When did Jesus know He was God?

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Adam and Eve were never ‘conceived’–they were created as adults, from the dust of the earth. Adam was “the man” (not “the babe” or “the child”), and Eve either created with him (second story of Genesis) or taken from his rib (again, Adam being an adult male); they are told to be fruitful and multiply.

And Jesus, of course, was both God and man.

John, as another poster points out, was conceived in sin, but freed from sin in the womb, as Luke tells us, through Jesus’s greeting and infusion of the baby John by the Holy Spirit.

So only Mary was conceived ‘without sin’.

 

[Evan]

I thought somebody would say that

Of course they were conceived. Conception is a thing dealing with the mind. I (my innermost being) is a conception in the mind of God. As were Adam and Eve. They were not begotten but were conceived.

Dictionary gives conceive as

1. to form (a notion, opinion, purpose, etc.): He conceived the project while he was on vacation.

• or to form the first humans … Adam and Eve.*

1. to form a notion or idea of; imagine.
2. to hold as an opinion; think; believe
3. to experience or form (a feeling).
4. to express, as in words.
5. to become pregnant with.
6. to beget.
7. to begin, originate, or found in a particular way.
8. Archaic. to understand; comprehend.
9. to form an idea; think of
10. to become pregnant.

Conception may even come before begetting (as when you were just a twinkle in your parents eye on the night before you were begotten)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But the conception of Adam and Eve was not at all the same physical conception as were those of Mary and John, Evan, and you know it.

 

[Evan]

Just trying to streach our understanding of language and how it has evolved and how we use it. It means more than what is on the surface. You a playing the spoil sport. What fun is that.

Merry Christmas

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, I didn’t know we were aiming for fun. Where’s my rubber chicken and whoopie cushion when I need them?

Seriously, I’m as into language as the next person, and I’m not spoil sporting, I hope. You’re right to ‘stretch’ concepts (no pun intended); but I believe I’m right to note when the concepts become so esoteric that they might cause confusion as to what actually occurred (fascinating as speculation may be).

Merry Christmas to you, too!

 

[Evan]

I suppose a more proper terminology may be

Adam and Eve were created without Original Sin

Mary was created and concieved (simultaneously) without Original Sin

And Jesus is uncreated/eternal but concieved as a human without Original Sin

Does that meet with your approval.

So… my original question is

Does the church teach that there are no others who were created without original sin? Or is this list, the only ones we KNOW. ie could God have given this signal grace to another but not informed the Church?

SORRY… I’LL START A DIFFERENT THREAD…

 

[CRW]

Is there a church doctrine teaching that Mary is the ONLY individual concieved without original sin. I know the Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that she was concieved free from OS. But I don’t remember if there is a teaching that limits God to not offering such a grace to others. Not all things God has done is revealed to us.

Obviously Adam, Eve, and Jesus were also concieved without Original Sin.

Dogma of the Catholic Church: Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.

On the 8th December, 1854, Pope Pius IX, in the Bull “Ineffabilis” promulgated the following doctrine as revealed by God, and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful: “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.” D 1641. Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott.

This is the only Dogma of anyone being “conceived” without original sin. Notice that the dogma states; in the first moment of her conception; not when she was born. The dogma’s do not list or note anyone either as dogma or doctrine of being conceived or born without original sin.

 

[Elzee]

I’ve been out of town and am just now getting back to reading…I haven’t had time to read all of the posts but it appears many of them are off-topic.

If anyone else has anything to add on when Jesus knew he was God, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you!

 

[CRW]

I’ve been out of town and am just now getting back to reading…I haven’t had time to read all of the posts but it appears many of them are off-topic.

If anyone else has anything to add on when Jesus knew he was God, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you!

The Prerogative of Christ in the Domain of Human Knowledge

Section 23. The Immediate Vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.)

