Infant Jesus in apparitions of Blessed Virgin

iddy

I heard Joe Coleman on Joe Duffy’s radio show yesterday where he said 2 of the apparitions he has had have been of the Blessed Virgin and the infant Jesus.

He came across very sincere so I do believe that he believes what he is saying but who exactly is the infant in the apparitions?

Baby Jesus seems to be in a lot of apparitions so I’m presuming there’s something actually going on but to me this would point to a deception… and not on the part of the visionaries.

When Jesus died and went to heaven he was a man… there is no baby Jesus anymore!

What do you think?

chozometroid

iddy wrote: »

I heard Joe Coleman on Joe Duffy’s radio show yesterday where he said 2 of the apparitions he has had have been of the Blessed Virgin and the infant Jesus.

He came across very sincere so I do believe that he believes what he is saying but who exactly is the infant in the apparitions?

Baby Jesus seems to be in a lot of apparitions so I’m presuming there’s something actually going on but to me this would point to a deception… and not on the part of the visionaries.

When Jesus died and went to heaven he was a man… there is no baby Jesus anymore!

What do you think?

I agree and think "baby Jesus" appearances make a mockery of our Lord Jesus Christ.

PDN

I'd never thought of that before. It would seem to be a very good point. Who is the baby?

kelly1

iddy wrote: »

What do you think?

I think Joe Coleman is a charlatan!

But on a more relevant note, the Infant Jesus is traditionally associated with St. Anthony of Padua. According to tradition/legend, the Infant Jesus appeared to and conversed with St. Anthony. Some details here

Quote from the same link:

According to one version of the legend—and there are many—there was a Count Tiso who had a castle about 11 miles from Padua, Italy. On the grounds of the castle the count had provided a chapel and a hermitage for the friars.

Anthony often went there toward the end of his life and spent time praying in one of the hermit cells. One night, his little cell suddenly filled up with light. Jesus appeared to Anthony in the form of a tiny child. Passing by the hermitage, the count saw the light shining from the room and St. Anthony holding and communicating with the infant.

The count fell to his knees upon seeing this wondrous sight. And when the vision ended, Anthony saw the count kneeling at the open door. Anthony begged Count Tiso not to reveal what he had seen until after his death.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I think Joe Coleman is a charlatan!

But on a more relevant note, the Infant Jesus is traditionally associated with St. Anthony of Padua. According to tradition/legend, the Infant Jesus appeared to and conversed with St. Anthony. Some details here

Quote from the same link:

Noel, I'm not trying to bash Catholicism here at all, and I think we are on the same page in our opinion of Joe Coleman. But do you see why Jesus appearing as an infant would not make sense to me? I'm sure you can be a devout and obedient Catholic without giving creedance to every tradition or legend.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Noel, I'm not trying to bash Catholicism here at all, and I think we are on the same page in our opinion of Joe Coleman. But do you see why Jesus appearing as an infant would not make sense to me? I'm sure you can be a devout and obedient Catholic without giving creedance to every tradition or legend.

Certainly there is no need to believe any of it but what's wrong with Jesus appearing as an infant? Jesus is so humble, I'm sure he'd have no problem appearing as a vulnerable infant. Maybe it's a reminder of the Incarnation? Maybe we need to be reminded that Jesus was born into this world as a helpless baby and the lived and grew up like the rest of us. He didn't pop into existence one day as a fully grown man. I'm not sure what it means.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

But do you see why Jesus appearing as an infant would not make sense to me?

But Jesus appearing alive after being put to death on the cross does? The idea of the "Holy Family" (including Jesus as infant) is big in the RCC. Plus with the stories of St Christopher etc it seems a tradition almost as old as the church itself.

That all said all this "apparitions" etc is a sign of the times, a reflection of the economic situation. It was predicted a long time ago by my father, just weeks before the tree stump saga. I am sure there will be more such claims in the not too distant future.

prinz

chozometroid wrote: »

I agree and think "baby Jesus" appearances make a mockery of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why would make any more of a mockery than "adult Jesus" appearances? Yet this is exactly what the Bible tells us happened. However Jesus or God want to manifest themselves is no business of mine.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

But Jesus appearing alive after being put to death on the cross does?

