Is the trinity a hierarchy and does it have a seperated knowledge?

[JamesCaruso]

Let me answer your second question first.

It involves two distinct but related realities: the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.

As regards the Holy Trinity, it depends what you mean by “hierarchy.” I would stay away from that term, because it makes it seem that the Persons are not equal to each other. There is, however, an order among the Persons, based on the order of their origin. The Father is first, because He is the unbegotten Source or Principle of the entire Trinity. The Son is second, because He is begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is third, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son (or if you prefer the eastern Church’s formula, the Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son).

However–and this is very important for your question–the Persons are distinct only as regards the oppositions of relation between them. In every other respect, they are not only equal but exactly the same, or as we say in the Creed, they are consubstantial. Therefore, no, the knowledge of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not separate. In fact, it is not even distinct from God Himself. In God, there is no distinction between substance and intellect: He simply is His intellect (and His will, and any other property or attribute you can think of).

This leads to the second reality, which is the Incarnation. The Second Person of the Trinity, in order to save us, freely took on a human nature. And by taking on a human nature, he also took on all of the things that necessarily go with a human nature: for example, a human body, a human soul, a human intellect, and a human will.

So did Jesus have two intellects? Yes. The Divine Intellect (which is identical with the Divine Substance, as I said) and His human intellect.

Now, there is something that we have to keep in mind: Jesus is fully God and fully man (in technical language, He has two natures, Divine and human), but He is only one Person, the Divine Person of the Son. That means that the union between the two natures is as close as it can possibly be, even closer than the union that we will have in God when we are in Heaven: theologians call this the Hypostatic Union. (“Hypostasis” is just the Greek word for “Person” in Trinitarian theology and Christology.)

On the practical level, this means that Jesus had–if I can use the expression–free access to his own Divine Intellect whenever he wanted to. The only limit on Jesus’ human intellect is its finitude: the entire Divine Substance is infinite, and so it won’t “fit” in a human intellect, so to speak. However, Jesus would have had knowledge in his human intellect of anything that He (being, after all, the Divine Son) had created, and even what would come to pass in the future.

We must conclude that, strictly speaking, Jesus did (and does) know the day and the hour of the Last Day, even according to His human nature.

Turning to your first question, we must admit that Mark 13:32 (together with its parallel at Matthew 24:36) is an authentic crux interpretum: a passage that is very difficult to interpret.

A couple of possible interpretations that have been proposed over the years. The one that I find the most plausible is that it is a Semitic exaggeration or hyperbole to make a point: the point being that the Son (who is, after all, the definitive revelation) has no intention, under any circumstances, of telling the disciples what the hour will be. (Jesus does a similar thing in the Sermon on the Mount, when He advises people to pluck out their eyes if they cause them sin to–see Mt 5:29 and 18:9.)

That is one possibility. I watched the video, and the idea that Jesus is referring to a wedding is interesting (especially since the Second Coming likened to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb). It is not the only possibility, however.

Hope this helps! God bless.

Fr. Louis Melahn, L.C.

I thought about the fact that Jesus has two intellects, as well. At first I thought that one might know what the other did not, but this is not possible, as you have pointed out, since Jesus is but one person, albeit with two intellects. The act of one and the same person denying himself information known to one of his intellects is nonsensical.

 

[Darryl1958]

opendoorministrieswv.org/ancientjewishwedding.html

laydownlife.net/yedidah/AncientJewishWeddingCeremony.

bridalcovenant.com/wedding1.html

A little bit of internet research shows that the initial video response to the OP was not really being forced after all, but has been discovered independently by a variety of Christian traditions.

There are other verses on the “Rapture” or Second Coming that also deal directly with the idea that this will be the coming of a bride and the groom.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Which you concede was entirely figurative.

Actually, no. I would say Matthew 13:1-31 are literal. I would say Matthew 13:34-37 are figuartive, specifically because it is translated as a simile. I don’t know if there is a direct translation from its original language for the word “like” or if there is some different type of written construction/clue, but the translators were confident that it was a comparison to translate it with “like”. Not only that but it makes clear what is being compared to. The passage we’re discussing isn’t written in a form such as, “Just as when two are to be wed, only the father knows the hour.” And even if the whole thing both before and after were all figurative, it would be a jump to say that Jesus was referencing context A, then for one sentence used context B (the wedding) with noting this change in context, and then for the next four sentences he uses context C (the man who leaves his home).

He’s using parables in that discussion. Parables are a figurative form of speech which explain something difficult to understand by comparing it with a thing with which the hearers are familiar. This isn’t a random reference. It falls under that definition.

I know what parables are. Even though we completely disagree on this topic, I hope you read what I’ve written and realize that my issue isn’t that I’m ignorant of parables, but I don’t think one is being applied here.

Christ usually uses the formula of “Amen, amen, I say to you…”, to especially distinguish literal speech.

That is helpful in general, but I don’t know if that helps us here. I wouldn’t imagine that everything he said that didn’t contain that phrase was figurative, so it leaves us to find other avenues to determine if its figurative or literal. And as I’ve noted (and we’ve disagreed on repeatedly as well) we also have to determine if a figurative use of a phrase can be the opposite of its literal use.

