Confused on a Bible verse

[diggerdomer]

I fail to see the relevance of this statement given that this is not my contention.

You said:

“Please cite Church documents and/or a compelling metaphysical argument as to why this is the case.”

This was in your response to my post where I questioned our idea that Jesus was not omniscient (and, therefore, not God)

 

[EphelDuath]

You said:

Please cite Church documents and/or a compelling metaphysical argument as to why this is the case.

Yes. Please cite authoritative Church documents and/or a reasonable argument as to why if Christ was not omniscient as a human being, He could not be God.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes. Please cite authoritative Church documents and/or a reasonable argument as to why if Christ was not omniscient as a human being, He could not be God.

God is omniscient. Again, a basic Christian and Jewish understanding. If you disagree that God is so, then please share. Or, share why Jesus is not God. Either way is fine.

 

[EphelDuath]

God is omniscient.

No objection. And the fundamental belief of Christianity is that Christ humbled himself to be a human being, and thus, suspended His omnipotence/omniscience for the sake of mankind.

Your belief has been refuted by St. Thomas Aquinas. The objection, which you agree with, states: “It would seem that Christ did not advance in this knowledge. For even as Christ knew all things by His beatific and His infused knowledge, so also did He by this acquired knowledge, as is plain from what has been said (1). But He did not advance in these knowledges. Therefore neither in this.”

Aquinas’ refutation:

“Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of Christ’s soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power, which could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance; since from the beginning He had them perfectly. But the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively; and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but step by step, and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age; and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz. that He increased in “knowledge and age” together.”

Summa III, Q. 12, art. 2.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 472:

“This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103”

Hence why Christ did not know the Final Day while on earth: because this was not revealed to Him by the Father.

If I am misrepresenting the Catechism or Aquinas’ position, please correct me immediately by citing authoritative Church documents that demonstrate otherwise.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[Isaiah_41]

Matthew 24:36

"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.

Jesus Christ is equal to God right. Shouldn’t He know the date of Judgment Day?

To me this is the divine mystery of the Trinity of which man has no full grasp but just faith that God can do anything and that we beleive in the most Holy Trinity.

 

[diggerdomer]

No objection. And the fundamental belief of Christianity is that Christ humbled himself to be a human being, and thus, suspended His omnipotence/omniscience for the sake of mankind.

Your belief has been refuted by St. Thomas Aquinas. The objection, which you agree with, states: "It would seem that Christ did not advance in this knowledge. For even as Christ knew all things by His beatific and His infused knowledge, so also did He by this acquired knowledge, as is plain from what has been said (1). But He did not advance in these knowledges. Therefore neither in this."

Aquinas’ refutation:

"Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of Christ’s soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power, which could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance; since from the beginning He had them perfectly. But the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively; and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but step by step, and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age; and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz. that He increased in “knowledge and age” together."

Summa III, Q. 12, art. 2.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 472:

“This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103”

Hence why Christ did not know the Final Day while on earth: because this was not revealed to Him by the Father.

If I am misrepresenting the Catechism or Aquinas’ position, please correct me immediately by citing authoritative Church documents that demonstrate otherwise.

Thank you and God bless.

I do not disagree with Aquinas.