Absolutely it does. Jesus ascended into heaven as a man who had been crucified and who was raised from the dead. He will return in a similar manner.

We're not talking about some occultic shape-shifter who appears as a talking sheep one minute and as a beautiful lady in the next. We're talking about God the Son who became incarnate in human flesh and, even after His ascension into heaven, is described in Scripture as "the man Christ Jesus".

When Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration they were men - recognisable. They did not transmogrify themselves into babies or toddlers. When Paul encountered Jesus on the Road to Damascus, Christ did not appear as a baby.

The Bible, and the historic Christian creeds, say that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father making intercession for the saints. Do you think He does this as a disembodied spirit, as a man, or as a baby?

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Certainly there is no need to believe any of it but what's wrong with Jesus appearing as an infant? Jesus is so humble, I'm sure he'd have no problem appearing as a vulnerable infant.

Jesus is no longer a humble servant, but a glorious King! Imagining him as some vulnerable infant may strike some sentimental chord, but it aint Jesus.

iddy

prinz wrote: »

Why would make any more of a mockery than "adult Jesus" appearances?

After rising from the dead Jesus showed himself to be flesh and bone - a real physical man not an apparation. At the incarnation the Son of God, the second person in the trinity, became something he never was before (man) without losing anything he was before (God) - he took on flesh but still remained God.

The amazing thing is that there is now a man in the Godhead.

While Jesus hid his glory (for the most part) during the incarnation He never appeared as something he was not.

Slav

I would not have major problems with visions of images of baby Jesus, at least from a dogmatic point of view. However claiming to see Jesus himself as a baby by anyone expect some 2000 years olds smells a bit heretical to me. The only possible appearance of him now is the same as Mary Magdalene first saw him on the day of His resurrection. Claiming that later He could be seen as an infant unavoidably leads to a conclusion that the body he Had after the resurrection is an illusive one thus somehow denying the bodily resurrection.

iddy

Slav wrote: »

I would not have major problems with visions of images of baby Jesus

Real Blessed Virgin holding image of baby Jesus?

I'm not trying to limit God but the whole thing doesnt add up to me. An atheist I know asked the question why bother with Jesus if his mammy can sort it all out for people? I know he was being flippant but in all these visions Jesus is seen as either an angry tyrant that only his mother can persuade to do good or as an innocent babe in arms that obviously cant do anything but pull on the heart strings.

A far cry from the biblical Jesus.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

We're not talking about some occultic shape-shifter who appears as a talking sheep one minute and as a beautiful lady in the next. We're talking about God the Son who became incarnate in human flesh and, even after His ascension into heaven, is described in Scripture as "the man Christ Jesus".

Jesus is the Word and the Word is eternal no? Then it seems odd that He would be born as a vulnerable baby at all no? With all the power of God on hand why didn't Jesus just appear as a full grown man?

PDN wrote: »

When Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration they were men - recognisable. They did not transmogrify themselves into babies or toddlers. When Paul encountered Jesus on the Road to Damascus, Christ did not appear as a baby.

When Jesus appeared on the road to Emmaus the two men He met were "kept from recognising Him". How do you think that was done? Just a mental block on their part - or could Jesus have actually looked physically different to before? John 21 and Jesus' appearance at Tiberias also suggests to me that He looked differently to before.

PDN wrote: »

The Bible, and the historic Christian creeds, say that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father making intercession for the saints. Do you think He does this as a disembodied spirit, as a man, or as a baby?

I don't know.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

The only possible appearance of him now is the same as Mary Magdalene first saw him on the day of His resurrection. Claiming that later He could be seen as an infant unavoidably leads to a conclusion that the body he Had after the resurrection is an illusive one thus somehow denying the bodily resurrection.

As above. People who saw Jesus after the resurrection had trouble recognising Him. Even Mary Magdalene IIRC mistook Jesus for somebody else until He spoke to her. How are we to know what He looked like in that form? Seems odd to think that the people closest to Jesus would not notice it was Him?

iddy wrote: »

While Jesus hid his glory (for the most part) during the incarnation He never appeared as something he was not.

