I didn't say/mean you personally. I just think there's a fair amount of evidence out there that shows The Church has, at times, opposed scientific advancement pretty vehemently.
I just think there's a fair amount of evidence out there that shows The Church has, at times, opposed scientific advancement pretty vehemently.
Creationism is certainly a large section of Christianity opposing scientific advancement. Otherwise Galileo was something of an isolated case.
I don't think maintaining an Index of Prohibited Books for four centuries counts as an isolated case, nor was the Index restricted to the works of Galileo.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Why not just record it like Jesus said it happened ?
Perhaps Jesus also understood how to use figurative language.
I will leave it there.
Well you've already dug yourself into a hole so it's probably best to stop digging.
If you believe He’s not God, sure. But the thread seems predicated on the idea that He is, or else it would hardly be a question worth asking about His knowledge of science and things in the first place. Otherwise, why even wonder what He would know about things like that?
If you believe He’s not God, sure. But the thread seems predicated on the idea that He is, or else it would hardly be a question worth asking about His knowledge of science and things in the first place. Otherwise, why even wonder what He would know about things like that?
Well, again, it’s one part of the idea of omniscience. It does seem as if there are some here who think this factoid of science is somehow frivolous in terms of Jesus’ own knowledge. And taken out of context it may well be. That’s probably true of any isolated factoid. But as a thought experiment, it’s not ridiculous. Should not God know at least as much as the whole of humanity? Is that expecting too much of God? Don’t we use omniscience to distinguish God from other things? In another thread we had a poster say that they thought God wasn’t necessarily omnipotent (without using those specific words). But the point was made. Perhaps there are some here who don't need or believe God has to be omniscient. I’d find that odd, but okay.
If you believe He’s not God, sure. But the thread seems predicated on the idea that He is, or else it would hardly be a question worth asking about His knowledge of science and things in the first place. Otherwise, why even wonder what He would know about things like that?
Well, again, it’s one part of the idea of omniscience. It does seem as if there are some here who think this factoid of science is somehow frivolous in terms of Jesus’ own knowledge. And taken out of context it may well be. That’s probably true of any isolated factoid. But as a thought experiment, it’s not ridiculous. Should not God know at least as much as the whole of humanity? Is that expecting too much of God? Don’t we use omniscience to distinguish God from other things? In another thread we had a poster say that they thought God wasn’t necessarily omnipotent (without using those specific words). But the point was made. Perhaps there are some here who don't need or believe God has to be omniscient. I’d find that odd, but okay.
I think part of the question is not so much God just as God, or the Son apart from the incarnation, but what was Jesus’ earthly life like pre-Resurrection, being both fully God and fully man. Admittedly trying to figure out the details of His consciousness might be one of those “beyond human comprehension” things. There’s this whole concept of “kenosis” in which Jesus “emptied” Himself of a lot of His Divine privileges in the process of Incarnation. (So technically, God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it, if we’re talking about Jesus in His human strength… in the same way, making Himself limited to human experiences like hunger, thirst, etc., and in theory, perhaps, the experience of human knowledge and ignorance, just not actual sin. But I don’t know if He could, or did, wonder (for instance) how far away the stars were, and then just Divinely “knew,” etc., or just knew already. He knew what He needed to know for His mission, but how much else? From conception and birth until His death and the Resurrection? I don’t know.)
(And if people were primarily thinking of him as “the guy who knows absolutely everything” wouldn’t that have really interfered with everything else he was doing? He had His own agenda. We definitely see bits where he shows uncanny knowledge but that’s not the same thing as being able to instantly know, say, the number of elephants in the world at the time, etc. There are a couple of references that suggest that there are definitely things that at least on earth He did not know. “Who touched me?” And when the end of the world would come, etc.)
I'm not sure whether I've misunderstood you @The_Riv or whether you've not quite grasped traditional Christian theology on 'kenosis' - the 'self-emptying' of the eternal Word of God in the Incarnation.
Nobody who is an orthodox or Orthodox Christian believer on this thread is denying that God is omniscient.
What we are saying is that through the Incarnation, God the Word submitted himself and restricted himself to human limitations- although the extent of that and the 'mechanics' of that are something people have debated for centuries.
So, as a first century Jew, Christ would have shared the same worldview and cosmology as anyone and everyone else in his society at the time.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that we can't really hold to that view whilst accepting Christ's divinity at the same time.
