Agony In The Garden

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

A mystery is an answer that needs to be sought. Jesus "Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened."

 

I was going to only say this and be spooky. :lol:

Edited June 20, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Catherine Therese]

In light of the reality that faith and reason are complimentary, I see no reason why one cannot have a very profound respect for the mystery of Christ, and still seek to understand what they can of His human experience. No matter how much they seek, they will never plumb the depths, so we need not fear that our feeble attempts to learn and grow could ever pose a threat to the mystery of God!

 

A few brief points in support of this claim:

 

1. Last Sunday, Trinity Sunday, our Bishop made the point that the Mystery of the Triune God would never be solved, even when we have the Beatific Vision. He told us that this is NOT because it is somehow unknowable or unreasonable, but precisely because it is INEXHAUSTIBLE. So we will be seeing and experiencing Him for all of eternity and never exhaust His Majesty.... (Seriously, this makes me SO excited for Heaven! #mindblown )

 

2. Pope St John Paul II in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences reminds us that we need never fear the truths to be found in the scientific process, because truth cannot contradict truth. Each truth is but an aspect of the vestige of the Author of Truth, after all.

 

3. The Father willed that we should know Him, and His chosen means of Self-revelation was the Incarnation of His Son. St. Thomas Aquinas is famous for the alarming claim that God became human so that we could become divine. God participated in humanity so that humanity could participate in His Divinity, in His Trinitarian life, which He has made the birthright of our Baptism in Him. He told us that no longer were we slaves, in the dark about what He was doing, but friends, who had some knowledge of what He was doing... He WANTS us to seek to understand His participation in humanity, so that His joy may be in us and our joy may be complete (c.f. Gospel of John chapter 15).  

 

----

Pope St John Paul II, 1996, Message to the participants in the Plenary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.<http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm>

Edited June 21, 2014 by Catherine Therese

[Catherine Therese]

A few remarks by way of guiding such an attempt to apply psychological knowledge to the experience of Christ during His Agony in the Garden:

 

1. An ESSENTIAL principle is that just as philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, so to are the other forms of knowledge.
Each discipline can give us insight into truth, but when there is a subtle flaw in either reasoning or praxis, perhaps one that is not apparent to us, it can lead us away from truth. IF a psychological theory on human experience or on cognitive process or whatever else seems to DENY a truth that you profess, then chances are that something is broken in the logic or the theory somehow. Revelation is the very BENCHMARK of truth. So if you seek to explore aspects of faith through the legitimate application of reason, you must always realise that it is not Revelation that is deficient, but rather your reasoning/process/theory. And then it's back to the drawing board! You will know that you have arrived at truth, at a truly workable theory, when you see that it in no way contradicts those truths we hold to be true. 

 

2. Another essential principle is that, if you are taking a human theory of cognition or experience and applying it to God, it is no longer simply psychology. It has become Theology, too, for it is God whom you seek to study and understand, and this can only happen to the extent that HE allows it. Theology must ALWAYS be done primarily on one's knees. So if all you want to do is think about it, but you don't want to pray about it, I'd recommend leaving it alone. You will FAIL in finding truth unless you have the Author of Truth as your guide. And you could confuse yourself or others in the process. 

 

3. One final principle is based on what my Bishop said, above. The mystery of God is inexhaustible, even in heaven... so if you've ever reasoned yourself to a point where you think you've got it all figured out.... then you're wrong  :) You've messed up BADLY somewhere with your reasoning. That doesn't mean the exercise is pointless - reasoning can give us little insights that are valuable, because each is a discovery of something that He allows you to know to enhance your personal relationship with Him. All we need to do is, in humility and obedience, acknowledge that we must be wrong and return to our prayer, praising Him for the amesomeness of His mystery!! 

 

In support of all of these principles, the only counsel left to offer is the recommendation that you find a learned priest or professor of theology who is known for their fidelity to the Church and for their prudence as well as for being well-credentialed as theologians. You NEED someone smarter than you to help guide you if you become emotionally attached to an idea or theory that might lead you away from Him if it gets the better of your humility.  

