The Interpretation of Scripture

[jasJis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 16 2005, 09:35 AM'] CAM: "Are you denying the Hypostatic Union"?

Let's review that one. Over four hundred years after the death of Christ (ie 451 A.D), a ecumenical council was held at Chalcedon, a city in Asia minor. It defined that Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one divine person, without confusion, change, division, or separation.

But this teaching is overlooked by apologists who try to explain away Jesus' lack of knowledge about the nearness of end times and the parousia by claiming that he didn't know "in his human nature." But there's no separation according to Chalcedon.

And the Gospels offer abundant testimony that Jesus taught that before his generation or those standing there had passed away, the sun would be darkened, the stars would fall from the sky, and the Son of Man would come on the clouds, etc. Matt 24:28, 24:34, 16:27, Luke 9:27, 21:32, Mark 9.1.

Even Paul claimed that Jesus told him the same thing 1 Thes 4:15. Yet it failed to happen.

Question: How can a divine person without division in his nature be lacking in knowledge about the future?

I'm sure we'll get an apologetic tap dance on this one, probably running into many pages of cut and paste.

LittleLes [/quote]
Les,
Come up with a better argument with logic. If someone has 2 natures, then they can't be so united that they are only 1 nature with attributes from both. The fact they aren't seperated possesses different meaning. It's called a 'Mystery' and mere humans can sort-of understand it, but cannot define it. It's like a monkey trying to comprehend the human subconcious. We, like the monkey, by our essence, lack the ability. Instead of putting YOUR spin on the Chalcedon's council, consider it along with later apologists. Sometimes it's us who are thinking soley inside our box.

[LittleLes]

Hi Jas,

I think you're bordering on heresy a bit here. Quoting here from the Council of Chalcedon (and I'm limiting it to the pertainent passage, least you accuse me of not quoting the entire document):

"We confess that the one and same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, DIVISION, OR SEPARATION."


In short, it can't be claimed that "in his human nature" Jesus could be ignorant of the date of end times. Observe, "one person and one hypostasis." No turf battle here. Thus "fully God and fully man." Or, since CAM likes Latin "perfectus Deus et perfectus homo."

No lack of knowledge regarding end times if this is the case. Are you claiming that either one or the other, but not both natures be simultaneously operative, or that they were? That's Nestorianism. Catholicism claims that these natures are not divided or separated.

LittleLes


P.S. And when you don't want to recognize a a contradiction, always claim a "its a mystery." That's what Sister Josephine taught me in the third grade. But when I couldn't produce my homework one day and claimed it had disappeared and that it was "a mystery," she didn't buy it. I wonder why?

[jasJis]

Les,
Try again. That's an old Islamic argument. Was Jesus human or man? He was both. Jesus, as a man, was limited physically and could be hurt and killed. Jesus as God could not be hurt or killed. Hmmmm.
Jesus, as a human, limited his awareness of his divinity in human terms. Yes, Jesus was divinely omniscient, by humanly limited. Scripture itself tells us that Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge. Does that mean Jesus wasn't also the Word that existed before Time?
You're struck down again.

edit to add a larger section (not Les' "interpretation") of the statements from the Council of Chalcedon.
[quote]It is opposed to those who attempt to tear apart the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; and

it expels from the assembly of the priests those who dare to say that the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible, and
it stands opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ; and
it expels those who have the mad idea that the servant-form he took from us is of a heavenly or some other kind of being; and
it anathematises those who concoct two natures of the Lord before the union but imagine a single one after the union.
So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; [u]like us in all respects except for sin[/u]; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, [b]acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; [u]at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union[/u][/b], but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

[/quote]

Edited March 16, 2005 by jasJis

[LittleLes]

Sorry Jas,

One can't have it both ways. I'll agree that the Church's claim here is rather far fetched, but it's another of those "infallible" claims.

For example, someone asked if Jesus always possessed divine knowledge, does this mean he had divine knowledge in utero. The answer was "yes" if you hold with Chaldon's teaching.

If Jesus didn't turn his divine knowledge on and off, he would have had to know about end times. But he didn't. What conclusion do you reach? How about the obvious one?