Yes but the incarnation is over, and in Him all things are possible. He could take any form He wished surely?

prinz

Slav wrote: »

Claiming that later He could be seen as an infant unavoidably leads to a conclusion that the body he Had after the resurrection is an illusive one thus somehow denying the bodily resurrection.

The fact that Jesus could instantaneously appear in the middle of a locked room as His resurrected body suggests to me that His body after resurrection is not confined to our laws of physics and time etc.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

Yes but the incarnation is over, and in Him all things are possible. He could take any form He wished surely?

I haven't got time to look this up right now (someone else might want to do so) but I'm pretty sure that the classic Christian position, and that held by the Catholic Church, is that the Incarnation is not over. Jesus ascended into heaven in His resurrected glorified body and did not cease to be human. He is still 'the man Christ Jesus'.

Slav

iddy wrote: »

Real Blessed Virgin holding image of baby Jesus?

Same applies to the Virgin Mary as well. If it's a cloud in we sky that we see it can only be an image at best; otherwise it brings even more suspicious.

prinz wrote: »

As above. People who saw Jesus after the resurrection had trouble recognising Him. Even Mary Magdalene IIRC mistook Jesus for somebody else until He spoke to her. How are we to know what He looked like in that form? Seems odd to think that the people closest to Jesus would not notice it was Him?

prinz wrote: »

The fact that Jesus could instantaneously appear in the middle of a locked room as His resurrected body suggests to me that His body after resurrection is not confined to our laws of physics and time etc.

From the Gospels we know that that he did not look identical to what he was before the death but at the same time everybody He met then did recognise Jesus in Him.
However it does not matter what He looked like then. We know for sure that he did not look like a baby but was an adult; if he can also have a baby body that it can mean only 2 things: these bodies are phantoms or after the resurrection humans can be given more then one body. Both claims seem very unbiblical to me.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

From the Gospels we know that that he did not look identical to what he was before the death but at the same time everybody He met then did recognise Jesus in Him.
However it does not matter what He looked like then. We know for sure that he did not look like a baby but was an adult; if he can also have a baby body that it can mean only 2 things: these bodies are phantoms or after the resurrection humans can be given more then one body. Both claims seem very unbiblical to me.

If He can have two different adult bodies what does that say?

Jesus wasn't completely human so applying human rules and regulations post-resurrection is irrelevant. These bodies are phantoms, dust to dust and all that. If we are to rise again in these bodies - what age will they be? What if I die when I'm 90.. will my body rise up as a 90 year old's confined to human frailties etc? Will I be 25 again?

all the stars

chozometroid wrote: »

I agree and think "baby Jesus" appearances make a mockery of our Lord Jesus Christ.

why?
Surely as he's meant to be a supreme eternal being he can appear however he likes?
I mean - if i was a god, and i could return however i saw fit, i'd probably change it up a bit. (not being smarty-pants here)

Slav

prinz wrote: »

If He can have two different adult bodies what does that say?

Same. It's either one and the only body or it's unbiblical.

Jesus wasn't completely human so applying human rules and regulations post-resurrection is irrelevant.

Actually, is it the mainstream Christianity we are talking about?

These bodies are phantoms, dust to dust and all that. If we are to rise again in these bodies - what age will they be? What if I die when I'm 90.. will my body rise up as a 90 year old's confined to human frailties etc? Will I be 25 again?

People will be resurrected in their new bodies. I see nothing wrong with the view that the new bodies will be fully developed and free of any imperfections. I see nothing wrong with the idea of all resurrecting in bodies similar to the one of Jesus' and at the age of Christ -- no matter what age one died, be it 100 years or in the mother's womb or whether one had some body imperfections during the life. The question what the new bodies will look like is an interesting one on its own but it's probably irrelevant to this discussion. However the idea that the resurrected bodies are not real or that upon resurrection we are given a wardrobe full of different bodies we can "wear" as we like would lack biblical support I guess.