Personally, I think all of the above is supremely exciting  :) Maybe that's why I'm a theologian-in-training? All the very best to you in your seeking to know Him more  :)

Edited June 21, 2014 by Catherine Therese

[Dr_Asik]

I agree. The fact that Christ perfectly united His human and divine natures means that psychology is essentially useless in better understanding Him. We can understand Jesus Christ only in Faith.

I don't think so. He was fully human and therefore had a human psychology. The gospels are full of examples of Jesus experiencing typical genuine human emotions such as joy, anger, amazement, pity, etc. In Gethsemani he says "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death".

 

The divine and human natures in Christ did not form a single "superhuman" nature; Christ had both natures which both retained their respective properties. We certainly cannot understand what it was like for Christ to be divine, but we can understand what it was like for him to be human.

[Dr_Asik]

Pax!
Is it ok to use psychology to explain what the human nature experienced in the garden of Gethsemane?

I like way you frame the question by specifying "the human nature" rather than "Christ". Of course if it's just Christ's human nature, then human psychology is applicable. It just becomes a historical problem of determining whether we can claim any meaningful access to the mental states of Jesus - I know many Bible scholars would disagree with that. That said, I think one can picture oneself in that garden, knowing full well that you were about to suffer injustice, mockery, torture, rejection, all kinds of brutality and inhumane treatment, painful agony and death, and reasonably think Jesus would have had similar feelings of horror.

 

At a fundamental level, the suffering of Christ is what makes Christianity acceptable in my eyes - otherwise the problem of evil is not only mysterious but scandalous, with God up there in heaven not really caring about us. Christ's suffering as a human being doesn't explain why evil exists, but at least it shows that God was ready to get down and dirty to get us out of it.

 

Edited June 21, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Credo in Deum]

I don't think so. He was fully human and therefore had a human psychology. The gospels are full of examples of Jesus experiencing typical genuine human emotions such as joy, anger, amazement, pity, etc. In Gethsemani he says "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death".

 

The divine and human natures in Christ did not form a single "superhuman" nature; Christ had both natures which both retained their respective properties. We certainly cannot understand what it was like for Christ to be divine, but we can understand what it was like for him to be human.

 

I disagree since the psychology of a perfectly sinless human will be different from that of a fallen man.  Christ assumed a human nature but not a fallen one.  His mental state was at it's highest perfection and united to the the Divine will.  Remember being united does not mean there is one nature. It means His will is in conformity with His Fathers.   The other reason for why I do not believe we can use psychology to explain the agony Christ's human nature endured in the Garden is because He took on the sins and bore the infirmities of all men.   This in itself would render the analyses useless since you would not be able to pin it to one cause, and Christ did this for a reason.  He did not come to just endure one persons pain or His own.  He came to endure all of our pain and make it His own.  

 

If you want an understanding of what He experienced in the agony in the Garden, then take all of the psychological problems fallen man has,does, and will experience and transfer them to Christ.  He has endured them all and has experienced their suffering.

 

His Agony is beautifully mysterious. 

[Dr_Asik]

I disagree since the psychology of a perfectly sinless human will be different from that of a fallen man.  Christ assumed a human nature but not a fallen one.  His mental state was at it's highest perfection and united to the the Divine will.  Remember being united does not mean there is one nature. It means His will is in conformity with His Fathers.   The other reason for why I do not believe we can use psychology to explain the agony Christ's human nature endured in the Garden is because He took on the sins and bore the infirmities of all men.   This in itself would render the analyses useless since you would not be able to pin it to one cause, and Christ did this for a reason.  He did not come to just endure one persons pain or His own.  He came to endure all of our pain and make it His own.  

 

If you want an understanding of what He experienced in the agony in the Garden, then take all of the psychological problems fallen man has,does, and will experience and transfer them to Christ.  He has endured them all and has experienced their suffering.

 

His Agony is beautifully mysterious.

