Theological question

Read Cur Deus Homo

The Church represents the reabsorption of pagan concepts into a wisdom teaching the same thing happened with Mahayana buddhism.

Father wa Father desu
Son wa Son desu
Spirit wa Sprit desu

OP wa baka desu

God can violate logic.

>implying you understand logic.

Actually I'm not sure if this is true. Well, it IS in the sense that he can do anything but I don't know if this is true as far as the physical plane goes. Miracles where within the confines of the principles of the universe, they just use principles against each other in particular ways to create "miraculous" products. But it's not something that couldn't be explained scientifically, we just don't know how to yet. Everything within the universe has to obey by these principles. This is an objective truth. If this is an objective truth then God, when he is acting within the universe, must Obey these rules. As far as theory on the subject suggests, God could not do anything that would defy the principles of the universe, though they may look as though they do, he would only be working with them in a divine way.

God is omniscient. God is all that is real. God can't be a man in the physical world because the limitations of the physical world contradict His divine nature. God cannot be everything but also be confined to just a man. You cant condense the totality of infinity into the human form. You can only do it in a circle.

You misunderstand what an unchanging nature is.

God placed limitations upon himself in order to be among us and with us, as a being both fully god and fully man.

Part of the difficulty in answering this simply is that the doctrinal statement, that Jesus is God, is a distillation of the different ideas and views given in the Scriptures, which developed over decades after the life of Jesus. If John’s gospel was written in the 90s, and Mark’s around 70, there’s 20 years of further speculation and community practice that developed. And that’s already 20 years on from Paul’s statement that Jesus, “Being in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant.”

So there’s the Pauline notion that Christ (as God) emptied something of his divinity to adopt humanity. What does this emptying mean for omniscience? The synoptic gospels seem to have a metaphor of adoption (God declares that “this is my son”) while John’s gospel operates under a metaphor of incarnation (the Word became flesh and dwelt among us). These views, it seems to me, are superficially incompatible. That said, I consider myself to be a theological conservative, so I still affirm the doctrine, though it is more complicated than the statement Jesus is God seems to imply.

I think it became a theological necessity that Jesus was considered the Christ and that this figure would also be God. The different writers had different ideas of how this should work out. The biblical texts then give us different glimpses of how this was understood by different individuals and communties across the first 60 or so years after the death of Jesus.

So why isn’t Jesus omniscient? Well, he is when the narrative needs him to seem divine and not when the narrative needs him to seem human.

Hm. What use has ANY divinity for 'knowledge' given that all it is is a mortal accumulation of remembrance and know-how? In fact I'd say *divinity* pre-empts the (mortal) need for knowledge of ANY kind. If [we] knew (for the sake of argument) what divinity possesses to get around needs that are too obviously [our own] we'd be one step closer to being divine [ourselves].

>An omnipotent being put limitations on itself
>But not really because only one hypostasis was limited
>But actually it did because the one hypostasis is entirely God
"It's a mystery, it's not supposed to make sense!"

Have you heard of Zen?

Jesus is both the father, son, and the holy ghost, but they correspond to different elements of Christ. So the Father knew, but this information corresponded differently when manifested in the Son.

>fully god
>limited himself
pick one

Never studied it. I'm guessing I should..

Oh. And what's a good comprehensive introductory text?

God is a trinity.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Father knows the day and the hour, but the Son does not.
The Father has always been and always will be omniscient. The Son was not omniscient when He was man.

I like James Green's translation of The Recorded Sayings of Joshu.

Jesus didn't want to cheat by leaning on god-mode.

its almost as if Catholicism is retarded and no other fucking religion makes the stupid fucking claims that this one does without qualifying them, see: Vishnu

On it.

So Jesus wasn't fully God during his earthly life? What about the Holy Spirit? Does He know?

Heretical view. Jesus is fully and 100% God.

The Son is the Father and the Father is the Son. So, on the one hand, Jesus doesn't know, but on the other hand, he does. It's one of the mysteries of the Christian faith.

Nope. The Son is not The Father, but both are fully God.

>you can know nuffin

Knoweth no man,no mere man, nor have men any reason to be troubled at it; for it is a piece of knowledge which the Father hath reserved in his own power, and his own pleasure, from the angels, who continually behold his face. Nay, I myself, as man, know it not. Nor is it more absurd, or derogating from the perfection of Christ, than for to say, that Christ, as man, was not omnipotent, or omniscient, &c. By the way, this gives a great check to the curiosity of men’s inquiries after the particular time or year when the world shall have an end, or the day of judgment begin, or be.

The Ethiopic version adds here, "nor the son", and so the Cambridge copy of Beza's; which seems to be transcribed fromMark 13:32where that phrase stands; and must be understood of Christ as the son of man, and not as the Son of God; for as such, he lay in the bosom of the Father, and knew all his purposes and designs; for these were purposed in him: he knew from the beginning who would betray him, and who would believe in him; he knew what would befall the rejecters of him, and when that would come to pass; as he must know also the day of the last judgment, since it is appointed by God, and he is ordained to execute it: but the sense is, that as he, as man and mediator, came not to destroy, but to save; so it was not any part of his work, as such, to know, nor had he it in commission to make known the time of Jerusalem's ruin

If, then, Christ asserts that he is ignorant of anything, it must be that in his human nature he hath, willed not to know that which in his Divine nature he was cognizant cf. This is a part of that voluntary self-surrender and self-limitation of which the apostle speaks when he says that Christ "emptied himself" (Philippians 2:7).