Of course we can say that the body of Christ that Mary Magdalene or apostles saw and the baby body of Jesus that someone saw later is essentially the very same body: it only had different appearance to the observers. This theory could be OK but it brings another problem. We know very little about the nature of the new bodies and at the same time we are insisting that it has a certain property: the body is able to change appearance. A very serious claim without any foundation for it and all this only to accommodate some questionable visions?

prinz

Slav wrote: »

Same. It's either one and the only body or it's unbiblical.

If it was the one body then why didn't His closest friends and colleagues recognise Him? Plastic surgery? Obviously something was different about His physical appearance. If Jesus could only use the body he was crucified through then surely people would recognise Him, my point being Jesus was able to alter his appearance or other's perception of Him, therefore moving on from that I see no reason why the resurrected Jesus couldn't also appear to someone as a child, or any age for that matter.

Slav wrote: »

Actually, is it the mainstream Christianity we are talking about?

I suppose, but in mainstream Christianity I thought one of the central points was that all things were possible to God/Jesus. Why then are people saying He couldn't possibly appear as a child because He was an adult when He was resurrected. Like I said, IMO Jesus is outside our time, space and physics, therefore the age He got to here, 33 or thereabouts is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know, ignore me if you wish. Just throwing some ideas around in my own head as much as anything. Just found it odd that people would say any outward appearance Jesus wishes to take makes a mockery of Him. Perhaps Jesus has His own reasons for taking a different appearance to others, perhaps He doesn't physically change at all but "influences" witnesses into seeing something else.

Slav wrote: »

However the idea that the resurrected bodies are not real or that upon resurrection we are given a wardrobe full of different bodies we can "wear" as we like would lack biblical support I guess.

You seem to be equating us post-resurrection with Jesus.

Slav wrote: »

A very serious claim without any foundation for it and all this only to accommodate some questionable visions?

I would call it just as questionable to say Jesus couldn't possibly appear at any age he wishes. I have no comprehension of what Jesus can and can't do. If He wants to appear to some as the infant child more power to Him. Saying He died at 33 therefore He has to appear in that form and body for evermore is a bit simplistic in my book.

Slav

prinz wrote: »

If it was the one body then why didn't His closest friends and colleagues recognise Him?

One new body. Sorry if I did not make it clear.

Jesus was able to alter his appearance or other's perception of Him, therefore moving on from that I see no reason why the resurrected Jesus couldn't also appear to someone as a child, or any age for that matter.

He could no problem. If the biblical records were describing his resurrected body was one of an infant or an elder that would be perfectly fine too.

I suppose, but in mainstream Christianity I thought one of the central points was that all things were possible to God/Jesus.

I asked this question in relation to you saying that "Jesus wasn't completely human". This is clearly not the mainstream Christianity.

Why then are people saying He couldn't possibly appear as a child because He was an adult when He was resurrected.

Not because He was adult when resurrected but because He was resurrected as an adult, not as a child.

You seem to be equating us post-resurrection with Jesus.

To a certain extent it's true. Everything that is applicable to His human nature should also be applicable to us.

Saying He died at 33 therefore He has to appear in that form and body for evermore is a bit simplistic in my book.

Did anybody say that He had to appear as a 33 years old only because He died at 33?

prinz

Slav wrote: »

He could no problem. If the biblical records were describing his resurrected body was one of an infant or an elder that would be perfectly fine too.

Well that's my point, Jesus could if He wanted to. Yet see the answers to the OP below...

Slav wrote: »

I asked this question in relation to you saying that "Jesus wasn't completely human". This is clearly not the mainstream Christianity.

Apologies for confusion but I meant in the manner that you and I are completely human. Jesus was also divine, so in allowing Himself to appear to others after the resurrection he is not constrained as we are to one age/appearance/form.

Slav wrote: »

Not because He was adult when resurrected but because He was resurrected as an adult, not as a child.

But Jesus is ageless and timeless.

Slav wrote: »

Did anybody say that He had to appear as a 33 years old only because He died at 33?

Answers to the OP seem to suggest exactly that..

iddy wrote: »

When Jesus died and went to heaven he was a man… there is no baby Jesus anymore!

chozometroid wrote: »

I agree and think "baby Jesus" appearances make a mockery of our Lord Jesus Christ.

