I think this all goes back to the massive debate among the earliest christians about who and what Jesus was. This division within the body of christ was a major influence for the Nicean Council to set in stone who Jesus was, and eliminate the opposing views. The Jesus of that Council is pretty much the Jesus that remains today.
tcampen wrote: I think this all goes back to the massive debate among the earliest christians about who and what Jesus was. This division within the body of christ was a major influence for the Nicean Council to set in stone who Jesus was, and eliminate the opposing views. The Jesus of that Council is pretty much the Jesus that remains today.
I don't see how this goes back to that in any relevant manner. He and I aren't debating whether or not Jesus was divine; we're debating how best to construe the incarnation of the Son of God.
Maxa wrote: I don't see a problem in his thought (if I understand it completely and if I'm understanding your point).I agree with the notion that omnipotence does not mean "capable of anything." Omnipotence only includes the capability of anything logically possible. If we define omniscience as God knowing only and all truths then I don't see a problem. I don't see Jesus' omniscience in anyway "lower" or of less quality if it is subconscious. If we hold to his predicate reduplication, it in no way impedes the divine cognitive faculty, thus being able to affirm complete divinity and complete humanity. If we predicate His omniscience to His divinity and predicate His ignorance to His humanity, neither nature is impeded. His knowledge in His full consciousness (His humanity) is what it should be, not-omniscient. His knowledge in His subconscious (His divinity) is completely omniscient and is not "lower" or lacking in any quality. In His subconscious He is fully aware and fully knowledgeable.I'm not sure if I've proposed a solution to your objection or have repeated myself If it makes any sense or if you still have an objection let me know, maybe I didn't fully understand your objection. I think, if we predicate His omniscience to His divinity, then there shouldn't be any lack of quality to His omniscience and because it is subconscious there isn't any lack of quality to that either. So I believe Craig's thought on this plausible.Questions or comments you'd like to elaborate on?
vemee wrote: Concerning Mark 13 where Jesus said He was ignorant of the day and hour of His return; I do not think it is a statement of Christ being limited by His nature on earth. Personally I believe that Basil of Caesarea had the correct view of this verse by saying it was mistranslated and should read something like this: (loose paraphrasing) "nor would I know the day or the hour if the Father and I were not one" Unfortunately, I do not know the reasons why Basil's view was not adopted. So I will address the current translation.The view that Jesus does not know of the time of His return because his knowledge was limited by being in the flesh calls into question the reliability of anything that Jesus said. The statement Jesus is making says that the Son does not know the day or hour of His return. This is a declarative statement made by Jesus that the second person of the Trinity is ignorant of the return time. Jesus does not give any indication that this lack of knowledge is limited to His earthly ministry. In the Gospel Jesus usually refers to His incarnate self as the Son of Man. In John He uses the term" Son" to show relationship to the Trinity. Had He used the term "Son of Man does not know" you could argue His ignorance was limited to His Earthly ministry but you would still open the Gospel up to criticism about other things that Jesus could have said as doctrine but were said in ignorance. That still leaves the problem of the Son not knowing the time of the return. Even though the Son proceeds from God , is of God and equal to God the Father scripture states clearly that He is submissive to the Father both on earth and in eternity. In this role of submission I see no problem of the Father keeping the time of Christ's return to Himself. Acts 1:7says that the times of Jesus' return is under the Father's authority. This supports the submissive role position but does not rule out Basil's translation either.
Originally posted by MorleyMcMorsonUnfortunately translations don't help at all. The Greek is:Peri de tes hemeras ekeines e tes horas oudeis oiden, oude hoi angeloi en ourano oude ho huios, ei me ho pater.Literal translation:But concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, not the angels in heaven and not the Son, but only the Father.The "oude...oude" construction is rather common in ancient Greek: it sets up a parallelism here between the angels and the Son. The angels are certainly not one with the Father, so Basil's reading is pushing it, it seems to me. He is reading a lot into the text.This also ignores the passage in Luke which speaks of Jesus' growing in wisdom:Kai Iesous proekopten [en te] sophia kai helikia kai chariti para Theo kai anthropois.And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.
though He was a Son, [yet] He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
vemee wrote: If there is no issue of translation, then Mark 13 is a statement admitting the lack of knowledge of a future event by the second person of the Trinity. In my opinion it really does not tie in to the statement in Luke about Jesus increasing in Wisdom since I do not believe this ignorance results from Jesus' incarnation but has to deal with the relationship within the Trinity.I am not very familiar with the details of the definitions of the ideas of the Latin and Social Trinity but from what I do know I would say my view is more of the Social Trinity. The reason being is that scripture speaks of Christ being in submission (not subordination) to the Father. In order for there to be submissiveness there must be more than one will involved; the primary will and the will which submits to the primary. Separate wills also involves separate minds which is why I think it is possible for the Father to know the time for the end when the Son does not. This submission is a matter of role and not of rank or value much like in a Christian marriage a wife should submit to her loving husband although in Christ they are both equal.I like to use the sun as an example of the Father /Son relationship. The moment the sun ignited and became the sun, it gave out light. The light is not the sun but it is the image of the sun and is generated by it. There was never a time when the sun did not generate light (I am referring to the sun in it's present state). So it is with the Son and the Father. The Son's very being is from the Father and the Father was never without the Son. We see the Son to see the Father. I didn't mention the Holy Spirit but He is also included.I will have to think of a better way to explain my position on how Jesus could retain His divine knowledge and still grow in wisdom. I believe it can be explained in the same way that we can explain how Christ learned obedience from suffering without implying that Christ lacked obedience before suffering. I may be spitting hairs in my mind which makes it difficult to explain to others.
Posted by emailesthoume Perhaps the "growing in knowledge" could be explained by Jesus undergoing a gradual realization of his divine nature, since Jesus, according to Christianity, has a divine and human nature.