Little Les

[jasJis]

Can a thing be a rectangle, a sphere, and a flat plane all at the same time?
The obvious answer is no. But let's look at a coin. Hold it one way, it's round and looks like a sphere. Turn it 45' back and it looks like you're looking at a flat plane from an angle, Turn it the full 90' and it looks like a long and thin rectangle.

It's you that has set your mind to a single perspective. When we tell you to turn the coin, you claim it ceases to be a coin or that it's not neccessary because the essence of the coin is still a coin and you keep telling us it's a rectangle.

Wise up. The only reason why we respond to your inanities is so that the casual reader who won't read the entire thread, will not get the wrong idea that your 'assertions' couldn't hold water if they were tupperware.

[Cam42]

[quote]Are you denying the Hypostatic Union?[/quote]

So, is that a yes or no?

[LittleLes]

I'm afraid Jas has in effect said he doesn't believe it because it conflicts with scripture. It also conflicts with common sense. I'd vote with him. How else do you explain Jesus not knowing when end times would occur? Divine knowledge is full knowledge, isn't it? So either Jesus did not possess divine knowledge or he fibbed.

Maybe Jesus only had his human nature "turned on" during his adulthood.

Yet another "infallible teaching" that was in error so we don't generally bring it up. But you did.

LittleLes

However, your question suggests another thread. When do the gospels start saying Jesus was divine? The first "claimed" gospel is that written by Matthew in Hebrew. Does that claim any divinity for Jesus? Mark is close behind. When was the expression "the Son of God" added to this scripture? (Hint: See the footnote to Mark 1 in the NAB).

Edited March 16, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]I'm afraid Jas has in effect said he doesn't believe it because it conflicts with scripture.[/quote]

I don't care what you think about what jasJis' view. I asked you a simple question. You are proving our point by not answering the question. Do you know what hypostatic means? If not, it is ok. We can explain it to you, assuming you will listen. If you do, answer the question.

As to the rest of your post, so what. You are gleaning jasJis. Don't care what your interpretation of jasJis' thoughts are. I want to know what you think. jasJis can speak for himself.

As far as the note from the NAB is concerned....it slants liberal and is not definitive. This has been addressed before. It is not necessarily authoritative and I can guarantee you that there are bishops out there who disagree with the notes from the NAB. I happen to think that it is sketchy at best. Notice that I don't quote the NAB, I use another version. Either the Douay-Rheims or the Navarre version. Both approved.

Cam

[jasJis]

Les,
I'm afraid that you shouldn't be afraid, and that you shouldn't assume.
I personally don't see a problem with two natures in one person, not separated, but distinct none the less. Jesus did not fully reveal his divine knowledge to his human nature because he would not then have a human nature like us because he would be humanly omniscient.
You got more curves than a big box of Kraft Mac & coagulated milk. Stay on topic and don't put words in my posts.

[Archangel]

What?! Jesus wasn't divine?! Is there an Arian here?

Anyways, let's see what the Early Church Fathers had to say regarding Jesus' divine knowledge ...

Athanasius

"Let us examine what he said: 'But of that day and the hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son.' After saying, 'nor the Son,' he relates to the disciples the things which will precede that day and says that this and that shall be and then the end. Now, he that speaks of what will precede that day also has full knowledge of that day which will follow upon the events foretold. And if he had not known the hour, he would not have signified the events preceding it, not knowing when that hour would be. He says in the Gospel, concerning himself in his human character, 'Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son.' Certainly, then, it is plain that as the Word he knows also the hour and the end of all things, although [b]as man he is ignorant of it; for ignorance is proper to man, and especially in these matters.[/b] This, moreover, pertains to the Savior's love of man; for, inasmuch as he was made man, he is not ashamed, because of the ignorant flesh, to say, 'I do not know,' so that he may demonstrate that, [b]although as God he knows, according to the flesh he is ignorant.[/b] This, then, is why [b]he did not say, 'nor does the Son of God know,' lest the Godhead appear to be ignorant; but simply, 'nor the Son,' so that the ignorance may be of the son as born of man[/b]" (Discourses Against the Arians 3:42-43 [inter A.D. 358362]).


