Was Jesus perfect in his human deeds?
#31
(10-17-2010, 07:28 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 06:13 PM)justlurking Wrote: If Jesus had played darts Would he always hit the exact center of the dartboard?

I begun to think about this after reading about the languages Jesus spoke, (aramaic, hebrew, and perhaps greek and some latin) I always thought Jesus knew all languages that have ever existed, exist or will exist since he is all powerful all knowing God.

Yes, Jesus was perfect in all things. However, this sort of common activity shouldn't be considered.

God became Man, to live and die, for our sake. So, he was a perfect infant, a perfect child and a perfect man.

Jesus would have known all languages (indeed, the apostles are recorded as speaking them all at once), however, knowing many languages was common in that area. After all, speaking Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin would be not uncommon (well, Latin would have been rarer in that area, as that part of the Roman Empire spoke Greek mostly due to historical influence) as native speakers of those languages are in the scriptures.

His divine intellect indeed possessed awareness of all knowledge.

But He does not appear to have ever allowed this to have been actualized in His human nature until His mother approached him at the wedding at Cana (with the single exception of the incident in Jerusalem when He was 12).

I am partial to the way Fr. Frank Sheed explicates this mystery in his book To Know Christ Jesus.  It's the best book on Christ I've ever read, probably because it was originally written in 20th century American English for a 20th century American audience (of the cozy old 1950s no less). :)
Reply
#32
(11-23-2010, 04:16 AM)Zakhur Wrote: probably because it was originally written in 20th century American English for a 20th century American audience

I don't get it.
Reply
#33
(11-23-2010, 04:16 AM)Zakhur Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 07:28 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(10-17-2010, 06:13 PM)justlurking Wrote: If Jesus had played darts Would he always hit the exact center of the dartboard?

I begun to think about this after reading about the languages Jesus spoke, (aramaic, hebrew, and perhaps greek and some latin) I always thought Jesus knew all languages that have ever existed, exist or will exist since he is all powerful all knowing God.

Yes, Jesus was perfect in all things. However, this sort of common activity shouldn't be considered.

God became Man, to live and die, for our sake. So, he was a perfect infant, a perfect child and a perfect man.

Jesus would have known all languages (indeed, the apostles are recorded as speaking them all at once), however, knowing many languages was common in that area. After all, speaking Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin would be not uncommon (well, Latin would have been rarer in that area, as that part of the Roman Empire spoke Greek mostly due to historical influence) as native speakers of those languages are in the scriptures.

His divine intellect indeed possessed awareness of all knowledge.

But He does not appear to have ever allowed this to have been actualized in His human nature until His mother approached him at the wedding at Cana (with the single exception of the incident in Jerusalem when He was 12).

I am partial to the way Fr. Frank Sheed explicates this mystery in his book To Know Christ Jesus.  It's the best book on Christ I've ever read, probably because it was originally written in 20th century American English for a 20th century American audience (of the cozy old 1950s no less). :)

His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.
Reply
#34
(11-25-2010, 05:58 PM)Walty Wrote: His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.

Never? How so?
Reply
#35
(11-25-2010, 06:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 05:58 PM)Walty Wrote: His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.

Never? How so?

Well, according to my understanding of the teaching of Thomas and Garrigou-Lagrange, the Father communicates His divine knowledge to the Son via both the beatific vision and infused knowledge.  The summation of that knowledge is all things actualized in reality.  The further knowledge, held by the divine alone, is the knowledge of all things in reality as well as all things in potentiality.  The Son receives all knowledge of things in actuality from the Father then, and, it appears to me, receives no knowledge from His own uncreated intellect.  Moreover, the human mind simply cannot contain all knowledge of things in potential simply because the finite cannot hold the infinite.
Reply
#36
(11-25-2010, 06:16 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 05:58 PM)Walty Wrote: His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.

Never? How so?

Well, according to my understanding of the teaching of Thomas and Garrigou-Lagrange, the Father communicates His divine knowledge to the Son via both the beatific vision and infused knowledge.  The summation of that knowledge is all things actualized in reality.  The further knowledge, held by the divine alone, is the knowledge of all things in reality as well as all things in potentiality.  The Son receives all knowledge of things in actuality from the Father then, and, it appears to me, receives no knowledge from His own uncreated intellect.  Moreover, the human mind simply cannot contain all knowledge of things in potential simply because the finite cannot hold the infinite.

I understand.

It's the same reasoning regarding his human nature being subordinate to the divine nature, correct? When trying to explain those scriptural passages where Jesus appears inferior in knowledge to the Father, this is what I've read.
Reply
#37
(11-25-2010, 06:23 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:16 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 05:58 PM)Walty Wrote: His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.

Never? How so?

Well, according to my understanding of the teaching of Thomas and Garrigou-Lagrange, the Father communicates His divine knowledge to the Son via both the beatific vision and infused knowledge.  The summation of that knowledge is all things actualized in reality.  The further knowledge, held by the divine alone, is the knowledge of all things in reality as well as all things in potentiality.  The Son receives all knowledge of things in actuality from the Father then, and, it appears to me, receives no knowledge from His own uncreated intellect.  Moreover, the human mind simply cannot contain all knowledge of things in potential simply because the finite cannot hold the infinite.

I understand.

It's the same reasoning regarding his human nature being subordinate to the divine nature, correct? When trying to explain those scriptural passages where Jesus appears inferior in knowledge to the Father, this is what I've read.

