M
Mom_of_one
Guest
Could this be an example of moral reservation?
- Status
U
Uranage
Guest
Christ knew from His divine perspective but did not know from his human perspective.
F
francisca
Guest
Jesus as a man was like you and I. He was truly human. Otherwise, if he-- apart from The Father-- knew all things, he would be the second god. No, he was truly a man.
Supposedly Jesus-- as a man-- knew everything, then, nowadays satan would say to us : “Sure Jesus was risen from death, because he is special. He is not mere human. He is the son of God, ofcourse he defeat death easily. But how about you human?”
Jesus is truly God and truly man :
God who decide to be huma, in order to restore to all human God’s image that He has determined to give to since the day He created the first man. God send Jesus to tell us about the truth, and the truth is Himself in a man. Jesus speaks only what His Father speaks and he does what His Father wills. Upon doing this, to him is given God’s authority and power and glory. Jesus is God Himself because : in His Name (Jesus) is God’s power and authority and glory – so therefore Jesus is God Himself.
God bless.
Supposedly Jesus-- as a man-- knew everything, then, nowadays satan would say to us : “Sure Jesus was risen from death, because he is special. He is not mere human. He is the son of God, ofcourse he defeat death easily. But how about you human?”
Jesus is truly God and truly man :
God who decide to be huma, in order to restore to all human God’s image that He has determined to give to since the day He created the first man. God send Jesus to tell us about the truth, and the truth is Himself in a man. Jesus speaks only what His Father speaks and he does what His Father wills. Upon doing this, to him is given God’s authority and power and glory. Jesus is God Himself because : in His Name (Jesus) is God’s power and authority and glory – so therefore Jesus is God Himself.
God bless.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Okay, what is the OFFICIAL magisterium’s interpretation of that passage?
V
viktor_aleksndr
Guest
Are you sure it is in #475 of the Cathechism?
This is from vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm#II
G
Grace_and_Glory
Guest
Perhaps it’s #474
“By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.”
“By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.”
V
VociMike
Guest
According to this interlinear Greek / English online bible, you’re right. It does not say anything about the Son not knowing.
olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
Thanks for clearing this up in my mind!
F
FCEGM
Guest
Pope St. Gregory the Great summed up the conclusions of the patristic thinking in these words:
the time of His Second Coming was not to be part of the Revelation of the Incarnate Jesus to the Church. That’s all His statement about the “Father alone knows” means: that the time of the Second Coming is withheld from the revelation of the New Covenant (which comes to us through the Incarnate Christ).
In Christ,
Frances
St. Gregory is of course correct. Jesus did have the information since, as God, He possesses all things. What St. Gregory is saying is that Jesus, in the humility of His humanity, chose (an act of human will) not to look. And this was because
the time of His Second Coming was not to be part of the Revelation of the Incarnate Jesus to the Church. That’s all His statement about the “Father alone knows” means: that the time of the Second Coming is withheld from the revelation of the New Covenant (which comes to us through the Incarnate Christ).
In Christ,
Frances
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
Sir Knight:
If Jesus knew and said that He didn’t, that means He LIED to us. If He lied to us about this, then it is possible that He could have lied to us about other things and since we have no way of knowing what those other things might be, then that places our ENTIRE faith into question not knowing what else might have been lies.
I don’t feel comfortable with that!I’ll grant you that it is an “odd” verse; as a matter of fact it’s the only verse where Jesus doesn’t “know” something. In all of the Gospels Jesus demonstrates His foreknowledge of events except in Matthew 24:36, which I find very odd.
It’s the “oddness” of the verse that gets my attention and makes me think there is something more, something missing or simply misunderstood. Everyone present probably understood exactly what Jesus was saying. When you compare this one event to all other events in the Gospel it is only remarkable as an anomaly, it does nothing to cause me to question or doubt my faith.
It’s impossible that God is a liar or should resort to a lie; after all God is the One Being with nothing to gain by a lie or deceit. The irony or perhaps paradox is that God could easily alter the present reality in favor of a new one and and even then it still wouldn’t be a lie.
of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father ONLY"
If Jesus knew and said that He didn’t, that means He LIED to us. If He lied to us about this, then it is possible that He could have lied to us about other things and since we have no way of knowing what those other things might be, then that places our ENTIRE faith into question not knowing what else might have been lies.
I don’t feel comfortable with that!I’ll grant you that it is an “odd” verse; as a matter of fact it’s the only verse where Jesus doesn’t “know” something. In all of the Gospels Jesus demonstrates His foreknowledge of events except in Matthew 24:36, which I find very odd.
It’s the “oddness” of the verse that gets my attention and makes me think there is something more, something missing or simply misunderstood. Everyone present probably understood exactly what Jesus was saying. When you compare this one event to all other events in the Gospel it is only remarkable as an anomaly, it does nothing to cause me to question or doubt my faith.