Well, I’m not saying that they all understood 100%. But it is a conclusion that was completely reachable for the disciples.

I think the fact that many people today would very much not come to the same conclusion, it’s speculation at best to say they understood (even partially).

IP provides these books as his sources:

1. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes
2. Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes
3. Is God a Moral Monster

Thank you, I’ll take a look if I can (the job takes priority). Clearly – at this point – I have no ground to stand on to dispute the use of that reference.

Since the definition of a straw man is irrelevant to our general debate, I’ll not be responding to this.

I realize you don’t want to say it, so I’ll say it for you. “Mike, even though I hate everything you stand for and I think you use third-rate sophistry, I did repeatedly and incorrectly claim that you used straw man arguments. I see I was wrong and I apologize. Also I think you probably smell refreshing, like lavender ”

We have a very comprehensive understanding of ancient Jewish culture today. The three books above rigorously apply that knowledge to NT hermeneutics, and don’t find anything that contradicts Catholic doctrine.

Either way, the argument that “well, there could be other passages which you misunderstand due to insufficient knowledge of ancient Jewish culture” has nothing to do with how to interpret this particular passage.

It doesn’t really have anything to do with how this particular passage is interpreted, but it has far-reaching effects if your interpretation is used. The Word (with a capital W) is so integral not only to the Catholic Church but to all of Christendom. By allowing a passage to mean its opposite – seemingly because the intended meaning makes the most sense and not (in my opinion) due to the facts available – is true Doublespeak.

JamesTheJust, we clearly agree on so little (except maybe that I smell of lavander), but I’m hoping you agree that we’ve gone around in circles for the past few days. Please pry, dismantle, revoke what I’ve written here; but if it’s ok with you I’m going to take a break and not reply back. Thank you for your time on this matter.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Actually, no. I would say Matthew 13:1-31 are literal. I would say Matthew 13:34-37 are figuartive, specifically because it is translated as a simile.

I think you’re looking for Mark 13, buddy. Not Matthew.

I don’t know if there is a direct translation from its original language for the word “like” or if there is some different type of written construction/clue, but the translators were confident that it was a comparison to translate it with “like”. Not only that but it makes clear what is being compared to. The passage we’re discussing isn’t written in a form such as, “Just as when two are to be wed, only the father knows the hour.”

How do you know that He wasn’t using a metaphor, instead of a simile?

And even if the whole thing both before and after were all figurative, it would be a jump to say that Jesus was referencing context A, then for one sentence used context B (the wedding) with noting this change in context, and then for the next four sentences he uses context C (the man who leaves his home).

Christ rarely places transitions between His parables.

That is helpful in general, but I don’t know if that helps us here. I wouldn’t imagine that everything he said that didn’t contain that phrase was figurative, so it leaves us to find other avenues to determine if its figurative or literal.

Not everything without that clarifying phrase is figurative, but Christ almost always uses it to establish that a statement which could be taken figuratively is, in fact, literal. This is why the phrase’s absence is relevant here.

I think the fact that many people today would very much not come to the same conclusion, it’s speculation at best to say they understood (even partially).

I don’t think that the ancient Olmecs would have understood the phrase “it’s raining cats and dogs”. Cultural references can only be understood within their cultural contexts, which you continually ignore.

I realize you don’t want to say it, so I’ll say it for you. "Mike, even though I hate everything you stand for

I don’t.

and I think you use third-rate sophistry,

I don’t.

I did repeatedly and incorrectly claim that you used straw man arguments. I see I was wrong and I apologize.

I don’t. I wasn’t conceding that I had erred, I was simply discontinuing the discussion because it was off topic and would have eventually derailed our exchange.

Also I think you probably smell refreshing, like lavender "

Hmmm… No, I’d say the smell is more jasmine-like…

Can we not agree on anything?

It doesn’t really have anything to do with how this particular passage is interpreted, but it has far-reaching effects if your interpretation is used. The Word (with a capital W) is so integral not only to the Catholic Church but to all of Christendom. By allowing a passage to mean its opposite – seemingly because the intended meaning makes the most sense and not (in my opinion) due to the facts available – is true Doublespeak.

For the last time, I’m not arguing that any statement can be turned on its head. I’m arguing that the context of Mark 13:32 makes it perfectly clear that it is not a straightforwardly literal
statement.

JamesTheJust, we clearly agree on so little but I’m hoping you agree that we’ve gone around in circles for the past few days. Please pry, dismantle, revoke what I’ve written here; but if it’s ok with you I’m going to take a break and not reply back. Thank you for your time on this matter.

I realize you don’t want to say it, so I’ll say it for you: “James, I realize now that I cannot counter your refutations and have only recycled my statements for the last few posts. In fear of others discovering this, I shall abandon this thread so that I will avoid being accused of intellectual dishonesty.”

Lastly, I suggest that you check out the links provided earlier in post #22, though the sites are very non-Catholic. They supplement the video quite well.