I'm sorry to have to say it and use a time-worn 'Gamma Gamaliel' trope but it's the ultimate both/and not either/or thing.
Creationism is certainly a large section of Christianity opposing scientific advancement. Otherwise Galileo was something of an isolated case.
I don't think maintaining an Index of Prohibited Books for four centuries counts as an isolated case, nor was the Index restricted to the works of Galileo.
From the article you link to, the Index included several translations of the Bible, and didn't include anything by Darwin.
Kepler is listed as being on the Index, true, but not Newton. If the list were there to oppose scientific advancement it would look rather different.
Furthermore, Galileo's work was removed from the Index apart from the Dialogue in 1718, the Dialogue itself in a "mildly censored" version was removed in 1758, and entirely removed in 1835.
Now I suppose it is technically correct to say that this was including Galileo on a list that was maintained for four centuries, but the implication that Galileo was banned for the duration of the list would be highly misleading.
I note that the Roman Catholic Church was hardly alone in banning books - Lady Chatterley's Lover (unexpurgated) was banned in both the UK and US until the 1960s not out of any explicit urge to oppose scientific advancement.
If you believe He’s not God, sure. But the thread seems predicated on the idea that He is, or else it would hardly be a question worth asking about His knowledge of science and things in the first place. Otherwise, why even wonder what He would know about things like that?
I've already addressed that. 'That which is not assumed is not healed.' as St. Gregory said. God incarnate would have had every natural human limitation, his qualitative divine moral nature and miracle working by the Spirit would not have downloaded Wiki and speaking Māori into his head. Although demonstrating such would have added weight to his claims somewhat.
Wiki describes the "myth" of the flat earth, but I thought it was found among some atheists, who might also cite the "dark ages", another myth.
Which atheists are these? True atheists are pretty rare on the ground before the Enlightenment. ("True" here because Christians were called "atheists" due to not believing in the Olympian gods, and other such examples.)
Not sure what "myth" you are referring to with "dark ages." The period from the fall of Rome to the crowning of Charlemagne definitely existed. The Carolingian Renaissance definitely represents a rebirth of learning compared to the centuries that came before, which is why those centuries are called "dark." Where's the myth?
The myth is that Christianity suppressed learning and technological growth. It has been debunked by modern historians, largely. I thought it was linked to Protestant ideas about the obscurantism of Catholicism.
No, Martin, any contemporary hearing him demonstrating
such knowledge would have concluded that he was mad.
May be. But the mad were often considered touched by (the) G/god/s. It occurred to me in the dunny this morning, that if he were Love incarnate, he should have just said. No atonement suicide mission.
He should have just spoken unambiguous words of Love only.
No hard sayings. But that still wouldn't have proved that he was Love incarnate would it? Unless it was said in a culturally impossible way, a quantum leap above the emotional intelligence of the time. Like the Pericope Adulterae. An actually properly attested miracle would have to accompany it of course. Him writing e=mc^2 in the dust would just demonstrate alien knowledge.
Wiki describes the "myth" of the flat earth, but I thought it was found among some atheists, who might also cite the "dark ages", another myth.
Which atheists are these? True atheists are pretty rare on the ground before the Enlightenment.
I presume he means the kind of modern era atheist apologist who thinks scientific progress was entirely suppressed between Constantine and the (Italian) Renaissance.
Not sure what "myth" you are referring to with "dark ages." The period from the fall of Rome to the crowning of Charlemagne definitely existed. The Carolingian Renaissance definitely represents a rebirth of learning compared to the centuries that came before, which is why those centuries are called "dark." Where's the myth?
It's true that there was a lot less literature culture going on directly after the fall of Rome; even so the Dark Ages were less Dark in continental Europe, where the Church maintained some institutional continuity, than in Britain.
In general, in traditional use Dark Ages referred to the entire period between the Fall of Rome and the (not Carolingian Italian) Renaissance. Over the course of the twentieth century medieval scholars began to restrict the term to the period between the Fall of Rome and the Carolingian Renaissance, before generally deciding that it still carries too much of a pejorative and false implication and largely abandoning the term.
IIRC on his blog Acoup by Brett Devereaux, a classical historian, says that we do in fact have as much historical writing from the early medieval period as from the classical period, and we have a lot more of either than from India or Persia. China is the only part of the world with a comparable body of surviving literature from the period contemporary with the Roman Empire or earlier.