 

Both very good points, but despite having never sinned and mysteriously bearing all of humanity's misery, I think we should not understate the genuine human horror anyone would have had experienced at the thought of enduring what Jesus was about to endure, physically. I'm sure the rejection of Peter saddened him as it would have anyone seeing a close friend run in such a dire situation. Also I can only ascribe to his human nature experiencing genuine distress this saying on the Cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
 

[Credo in Deum]

Both very good points, but despite having never sinned and mysteriously bearing all of humanity's misery, I think we should not understate the genuine human horror anyone would have had experienced at the thought of enduring what Jesus was about to endure, physically. I'm sure the rejection of Peter saddened him as it would have anyone seeing a close friend run in such a dire situation. Also I can only ascribe to his human nature experiencing genuine distress this saying on the Cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
 

 

I personally believe the thing which caused Him the most suffering was his foreknowledge that He would do all of this and that there would still be souls that would be lost or ungrateful.  I've recommended a book to few people here that has helped me better understand the Passion.  It is called "The History of the Passion" by Fr. James Groenings SJ. 

 

 

It's a very old book so you might not be able to find it for purchase.  I did find a link where you can read it for free. 

 

http://archive.org/stream/thehistoryofthep00greouoft/thehistoryofthep00greouoft_djvu.txt

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't think so. He was fully human and therefore had a human psychology. The gospels are full of examples of Jesus experiencing typical genuine human emotions such as joy, anger, amazement, pity, etc. In Gethsemani he says "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death".

 

The divine and human natures in Christ did not form a single "superhuman" nature; Christ had both natures which both retained their respective properties. We certainly cannot understand what it was like for Christ to be divine, but we can understand what it was like for him to be human.

 

 

 

 

I disagree since the psychology of a perfectly sinless human will be different from that of a fallen man.  Christ assumed a human nature but not a fallen one.  His mental state was at it's highest perfection and united to the the Divine will.  Remember being united does not mean there is one nature. It means His will is in conformity with His Fathers.   The other reason for why I do not believe we can use psychology to explain the agony Christ's human nature endured in the Garden is because He took on the sins and bore the infirmities of all men.   This in itself would render the analyses useless since you would not be able to pin it to one cause, and Christ did this for a reason.  He did not come to just endure one persons pain or His own.  He came to endure all of our pain and make it His own.  

 

If you want an understanding of what He experienced in the agony in the Garden, then take all of the psychological problems fallen man has,does, and will experience and transfer them to Christ.  He has endured them all and has experienced their suffering.

 

His Agony is beautifully mysterious. 

 

I agree substantially with Credo. Christ's uniting of the human and Divine natures means that His human nature was elevated and perfected. We can understand our fallen human natures from the perspective of His perfected nature, but I do not think this works backwards. It is easy enough to take a painting and cut parts out. It is entirely a different story to start with a painting missing pieces and try to reconstruct it.

Christ being sinless means He did not and could not possibly experience such things as doubt, guilt, lust, wrath, etc. 

 

As I said, we can understand our nature through Christ's elevation of humanity, but I do not think we can better understand Christ by limiting our scope to psychology based on dysfunctional humanity.

[Nihil Obstat]

I personally believe the thing which caused Him the most suffering was his foreknowledge that He would do all of this and that there would still be souls that would be lost or ungrateful.  I've recommended a book to few people here that has helped me better understand the Passion.  It is called "The History of the Passion" by Fr. James Groenings SJ. 

 

 

It's a very old book so you might not be able to find it for purchase.  I did find a link where you can read it for free. 

 

http://archive.org/stream/thehistoryofthep00greouoft/thehistoryofthep00greouoft_djvu.txt

This is correct, and you can find something similar in St. Thomas' Catena Aurea. It was not Christ despairing for himself, as a regular man might, but rather Christ expressing sorrow for all those whom, as He knew, would reject His love anyway.

 

ORIGEN; But it must be asked, What means this, that Christ is forsaken of God? Some, unable to explain how Christ could be forsaken of God, say that this was spoken out of humility. But you will be able clearly to comprehend His meaning if you make a comparison of the glory which He had with the Father with the shame which He despised when He endured the cross. 

HILARY; From these words heretical spirits contend either that God the Word was entirely absorbed into the soul at the time it discharged the function of a soul in quickening the body; or that Christ could not have been born man, because the Divine Word dwelt in Him after the manner of a prophetical spirit. As though Jesus Christ was a man of ordinary soul and body, having His beginning then when He began to be man, and thus now deserted upon the withdrawal of the protection of God's word cries out, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? 