While the immediate knowledge of God, which is absolutely supernatural, is vouchsafed to other man only in the next world, (in statu termini) Christ soul possessed it in this world (in statu viae), and indeed, from the very moment of its union with the Divine Person of the Word, that is, from the conception.

Section 26. Christ’s Sinlessness and Impeccability

Christ was free all sin, from original sin as well as from all personal sin. (De fide)

Pope Pius XII, in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” (1943) declared; “Also that knowledge which is called vision, He possesses in such fullness that in breath and clarity it far exceeds the Beatific Vision of all the saints in Heaven”…”in virtue of the Beatific Vision which He enjoyed from the same time when **He was received into the womb of the mother of God, **He has forever and continuously had present to Him all the members of His mystical Body and embraced them with His saving love” (D 2289).

Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott

 

[Elzee]

The Prerogative of Christ in the Domain of Human Knowledge

Section 23. The Immediate Vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.)

While the immediate knowledge of God, which is absolutely supernatural, is vouchsafed to other man only in the next world, (in statu termini) Christ soul possessed it in this world (in statu viae), and indeed, from the very moment of its union with the Divine Person of the Word, that is, from the conception.

Section 26. Christ’s Sinlessness and Impeccability

Christ was free all sin, from original sin as well as from all personal sin. (De fide)

Pope Pius XII, in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” (1943) declared; “Also that knowledge which is called vision, He possesses in such fullness that in breath and clarity it far exceeds the Beatific Vision of all the saints in Heaven”…”in virtue of the Beatific Vision which He enjoyed from the same time when **He was received into the womb of the mother of God, **He has forever and continuously had present to Him all the members of His mystical Body and embraced them with His saving love” (D 2289).

Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott

I’ve heard a lot about this book - is it an accepted source of Catholic teaching (does it have an imprimatur?) Thank you!

 

[CRW]

I’ve heard a lot about this book - is it an accepted source of Catholic teaching (does it have an imprimatur?) Thank you!

Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.D
Imprimatur: Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensus et Ap. Adm. Rossensis

The book is a one volume Encyclopedia of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, showing their sources in Scripture and Tradition and their definitions by Popes and Councils.

I strongly urge all serious Catholic to purchase this book.

 

[Dorothy]

Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.D
Imprimatur: Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensus et Ap. Adm. Rossensis

The book is a one volume Encyclopedia of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, showing their sources in Scripture and Tradition and their definitions by Popes and Councils.

I strongly urge all serious Catholic to purchase this book.

I have heard a lot of this book, and it is highly praised among apologists that I respect.

 

[Elzee]

Thank you all for your help, but I’m still confused. It seems because Jesus was fully divine in addition to being fully human, he was aware that he was God, regardless of age. That’s what I get read I read paragraph 474 of the CCC (I bolded below), and also from the link to Dave’s site. But I have a hard time making that sync up with what I’ve bolded below from paragraph 472 in the CCC. Can anyone help?

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge.** As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,**[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.[103]

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107]

** 474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.**109]

 

[Cranch]

Thank you all for your help, but I’m still confused. It seems because Jesus was fully divine in addition to being fully human, he was aware that he was God, regardless of age. That’s what I get read I read paragraph 474 of the CCC (I bolded below), and also from the link to Dave’s site. But I have a hard time making that sync up with what I’ve bolded below from paragraph 472 in the CCC. Can anyone help?

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge.** As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,**[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.[103]

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107]

** 474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.**109]

Let’s face it. There is a mystery here that no mere human can completely understand because we are only human.

Being fully human, Jesus, in his human nature was, like us, subject to humanity’s limitations; otherwise he would not have been fully human. I think this means for example, as a child he had to learn when you drop an egg it breaks. That doesn’t mean he was ever closed off to knowledge of his divinity. I think the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor, quoted in 473 above, best explains and connects the ideas in 472 and 474: “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”
It is that mysterious union which allows Christ to be at the same time man and God.

 

[Elzee]

Let’s face it. There is a mystery here that no mere human can completely understand because we are only human.