I'm not sure whether I've misunderstood you @The_Riv or whether you've not quite grasped traditional Christian theology on 'kenosis' - the 'self-emptying' of the eternal Word of God in the Incarnation.
I think I’m clear on the concept. You mention later that the mechanics are what are fraught with difficulty. That’s where I am, and of course that difficulty leads to suppositions, because I’m not a person who’s comfortable living with “mystery,” or being told we just can’t get it or really shouldn’t be concerned about getting it. Call it my cross.
Nobody who is an orthodox or Orthodox Christian believer on this thread is denying that God is omniscient.
What we are saying is that through the Incarnation, God the Word submitted himself and restricted himself to human limitations- although the extent of that and the 'mechanics' of that are something people have debated for centuries.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that we can't really hold to that view whilst accepting Christ's divinity at the same time.
If this site has taught me anything, it’s that people can and will believe whatever they want & need, and call it Christian, and it’s very difficult for anyone else to say it isn’t.
It's intriguing reading a thread based on a category error. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding? Only a modernist could surmise that theistic omniscience refers to science.
And there's very little reason for believing that Jesus' human worldview bears any more than a passing resemblance to our own worldviews.
Creationism is certainly a large section of Christianity opposing scientific advancement. Otherwise Galileo was something of an isolated case.
I don't think maintaining an Index of Prohibited Books for four centuries counts as an isolated case, nor was the Index restricted to the works of Galileo.
From the article you link to, the Index included several translations of the Bible, and didn't include anything by Darwin.
Kepler is listed as being on the Index, true, but not Newton. If the list were there to oppose scientific advancement it would look rather different.
Scientific knowledge is not an à la carte buffet. Advances in one area lead to advances in others. Newton himself noted this with his comment "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." One of those giants was Galileo, whose work on gravity would have been available to Newton since the Index Librorum Prohibitorum didn't apply in England. I think the question isn't whether the Index was intended to limit scientific progress but whether it actually did so, regardless of intent. The unambiguous answer is "yes". The mere existence of such a list is an obvious discouragement to anyone doing work in areas that might be deemed heretical.
I note that the Roman Catholic Church was hardly alone in banning books - Lady Chatterley's Lover (unexpurgated) was banned in both the UK and US until the 1960s not out of any explicit urge to oppose scientific advancement.
Indeed. Most censorship regimes aren't targeted at scientific knowledge specifically but at suppressing disfavored ideas, some of which may be scientific and others not. I'm not sure what exactly you think the argument "the Roman Catholic Church wasn't the only one suppressing human knowledge" proves, other than the fact that you're willing to concede that the suppression of knowledge has been commonplace amongst institutions, Christian and otherwise. It certainly runs counter to your earlier argument that such suppression is "an isolated case". A centuries-long censorship regime is not an isolated case, and that remains true whether or not other censorship regimes also exist.
It's intriguing reading a thread based on a category error. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding? Only a modernist could surmise that theistic omniscience refers to science.
And there's very little reason for believing that Jesus' human worldview bears any more than a passing resemblance to our own worldviews.
Right — yours is a response I’ve already alluded to. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding?
Tut-tut, now — leave the God-man alone — he’s far too elevated and busy doing God-man things to be concerned about the trifles of the earth. Why even ask? He’s only 100% man in those arenas anyway, don’t you know.
My suggestion, surely as a misguided modernist, is that omniscience, if it is what we say it is, includes science, and why should it not? Is science a special category of knowing that by default requires its exclusion? Was Jesus of Nazareth not included in the aspects of God that are omniscient? Maybe earth science is trivial to an all-knowing deity, but they ought to have it, no?
It’s 2000 years on and we still haven’t understood these “mechanics.” Why is the conclusion so confidently given the problem is with us instead of the mechanics being iffy?
Jesus had to empty himself of the omni divine attributes to become human. He obviously didn't know everything, wasn't everywhere and couldn't overpower everything, regardless of how the Spirit lent a hand.
Jesus had to empty himself of the omni divine attributes to become human. He obviously didn't know everything, wasn't everywhere and couldn't overpower everything, regardless of how the Spirit lent a hand.
I think @Gamma Gamaliel would disagree. You're describing someone who wasn't in any sense God.
Jesus had to empty himself of the omni divine attributes to become human. He obviously didn't know everything, wasn't everywhere and couldn't overpower everything, regardless of how the Spirit lent a hand.