It’s impossible that God is a liar or should resort to a lie; after all God is the One Being with nothing to gain by a lie or deceit. The irony or perhaps paradox is that God could easily alter the present reality in favor of a new one and and even then it still wouldn’t be a lie.
P
promethius
Guest
Actually, I would say that this is faulty logic. it could just as likely be that Someone was making a translation of the bible, saw where Jesus said “No one knows,” looked through and found that Christ never reveals it, concluded that the no one list included the Son and therefore added that line. Of course the translator of the NAB says they’re right in that regard, but that doesnt MAKE them right. Regarding the fact that the Catechism itself states that Jesus was fully omnitient, it is reasonably safe to make a judgement call as to which is a more accurate representation of the situation. Not saying the KJV is right by any means, but there are apparently many translations that leave it out.
M
MiddleBear
Guest
Sir Knight:
Regarding Jesus’ knowledge and grace here is a good summary from the Navarre Bible Comentary regarding the note to Luke 2:52 Regarding Jesus’s knowledge (and grace).
Beginning of note:
" 52. As far as human nature was concerned Jesus matured like anyone else. His growth in wisdom should be seen as experiential knowledge – knowledge acquired by his mind from sense experience and general experience of life. It can also be taken as referring to the external expression of his wisdom; in this sense everything he did was done perfectly, in keeping with whatever age he was at the time.
As man Jesus had three kinds of knowledge: 1. The knowledge of the blessed (vision of the divine essence) by virtue of the hypostatic union (the union of his human nature with his divine nature in the one person of the Word). This knowledge did not require any increase. 2. Infused knowledge, which perfected his intellect and which meant that he knew everything, even hidden things; thus he was able to read men’s hearts. Here again his knowledge was complete; it could not grow. 3. Acquired new knowledge through sense experience and reflection; logically, this knowledge increased as time went by.
As far as grace, in the strict sense of the word, was concerned, Jesus could not grow. From the first instant of his conception he possessed grace in all its fullness because he was true God by virtue of the hypostatic union. As St Thomas Aquinas explains: “The end of grace is the union of the rational creature with God. But there can neither be nor be conceived a greater union of the rational creature with God than that which is in the person of Christ {…}. Hence it is clear that the grace of Christ cannot be increased on the part of grace. But neither can it be increased on the part of Christ, since Christ as man was a true full ‘comprehensor’ from the first instant of his conception. Hence there could have been no increase of grace in him” (Summa thelogiae, 3, q.7,a.12).
However, we can speak of his growing in grace in the sense of the effects of grace. In the last analysis, this matter is one of the mysteries of our faith, which our minds cannot fully grasp. How small God would be if we were able fully to fathom this mystery! That Christ should conceal his infinite power and wisdom by becoming a child teaches our pride a great lesson."
End of note.
A short answer as to why Jesus did not reveal the date of the Last Judgement is that, revealing this date was not Jesus’s mission.
Regarding Jesus’ knowledge and grace here is a good summary from the Navarre Bible Comentary regarding the note to Luke 2:52 Regarding Jesus’s knowledge (and grace).
Beginning of note:
" 52. As far as human nature was concerned Jesus matured like anyone else. His growth in wisdom should be seen as experiential knowledge – knowledge acquired by his mind from sense experience and general experience of life. It can also be taken as referring to the external expression of his wisdom; in this sense everything he did was done perfectly, in keeping with whatever age he was at the time.
As man Jesus had three kinds of knowledge: 1. The knowledge of the blessed (vision of the divine essence) by virtue of the hypostatic union (the union of his human nature with his divine nature in the one person of the Word). This knowledge did not require any increase. 2. Infused knowledge, which perfected his intellect and which meant that he knew everything, even hidden things; thus he was able to read men’s hearts. Here again his knowledge was complete; it could not grow. 3. Acquired new knowledge through sense experience and reflection; logically, this knowledge increased as time went by.
As far as grace, in the strict sense of the word, was concerned, Jesus could not grow. From the first instant of his conception he possessed grace in all its fullness because he was true God by virtue of the hypostatic union. As St Thomas Aquinas explains: “The end of grace is the union of the rational creature with God. But there can neither be nor be conceived a greater union of the rational creature with God than that which is in the person of Christ {…}. Hence it is clear that the grace of Christ cannot be increased on the part of grace. But neither can it be increased on the part of Christ, since Christ as man was a true full ‘comprehensor’ from the first instant of his conception. Hence there could have been no increase of grace in him” (Summa thelogiae, 3, q.7,a.12).
However, we can speak of his growing in grace in the sense of the effects of grace. In the last analysis, this matter is one of the mysteries of our faith, which our minds cannot fully grasp. How small God would be if we were able fully to fathom this mystery! That Christ should conceal his infinite power and wisdom by becoming a child teaches our pride a great lesson."
End of note.
S
Strider
Guest
viktor aleksndr:
Both # 474 and # 475 of the CCC appply. The reference in # 474 to Acts 1:7 is particularly apt.
- Status