Not to be dramatic, but suffering. I learned ABOUT Jesus when i was becoming Catholic, I was awed by his deeds and miracles the way I might read a superhero story or a chivalry tale. But I didnt understand what it meant, I didnt empathize, I didnt RELATE until I went through suffering myself. Christ came to the world to experience all that humans experience, but I can’t say that I have experience all that Christ experienced. Only drinking from a bitter cup has given me the remotest sense of His suffering, and forced me to rely on Him more and more.
The question “who do YOU say I am?” is THE question if engaging with non-Christians. I am shocked at how many questions Jesus asked and we seem to like to parade answers versus listening.
Thank you for taking the time to read and the link you posted. I agree that it's not about feelings but knowing that God does understand humanity because He himself was human. If this view is erroneous, I'm willing to be corrected.
As per the second quotation you mentioned, I'm not sure how divinization would be something wrong or erroneous. I'm assuming the answer lies in the document you linked. Would you mind elaborating on why you find this problematic?
I appreciate you challenging my writing, I by no means want to spread something erroneous, scandalous or God forbid heretical.
No, that was me responding in my own words why it was important to me that God became man. The three points you mention were covered in the course work however.
I do see your point in how God didn't need to become man to understand us, after all he is our creator.
“What has helped you to grow closer to christ?”
Not to be dramatic, but suffering. I learned ABOUT Jesus when i was becoming Catholic, I was awed by his deeds and miracles the way I might read a superhero story or a chivalry tale. But I didnt understand what it meant, I didnt empathize, I didnt RELATE until I went through suffering myself. Christ came to the world to experience all that humans experience, but I can’t say that I have experience all that Christ experienced. Only drinking from a bitter cup has given me the remotest sense of His suffering, and forced me to rely on Him more and more.
The question “who do YOU say I am?” is THE question if engaging with non-Christians. I am shocked at how many questions Jesus asked and we seem to like to parade answers versus listening.
God gave us two ears and one mouth so we listen twice as much as we talk.
Brina and I got in a discussion once about the song Reckless Love by Bethel Music. Can God love us recklessly?
I would say yes.
Is this seriously what they're teaching in Catholic Christology classes? "being fully human, he knows what we (as creatures) go through."??
It's not about feelings.
"He became man so that we might become God."
Maybe we need to get back to the Fathers.
https://archive.org/details/athanasiusdeinca0000atha/page/n5/mode/2up
Thank you for taking the time to read and the link you posted. I agree that it's not about feelings but knowing that God does understand humanity because He himself was human. If this view is erroneous, I'm willing to be corrected.
As per the second quotation you mentioned, I'm not sure how divinization would be something wrong or erroneous. I'm assuming the answer lies in the document you linked. Would you mind elaborating on why you find this problematic?
I appreciate you challenging my writing, I by no means want to spread something erroneous, scandalous or God forbid heretical.
"God does understand humanity because He himself was human."
No. He didn't need to become human to understand us. That's not at all what the Incarnation was for.
I was suggesting that Athanasius' book on the Incarnation would help clarify the real teaching.
What was it for then? Could you give me a hint while I get started reading Athanasius' book?
for humanity's redemption - the expiatory sacrifice - and restoration to God
But seriously, did someone tell you that God needed to learn something about us by becoming Man?
No, that was me responding in my own words why it was important to me that God became man. The three points you mention were covered in the course work however.
I do see your point in how God didn't need to become man to understand us, after all he is our creator.
Are they giving you the Fathers at all? I mean, is this the first time someone has talked about Athanasius, for example?