PDN wrote: »

I'd never thought of that before. It would seem to be a very good point. Who is the baby?

PDN wrote: »

But do you see why Jesus appearing as an infant would not make sense to me?

Slav

prinz wrote: »

Well that's my point, Jesus could if He wanted to. Yet see the answers to the OP below...

He could but did not. Reading the Bible we can conclude that His resurrected body was a body of an adult man. Hence the answers to the OP...

But Jesus is ageless and timeless.

Strictly speaking, God the Son is but not Jesus Christ as there were times when Jesus had not been born yet and therefore God the Son did not have human nature. Check iddy's post #11 in this thread.

Answers to the OP seem to suggest exactly that..

As far as I understand they are saying (at least PDN and iddy I think) that His resurrected body could not be an infant one because He had already been seen resurrected as an adult.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

He could but did not. Reading the Bible we can conclude that His resurrected body was a body of an adult man. Hence the answers to the OP...

An adult male who either (a) is a different body/man or (b) Jesus could somehow influence the witnesses so that they did not recognise Him until He let them. If Jesus has the power over how witnesses see Him then I see no reason why couldn't/wouldn't appear as a younger version of Himself if he so chose. Not everything is in the Bible. Again I will go back to Saint Christopher, who carried the child, an only afterwards when began speaking to the child did Chris realise he was talking to Jesus. Sounds very similar to me to all the accounts in the Bible where people did not recognise Him until He spoke/chose to reveal His true identity.

Slav wrote: »

As far as I understand they are saying (at least PDN and iddy I think) that His resurrected body could not be an infant one because He had already been seen resurrected as an adult.

But this is where I am coming from, if He had been resurrected in the one body of Jesus as man, the other witnesses would have recognised Jesus. Unless there is some unwritten rule which says He could only appear as an adult male in the same age group He was in at time of the resurrection. His resurrected body ascended into heaven, after He had appeared to Mary Magdalene, the disciples, the apostles etc. If He was risen from the dead but had yet to ascend then I can see the logic that He should have the same body. After ascension I just feel that if Jesus wished to come back to appear to someone He could choose any form He saw fit and wanted. As a child seems apt given the attention Jesus gave to children during His ministry.

Perhaps the way He manifests Himself is dependant on the witness He wants to appear to. I.E. to the disciples on the road to Emmaus they were probably far more likely to talk to and accompany a fellow adult male traveller. Someone else may have a greater affinity with a younger person, or an older person etc. St Christopher was hardly likely to take a full grown man on his shoulders across a river, a child maybe.

Puck

Is anyone else thinking of the prayer scene from Talladega Nights?

"He was a man, he had a beard!"

chozometroid

all the stars wrote: »

why?
Surely as he's meant to be a supreme eternal being he can appear however he likes?
I mean - if i was a god, and i could return however i saw fit, i'd probably change it up a bit. (not being smarty-pants here)

The problem is that baby Jesus represents a Jesus that did not die for our sins, conquer death, and rise again. Satan would like Jesus to stay a baby, and IMO, probably would prefer us to worship this version of Christ.
The real Jesus Christ is the risen Savior, Almighty Conquerer, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Babies know nothing and have accomplished nothing. Satan tempted Christ the man, not the baby.

Gulliver

prinz wrote: »

...It was predicted a long time ago by my father, just weeks before the tree stump saga. I am sure there will be more such claims in the not too distant future.

Your father's predictions are more accurate than Joe Coleman's!

prinz

Gulliver wrote: »

Your father's predictions are more accurate than Joe Coleman's!

A cynical old codger :pac: He was indirectly involved in the Ballinspittle case of nearly 25 years ago. Concluded at the time that there was a direct link between the economy and sightings, apparitions and the likes. It was only about a fortnight later the tree stump sighting hit the headlines. Cue lots of self satisfied chuckling from the ol' fella.

Slav

prinz wrote: »

An adult male who either (a) is a different body/man or (b) Jesus could somehow influence the witnesses so that they did not recognise Him until He let them.

But they all did recognise him. There was something in His appearance that they attributed to His personality as they new Him before Calvary.