I think @Gamma Gamaliel would disagree. You're describing someone who wasn't in any sense God.
So having a perfect moral compass doesn't count? Jesus had to have all the omnis to have a divine nature? But just sit on them? No kenosis? A la Philippians 2:7? Not very Orthodox is it?
What I have said is that Christ would have shared the same cosmology as his contemporaries and have agreed with @Nick Tamen that both he and the Gospel writers were more than capable of thinking and expressing themselves in figurative language - whereas some posters seemed to insist on thinking in highly literal terms about the account of the Temptation.
I really don't see what is so unorthodox or un-Orthodox about that.
Jesus had to empty himself of the omni divine attributes to become human. He obviously didn't know everything, wasn't everywhere and couldn't overpower everything, regardless of how the Spirit lent a hand.
I think @Gamma Gamaliel would disagree. You're describing someone who wasn't in any sense God.
So having a perfect moral compass doesn't count? Jesus had to have all the omnis to have a divine nature? But just sit on them? No kenosis? A la Philippians 2:7? Not very Orthodox is it?
I don’t think he demonstrated a perfect moral compass.
Jesus had to empty himself of the omni divine attributes to become human. He obviously didn't know everything, wasn't everywhere and couldn't overpower everything, regardless of how the Spirit lent a hand.
I think @Gamma Gamaliel would disagree. You're describing someone who wasn't in any sense God.
So having a perfect moral compass doesn't count? Jesus had to have all the omnis to have a divine nature? But just sit on them? No kenosis? A la Philippians 2:7? Not very Orthodox is it?
(a) I don’t think he demonstrated a perfect moral compass.
As there are no recorded comments by Jesus on this matter, it's difficult to give an opinion on what he knew. Certainly knowledge of the earth's spherical status predates Christ by several hundred years, but how much of this knowledge was available to Galilean peasants is anyone's guess.
I don't see this as relevant to his divine status. The Incarnation implies the kenotic concept of taking on the limitations of a human brain. On a physical level, we can only gain knowledge that is available to us. The spiritual knowledge Jesus had from his Oneness with the Father is of another order.
So it doesn't seem to me that this is either knowable or of much importance to our faith.
Should not God know at least as much as the whole of humanity? Is that expecting too much of God? Don’t we use omniscience to distinguish God from other things? In another thread we had a poster say that they thought God wasn’t necessarily omnipotent (without using those specific words). But the point was made. Perhaps there are some here who don't need or believe God has to be omniscient. I’d find that odd, but okay.
Is God omniscient? Yes. Was Jesus? No. Is that a problem for Jesus’ divinity? Also no.
If Jesus could set aside His divine immortality in order to become human without it meaning He was not God*, then I fail to see why Him setting aside His divine omniscience** in order to become human should be any more problematic.
.
*= which I think it’s safe to assume quite a few Christians would broadly agree with.
**= or any of the other omnis, for that matter.
It's intriguing reading a thread based on a category error. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding? Only a modernist could surmise that theistic omniscience refers to science.
And there's very little reason for believing that Jesus' human worldview bears any more than a passing resemblance to our own worldviews.
Right — yours is a response I’ve already alluded to. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding?
Tut-tut, now — leave the God-man alone — he’s far too elevated and busy doing God-man things to be concerned about the trifles of the earth. Why even ask? He’s only 100% man in those arenas anyway, don’t you know.
My suggestion, surely as a misguided modernist, is that omniscience, if it is what we say it is, includes science, and why should it not? Is science a special category of knowing that by default requires its exclusion? Was Jesus of Nazareth not included in the aspects of God that are omniscient? Maybe earth science is trivial to an all-knowing deity, but they ought to have it, no?
It’s 2000 years on and we still haven’t understood these “mechanics.” Why is the conclusion so confidently given the problem is with us instead of the mechanics being iffy?
In the Chalcedonian position - dyophysitism, to which the majority of orthodox Christians here would appear to adhere, the two natures of Christ are united in the person of Christ, but they remain distinct, they are not merged. In His human nature, Jesus is neither omniscient, omnipresent nor immortal, etc - if he were any of those things, He would not be human.
In relation to science, scientific knowledge is agnostic, speculative, empirical - all of it open to question and revision at any time in the light of new evidence - none of which are aspects of the divine.
And from another perspective, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum is 100% human and 0% divine.
It's intriguing reading a thread based on a category error. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding? Only a modernist could surmise that theistic omniscience refers to science.