In all honesty, I’ve enjoyed the thrill of this heated (if I can call it that) debate. I thank you, and I apologize for any lack of charity I may have had. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

May the peace of Christ be with you,
James

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I realize you don’t want to say it, so I’ll say it for you: “James, I realize now that I cannot counter your refutations and have only recycled my statements for the last few posts. In fear of others discovering this, I shall abandon this thread so that I will avoid being accused of intellectual dishonesty.”

A wise man once told me what I now tell you. “I don’t.”

Seriously, I hate playing the role of that guy on the internet, so I try make a point to bow out of arguments that are nearing a dead end before they get too monotonous and/or ugly.

I’ll keep you in my prayers.

I’m sure I’ll see you in another thread. Until then…

 

[ericc]

What would be the point if the Son actually knew the final date, but said to everyone that he didn’t know, just to honour the Father? Does the Father of All Creation need to be humoured in such a way? It’s not a Jewish wedding we’re talking about here–not once you get past the analogy. We’re really talking about immortal deities and what they know or don’t know.

If he did that, he lied and sin. To be off the hook so to speak, Jesus need to wear his human hat when he made that statement. As a human, he thirsts, hungers, feel sorrow, display ignorance, goes to the bathroom, yowls in pain when he missed the nail and hit his thumb instead etc at various stages of his human growth; attributes which we wouldn’t assign to a deity.

He knows perfectly how to honor his Father without resorting to lying.

 

[JamesCaruso]

This video answers your question nicely:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdozI26lQQ

I think the video is plausible. I guess I favor more the idea that Jesus was talking about himself as far as his human nature goes. Since he had two natures and therefore two intellects, the human intellect would not know, except that it be informed by the Divine Intellect. I guess no one knows how the interplay worked between his human and his Divine Intellect. Did the human intellect “learn” from the Divine Intellect, or was there a wall erected to keep his human intellect from knowing except by normal human learning and experience? This might be so in order that his human nature experience every difficulty that any other human would have in educating himself. Perhaps, when talking from his human nature, his Divine Nature allowed this wall to be erected to safeguard, as it were, his humanity, his human side. It’s all speculative.

I have heard ministers explain the “turn the other cheek” teaching to mean to invite a punch instead of a degrading slap, since a punch would require an admission of equality. I believed that explanation for a while. It made Jesus seem defiant and proud, and standing up to his attacker. Now I am more persuaded that it means what it seems to mean. It goes along with the other sayings, Do not resist evil. If a man asks for your coat, give him your shirt, as well. And if a man asks for a loan, give it to him (within reason, I assume). Jesus is the Lamb. He defeats evil, defeats Lucifer, by willingly dying at the hands of his attackers, of all things. He isn’t defiant in that act, he is submissive. I am relating this because there is a propensity of ministers to explain away things that do not seem to fit their idea of who Jesus was.

I don’t want to argue the point of what turning the other cheek means; I know what it means to me. It’s taken me a long time to see Jesus, our Commander, as a Lamb leading an army of lambs. By taking up our crosses and following him, that is, by fighting our natural human inclinations, pride and worldly views, and dying to ourselves and what we reflexively would want to do, we defeat evil along with Jesus.

Anyway, back to Jesus not knowing the time or the hour, it is not something we can solve with certainty IMO, but it is something that we can assume in the light of the Gospel was not a lie, whether we subscribe to the wedding day hypothesis, the human nature explanation, or just leave it in mystery-land until we ask him face to face.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I think the video is plausible. I guess I favor more the idea that Jesus was talking about himself as far as his human nature goes. Since he had two natures and therefore two intellects, the human intellect would not know, except that it be informed by the Divine Intellect. I guess no one knows how the interplay worked between his human and his Divine Intellect. Did the human intellect “learn” from the Divine Intellect, or was there a wall erected to keep his human intellect from knowing except by normal human learning and experience? This might be so in order that his human nature experience every difficulty that any other human would have in educating himself. Perhaps, when talking from his human nature, his Divine Nature allowed this wall to be erected to safeguard, as it were, his humanity, his human side. It’s all speculative.

I have heard ministers explain the “turn the other cheek” teaching to mean to invite a punch instead of a degrading slap, since a punch would require an admission of equality. I believed that explanation for a while. It made Jesus seem defiant and proud, and standing up to his attacker. Now I am more persuaded that it means what it seems to mean. Jesus is the Lamb. He defeats evil, defeats Lucifer, by willingly dying at the hands of his attackers, of all things. He isn’t defiant in that act, he is submissive. I am relating this because there is a propensity of ministers to explain away things that do not seem to fit their idea of who Jesus was.

I don’t want to argue the point of what turning the other cheek means; I know what it means to me. It’s taken me a long time to see **Jesus, our Commander, as a Lamb leading an army of lambs. By taking up our crosses and following him, that is, by fighting our natural human inclinations, pride and worldly views, and dying to ourselves and what we reflexively would want to do, we defeat evil along with Jesus. **

Anyway, back to Jesus not knowing the time or the hour, it is not something we can solve with certainty, but it is something that we can assume in the light of the Gospel was not a lie, whether we subscribe to the wedding day hypothesis, the human nature explanation, or just leave it in mystery-land until we ask him face to face.

Beautifully put, friend. The bold especially.