If Jesus has the power over how witnesses see Him then I see no reason why couldn't/wouldn't appear as a younger version of Himself if he so chose.

The point of His appearance to the disciples is to convince them that the resurrection is real and that His body is real. Appearing before them in many different forms/ages/whatever would hardly serve the goal.

Not everything is in the Bible.

Not everything, but this particular bit is described in details.

Again I will go back to Saint Christopher

I would not. The story of St Christopher carrying a baby Jesus is very likely to be about 1000 year older then the saint himself. The story is missing in his hagiography in Eastern and Oriental churches, even RCC recognised them as not very reliable not long ago.

But this is where I am coming from, if He had been resurrected in the one body of Jesus as man, the other witnesses would have recognised Jesus.

As as said the people who really knew Him did recognise Him.

Unless there is some unwritten rule which says He could only appear as an adult male in the same age group He was in at time of the resurrection

There is no such written rule. Same (as I said before) there won't be a problem if he resurrected as a child and everyone saw Him as a child then. However if we assume that the resurrected body can be changed for another body or the same body can have very different appearance depending on the observer (and therefore be subjective) then at least a good half of Christianity has to be reconsidered.

After ascension I just feel that if Jesus wished to come back to appear to someone He could choose any form He saw fit and wanted.

Are you suggesting that post ascension body should be different?

Perhaps the way He manifests Himself is dependant on the witness He wants to appear to. I.E. to the disciples on the road to Emmaus they were probably far more likely to talk to and accompany a fellow adult male traveller. Someone else may have a greater affinity with a younger person, or an older person etc.

We are getting back to where we have started from. Was the post resurrected body real or it just looked like a real body?

St Christopher was hardly likely to take a full grown man on his shoulders across a river, a child maybe.

Actually according to those legends St Christopher was a giant and that was his duty to help people cross the river. But again these stories cannot be taken seriously.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

But they all did recognise him. There was something in His appearance that they attributed to His personality as they new Him before Calvary..

Except that didn't... Mary Magdalene only 'recognised' Jesus after he spoke her name, the two on the road to Emmaus only 'recognised' Jesus after they sat down to a meal, and in Tiberias, they 'recognised' Jesus, yet still didn't actually ask if it was Him..

Slav wrote: »

The point of His appearance to the disciples is to convince them that the resurrection is real and that His body is real. Appearing before them in many different forms/ages/whatever would hardly serve the goal.

So why didn't so many of His nearest and dearest recognise Him immediately?

Slav wrote: »

Not everything, but this particular bit is described in details.

And the details say He wasn't recognised straight away by some, until it was made clear to the witnesses.

Slav wrote: »

I would not. The story of St Christopher carrying a baby Jesus is very likely to be about 1000 year older then the saint himself. The story is missing in his hagiography in Eastern and Oriental churches, even RCC recognised them as not very reliable not long ago.

That's fair enough. Anything to support this 1000 year figure? Or was that pulled from the sky?

Slav wrote: »

As as said the people who really knew Him did recognise Him..

Mary Magdalene didn't at first. Disciples didn't, depsite travelling and talking with Him...the apostles seemed to have difficulty...

Slav wrote: »

There is no such written rule. Same (as I said before) there won't be a problem if he resurrected as a child and everyone saw Him as a child then. However if we assume that the resurrected body can be changed for another body or the same body can have very different appearance depending on the observer (and therefore be subjective) then at least a good half of Christianity has to be reconsidered.

As above.

Slav wrote: »

Are you suggesting that post ascension body should be different?

No, I am suggesting it could be different. I am also suggesting that people who witness the resurrected Jesus might be influenced to see something 'different' to His actual earthly body.

Slav wrote: »

We are getting back to where we have started from. Was the post resurrected body real or it just looked like a real body?

Good question. I have no idea. Like I said IMO Jesus operates outside the confines of our notion of physics. Perhaps He can manifest into physically present matter - as in the case of Thomas, when Jesus allowed Himself to be touched. Note that with Mary Magdalene IIRC He specifically requested not to be physically touched. Personally I don't know.