And there's very little reason for believing that Jesus' human worldview bears any more than a passing resemblance to our own worldviews.
Right — yours is a response I’ve already alluded to. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding?
Tut-tut, now — leave the God-man alone — he’s far too elevated and busy doing God-man things to be concerned about the trifles of the earth. Why even ask? He’s only 100% man in those arenas anyway, don’t you know.
My suggestion, surely as a misguided modernist, is that omniscience, if it is what we say it is, includes science, and why should it not? Is science a special category of knowing that by default requires its exclusion? Was Jesus of Nazareth not included in the aspects of God that are omniscient? Maybe earth science is trivial to an all-knowing deity, but they ought to have it, no?
It’s 2000 years on and we still haven’t understood these “mechanics.” Why is the conclusion so confidently given the problem is with us instead of the mechanics being iffy?
In the Chalcedonian position - dyophysitism, to which the majority of orthodox Christians here would appear to adhere, the two natures of Christ are united in the person of Christ, but they remain distinct, they are not merged. In His human nature, Jesus is neither omniscient, omnipresent nor immortal, etc - if he were any of those things, He would not be human.
In relation to science, scientific knowledge is agnostic, speculative, empirical - all of it open to question and revision at any time in the light of new evidence - none of which are aspects of the divine.
And from another perspective, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum is 100% human and 0% divine.
Then it would appear that his divine nature could only be expressed through human nature. The omnis etc couldn't cross the gulf to flesh. But the divinely natured willed morality could. No?
Then it would appear that his divine nature could only be expressed through human nature. The omnis etc couldn't cross the gulf to flesh. But the divinely natured willed morality could. No?
In relation to the "could only", "couldn't" and "could", who knows how a divine being divinely limits themself?
Bear in mind that He submitted His incarnate will to the will of His Father.
Then it would appear that his divine nature could only be expressed through human nature. The omnis etc couldn't cross the gulf to flesh. But the divinely natured willed morality could. No?
In relation to the "could only", "couldn't" and "could", who knows how a divine being divinely limits themself?
Bear in mind that He submitted His incarnate will to the will of His Father.
Should not God know at least as much as the whole of humanity? Is that expecting too much of God? Don’t we use omniscience to distinguish God from other things? In another thread we had a poster say that they thought God wasn’t necessarily omnipotent (without using those specific words). But the point was made. Perhaps there are some here who don't need or believe God has to be omniscient. I’d find that odd, but okay.
Is God omniscient? Yes. Was Jesus? No. Is that a problem for Jesus’ divinity? Also no.
If Jesus could set aside His divine immortality in order to become human without it meaning He was not God*, then I fail to see why Him setting aside His divine omniscience** in order to become human should be any more problematic.
.
*= which I think it’s safe to assume quite a few Christians would broadly agree with.
**= or any of the other omnis, for that matter.
Am I the only one feeling like, while according to orthodox Christian theology, we definitely know certain things about God and about the Incarnation of Christ, trying to sift through and know exactly what He knew (pre-Resurrection) about all kinds of things not related to His mission might be ... er... like the fleas on a dog's back trying to understand what the dog thinks about all day? Or even an amoeba trying to grasp Einstein? Isn't some of this considered to be largely beyond human comprehension? (Not that it's bad to contemplate--I'm just thinking that, barring special revelation or meeting Him face to face when the time comes, there's no real way of knowing this.)
Then it would appear that his divine nature could only be expressed through human nature. The omnis etc couldn't cross the gulf to flesh. But the divinely natured willed morality could. No?
In relation to the "could only", "couldn't" and "could", who knows how a divine being divinely limits themself?
Bear in mind that He submitted His incarnate will to the will of His Father.
which I now see has multiple ambiguities.
Was his incarnate will Jesus' divine nature will or human will? And was the will of the Father Jesus' divine nature will or a third will experienced by his two wills externally?
The fundamentalism is in the orthodox adherence to the text.
I might be wrong, but @Pease seems to be positing a single Incarnate will that is seperate to an 'external' divine will. We may be getting into monosophyte controversies here.
I might be wrong, but @Pease seems to be positing a single Incarnate will that is seperate to an 'external' divine will. We may be getting into monosophyte controversies here.
They make my brain ache.
