Miért nem tudja Jézus "azt a napot, és azt az órát"?

Christ’s Knowledge: How much did Jesus know? If he was God, why was some of His knowledge limited?

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that Jesus could not be God because of his limited knowledge for Jesus “learned obedience” (Should You Believe, Chapter 7), did not know the precise day and hour of the Last Day (ibid.), and was given a revelation by God (ibid.). Much of the Jehovah's Witnesses’ confusion here likewise stems from their inability to comprehend the hypostatic union of the God-man Jesus (i.e., it was the created human Jesus, who was not God, who learned obedience). Nor do they understand the nature of Jesus’ three-fold human knowledge.

Theologians are in general agreement that Jesus had a) the beatific, or intuitive, vision of God; b) infused knowledge, and c) acquired knowledge (Catholic Encyclopedia, 930).

A) Vision/Intuitive or Beatific Knowledge

With respect to His vision knowledge it is taught that “Christ in His humanity, i.e., in His human intellect, from the very first instant of the incarnation, had the immediate vision of God, (ibid., 930). “[T]he two, hypostatic union and vision, of necessity go together.”

Christ’s self-awareness as a Divine Person in His human nature includes the beatific, or immediate, vision of God.

Christ’s vision of God, it is common teaching, was not comprehensive with regard to its primary object, the divine essence; >it was limited because it was human<. Nor does it extend, as to its secondary objects, to all that the divine knowledge comprehends, but only to what pertains to the object of God’s vision knowledge…. not to the object of the knowledge of simple understanding …; and here it extends particularly, if not exclusively, to all that pertains to His mission and man’s salvation. (ibid.)

B) Infused Knowledge

Whereas “>the vision is inexpressible in human concepts< (Catholic Encyclopedia, 930) and is a knowledge that ‘Christ derived from His contact with the Father,” >Christ’s infused knowledge is “expressible in human concepts and words<” (ibid., 938). “The distinction may be explicit in Scripture (cf Jn 7.16; Mt 11.27). Infused knowledge is similar to angelic knowledge, “Because vision knowledge is incommunicable in human terms, and Christ’s mission entailed the communication to men of divine mysteries …” i.e., salvation, “ … a communicable knowledge of these mysteries was necessary” (ibid.). Infused knowledge was required because of Jesus’ mission.

Today theologians incline to explain the extension of Christ’s infused knowledge from the purpose and nature of His mission; this was a coming in lowliness, not in glory, and did not require the knowledge of all human learning … but only of all that pertains to men’s salvation …. This was necessary and sufficient for Christ to discharge His mission.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 938)

C) Acquired Knowledge

“The fact of Christ’s experiential, or acquired, knowledge is considered certain by theologians today,” and like all of us was “limited and restricted.” This knowledge “was perfect in keeping with the concrete circumstances of His time and place, age and mission, and His dealings with people for His redemptive and prophetic mission” (ibid.). Jesus “grew” in this knowledge (cf Luke 2.40, 52) through observation and experience and from other people (ibid.).

D) The Three Kinds of Human Knowledge were Distinct, but not Separate

“[The] three kinds of human knowledge in Christ, required by what Scripture and revelation say of the God-man, did not hinder or exclude but rather complemented one another. The three were required on different grounds and existed on different levels, while uniting in one human consciousness for the purpose of Christ’s mission” (ibid., 938, 939).

The three kinds of knowledge were the acts and possession of one human intellect and one human awareness; they were distinct, not separated. Their perfect harmony, however, remains mysterious; it is part of the very mystery of Christ.” (ibid., 939)

Some modernists place less emphasis on Christ’s vision knowledge believing that it could lead to interference and the exclusion of genuine human experience (Encyclopedia of Religion, 25).

Jesus’ ignorance of the Last Day - Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge which is inexpressible in human concepts, not His infused knowledge. But did the Holy Spirit know the day and hour of the Last Day?

At Mark 13:32 Jesus stated “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” “Son” in this context does not refer to the “God” of the God-man Jesus but the man and His human knowledge. St. Augustine offered a solution to the question of Christ’s limited knowledge that today is universally accepted, namely, that “Christ had no communicable knowledge of the Last Day because it did not pertain to His mission to reveal it.” “>[One] could say that Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge, not in His infused knowledge<” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 939) (emphasis added).

“Augustine said this in the context of the question about human infirmities taken on by Christ; his solution here too has prevailed: Christ took all of these infirmities, except ignorance, which is not only a consequence but also a principle of sin. (ibid.)”

Roch A. Kereszty explains “The Word has known man and the fullness of human experience from all eternity through his divine knowledge. But in the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine “status,” renounces, it seems, the direct use of his divine consciousness and knowledge, and becomes aware of himself as man and learns as man gradually about God, himself, people and the world. He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (Fundamentals of Christology, 317).

There are also practical considerations regarding Christ’s limited knowledge of the Last Day. Not only was it not necessary in order to fulfill His mission, but mankind’s awareness of the exact day and hour has the propensity for unrepentant man, subject to death at any moment, to put off repentance and salvation until the last possible minute. This would countermand Christ’s command to be constantly vigilant (Matthew 25: 1-13).

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend further that even if, “as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?” (Reasoning, 409). The answer is that the Holy Spirit did know because He is one of the Hypostases or Persons of the Holy Trinity. Remember, >usually “Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God<” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). God is by nature triune and one of those Persons is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Jesus stated that only the Father knows exactly when the Last Day shall be, his reference to the Father, the triune God, by definition included the Person of the Holy Spirit.

A háromság lényege, hogy Jézus teljes ember és teljes Isten, kettős természete van. Mint ember, nem tudta az időt, elfáradt, megéhezett stb. De ez az ő létének mindössze töredéke volt a Bibliából nagyon jól tudod hogy Jézus előtte is volt (mielőtt Ábrahám lett, én vagyok) és ma is él. Egy emberrel ez nem szokott megesni, hogy a teremtésnél is jelen van meg a végítéletnél is....

Freya

Igen és nem. A képlet így néz ki: Atya=Isten, a Fiú= Isten, a Szent Lélek = Isten. DE azt Atya nem egyenlő a Fiúval vagy a Lélekkel. Egylényegűek, de három különböző személyiség. Ez emberi logikával talán kissé bonyolult, hiszen nincs rá precedens, de ha imádkozó szívvel olvasod a Bibliát, már az Ószövetségben is bőségben akad erre utalás. Még egy dolog: Isten maga a Szeretet. És ez nem csak egy tetszetős mondás, hanem valóság. Viszont a szeretni ige tranzitív, ha azt mondod: szeretem, én megkérdezem: kit? mit? Tárgy nélkül a szeretet értelmetlen, Jahve lényege azonban már a világ teremtése előtt is ugyanaz volt. Három személyiség, akik egyek, hiszen "én és az Atya egyek vagyunk." Ezt mondta Jézus is.

Freya

[link]

16:35: Ez így ebben a formában jehovista zsargon. Az igaz, hogy a zsidók Istenének a neve Jahve vagy Jehova. Az is igaz, hogy Jézus az Atyát Istennek, és Istent az Atyjának nevezte. De ebből csak a Társulat számára logikus a Jehova / Isten = az Atya képlet. Az isteni Jahve vagy Jehova név nem csak az egyik személyt jelöli, hanem magát az Istenséget (theotész, Kol 2:9), akiben három személyt lehet azonosítani. A "kereszténység egyházainak hívei" ugyanazt az Istent ugyanazon néven (Jehova / Jahve) imádják, mint Jehova Tanúi, csak azt állítják, hogy Jehova Isten több mint Atya: Fiú és Szentlélek is.

"Jézusról és Jehovról" beszélni sajátosan őrtornyos, jehovista teológiai zsargon, és természetesen csak ennek keretében értelmezhető.

Antitrinitárius tanítások hangsúlyozása végett ugyanis az isteni nevet kizárólag az Atyaistenre korlátozzák. Ebből fakad például az, hogy ha egy keresztény azt mondja, hogy "Jézus az Jehova", akkor azt a JT agy úgy érti, hogy "Jézus az Atya", ami nyilánvalóan nevetségesen hat nemcsak a JT-k, de a teológiailag korrekt kereszténység számára. Az olyan szóhasználattal, hogy pl. "Jehova és Jézus" szintén az ariánus teológiájukat erőltetik, hogy már nyelvi szintjén is berögződjön a JT-be az antitrinitárius dogma. Ld. Újbeszél

De persze ha kibontjuk a megfogalmazást, akkor érthetővé válik. Mi ugyanis nem azt mondjuk például, hogy Jézus "Jehovával egyenlő", hanem, hogy a JHVH istennév eleve nem csak egy személynek, az Atyának a neve, hanem magát az istenséget jelöli, amiben három személyt lehet azonosítani.

Bocs az offért.

Előző: Te már annyira belementél ebbe a témába, h nem látod a fától az erdőt...

Kicsit elborzadtam ennek láttán, ezért mertem offolni :)