Or at least that the nature of the Word being transmuted into soul, Christ, who had depended in all things upon His Father's support, now deserted and left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him departing. But amidst these impious and feeble opinions, the faith of the Church imbued with Apostolic teaching does not sever Christ that He should be considered as Son of God and not as Son of Man. The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offense of the cross. 

GLOSS. God is said to have forsaken Him in death because He exposed Him to the power of His persecutors; He withdrew His protection, but did not break the union. 

ORIGEN; When He saw darkness over the whole land of Judea He said this, Father, why have you forsaken me? meaning, Why have you given Me over exhausted to such sufferings? that the people who were honored by Thee may receive the things that they have dared against Me, and should be deprived of the light of Your countenance. Also, you have forsaken Me for the salvation of the Gentiles. But what good have they of the Gentiles who have believed done, that I should deliver them from the evil one by shedding My precious blood on the ground for them? Or will they, for whom I suffer these things, ever do aught worthy of them? Or foreseeing the sins of those for whom He suffered, He said, Why have you forsaken me? that I should become as one that gathers stubble in the harvest, and gleanings in the vintage. But you must not imagine that the Savior said this after the manner of men by reason of the misery which encompassed Him on the cross; for if you take it so you will not hear His loud voice and mighty words which point to something great hidden. 

RABAN. Or, The Savior said this as bearing about with Him our feelings, who when placed in dangers think ourselves forsaken by God. Human nature was forsaken by God because of its sins, and the Son of God becoming our Advocate laments the misery of those whose guilt He took upon Him; therein showing how they who sin ought to mourn, when He who never sinned did thus mourn. 

JEROME; It follows, Some of them that stood by, &c. some, 

not all; whom I suppose to have been Roman soldiers, ignorant of Hebrew, but from the words Eli, Eli, thought that He called upon Elias. But if we prefer to suppose them Jews, they do it after their usual manner, that they may accuse the Lord of weakness in thus invoking Elias. 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

As long as it does not introduce conflict between Christ's human and divine natures.

As above, so below.


What is the difference between human nature and divine nature?


How can we know divine nature without a divine mind to analyse?


Scriptures say that Adam and Eve became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil. Almost all knowledge is encompassed in the tree of knowledge as almost all thinks or issues have good and evil aspects.

This indicates that our minds and God's mind and thus our natures are very close to God's. We are in his mental nature if we can think as he does and scriptures say we can.

Just look at how much we are like God.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

We may need teaching but I suspect that our natures are almost if not identical.

What say you?

Regards
DL

[Nihil Obstat]

What say you?

Regards
DL

wtfrak

[Credo in Deum]

As above, so below.


What is the difference between human nature and divine nature?


How can we know divine nature without a divine mind to analyse?


Scriptures say that Adam and Eve became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil. Almost all knowledge is encompassed in the tree of knowledge as almost all thinks or issues have good and evil aspects.

This indicates that our minds and God's mind and thus our natures are very close to God's. We are in his mental nature if we can think as he does and scriptures say we can.

Just look at how much we are like God.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

We may need teaching but I suspect that our natures are almost if not identical.

What say you?

Regards
DL

The Scriptures never state that Adam and Eve became Gods. The temptation or lie was that by eating the fruit, Adam and Eve would become like God; knowing good and evil. The problem with this lie is in order to know something as God knows it, you would have to be God. The creature can never know something as the Creator knows it. This is why we have mysteries of Faith.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."--Isaiah 55:8-9

[Credo in Deum]

Have you even read Genesis?

They have become as Gods.

Go look that up.

How sure are you that you cannot be like God?

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Regards
DL

 

 

I have read it but I must admit I've ready it in light of the Church's guidance.  This is probably why we do not see eye to serpent, because I believe in the teaching Authority of the Church while you think you have the authority to interpret the Scriptures.    

