Jesus's Omniscience?

[rkwright]

Mark 13:32 [quote] But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father. [/quote]

What is Jesus saying here? That He doesn't know the hour? God the Son not omnescient when in our time (somewhat similar to what is being claimed in the open theism thread)? or is this merely pointing to the 2 natures of Christ?

What of Luke 2:52?

[quote] And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man[/quote]

Edited December 5, 2005 by rkwright

[N/A Gone]

open theism doesnt say christ has less knowledge in our time...please stop using our name in vain.. there is no "in our time" or "out of our time" stuff. Time doesnt exist in the platonic form you seem dependant on friend

the open theist response would be that christ waives some of his omnisciene in his human form, only having the "middle knowledge" that God would allow him.

luke 2 could just mean he got older and learned himself somethings..

which reminds me, the ANne rice book is good

Edited December 5, 2005 by Revprodeji

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think its St. Gregory the Great who deals with this question:

The explanation that is given historically is that Christ knew everything in virtue of his Divine Nature, but was able to grow in knowledge in accordance with his Human Nature. Thus, when the Divine Word became incarnate, not all of the knowledge of his Divine Nature was shared with his human nature. Accordingly, in his human nature, even the Son could not know the day or the hour of the Parousia, and, similarly, in his human nature, the Christ was able to grow in wisdom.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

As God, He was there at Creation, as a boy he had to learn how to be a carpenter. The Divine part does not communicate all knowlwdge to the human side

Edited December 5, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[tojo]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 5 2005, 10:43 AM']I think its St. Gregory the Great who deals with this question:

The explanation that is given historically is that Christ knew everything in virtue of his Divine Nature, but was able to grow in knowledge in accordance with his Human Nature. Thus, when the Divine Word became incarnate, not all of the knowledge of his Divine Nature was shared with his human nature. Accordingly, in his human nature, even the Son could not know the day or the hour of the Parousia, and, similarly, in his human nature, the Christ was able to grow in wisdom.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]811914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Jeff, you're always so charitable, you rock!

[scardella]

I had heard that argument, but didn't know where it came from. It reinforces that Jesus is FULLY human and FULLY divine. That also means he had two intellects, a human one and a divine one.

What always got me was that he had two wills as well, one human and one divine. (I think I remember that in my Christology class... I might be remembering wrong, though.) It's hard to think of Him as having two full natures and being only one person..
This is what winds up happening when I think about it:

[rkwright]

[quote name='scardella' date='Dec 7 2005, 10:52 AM']I had heard that argument, but didn't know where it came from.  It reinforces that Jesus is FULLY human and FULLY divine.  That also means he had two intellects, a human one and a divine one. 

What always got me was that he had two wills as well, one human and one divine.  (I think I remember that in my Christology class... I might be remembering wrong, though.)  It's hard to think of Him as having two full natures and being only one person..
This is what winds up happening when I think about it:

[right][snapback]815365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yea I read this as the response to Apollinarianism (which I understand as the belief in only one nature the divine one?).

This was the response that spraked the 2 natures and 2 wills line of thinking, I was just posting it to see if I got any more insight into it than my book already gave.

[beatty07]

We have a professor here who every year delights in getting a whole classroom to commit the heresy of monothelitism, which says Christ had only one will.

We don't really know what it means to have two wills, but we definitely know it's a heresy to say otherwise!

It's very tough to imagine because Christ's human will was perfectly attuned to the will of the Father in a way that we fallen souls can't comprehend. It's almost like every moment he had to choose this alignment, yet for Him there was no concupiscence to make it clumsy or imperfect.

[fatboyluis]

[quote]We have a professor here who every year delights in getting a whole classroom to commit the heresy of monothelitism, which says Christ had only one will.

We don't really know what it means to have two wills, but we definitely know it's a heresy to say otherwise!

It's very tough to imagine because Christ's human will was perfectly attuned to the will of the Father in a way that we fallen souls can't comprehend. It's almost like every moment he had to choose this alignment, yet for Him there was no concupiscence to make it clumsy or imperfect.[/quote]

lol what he said!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 5 2005, 09:43 AM']I think its St. Gregory the Great who deals with this question:

The explanation that is given historically is that Christ knew everything in virtue of his Divine Nature, but was able to grow in knowledge in accordance with his Human Nature. Thus, when the Divine Word became incarnate, not all of the knowledge of his Divine Nature was shared with his human nature. Accordingly, in his human nature, even the Son could not know the day or the hour of the Parousia, and, similarly, in his human nature, the Christ was able to grow in wisdom.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]811914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think it's also interesting that the Apostles never asked Him about the Parousia after the Resurrection...I figure it was all revealed to the human nature at that point...but they didn't ask.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Dec 10 2005, 08:25 AM']I think it's also interesting that the Apostles never asked Him about the Parousia after the Resurrection...I figure it was all revealed to the human nature at that point...but they didn't ask.
[right][snapback]819558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We don't know if they did or not. We know they just didn't write it down.
Is there anything in the Traditions of the Fathers about it?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 10 2005, 08:35 AM']We don't know if they did or not. We know they just didn't write it down. 
[right][snapback]819564[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
True.

Cmom: always on top of everything.

It's still kind of amusing.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

no offense to anyone: but when did opentheism become an option for Catholics? when where their ever philisophical options? what ever happened to Thomism?

[Guest JeffCR07]

First and foremost, I am not convinced that "open theism" actually is a legitimate option. It is difficult because many of the people who talk about it differ in their understanding of it - hence the questions that revprodije has been asking.

Second, nothing has "happened" to Thomism - it is still around and has many very strong proponents (just look at all of the scholars of the Dominican order). That having been said, Thomism has [i]never[/i] been the only option in terms of theological outlook. I mean, it didn't even exist before Aquinas, so it couldn't be. In terms of theology, one could be a Thomist, an Augustinian, a Palamite, a Bonaventurian, a Cappadocian, an Anselmian ( : ) or many others. All of them are simply attempts to understand the world in the light of the orthodox faith.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 10 2005, 12:28 PM']First and foremost, I am not convinced that "open theism" actually is a legitimate option. It is difficult because many of the people who talk about it differ in their understanding of it - hence the questions that revprodije has been asking.

Second, nothing has "happened" to Thomism - it is still around and has many very strong proponents (just look at all of the scholars of the Dominican order). That having been said, Thomism has [i]never[/i] been the only option in terms of theological outlook. I mean, it didn't even exist before Aquinas, so it couldn't be. In terms of theology, one could be a Thomist, an Augustinian, a Palamite, a Bonaventurian, a Cappadocian, an Anselmian ( : ) or many others. All of them are simply attempts to understand the world in the light of the orthodox faith.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]819703[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So you want to start a new thread and explain them all? :