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.

As I said, I agree that this is not the place for theological or historiographic discussion. All I wanted to say was that there is no academic consensus for the reality of Jesus. Happy to explain further somewhere else.

It bothers me that anyone would arbitrate what is and isn’t up for respectful discussion. Christianity is as a PP said, a fairly broad church. Christians interpret scriptures, church tradition and history differently.

Certainly, not all Christian’s would agree that God disapproves of homosexuality. I’m not suggesting it’s debated here, but it simply wouldn’t be true to make that claim.

It may be more helpful to wonder what we know/believe about Jesus that influences the question.

For example, we believe he experienced emotions as we do- loss, grief, joy, surprise… so he must have experienced the entire gamut of growing from a clueless infant amazed by a game of peepo, to a twelve year old that amazed rabbis with his wisdom. At some point he transitions between the two.

What a shame such an interesting question has been deliberately sidetracked. I honestly don't think we truly understand what ordinary babies comprehend, so how much harder to wrap our heads around what Jesus may have understood. Horrifyingly, only a few decades ago, it was believed that babies didn't feel pain. Now we know that's a pile of bollocks, and there is much effort to ameliorate painful experience in preterm and sick neonates. I've witnessed a baby as preterm as 24 weeks show positive response (improved heart rate and blood pressure) to the sound of a parent's voice. There have been studies showing that in the first days of a sick baby's life, an object marked with the scent of their mother is soothing. If an incredibly sick mortal baby can identify familiar voices and scent, can respond positively to comforting touch and negatively to painful stimuli, how much is going on inside those heads? And if we can't even answer that, how can we answer this question. Animals think on some level, and do so without language. How much of what we recognise as human cognition is dependent upon language? I talk therefore I think. It clearly can't all be based on language as there are many nonverbal children who are clearly thinking in their own ways. Is it by imagery? So could Jesus have known who he was before he had developed language skills? Or could he have had a nonverbal unformed image or connection? Okay, now my head hurts.

Great post! Yes those are very good points and I hadn't even thought about imagery. It's entirely possible. I suppose we'll never know but it's fascinating.

Yeshua is the Hebrew and Aramaic name for Jesus. It is a common name among Jewish people in the first century and is still used today by some Christians and Jews. The name Yeshua is derived from the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "God is salvation."
While there are no explicit Roman records specifically detailing the crucifixion of Jesus, there are notable mentions of Jesus by Roman historians in his Annals, written around AD 116, Tacitus mentions "Christus," who was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. This confirms the basic historical fact that Jesus was a real person who was executed by the Roman authorities.In his Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius briefly mentions that Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome "since they constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." This "Chrestus" is likely a reference to Jesus, and it suggests that early Christianity had spread to Rome during Claudius's reign.In a letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny describes how Christians were being persecuted in Bithynia. He mentions that they would worship Christ as God and would refuse to participate in Roman religious rituals.

It's important to note that although these Roman sources don't provide specific details about Jesus's crucifixion, they do confirm his existence and execution by Roman authorities, which aligns with the accounts in the New Testament.

@LetThemEatFake
A masters in Theology tends to give me a reasonable authority. Specific focus in the German schools of theology of the 19th century, but also the modern concept of Process Theology and the person of Christ in a post Quantum paradigm.
Basic scholars:
C.H. Dodds
Albert Schweitzer
Karl Barth
Alister McGrath
A.N Whitehead

Any others you care to add to trump these highly regarded academics?

I'm so glad this thread is back on track - I have learned a lot from the knowledgable posts about the historical background of Jesus's life.

So there wasn't a man known as Jesus as I said. And somebody writing about something that is rumoured to have happened 100 years ago is not confirmation of anything. The accounts of the New Testament were written much later than that of course so are even more unreliable.

The accounts of the New Testament were written much later than that of course so are even more unreliable.

No they weren't. None of them are thought to be later than approx 110 CE and used earlier sources. Mark is probably from c. 66-70 CE.

ETA the very clever lecturer who had the misfortune to teach me the Synoptic Gospels (and Greek) felt strongly that Mark contains eyewitness testimony of some events, poss from Peter. Lots of linguistic clues.

I apologise. I'm falling into the trap of arguing the points of Biblical history on a board that it wasn't meant for. Sincere apologies to those who post here to discuss the practice of their Christian faith and have been upset by events over the last couple of days.

Bart Ehrman
Reza Aslan
Richard Carrier

I'm not sure what stage babies are aware, but my oldest was a very articulate toddler and occasionally amazed me by what she remembered and understood.

The specific one I remember was when she was about 21 months, in July. She didn't go to nursery, and I was with her so would have known if Christmas had been discussed.
Through the door came a catalogue, which she picked up, and on the back was a photo of a Christmas tree. She'd have been nearly 14 months at her last Christmas, and (back in the days) the film hadn't been developed of the photos so she wouldn't have seen any - relatives were too far away for it to be them showing them either.

She sat down and stared at the photo. She then pointed to it and said "Christmas tree". She then got up and went to where our tree had been and said "it was here" and started talking about the last Christmas, really accurate memories, like having an orange with a candle and what she wore, and how Uncle A had dropped his cake, Aunty B had sat with a pile of cushions on the stool because it was too low and silly little memories like that that we definitely hadn't talked about, and were all correct.

Now she doesn't remember it, nor does have a particularly good memory - we were talking yesterday about memories and I commented that dh can hardly remember anything before secondary, whereas I have a number of clear memories from when I was 3yo, and she said she has only very vague memories at infant school and earlier.