 

The verse: 

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

The approved commentary of the Church:

 

Ver. 5. God. The old serpent's aim is, to make us think God envies our happiness. (Haydock) --- Or he would have Eve to suppose, she had not rightly understood her maker, who would surely never deprive her of a fruit which would give her such an increase of knowledge, as to make her conclude she was before comparatively blind. (Menochius) --- As gods, Hebrew Elohim,which means also princes, angels, or judges. It appears, that our first parents had flattered themselves with the hopes of attaining a divine knowledge of all things. (Calmet)

 

 

Matthew 5:48

 

Ver. 48. Jesus Christ here sums up his instructions by ordering us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect; i.e. to imitate, as far as our exertions, assisted by divine grace, can reach, the divine perfection. (Witham) --- See here the great superiority of the new over the old law. But let no one hence take occasion to despise the old. Let him examine attentively, says St. Chrysostom, the different periods of time, and the persons to whom it was given; and he will admire the wisdom of the divine Legislator, and clearly perceive that it is one and the same Lord, and that each law was to the great advantage of mankind, and wisely adapted to the times of their promulgation. For, if among the first principles of rectitude, these sublime and eminent truths had been found, perhaps neither these, nor the less perfect rules of morality would have been observed; whereas, by disposing of both in their proper time, the divine wisdom has employed both for the correction of the world. (Hom. xviii.) Seeing then that we are thus blessed as to be called, and to be the children of so excellent a Father, we should endeavour, like Him, to excel in goodness, meekness, and charity; but above all in humility, which will secure to us the merit of good works, through the infinite merits of our divine Redeemer, Master, and model, Christ Jesus the Lord. (Haydock)

Edited July 28, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

Are you ready to argue that garbage?

"The old serpent's aim is, to make us think God envies our happiness."

Get the quote if you are.

Regards
DL

 

Garbage, really?  Tons people tempt others to disobedience with the false accusation that the reason for why another person would withhold something from them is because that person is envious of their happiness and does not want to see their happiness increased by the acquisition of that which is being withheld.  Examples of this going on right now can be seen with the LGBTQ community and Gay marriage, as well as those who are Pro-Choice.  The Church is accused of not wanting to let happy people, be, live out, and increase their happiness, and that this is why it holds these things as immoral, sinful, and forbidden.   

 

Satan in the Garden is seen making the same false accusation about God when He implies that God is lying about the consequences of eating the fruit.  In short Satan is saying God does not want you to be happier than you are now and that He knows this will make you happier because you will be as God's which is why He has forbidden it.

 

Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat: and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.

4 And the serpent said to the woman: *No, you shall not die the death.

5 For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

Obviously God is not envious of their happiness. He has forbidden the eating of this tree because He knows they could never attain the knowledge of something as He knows it.  They cannot know a greater good than what they already know, and since they cannot know evil as God does -since God is without sin and can never sin- the only way they could ever know evil would be from a creatures point of view which would require sin; separation from God.  Furthermore no created being can do something of their own power to attain divine knowledge.  The only time we can ever hope to even come close to attaining divine knowledge is if it is revealed to us by God himself; Divine Revelation.   Of course Adam and  Eve find this out after they eat the fruit.

 

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig-leaves, and made themselves aprons.

 

As the commentary reads:

 

Ver. 7. And the eyes, &c. Not that they were blind before, (for the woman saw that the tree was fair to the eyes, ver. 6.) nor yet that their eyes were opened to any more perfect knowledge of good; but only to the unhappy experience of having lost the good of original grace and innocence, and incurred the dreadful evil of sin. From whence followed a shame of their being naked; which they minded not before; because being now stript of original grace, they quickly began to be subject to the shameful rebellions of the flesh. (Challoner) --- Behold the noble acquisition of experimental knowledge! This is supposed to have taken place about a week after they had enjoyed the sweets of innocence and of Paradise, that they might afterwards be moved to repentance, when they contrasted their subsequent misery with those few golden days. They saw that they had received a dreadful wound, even in their natural perfections, and that their soul was despoiled of grace, which, of themselves, they could never regain. O! what confusion must now have seized upon them! "Confounded long they say, as stricken mute." (Milton) --- (Haydock)

Edited July 28, 2014 by Credo in Deum