J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Or perhaps He had to learn languages as a kid.
Whatever the case may be, He truly emptied Himself and was found human in appearance.
Just because He’s 100% God doesn’t negate He was 100% human.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Whatever the case may be, He truly emptied Himself and was found human in appearance.
Just because He’s 100% God doesn’t negate He was 100% human.
I agree that He is 100% human, you ignore that He is 100% God…Just because He’s 100% God doesn’t negate He was 100% human.
…can a human survive 40 days without food and water?
…yet He did…
…did He train His body for many years leading up to that point?
…or was He able to do it because He is also 100% God.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Monks have done that.can a human survive 40 days without food and water?
…yet He did…
Elijah and Moses did as well.
Last edited:
B
Bithynian
Guest
I think the Hellenisation of the West Syriac Rite occurred after its initial conception. But the linguistic topography is very messy. The following excerpt from the Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine might be helpful:the West Syriacs are influenced by the Byzantine liturgy?
Amongst Christians, Aramaic speakers were numerous during the Byzantine period, despite the fact that Christian inscriptions are usually written in Greek, especially in the urban areas, with some Aramaic inscriptions in the countryside. Yet even in a Hellenistic town such as Scythopolis at the end of the third century CE, Procopius read the Scriptures in Greek and translated them into Aramaic according to the Syriac version of Eusebius’ De Martyribus Palaestinae. About a century later, the Gallic pilgrim Egeria reports that the local bishop of Jerusalem ‘may know Aramaic, but he never uses it. He always speaks in Greek and has a presbyster beside him who translates his words into Aramaic so that everyone can understand what he means’.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And did He do that as a kid? At will?
Bingo…Monks have done that.
Elijah and Moses did as well.
…and the apostles spoke In tongues, each man hearing them ”in his own tongue” (language)…
…if the apostles could do it, why then do you doubt that Jesus could?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
I like how you conveniently leave out they received the gift of utterance from the Spirit. We also don’t have the Apostles doing anything like this again.and the apostles spoke In tongues, each man hearing them ”in his own tongue” (language)…
“The Heavens opened and the Spirit came upon Him like a dove”I like how you conveniently leave out they received the gift of utterance from the Spirit.
That is a rather weak argument, the apostles are not God whereas Jesus is God.We also don’t have the Apostles doing anything like this again.
For example Jesus came out walking on the water, Peter also walked on the water but he sank because his faith was not strong enough, yet Jesus never sank.
There are many such examples where the apostles did things as Jesus had done yet they could not do it as Jesus had done it.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And Jesus doesn’t have the gift of utterance in the Scriptures does He?The Heavens opened and the Spirit came upon Him like a dove ”
Instead we have Him performing signs and preaching.
Last edited:
Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that He does but it doesn’t explicitly say that He doesn’t…And Jesus doesn’t have the gift of utterance in the Scriptures does He?
…however this line of argument suggests that the apostles could do something that Christ could not which is absurd…
And you would not call speaking in tongues a sign?Instead we have Him performing signs.
At this point I’m not sure if you are arguing because you truly believe this or simply for the sake of arguing…
…at this point you honestly are coming off like a troll.
However if you are not being a troll, I want you to honestly consider that your argument is that the apostles could do something that Jesus Christ could not do…
… If that is what you truly believe then I don’t know how you can take Catholicism seriously, as it teaches us that Jesus Christ is God and can do all things.
…as the gospel tells us Thomas fell before Jesus on his knees and said ”my Lord and my God”…
…Jesus is God, and as such can do anything, this is basic Catholic teaching what is also basic Catholic teaching is that when Christ walked the earth He was still 100% God…
…countless councils and church fathers condemned those who would deny this fact…
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
The Scriptures show clearly that Jesus incarnate was not omniscient, and in fact demonstrate many gaps in His knowledge. The Catechism explains that Jesus had a human knowledge and that “this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time.” (CC 472). So while I suppose one could believe that Jesus spoke all languages, that does not seem consistent with the Catholic understanding of the incarnation (although maybe not directly contradicted by it).Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that He does but it doesn’t explicitly say that He doesn’t…
Yes, however I am not arguing that Christ did 100% speak all languages…The Scriptures show clearly that Jesus incarnate was not omniscient, and in fact demonstrate many gaps in His knowledge. The Catechism explains that Jesus had a human knowledge and that “this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time.” (CC 472). So while I suppose one could believe that Jesus spoke all languages, that does not seem consistent with the Catholic understanding of the incarnation (although maybe not directly contradicted by it).
…I am only arguing that it is 100% a possibility that He could speak all languages, not that He did…
…and the reason it is a 100% possibility is because Christ is God, I don’t find this comment contradictory with church teaching, do you disagree?
…however seeing that the apostles could speak in tongues, it really gives credence to the idea that perhaps Christ spoke in tongues.
Furthermore to say that Christ spoke all languages (common to the people of the area at the time) does not suggest that Christ was omniscient or possessed unlimited knowledge (in that place and time), as surely there were learned people in existence in that place and time that could speak all available languages.“this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time.”
Therefore I see no contradiction between church teaching and the idea that Christ could speak all available languages at that time.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Jesus said the Apostles would do greater works than He.Scripture doesn’t explicitly say that He does but it doesn’t explicitly say that He doesn’t…
…however this line of argument suggests that the apostles could do something that Christ could not which is absurd
Do you deny this?
I do not deny that Jesus said this, however you are taking his words way out of context.Jesus said the Apostles would do greater works than He.
Do you deny this?
Nobody exceeded Jesus’ works. Christ Crucified is the greatest and most important single work in all of creation.
Do you deny this?
That’s what leads me to believe that’s not what He meant. I think He’s using the term “greater” in a different way.
I am convinced that when Jesus made the statement “Greater works than these will you do,” He was referring to the whole scope of the impact of Christ’s people and His church on the world throughout history…
…I know a lot of people look at the history of Western civilization and say that the bulk of the church’s influence has been negative…
…the Crusades, the Galileo episode, and holy wars, etc.
…If you look at the record, you will see that it was the Catholic church that spearheaded the abolition of slavery, the end of the Roman arena, the whole concept of education, the concept of charitable hospitals and orphanages, and a host of other humanitarian activities…
…IMHO that’s what Jesus meant when He talked about greater works.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Which was a part of Him emptying Himself.Nobody exceeded Jesus’ works. Christ Crucified is the greatest and most important single work in all of creation.
In all appearances He was human and His purpose was to identify with us.
Do you deny this?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
He learned. He advanced in favor before God and man.
Which is why I believe the Gospels over stuff like the Gnostic texts which make Him a Mary Sue.
Which is why I believe the Gospels over stuff like the Gnostic texts which make Him a Mary Sue.
No I do not deny that, however that doesn’t change the fact that he is still 100% God, in fact the crucifixion proves it…
…it has been noted that no man would be able to endure what Christ endured before the crucifixion and then endure the crucifixion…
…however I’m still waiting for your answer, nobody has ever exceeded Jesus’ works.
Christ Crucified is the greatest and most important single work in all of creation.
Do you deny this?
…it has been noted that no man would be able to endure what Christ endured before the crucifixion and then endure the crucifixion…
…however I’m still waiting for your answer, nobody has ever exceeded Jesus’ works.
Christ Crucified is the greatest and most important single work in all of creation.
Do you deny this?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.