So I concluded that actually babies do have a much better understanding and knowledge than we give them credit for. It was only because she was a good talker (she couldn't have even said "Christmas" at 14 months) that she was able to tell me these things.

So maybe He did have some knowledge, even as a small baby.

Without getting MN to define this board with some kind of Affirmation of Faith, we are always going to encounter differences of interpretation on this board. (Of course MN wouldn’t/ couldn’t do that anyway!)

I think we’re going to have to live with them - and pray through them.

I've found this thread really interesting. Both the original question, and the comments following. I think I've realised that I'm a totally different "type of Christian" as I didn't find most of the questions/ comments disrespectful at all. Off topic maybe. In fact, how Jesus would be seen and treated today (most likely as a mentally unwell man) is something we've discussed at home group.

I do think that referring to "sky fairies" and the like is unnecessary, but questioning what we believe and why not so much. But not on this thread!

A local church has a sign up in their car park saying something along the lines of:
"If you park here, then we will pray for you".
Tbf I've always found that rather encouraging to park there and may have left a prayer request on the dashboard but apparently it is quite effective at stopping non-believers at parking there.
I'm not quite sure why, because surely if you don't believe, then you shouldn't care whether you are prayed for or not, because you think it shouldn't make any difference. So if someone objects to being prayed for, then they must deep down believe it could make a difference.

So maybe we can have the same thing. A notice that anyone making offensive/derisive comments will be prayed for. We could have a Wednesday evening online prayer group for this. 😁

You don't seem to understand that Yeshua was later translated into English as Jesus The earliest writings are Paul’s letters, starting around AD 50, about 20 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gospels were written next, between AD 65 and AD 95, based on eyewitness accounts and oral traditions. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century. This timeline shows that the New Testament was written during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, giving credibility to its historical reliability.
Could you please verify the facts before making assertions?

This reminds me of a Christian charity shop that we used to have with a sign saying "breakages must be paid for. Thieves will be prayed for"

Based on some of my (very lovely) non Christian friends and family, the threat of being prayed for will send them running speedily 😂

I'm an ex-christian and honestly think folk can pray for whoever or whatever they like - it's nobody else's business. My only issue is that I have seen it used passive aggressively in an attempt to shut down debate, that's not helpful.

I've seen one church where it has a minister's parking space with 'you park; you preach' which keeps the space for someone rushing between services with a sermon to deliver.

We can ask Him when we are with Him in His kingdom. 😊

People can feel massively shamed at being perceived as needing prayer for poor parking etiquette!

There’s no possible doubt about the existence of a radical disruptor around that time who was deified by his followers, who went on to cause disruption to the authorities.

The only doubt would be, to paraphrase CSLewis, whether Jesus was divine, a lunatic who thinks he’s a fried egg, or a devil.

I love the point about babies and imagery. I wonder whether they are limited by language as much as they are released by it to more complex thoughts.

Jesus’s teachings emphasised personal repentance, love, forgiveness, and the coming of God’s Kingdom. While these ideas challenged some social and religious views, they were not aimed at overthrowing political systems or inciting rebellion. His focus was on individual transformation, not collective uprising. This was unlike people like Barabbas or the Zealots who led violent revolts against Rome, Jesus rejected violence, as shown when he said, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). His ministry was small, local to Galilee and Judea, and his followers were mostly marginalised people. Although he had conflicts with religious leaders, there is no evidence of his actions disrupting the broader political or social structures. To the Romans, he seemed like a minor figure compared to the other insurgents.

@MargaretThursday now there's an idea.....

“ oh my christ” as Pamela from gavin and Stacey would say !

I offer my sincere apologies , it was not my intention to cause offence

I am a gay autistic bi polar woman and I do believe Jesus was these things too ( at least I hope he was)

my devout catholic wife does not agree with me but understands my reasoning
he was a historical figure with evidence of things he did and said / there is no proof that he wasn’t these things !

why can’t he be these things ? Gay bi polar autistic people have existed since the dawn of time

I find it very upsetting that you are offended by this suggestion , certainly the gay Jesus has been discussed many times he was a maverick so not un reasonable or possibly on the spectrum ?

some of the most compassionate and big hearted people I have ever known have lived with mental health struggles

it’s my way of coping with my struggles to relate to Jesus/ God as if made in my image -
literally made in my image

i have wonderful friends and co workers who are Muslim and Jewish who I often have biblical intellectual conversations with and have given my opinion to them and we have discussed it and looked at evidence from the bible
not once have they reacted the way some of you have , laughed at me for sure , that’s fine I am not a serious person ! but they have taken what I say in good humour and certainty not taken offence

i absolutely have never said my opinion anyone to upset any one either on this forum or to anyone’s face
this is my first ( and probably should be my last) foray on the Christian Mumsnet … bit sad

my wife’s faith is so deep none of my crackpot theories will ever shake it

its what comforts and sustains me and I am sad that the idea of a gay bi polar autistic Jesus sounds horrible to you , to Me hes my best mate xxx

Good for Pamela from Gavin and Stacey! This is where you lost me. Again, you are not reading the room. Please take your offensive language to the other board available to you. ‘Jesus’ may well be your ‘best mate’ but the way you express yourself to Christians is disrespectful and disruptive on this board. I do hope, that with your opening expletive you are not taking our Lord Jesus Christ’s name in vain because IF you know Him, as you say about ‘best mates’, then you should know better. I doubt very much indeed that you are as disrespectful in your language against, say, the prophet Mohammed when you engage with your ‘wonderful friends and co-workers’ who follow Islam during your ‘intellectual conversations’ God knows! 🙏