We agree! And it's in Constantinople III, 681. Dyothelitism, following on 230 years after Chalcedon's dyophysitism, in which Jesus' divine will is that of the Son, subject to that of the Father. His human will had no chance : )
I'm not sure we entirely agree. Mutually aching brains do not agreement make. 😉
But I can certainly see where you are coming from.
I'm not convinced that adherence to the text equates in and of itself to fundamentalism.
Any attempt at Christian theology is going to revolve around the interpretation of texts deemed to be authoritative - but that doesn't necessarily imply a narrow biblicism.
Heck, conservative Protestants would criticise the Orthodox for not concentrating solely on scriptural data as they believe themselves to do - as though it is possible to consider these things outwith small t tradition or stonking Big T Tradition.
I don't agree that Christ's human will 'didn't stand a chance' either. It wasn't overwhelmed or subsumed.
If so he would have become little more than a meat-puppet. As someone once observed on these boards, the Incarnation isn't simply God walking around in a 'man-suit.'
Accept it or reject it but to me part of the wonder - and yes, I am not ashamed to use that word - of orthodox / Orthodox theology is that it holds these things in tension, that it holds paradoxes and contradictions together.
Of course it does so messily at times. We ain't ever going to get everything neatly battened down.
Comments
Maybe, but the OP shows a flat-out distortion.
And not necessarily a straight forward case of rejection of science anyway.
I don't think maintaining an Index of Prohibited Books for four centuries counts as an isolated case, nor was the Index restricted to the works of Galileo.
If you believe He’s not God, sure. But the thread seems predicated on the idea that He is, or else it would hardly be a question worth asking about His knowledge of science and things in the first place. Otherwise, why even wonder what He would know about things like that?
Well, again, it’s one part of the idea of omniscience. It does seem as if there are some here who think this factoid of science is somehow frivolous in terms of Jesus’ own knowledge. And taken out of context it may well be. That’s probably true of any isolated factoid. But as a thought experiment, it’s not ridiculous. Should not God know at least as much as the whole of humanity? Is that expecting too much of God? Don’t we use omniscience to distinguish God from other things? In another thread we had a poster say that they thought God wasn’t necessarily omnipotent (without using those specific words). But the point was made. Perhaps there are some here who don't need or believe God has to be omniscient. I’d find that odd, but okay.
I think part of the question is not so much God just as God, or the Son apart from the incarnation, but what was Jesus’ earthly life like pre-Resurrection, being both fully God and fully man. Admittedly trying to figure out the details of His consciousness might be one of those “beyond human comprehension” things. There’s this whole concept of “kenosis” in which Jesus “emptied” Himself of a lot of His Divine privileges in the process of Incarnation. (So technically, God can make a rock so big he can’t lift it, if we’re talking about Jesus in His human strength… in the same way, making Himself limited to human experiences like hunger, thirst, etc., and in theory, perhaps, the experience of human knowledge and ignorance, just not actual sin. But I don’t know if He could, or did, wonder (for instance) how far away the stars were, and then just Divinely “knew,” etc., or just knew already. He knew what He needed to know for His mission, but how much else? From conception and birth until His death and the Resurrection? I don’t know.)
(And if people were primarily thinking of him as “the guy who knows absolutely everything” wouldn’t that have really interfered with everything else he was doing? He had His own agenda. We definitely see bits where he shows uncanny knowledge but that’s not the same thing as being able to instantly know, say, the number of elephants in the world at the time, etc. There are a couple of references that suggest that there are definitely things that at least on earth He did not know. “Who touched me?” And when the end of the world would come, etc.)
Nobody who is an orthodox or Orthodox Christian believer on this thread is denying that God is omniscient.
What we are saying is that through the Incarnation, God the Word submitted himself and restricted himself to human limitations- although the extent of that and the 'mechanics' of that are something people have debated for centuries.
So, as a first century Jew, Christ would have shared the same worldview and cosmology as anyone and everyone else in his society at the time.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that we can't really hold to that view whilst accepting Christ's divinity at the same time.
I'm sorry to have to say it and use a time-worn 'Gamma Gamaliel' trope but it's the ultimate both/and not either/or thing.
100% God.
100% Human.
Kepler is listed as being on the Index, true, but not Newton. If the list were there to oppose scientific advancement it would look rather different.
Furthermore, Galileo's work was removed from the Index apart from the Dialogue in 1718, the Dialogue itself in a "mildly censored" version was removed in 1758, and entirely removed in 1835.
Now I suppose it is technically correct to say that this was including Galileo on a list that was maintained for four centuries, but the implication that Galileo was banned for the duration of the list would be highly misleading.
I note that the Roman Catholic Church was hardly alone in banning books - Lady Chatterley's Lover (unexpurgated) was banned in both the UK and US until the 1960s not out of any explicit urge to oppose scientific advancement.
I've already addressed that. 'That which is not assumed is not healed.' as St. Gregory said. God incarnate would have had every natural human limitation, his qualitative divine moral nature and miracle working by the Spirit would not have downloaded Wiki and speaking Māori into his head. Although demonstrating such would have added weight to his claims somewhat.
such knowledge would have concluded that he was mad.
Which atheists are these? True atheists are pretty rare on the ground before the Enlightenment. ("True" here because Christians were called "atheists" due to not believing in the Olympian gods, and other such examples.)
Not sure what "myth" you are referring to with "dark ages." The period from the fall of Rome to the crowning of Charlemagne definitely existed. The Carolingian Renaissance definitely represents a rebirth of learning compared to the centuries that came before, which is why those centuries are called "dark." Where's the myth?
May be. But the mad were often considered touched by (the) G/god/s. It occurred to me in the dunny this morning, that if he were Love incarnate, he should have just said. No atonement suicide mission.
He should have just spoken unambiguous words of Love only.
No hard sayings. But that still wouldn't have proved that he was Love incarnate would it? Unless it was said in a culturally impossible way, a quantum leap above the emotional intelligence of the time. Like the Pericope Adulterae. An actually properly attested miracle would have to accompany it of course. Him writing e=mc^2 in the dust would just demonstrate alien knowledge.
It's true that there was a lot less literature culture going on directly after the fall of Rome; even so the Dark Ages were less Dark in continental Europe, where the Church maintained some institutional continuity, than in Britain.
In general, in traditional use Dark Ages referred to the entire period between the Fall of Rome and the (not Carolingian Italian) Renaissance. Over the course of the twentieth century medieval scholars began to restrict the term to the period between the Fall of Rome and the Carolingian Renaissance, before generally deciding that it still carries too much of a pejorative and false implication and largely abandoning the term.
IIRC on his blog Acoup by Brett Devereaux, a classical historian, says that we do in fact have as much historical writing from the early medieval period as from the classical period, and we have a lot more of either than from India or Persia. China is the only part of the world with a comparable body of surviving literature from the period contemporary with the Roman Empire or earlier.
So I’m not in terrible company, then. Good.
This is the 100% man part, sure.
If this site has taught me anything, it’s that people can and will believe whatever they want & need, and call it Christian, and it’s very difficult for anyone else to say it isn’t.
Oh, don’t downplay it. We should all be so lucky as to have our own, signature tropes.
And there's very little reason for believing that Jesus' human worldview bears any more than a passing resemblance to our own worldviews.
Scientific knowledge is not an à la carte buffet. Advances in one area lead to advances in others. Newton himself noted this with his comment "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." One of those giants was Galileo, whose work on gravity would have been available to Newton since the Index Librorum Prohibitorum didn't apply in England. I think the question isn't whether the Index was intended to limit scientific progress but whether it actually did so, regardless of intent. The unambiguous answer is "yes". The mere existence of such a list is an obvious discouragement to anyone doing work in areas that might be deemed heretical.
Indeed. Most censorship regimes aren't targeted at scientific knowledge specifically but at suppressing disfavored ideas, some of which may be scientific and others not. I'm not sure what exactly you think the argument "the Roman Catholic Church wasn't the only one suppressing human knowledge" proves, other than the fact that you're willing to concede that the suppression of knowledge has been commonplace amongst institutions, Christian and otherwise. It certainly runs counter to your earlier argument that such suppression is "an isolated case". A centuries-long censorship regime is not an isolated case, and that remains true whether or not other censorship regimes also exist.
Right — yours is a response I’ve already alluded to. What need does a Great High Priest, a Saviour, have of science, of scientific understanding?
Tut-tut, now — leave the God-man alone — he’s far too elevated and busy doing God-man things to be concerned about the trifles of the earth. Why even ask? He’s only 100% man in those arenas anyway, don’t you know.
My suggestion, surely as a misguided modernist, is that omniscience, if it is what we say it is, includes science, and why should it not? Is science a special category of knowing that by default requires its exclusion? Was Jesus of Nazareth not included in the aspects of God that are omniscient? Maybe earth science is trivial to an all-knowing deity, but they ought to have it, no?
It’s 2000 years on and we still haven’t understood these “mechanics.” Why is the conclusion so confidently given the problem is with us instead of the mechanics being iffy?
I think @Gamma Gamaliel would disagree. You're describing someone who wasn't in any sense God.
So having a perfect moral compass doesn't count? Jesus had to have all the omnis to have a divine nature? But just sit on them? No kenosis? A la Philippians 2:7? Not very Orthodox is it?
I'm not actually saying that these things don't matter either, contrary to how it appears @The_Riv wishes to represent my position.
I really don't see what is so unorthodox or un-Orthodox about that.
Other standpoints are available.
I don’t think he demonstrated a perfect moral compass.
If I ever tried to represent your position, @Gamma Gamaliel, I’d use your name, or just quote you.
(a) He did. Christians do. I don't either. Although his social morality, for the masses, is hard to fault. Especially for the time.
(b) Which you did in reply to me above. After I was describing kenosis which is o/O/rthodox.
I don't see that you are. So perhaps I am...
I don't see this as relevant to his divine status. The Incarnation implies the kenotic concept of taking on the limitations of a human brain. On a physical level, we can only gain knowledge that is available to us. The spiritual knowledge Jesus had from his Oneness with the Father is of another order.
So it doesn't seem to me that this is either knowable or of much importance to our faith.
Is God omniscient? Yes. Was Jesus? No. Is that a problem for Jesus’ divinity? Also no.
If Jesus could set aside His divine immortality in order to become human without it meaning He was not God*, then I fail to see why Him setting aside His divine omniscience** in order to become human should be any more problematic.
.
*= which I think it’s safe to assume quite a few Christians would broadly agree with.
**= or any of the other omnis, for that matter.
In relation to science, scientific knowledge is agnostic, speculative, empirical - all of it open to question and revision at any time in the light of new evidence - none of which are aspects of the divine.
And from another perspective, dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum is 100% human and 0% divine.
Then it would appear that his divine nature could only be expressed through human nature. The omnis etc couldn't cross the gulf to flesh. But the divinely natured willed morality could. No?
Bear in mind that He submitted His incarnate will to the will of His Father.
All the wills. Hard to keep track of them.
Yeahhhhhh. An entity with two wills is subservient to another's. What a mystery eh? A fundamentalist mystery.
If you are going to accuse me of fundamentalism at least get my theology right.
Amen.
😉
Thing is, speculation about these things only makes sense if we are either:
a) trying to defend or make sense of traditional Christian theological understandings of these matters.
b) out to question, challenge or re-evaluate the same.
It really doesn't matter to anyone else.
That isn't to say it isn't of cosmic importance. I believe it is.
But then, I would ...
Sorry. I was going by what Pease said,
which I now see has multiple ambiguities.
Was his incarnate will Jesus' divine nature will or human will? And was the will of the Father Jesus' divine nature will or a third will experienced by his two wills externally?
The fundamentalism is in the orthodox adherence to the text.
I might be wrong, but @Pease seems to be positing a single Incarnate will that is seperate to an 'external' divine will. We may be getting into monosophyte controversies here.
They make my brain ache.
We agree! And it's in Constantinople III, 681. Dyothelitism, following on 230 years after Chalcedon's dyophysitism, in which Jesus' divine will is that of the Son, subject to that of the Father. His human will had no chance : )
But I can certainly see where you are coming from.
I'm not convinced that adherence to the text equates in and of itself to fundamentalism.
Any attempt at Christian theology is going to revolve around the interpretation of texts deemed to be authoritative - but that doesn't necessarily imply a narrow biblicism.
Heck, conservative Protestants would criticise the Orthodox for not concentrating solely on scriptural data as they believe themselves to do - as though it is possible to consider these things outwith small t tradition or stonking Big T Tradition.
I don't agree that Christ's human will 'didn't stand a chance' either. It wasn't overwhelmed or subsumed.
If so he would have become little more than a meat-puppet. As someone once observed on these boards, the Incarnation isn't simply God walking around in a 'man-suit.'
Accept it or reject it but to me part of the wonder - and yes, I am not ashamed to use that word - of orthodox / Orthodox theology is that it holds these things in tension, that it holds paradoxes and contradictions together.
Of course it does so messily at times. We ain't ever going to get everything neatly battened down.