ordinariness, making it mere serendipity.

 

[MacQ]

It emphasizes the prophetic nature of John’s soul, and his recognition of the divinity of Jesus, the special connection between them that would arise in the Jordan and beyond. .

OK. That’s different than it being due to the “psychology” of the baby.

My point originally was that it is significant in that regard, but not mature like later events.
.

I don’t know exactly what that means, but must admit I don’t follow your whole line of developmental psychology reasoning anyway. It seems to me that He was well aware of His destiny. Whether it was known to Him all along, or it “dawned on him” at some point, is something we don’t know.
But if that’s how you like to think of it, it’s fine.

To say it was a confirmation coincidence is I think too far left, totally deemphasizing the divinity of Jesus, the prophetic nature of John the Baptist’s soul – trying to ensconce the meeting up of their lives in total ordinariness, making it mere serendipity.

No.
I never said their lives were total ordinariness. They were certainly anything but.
And none of what I said de-emphasizes the divinity of Jesus.
Nothing can.

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t know exactly what that means, but must admit I don’t follow your whole line of developmental psychology reasoning anyway. It seems to me that He was well aware of His destiny. Whether it was known to Him all along, or it “dawned on him” at some point, is something we don’t know.
But if that’s how you like to think of it, it’s fine.

Developmentally, certain things are not as real or even possible at certain ages. Look into Piaget, whose name I’m sure you are familiar with. At my age, I appreciate the idea that each day is a gift of God, in a way I never could when I was twenty years old, seeking to establish a family, make money, etc. Thus, when it “dawned on him” is really a very important question – because he must have always “known” as he talks openly about it at times. Just what that “knowledge” meant, however, IS a matter of development, existentialism, and importance for those like us who try to better comprehend his mystery, which is ever present in time.

 

[MacQ]

Developmentally, certain things are not as real or even possible at certain ages. Look into Piaget, whose name I’m sure you are familiar with. At my age, I appreciate the idea that each day is a gift of God, in a way I never could when I was twenty years old, seeking to establish a family, make money, etc. Thus, when it “dawned on him” is really a very important question – because he must have always “known” as he talks openly about it at times. Just what that “knowledge” meant, however, IS a matter of development, existentialism, and importance for those like us who try to better comprehend his mystery, which is ever present in time.

Yes, thank you…but I am well aware of what developmental psychology is.
The question is whether it’s aptly applied to Jesus.
You lost your concern about “ordinariness” there?

 

[Michael19682]

Yes, thank you…but I am well aware of what developmental psychology is.
The question is whether it’s aptly applied to Jesus.
You lost your concern about “ordinariness” there?

The question of whether it is aptly applied to Jesus is exactly my “concern about ordinariness”, i.e., to what extent is ordinariness applied to Jesus?
The discussion still must tie into the question of fear of death. In that case,
the manner of his knowing, the duration of his knowing, and the formation of
his knowing are all important. I remember when I turned “about 33”, I knew
then as I know now that I must die, but I really can’t compare the quality of that
fear, nor the intensity of it either to now.

 

[John_Martin]

Well, I guess I am referring to a kind of developmental psychology. The earliest we hear of the actions of Jesus were of his leaping in the womb when Mary was near John the Baptist’s mother. That is kind of like joy, expressed, but to say that it was full knowledge of their later meeting in the Jordan and the intertwining of their destinies? Is I think too far to the right in viewing the divinity of Jesus (excessive, that is, dwelling on the divinity). Later, when he disappeared on the yearly temple journey to be in his father’s house, I think is more mature; far more mature. But for me, only after he fasted and was tempted did he know for certain that something was really up, and that he was going to be crucified. The announcing of the passion at several points in the gospel narratives seems to me to be for the benefit of his listeners: as well as being a means of advancing de facto his actual plan for our salvation by drawing himself deeper into the mystery of his own incarnation? until he finally says to Judas to do what you came for. In other words, he was sick of the ‘cat and mouse’ with the chief priests, and wanted it done, finally.

When I speak of the soul, I speak of it as I have learned from Aristotle and Aquinas, spiritual, not material, and it moves / animates all physical / bodily acts.
When Jesus in the womb approached John in the womb, there was a revelation to the soul of John that his Lord was before him. No words, just an understanding of the reality of the moment.
John’s soul, in the womb, had minimal experience with his body, so the movement was primitive movement, just as any baby “jumping” in the womb. There was no conscious thought, no contemplation, only an understanding of joy or fulfillment, or a “sensation” if the soul can have sensations. And just as tears form when sad, without consciously forming the tears, so, John’s body lurched at the fulfillment of being with his Lord. Primal - ultimate good near - good to be with ultimate good - it is here with me. Yet no contemplation or thought, just “He is here”, known by inspiration to his soul by the Spirit that “He is here”.