Being fully human, Jesus, in his human nature was, like us, subject to humanity’s limitations; otherwise he would not have been fully human.

I guess I’m just trying to figure out which mystery the Church teaches:

*That Jesus always knew He was God, because He was fully God (and fully human)

OR,

Because He was fully human in addition to being fully God, He had to grow in the knowledge that He was God. *

My understanding is the Church believes the former. I can accept the mystery of it, I just want to know what mystery to accept!!!

 

[nnadozie]

jesus is truely God and heknows it from conception.this is actually why the baby in Elizabeth’s womb leap for joy as in estacy to adore the lord of his soul.PEACE

 

[SMHW]

I guess I’m just trying to figure out which mystery the Church teaches:

That Jesus always knew He was God, because He was fully God (and fully human)

OR,

*Because He was fully human in addition to being fully God, He had to grow in the knowledge that He was God. *

My understanding is the Church believes the former. I can accept the mystery of it, I just want to know what mystery to accept!!!

I can’t give you an absolute answer but please consider that possibility that both statements are true. You are running into that sticky issue of ‘time’ when you use the word ‘always’.

Human beings perceive time as a limit. God does not because he is ‘outside’ of it. To us, the idea that Jesus would have to grow in the knowledge of God means that at one ‘time’ the statement Jesus knew he was God was false and then ‘later’ it was true.

God is not subject to our perception of time.

You can ask the question, “When did Jesus know He was God?” but keep in mind that our human concept of ‘when’ is not God’s.

 

[SOUNDTRUTH]

I have been studying the mechanics of reality, and what I see is that there are two planes of reality.

One plane is limited to the present Time, and the second plane of reality is at a 90 degree angle relative to our Time line, and so it extends across ALL time. From its point of view, it is a See ALL Know ALL point of view.

Now if the parents of a child are both human, then the Time line of the child will also be limited to the present time which is constantly on the move through the second plane of reality.

If however, it was only the mother that was human, and the father was from the Holistic second plane of reality, then the time line of the child will not be limited to our plane of reality, but would also extend into the huge second plane of reality.

And so, Jesus would see into a far bigger reality, right from the very start.



**What do you see ?

Do you see a Cross, Two Heads confronting each other,
or do you see all three ?**

 

[SMHW]

If however, it was only the mother that was human, and the father was from the Holistic second plane of reality, then the time line of the child will not be limited to our plane of reality, but would also extend into the huge second plane of reality.

And so, Jesus would see into a far bigger reality, right from the very start.

I like your description.

When we ask the question, “When did N know y?” it is generally understood that the question is limited to the human plane of reality.

As humans we perceive the ‘projection of Jesus’ onto our human plane. When we limit our discussion of Jesus to that projection then I think it is resonable to perceive limits to the knowledge of Jesus within that plane. But He who appears limited in that plane is at the same ‘time’ unlimited in the fullness of His reality.

 

[slowbutfaithful]

I have been studying the mechanics of reality, and what I see is that there are two planes of reality.

One plane is limited to the present Time, and the second plane of reality is at a 90 degree angle relative to our Time line, and so it extends across ALL time. From its point of view, it is a See ALL Know ALL point of view.

Now if the parents of a child are both human, then the Time line of the child will also be limited to the present time which is constantly on the move through the second plane of reality.

If however, it was only the mother that was human, and the father was from the Holistic second plane of reality, then the time line of the child will not be limited to our plane of reality, but would also extend into the huge second plane of reality.

IWhen we ask the question, “When did N know y?” it is generally understood that the question is limited to the human plane of reality.

As humans we perceive the ‘projection of Jesus’ onto our human plane. When we limit our discussion of Jesus to that projection then I think it is resonable to perceive limits to the knowledge of Jesus within that plane. But He who appears limited in that plane is at the same ‘time’ unlimited in the fullness of His reality.

I didn’t study theolo-geometry in school – now I know what I missed :whacky: