I wasn’t claiming to believe in that heresy, I was asking if Chaldean Rite did. I understand that Jesus’ divine nature is infinite, and his human nature is finite, so if He said “I do not know”, maybe that would make sense, or even “I cannot tell you”. But to say the Son does not know, would imply that no part of the Son, divine or human, knows. If his divine nature did know, then the statement “the Son does not know”, would be false, wouldn’t it?No, that is an early heresy, refuted by the Church.
They hypostatic union is the correct understanding of Christ’s human and divine natures.
Jesus’s divine nature (and knowledge) is infinite. His human nature (and knowledge) is finite.
Did you read the three links I posted to you? It seems you have not.
No, but why are you asking me? I’m not the one who claimed this! You should be asking Chaldean Rite why he believes that Jesus could speak only as a human, not as God,(similar to the Protestant belief that Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, not the divine nature.)Is there anything in the NT that indicates that any of this switching is happening? I do not know of any.
So Jesus can sometimes speak only as a man? Is that church teaching? If so, were did you find it? If not, you might want to reconsider what you’re teaching these children.(close to what they have answered): Jesus, as both God and Man, was speaking only in His humanity here because Jesus as God does know all things.
whereas, Jesus, in many other places, “knew the hearts” of certain people, was speaking presumebly in both.
also, there is a time when Jesus asks who touched his robe, again, he was speaking only in His humanity, for sure in His Divine person He knew who touched Him, but as far as His humanity was concerned, it either was not made known.
I think you are being overly literalistic here, trying to prove your point with linguistic acrobatics that are unnecessary.I wasn’t claiming to believe in that heresy, I was asking if Chaldean Rite did. I understand that Jesus’ divine nature is infinite, and his human nature is finite, so if He said “I do not know”, maybe that would make sense, or even “I cannot tell you”. But to say the Son does not know, would imply that no part of the Son, divine or human, knows.
No, not at all.If his divine nature did know, then the statement “the Son does not know”, would be false, wouldn’t it?
Clearly, your not getting it. Go read 1ke posts.So Jesus can sometimes speak only as a man? Is that church teaching? If so, were did you find it? If not, you might want to reconsider what you’re teaching these children.
I will, but please answer my question. Did Jesus, at any time, speak only as a man and not as God? If so, where is this in Church teaching?Clearly, your not getting anything it. Go read 1ke posts.
I’ll read the links you posted right now, give me a minute. Everybody keep posting though.I think you are being overly literalistic here, trying to prove your point with linguistic acrobatics that are unnecessary.
No, not at all.
Did you read the links I posted, as they speak directly to this question.
Certainly Jesus can speak of his human knowledge and in human terms, since he is 100% human.So Jesus can sometimes speak only as a man? Is that church teaching? If so, were did you find it? If not, you might want to reconsider what you’re teaching these children.
But he wasn’t just speaking of his human knowledge, he said, “the Son does not know”. Wouldn’t “the Son” include his divine nature?Certainly Jesus can speak of his human knowledge and in human terms, since he is 100% human.
The other text is Mark, xiii, 32: “Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.” After all that has been written on this question in recent years, we see no need to add anything to the traditional explanations: the Son has no knowledge of the judgment day which He may communicate; or, the Son has no knowledge of this event, which springs from His human nature as such; or again, the Son has no knowledge of the day and the hour, that has not been communicated to Him by the Father.
No.But he wasn’t just speaking of his human knowledge, he said, “the Son does not know”. Wouldn’t “the Son” include his divine nature?
only if you are a literalist my friend.That still doesn’t fix the contradiction. Even if he knew through his divine nature, rather than his human nature, the statement, “the Son does not know” would still be false.
Jesus had divine knowledge, because he is God and knows all things.So Christ did know, just not through his human nature?
There is no contradiction.That still doesn’t fix the contradiction.
It is not false.Even if he knew through his divine nature, rather than his human nature, the statement, “the Son does not know” would still be false.
Did you miss this part?I read the links, the one thing that particularly stuck out as having to do with this issue was this:
A survey of magisterial statements demonstrates this point. In the year 600, Pope St. Gregory I (the Great) affirmed that anyone who interprets Mk. 13:32 to mean that Christ did not know the day or the hour of Judgment would have to be a Nestorian, that is, one who erroneously holds that Christ is two distinct persons, one human and one divine, and that He didn’t know the day or the hour as a human person. The Pope explained the correct meaning of this passage, teaching that Christ “in His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. . . . Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but on this account, because God is man” (Letter to Patriarch of Alexandria). In other words, Christ as man knew the day and the hour, but only because He is God, which informed His human nature, and not by virtue of His human nature alone.
So Christ did know, just not through his human nature? That still doesn’t fix the contradiction. Even if he knew through his divine nature, rather than his human nature, the statement, “the Son does not know” would still be false.
the Son has no knowledge of the judgment day which He may communicate; or, the Son has no knowledge of this event, which springs from His human nature as such; or again, the Son has no knowledge of the day and the hour, that has not been communicated to Him by the Father. (See Mangenot in Vigouroux, “Dict. de la Bible”, II, Paris, 1899, 2268 sqq
It’s an idiomatic statement, not a literal statement.But he wasn’t just speaking of his human knowledge, he said, “the Son does not know”. Wouldn’t “the Son” include his divine nature?
It is a mystery *Partailly understood but not fully understood… Understand?I read the links, the one thing that particularly stuck out as having to do with this issue was this:
A survey of magisterial statements demonstrates this point. In the year 600, Pope St. Gregory I (the Great) affirmed that anyone who interprets Mk. 13:32 to mean that Christ did not know the day or the hour of Judgment would have to be a Nestorian, that is, one who erroneously holds that Christ is two distinct persons, one human and one divine, and that He didn’t know the day or the hour as a human person. The Pope explained the correct meaning of this passage, teaching that Christ “in His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. . . . Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but on this account, because God is man” (Letter to Patriarch of Alexandria). In other words, Christ as man knew the day and the hour, but only because He is God, which informed His human nature, and not by virtue of His human nature alone.
EGADS MAN! This is what everyone has been pretty much trying to tell you. Are you being purposfully obstinante or do you truly no understand what they are saying of what the church teaches on this matter.
So Christ did know, just not through his human nature? That still doesn’t fix the contradiction. Even if he knew through his divine nature, rather than his human nature, the statement, “the Son does not know” would still be false. There is no contradiction it is a paradox
And what does that mean? I take the Bible at it’s word? So if someone said the Resurrection really happened, could I accuse them of being a literalist too?only if you are a literalist my friend.
You never did answer my question as to why you think He is God.He is God.
There is a separate conversation going on about how to tell the difference between a contradiction and a paradox. I asked the person what his criteria was for differentiating between the 2, he said he trusted the Church. I asked why he trusted the church, he said because Jesus said to. I asked why he believes what Jesus said, he said because Jesus is God. I asked why he believes Jesus is God and am waiting for a response. Until I am given a rational explanation for the difference between a contradiction and a paradox, the point is moot.There is no contradiction it is a paradox