Would Jesus have known who he was as a baby?

[FloralGums]

I was pondering this following a sermon at Midnight Mass.
Was he a totally human baby or do you think he was more than that? Was he sentient?
I was thinking of the visit of the shepherd and Magi, and the flight from Herod and if he was aware.
When do you think he became aware of his true self?
I was hoping there might be someone knowledgeable or with some insights from clerical training or something.

For clarity (incase this comes up in Active) I am posting this on Christian Mumsnetters, which is primarily intended for the use of Christians. Yes I am aware it the internet and anyone can post etc etc but I am not interested in atheists posting about sky fairies or flying spaghetti monsters so won’t be responding to those posts. Feel free to start your own discussion on Philosophy/Religion.

Two things are not the same if one has missing content or one has extra content. I'll keep saying it because it's true. Why are you so defensive about this?

They're not different in the two Bibles. It's how they've been presented in the liturgy of Catholics and Protestants that's different.

Are you deliberately misreading posts?
They're intepreted differently, as are lots of parts of the bibles, and there is no absolute right or wrong!

The bible is so much more than a literal handbook. It has been translated and copied uncountable times, and recorded from oral tradition. It was remembered and written across many cultures. Men argued and beheaded each other over it. There were schisms that have left us with Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant and more. There’s been a lot of politicking that’s shaped the bible.

So I read it with discernment and reflection listening for the spirit and in company with other Christians.

And I do not ever pronounce what the word of God is, who is right, what the definitive truth is. We won’t know that until we are face to face with Him.

Anglicans actually use several readings from the Apocrypha in their lectionary. The authorised (King James version) had a translation of it from 1611. The 39 articles says they aren't canonica(I think they are in Roman Catholicism) They say that they are useful for instruction in 'life and manners' but can't be used to establish doctrine.
Other Protestant churches following the Westminster confession have different views.

There are so many branches of Christianity . Lots of differences in theology.Without these differences we wouldn't have the long history of schisms. I find it very hard to envisage a discussion board for professing Christians encompassing all varieties whilst rigidly avoiding any theological discussion.
The original topic seems to have been lost but this was theological (Christological) I suspect a Coptic Orthodox theologian and a Calvinist would answer dufferently and there would bev very different answers from Unitarians.

(Thought about changing name, my nom de plume, Alice was definitely a sectarian)

That's what I said. You're telling me I'm wrong and then saying the same thing I said using different words.

I just wanted to clarify that the rest of the Bible is the same for each. So Matthew's gospel in one will be the same as in the other.

Apart from when it isn't. (Matthew 17:21)

I have a question. Someone above said we can't 'pick and choose' biblical passages. Does that include Leviticus?

I’m not a fan of beating children. Or stoning witches. I could get behind cheeky teenagers being eaten by bears, though… 😉

I think it's more that we have to take the Bible as a whole and place things in their proper context. So you don't 'pick and choose' in the sense of leaving out bits we don't like but for example with Leviticus, the majority of that was never intended for non-Jewish people to follow anyway. So it's part of our Scripture and not dismissed in any way but obviously a) most Christians are Gentiles and b) we believe Jesus provided us with a new way to relate to God, by fulfilling the Law in Himself (among other things).

This is exactly what we do at my Church. We read a passage and then discuss the wider context, and what it might mean in today's world. (Not on a Sunday, where we have a more traditional approach, although we might discuss it after the service)

Leviticus contains a lot of the ceremonial law which Jesus fulfilled when he came, and which no longer applies. In Acts we are specifically told that circumcision and food laws are no longer required.

Leviticus is interesting in a historical context for Gentiles because we can see the laws God gave to his people. Those were in effect when Jesus came, and in Acts we can see how the disciples wrestled with the fact that some wanted those Laws to stay in effect as well as the new teachings of Jesus; should Gentiles be required to be circumcised for example. This was addressed in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15).

For me, studying the OT has made much of the NT a lot clearer.

I read the first page (50 posts) and the last two, and don't really want to wade through all the dispute.

But that you, OP, for an interesting question. Like some others, I'd be inclined to think the incident in the Temple - Jesus' Bar Mitzvah - marks the time he started to come to understanding of his role and nature.

St Francis introduced a bigger emphasis on Christ's suffering on the cross and on the nativity than had been there earlier (in the western church at least). Before that Christ's Kingship and Majesty were seen as key to understanding him.

I know that when my father's dementia tipped from mild confusion into total dependency and helplessness, the Christmas crib, that I'd loved since childhood, developed a whole new depth of meaning for me. The helpless baby Jesus, vulnerable, unable to speak or move unaided, totally dependent on others for all physical needs, became a symbol of human suffering, in infancy, illness and old age, as never before. And a reminder of how I as a Christian should live with those who need care, whether they see or recognise me or not - the way I treat them is the way I treat him.

Thank you again, and Happy New Year.

Sorry, there are no contradictions in the Word of God

We had the Baptism from Luke this week. I've been pondering about the way Jesus' relationship with John and with his mother must have been key ways for him to come to an understanding of himself - not just his divine nature, but also what being human and living in a body means.

And then John's prediction/prophesy, then that voice from heaven. Everything charged with wonder and hope, all in a moment.

Isn't that amazing @DeanElderberry ?