Slav

prinz wrote: »

Except that didn't... Mary Magdalene only 'recognised' Jesus after he spoke her name, the two on the road to Emmaus only 'recognised' Jesus after they sat down to a meal, and in Tiberias, they 'recognised' Jesus, yet still didn't actually ask if it was Him..

No, they did recognise him. Would they believe that it's Jesus in front of them if there was nothing that they could recognise as belonging to Jesus? From the Bible we can only make a conclusion that His appearance was different so they could not recognise him that very moment they saw him. At the same time there was something (His personality) that preserved in His resurrected body so once recognised they had no doubt that it's Jesus (except Thomas but that's a different story).

That's fair enough. Anything to support this 1000 year figure? Or was that pulled from the sky?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the earliest source telling us the story of St Christopher carrying baby Jesus is Legenda Sanctorum by Jacobus de Voragine composed in the 13th century.

Good question. I have no idea. Like I said IMO Jesus operates outside the confines of our notion of physics. Perhaps He can manifest into physically present matter - as in the case of Thomas, when Jesus allowed Himself to be touched. Note that with Mary Magdalene IIRC He specifically requested not to be physically touched. Personally I don't know.

OK, I see. For me it does not look like a mainstream Christianity after all. If we accept the possibility that after resurrection the body only could look like a real one then you are absolutely right: there is nothing wrong in visions of the real baby Jesus from the theological point of view.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

No, they did recognise him. Would they believe that it's Jesus in front of them if there was nothing that they could recognise as belonging to Jesus? From the Bible we can only make a conclusion that His appearance was different so they could not recognise him that very moment they saw him. At the same time there was something (His personality) that preserved in His resurrected body so once recognised they had no doubt that it's Jesus (except Thomas but that's a different story).

They did, but they didn't..
OK, so you admit they did recognise Jesus...just not physically at first..... which is exactly what I am saying ... if it was the same physical body that they had just seen buried days before you'd think Mary Magdalene might recognise it no?, but it was Jesus' spirit that she recognised, when He spoke to her.

Slav wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but the earliest source telling us the story of St Christopher carrying baby Jesus is Legenda Sanctorum by Jacobus de Voragine composed in the 13th century.

Which would make the story 1000 younger than St Christopher.

Slav wrote: »

OK, I see. For me it does not look like a mainstream Christianity after all. If we accept the possibility that after resurrection the body only could look like a real one then you are absolutely right: there is nothing wrong in visions of the real baby Jesus from the theological point of view.

Why what else would a resurrected body look like? Seems to me I am not the one staking that claim. It's others here who seem to believe the resurrected body could only look identical to the body which was taken down from the cross. If we can believe from the Bible that Jesus can appear in a different adult body, then it's not that much of a stretch to accept that Jesus can appear in a body of any age.

Slav

prinz wrote: »

but it was Jesus' spirit that she recognised, when He spoke to her.

I don't think it fits very well into Christian Anthropology. All physical aspects of a person are considered to belong to his/her body. You cannot see spirit with your eyes or hear it with your ears.

Which would make the story 1000 younger than St Christopher.

Of course. Sorry, I meant younger in post #31.

If we can believe from the Bible that Jesus can appear in a different adult body, then it's not that much of a stretch to accept that Jesus can appear in a body of any age.

It's not a problem if His resurrected body is one of a child or an adult. If however the body is of a child and of an adult at the same time or there are more then one resurrected bodies then it would have problems with Christian understanding of resurrection I guess.

prinz

Slav wrote: »

At the same time there was something (His personality) that preserved in His resurrected body so once recognised they had no doubt that it's Jesus...

Slav wrote: »

I don't think it fits very well into Christian Anthropology. All physical aspects of a person are considered to belong to his/her body. You cannot see spirit with your eyes or hear it with your ears..

Can you recognise someone's personality even if they look physically different?

Slav wrote: »

From the Bible we can only make a conclusion that His appearance was different so they could not recognise him that very moment they saw him.

So you agree the conclusion can be made that Jesus' appearance had changed. Why can we agree that His physical appearance can change... and yet people on the thread have argued that Jesus must still have the resurrected body that was crucified. Unless upon resurrection we all get to look like Brad Pitt or something, I don't see why Jesus would look any different except by His own will. From that I gather that if Jesus wanted to appear as a child, it is within His abilities to do so.