We do not see it in the Scriptures, but Mary told Jesus who he was and what he would do from before he could put together the words “Mama / Dada”, And through the years as they heard scriptures together she would tell him when she saw it, “That is you being talked about in the reading”. Jesus knew it in one way in his soul, inspired by his divine understanding, so that when he saw or heard it described with his physical senses from the Scriptures, it was perfectly clear to him on first hearing. What he was learning was the interface of what he knew as the Son of God inspiring his soul to the physical reality that a human has through his body with physical reality. In those 30 years he was building the bridge of his humanity to be one with us, connecting his soul, knowing what he knew, to the external world via his body, His body now had the memories, vocabulary, visualizations, to be a vehicle for his soul to express all he knew from his divinity.

At 30 years old, before going to the Jordan or to the desert, he knew the “fate” of the Messiah fully, the suffering and death for sure, if not yet concluding in his reasoning that it would be the specific death on a Roman cross. But perhaps even that.

Well, that is what I know in relation to this. Except perhaps, that we, too, are learning to interface the truth we know in our souls with the external world, and doing just that as we stumble in our first words at telling people about our King.

John Martin

 

[MacQ]

When I speak of the soul, I speak of it as I have learned from Aristotle and Aquinas, spiritual, not material, and it moves / animates all physical / bodily acts.
When Jesus in the womb approached John in the womb, there was a revelation to the soul of John that his Lord was before him. No words, just an understanding of the reality of the moment.
John’s soul, in the womb, had minimal experience with his body, so the movement was primitive movement, just as any baby “jumping” in the womb. There was no conscious thought, no contemplation, only an understanding of joy or fulfillment, or a “sensation” if the soul can have sensations. And just as tears form when sad, without consciously forming the tears, so, John’s body lurched at the fulfillment of being with his Lord. Primal - ultimate good near - good to be with ultimate good - it is here with me. Yet no contemplation or thought, just “He is here”, known by inspiration to his soul by the Spirit that “He is here”.

We do not see it in the Scriptures, but Mary told Jesus who he was and what he would do from before he could put together the words “Mama / Dada”, And through the years as they heard scriptures together she would tell him when she saw it, “That is you being talked about in the reading”. Jesus knew it in one way in his soul, inspired by his divine understanding, so that when he saw or heard it described with his physical senses from the Scriptures, it was perfectly clear to him on first hearing. What he was learning was the interface of what he knew as the Son of God inspiring his soul to the physical reality that a human has through his body with physical reality. In those 30 years he was building the bridge of his humanity to be one with us, connecting his soul, knowing what he knew, to the external world via his body, His body now had the memories, vocabulary, visualizations, to be a vehicle for his soul to express all he knew from his divinity.

At 30 years old, before going to the Jordan or to the desert, he knew the “fate” of the Messiah fully, the suffering and death for sure, if not yet concluding in his reasoning that it would be the specific death on a Roman cross. But perhaps even that.

Well, that is what I know in relation to this. Except perhaps, that we, too, are learning to interface the truth we know in our souls with the external world, and doing just that as we stumble in our first words at telling people about our King.

John Martin

Very nice, but with all due respect that’s what you think, not what you know.
Please do not take offense…I think your post is thoughtful and beautifully articulated. Not trying to be picky…it’s just that flags go up for me when, on these threads, conjecture about the unknowable is presented as fact.

 

[MacQ]

The question of whether it is aptly applied to Jesus is exactly my “concern about ordinariness”, i.e., to what extent is ordinariness applied to Jesus?
The discussion still must tie into the question of fear of death. In that case,
the manner of his knowing, the duration of his knowing, and the formation of
his knowing are all important. I remember when I turned “about 33”, I knew
then as I know now that I must die, but I really can’t compare the quality of that
fear, nor the intensity of it either to now.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.
I reckon that none of us can relate completely, and we err in trying to come too close to thinking we can.

 

[John_Martin]

Very nice, but with all due respect that’s what you think, not what you know.
Please do not take offense…I think your post is thoughtful and beautifully articulated. Not trying to be picky…it’s just that flags go up for me when, on these threads, conjecture about the unknowable is presented as fact.

Faith knows many things that others claim to be mere opinion. The soul is strange that way.
But my post was to answer Michael; do you also have a question you would like me to answer?

John Martin

 

[MacQ]

Faith knows many things that others claim to be mere opinion. The soul is strange that way.
But my post was to answer Michael; do you also have a question you would like me to answer?

John Martin

It was posted on the thread, not in a private space.
I have no questions for you.
Sorry to offend.

 

[Michael19682]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.
I reckon that none of us can relate completely, and we err in trying to come too close to thinking we can.

Perhaps we err. I think it depends at least in part on the expectations we have for ourselves in Christ, and who we think we are or might not be. There have been many martyrs, and Saints, who must have higher degrees of understanding his passion than me. I can only reckon, along with you and the others, that the world has not seen the last of these.

 

[MacQ]

Perhaps we err. I think it depends at least in part on the expectations we have for ourselves in Christ, and who we think we are or might not be. There have been many martyrs, and Saints, who must have higher degrees of understanding his passion than me. I can only reckon, along with you and the others, that the world has not seen the last of these.

Aye…nothing surer.