Yes.  It's actually really interesting stuff.  The main problem are the passages which seem to show Christ predicting the Judgment before the passing of His own generation.  It appears that the only answer to that problem is that Christ was speaking in some symbolic or metaphorical way.  People often cite the passages in which Jesus claims that He does not know the hour of the Judgment Day, but the answer that Thomas and Lagrange give to this is that, as you mentioned, He was merely ignorant of this in His acquired knowledge alone and was perhaps not permitted by the Father to reveal the hour which He does know via infused knowledge and the direct vision of God.
Reply
#38
(11-25-2010, 06:36 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:23 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:16 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 05:58 PM)Walty Wrote: His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.

Never? How so?

Well, according to my understanding of the teaching of Thomas and Garrigou-Lagrange, the Father communicates His divine knowledge to the Son via both the beatific vision and infused knowledge.  The summation of that knowledge is all things actualized in reality.  The further knowledge, held by the divine alone, is the knowledge of all things in reality as well as all things in potentiality.  The Son receives all knowledge of things in actuality from the Father then, and, it appears to me, receives no knowledge from His own uncreated intellect.  Moreover, the human mind simply cannot contain all knowledge of things in potential simply because the finite cannot hold the infinite.

I understand.

It's the same reasoning regarding his human nature being subordinate to the divine nature, correct? When trying to explain those scriptural passages where Jesus appears inferior in knowledge to the Father, this is what I've read.

Yes.  It's actually really interesting stuff.  The main problem are the passages which seem to show Christ predicting the Judgment before the passing of His own generation. It appears that the only answer to that problem is that Christ was speaking in some symbolic or metaphorical way. People often cite the passages in which Jesus claims that He does not know the hour of the Judgment Day, but the answer that Thomas and Lagrange give to this is that, as you mentioned, He was merely ignorant of this in His acquired knowledge alone and was perhaps not permitted by the Father to reveal the hour which He does know via infused knowledge and the direct vision of God.

I remember reading a good explanation about this once but I can't really remember right now, my memory is not as good as it used to be.

This apparent "error" of Our Lord is one of the accusations that the enemies of the Church, like of E.P. Sanders and others, do. Nevertheless, I have the distinct feeling that I once read a good explanation of that passage. It's only natural that after 2,000 years of biblical exegesis the Church has something valuable to say about it. Can you point it out to me?
Reply
#39
(11-23-2010, 04:28 AM)Jitpring Wrote:
(11-23-2010, 04:16 AM)Zakhur Wrote: probably because it was originally written in 20th century American English for a 20th century American audience

I don't get it.

Being the language with which I am most familiar, it is a very comfortable read (it helps that Sheed is a clear writer too).  Books translated into English (no matter how clear the writing was originally) really are less comfortable reading.
Reply
#40
(11-25-2010, 06:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:36 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:23 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:16 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 06:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-25-2010, 05:58 PM)Walty Wrote: His strictly divine intelligence (the uncreated intellect) did indeed possess knowledge of all things (both actual and potential), but there was never a communication between his divine (uncreated) and human (created) intellects.

Never? How so?

Well, according to my understanding of the teaching of Thomas and Garrigou-Lagrange, the Father communicates His divine knowledge to the Son via both the beatific vision and infused knowledge.  The summation of that knowledge is all things actualized in reality.  The further knowledge, held by the divine alone, is the knowledge of all things in reality as well as all things in potentiality.  The Son receives all knowledge of things in actuality from the Father then, and, it appears to me, receives no knowledge from His own uncreated intellect.  Moreover, the human mind simply cannot contain all knowledge of things in potential simply because the finite cannot hold the infinite.

I understand.

It's the same reasoning regarding his human nature being subordinate to the divine nature, correct? When trying to explain those scriptural passages where Jesus appears inferior in knowledge to the Father, this is what I've read.

Yes.  It's actually really interesting stuff.  The main problem are the passages which seem to show Christ predicting the Judgment before the passing of His own generation. It appears that the only answer to that problem is that Christ was speaking in some symbolic or metaphorical way. People often cite the passages in which Jesus claims that He does not know the hour of the Judgment Day, but the answer that Thomas and Lagrange give to this is that, as you mentioned, He was merely ignorant of this in His acquired knowledge alone and was perhaps not permitted by the Father to reveal the hour which He does know via infused knowledge and the direct vision of God.

I remember reading a good explanation about this once but I can't really remember right now, my memory is not as good as it used to be.

This apparent "error" of Our Lord is one of the accusations that the enemies of the Church, like of E.P. Sanders and others, do. Nevertheless, I have the distinct feeling that I once read a good explanation of that passage. It's only natural that after 2,000 years of biblical exegesis the Church has something valuable to say about it. Can you point it out to me?

I'm sure that there are sufficient answers somewhere, however, as much as I love Garrigou-Lagrange he didn't have a good answer for this.  It was the one real problem that I had with his evaluation of Christ's knowledge (I wrote one of my two MA theses on this). 

You are correct that the enemies of the Church have butchered this topic (not surprising).  Rahner et al want to claim all sorts of ignorance in Christ.  It's ridiculous.

And what are you asking to be pointed toward?  The biblical passages of Christ predicting an imminent Judgment?  I'd love to hear about the answers to this if you can remember them.  It's pretty unusual for Lagrange to give insufficient answer to a problem.  Thomas doesn't seem to have a good answer either.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)