Slav

prinz wrote: »

Can you recognise someone's personality even if they look physically different?

I suppose so. Say, a guy could have a plastic surgery, lost 5 stones, have now a beard and a different style haircut. I have a very bad facial memory so I think I'll be struggling recognising him. At the same time something that is not directly related to his appearance, like the way he laughs or stuffs and lights his pipe might remind me of him.
Sometimes a serious illness can change human appearance dramatically so it's only something intangible in their look, something you cannot really describe, that makes you believe it's the same person you knew.

At the same time we would not have a problem identifying twins if we knew them well even if their physical bodies look very similar if not identical to us.

As for the pre- and post- resurrection bodies I would use the word transfigured. If you take Eastern iconography as an example it's the transfigured body that it's usually trying to depict. For instance, attached is a photograph and an icon of a boy (who died at the age of 13).

PDN

I think a bit much has been made of the disciples on the road to Emmaus not recognising Jesus. In Luke 24:16 it is specifically stated that "their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him" (οι δε οφθαλμοι αυτων εκρατουντο του μη επιγνωναι αυτον). This would indicate that the lack of recognition was more due to an act of God rather than being down to any change in His appearence.

Then, in verse 31, it says, "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him." - indicating that whatever had prevented them from recognising Him was now removed.

To use this to then argue that Jesus should start appearing in various shapes or forms, such as a baby, seems to me to be a classic case of reading one's own ideas into Scripture instead of examining what Scripture actually does say.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

To use this to then argue that Jesus should start appearing in various shapes or forms, such as a baby, seems to me to be a classic case of reading one's own ideas into Scripture instead of examining what Scripture actually does say.

I think limiting God's powers to 'rules and regulations' would be an equal folly. IMO there's no such thing as 'God can't...', even if it is based on 'God can't because it doesn't stipulate exactly that in the Bible'.

As you say the lack of recognition was an act of God. Therefore God can influence how people saw Jesus, why is it not possible therefore that God could, for whatever reason, influence people to see the child Jesus?

Soul Winner

I think we can all agree that God can appear in any form that he wishes, burning bushes and so on, but we must be careful about mother and child appearances. That imagery does not have it's foundation in the Bible and it's certainly not New Testament. It has its origns in pagan mythology and can be traced back to Ancient Babylon and Egypt. I don't doubt that Jesus could I just doubt that Jesus would reveal Himself in this way considering how much damage has been done to the truth of Christianity by the grafting on of paganism into the Chruch.

Good peice on the origins of Mother and Child worship from ABCOG.com:

"Dr. J. D. Fulton: The Lady of Roman Catholic Mariology is not even an invention of Roman Catholicism, but an adoption of a pagan conception which cursed Babylon, the prototype of the modern Babylon, centuries before Christ appeared as the son of Mary. Pictures of the mother and child were then worshiped. In almost all the devotional books of the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of God is crowned, sceptred and enthroned as the Queen of heaven. ["She has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth", Pius IX, 1854, but not made "official" till 1954 by Pius XII.] "I can never," said the Rev. M. Hobart Seymour, in his Evenings with the Romanists, page 254, "forget the shock I received when I first saw in their churches in Italy, the Virgin Mary crowned as Queen of heaven, seated on the same throne with Jesus crowned King of heaven. These were the God-man and God-woman enthroned alike. There was nothing to distinguish the one above the other."

More here

Plus from benabraham.com

"....That son, though represented as a child in his mother's arms, was a person of great stature and immense bodily powers, as well as most fascinating manners. In Scripture he is referred to (Ezek. 8:14) under the name of Tammuz...'The Lamented One.' " (The Two Babylons, pp. 14, 20, 21). Now let us turn to Ezekiel 8:12-14 and see this information applied to Israel in Scripture: "Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? For they say, The Lord seeth us not...He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz."

Again more here

Satan is the great imitator and will deceive many with false doctrines before the end we are warned to be steadfast and to keep watch lest we also be tossed to and from with every wind of doctrine.