Gregory of Nazianz

"Their tenth objection is ignorance, the statement that the final day and hour is known to none, not even the Son, except the Father. But how is it possible that Wisdom should be ignorant of any of those things that are? [b]How indeed could he know so accurately those things which are to precede that hour and which are to take place at the end, but be ignorant of the hour itself?[/b] This thing would be like a riddle, as if one were to say that he knows accurately everything that is in front of a wall, but does not know the wall itself; or that he knows well the end of the day but knows not the beginning of the night, whereas knowledge of the one necessarily brings with it knowledge of the other. If, then, we may proceed from the example of what is seen to what is known, is it not perfectly plain to everyone that [b]he does know as God, but says that, as man, he knows not[/b]? (Fourth Theological Oration 30:15[A.D. 380]).

John Chrysostom

" 'Of that day and that hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, except the Father.' By the saying 'neither the angels' he stopped their mouths, lest they seek to learn what even the angels did not know; and [b]by the saying, 'nor the Son' he forbids them not only to learn but even to inquire. He refers this knowledge to the Father both to make the matter more awesome and to preclude their inquiring about it.[/b] If this is not the reason, and he really is ignorant of the day and the hour, when will he come to know it? At the same time we do? ... He says, 'When you do not expect it, he will come,' because he wants them to be anxiously waiting and constantly engaged in virtuous practice. What he means is something like this: 'If the generality of men knew when they were to die, they would strive earnestly only at that hour' " (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 77:1 [A.D. 370]).

[LittleLes]

Yes indeed, Archangel. The Church Fathers had difficulty about Jesus' lack of knowledge while still trying to maintain his divinity. So they claimed, in effect, his divine nature was inoperative. Only his human nature was turned on. So they try to convince us that only one nature was operative at a time. Chaldedon, of course, taught otherwise. I wonder if the earlier Fathers realized that they would be contradicting an infallible statement. Read "no separation."

And assuming Paul isn't lying, we have this:

1 Thes 4:15 "Indeed we tell you this, ON THE WORD OF THE LORD, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep."

So, as Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels, many of Paul's generation will see the parousia.

But they didn't. So the Lord's human nature must have "separated" from his divine nature when he told Paul about end times, no matter what Chalcedon defined.

There either is separation or there is no separation. It can't be both.

LittleLes

[Archangel]

Who said they had "difficulty"? (Besides you ) They understood Jesus better than you do.

Jesus is God and knows when the day and hour will come. He describes the events preceding it. He chose not to disclose the exact hour to his disciples lest they become complacent with their holiness. John Chrysostom warns this at the end of the quote I provided, "What he means is something like this: 'If the generality of men knew when they were to die, they would strive earnestly only at that hour' "

Even Jesus knew when [i[His[/i] hour had come. John 17:1, "When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you,"

Do you deny that Jesus is God?

[LittleLes]

Hi Archangel,

Does God make errors as Jesus did?

LittleLes

[Archangel]

Jesus didn't make any "errors". The only errors being made are the ones by you.

Do you deny that Jesus is God?

[jasJis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 17 2005, 03:14 AM'] Yes indeed,  Archangel. The Church Fathers had difficulty about Jesus' lack of knowledge while still trying to maintain his divinity. So they claimed, in effect, his divine nature was inoperative. Only his human nature was turned on. So they try to convince us that only one nature was operative at a time. Chaldedon, of course, taught otherwise. I wonder if the earlier Fathers realized that they would be contradicting an infallible statement. Read "no separation."

And assuming Paul isn't lying, we have this:

1 Thes 4:15  "Indeed we tell you this, ON THE WORD OF THE LORD, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep."

So, as Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels, many of Paul's generation will see the parousia.

But they didn't. So the Lord's human nature must have "separated" from his divine nature when he told Paul about end times, no matter what Chalcedon defined.

There either is separation or there is no separation. It can't be both.

LittleLes [/quote]
You are such a liar and twister of words, Les. Read all of Chalcedeon's documents. READ TWO DISTINCT NATURES!! Two distinct natures means TWO. One wasn't turned on while the other turned off, and they weren't one conglomeration.
That quote you had there has nothing to do with seeing the parousia. It says that on the second coming, those who died before us will proceed us in heaven.
You twist the meanings into either or statements, you assign your definitions, and then use it as 'evidence'. When it's shown to you to be 'and' statements you argue with us that it doesn't jibe with YOUR twisty meanings.
Dude. You're boring us.

Edited March 17, 2005 by jasJis