On reading the question I have my usual hair trigger reaction. I sit on this ( these days ) long enough to get to my ….response.
Reaction = emotional something like…are you calling Jesus a liar! Followed by suspicion as I contemplate a theological rationale. By now minutes have passed .
Slowly I see as I read , the sheer beauty in your post of those men who had the grace to ask , pray , meditate, study , debate and pray some more . And all this over years .
I understand the why , of the Church Fathers now .
At least I begin to .
However I fully understand ( now ) the chilling danger of “ anyone can interpret the Scriptures “.
Thanks for this. I also thought the reason why He said that He did not know the day was because it was part of the Jewish wedding practice.
The father of the groom would decide when the wedding feast would start. So Christ is alluding to the last day as the beginning of the wedding banquet between Him and the Church.
If you want to call Jesus the christ a liar, do it boldly. If he didn't lie, then he didn't know.
There is no middle ground on this we need to believe what Jesus said is true. Not give his words some sort of "symbolic" meaning, as some do concerning the Eucharist.
Incorrect. I have not stated a heresy. What the christ said is true as stated. Did he "not know day or hour of his coming" because he hadn't studied enough or hadn't spent enough time in prayer? No. Because he lacked a divine nature? No.
You wish to explain the mystery of how he, being God, can say this, and this can be true, through some symbolic meaning. In the manner as some who do not understand the mystery of Eucharist attempt to explain that as merely a symbolic meaning: the bread is not his flesh, the wine is not his blood.
The difference is that there is no contradiction involved in saying that what appears to be bread is his flesh, etc; whereas there is a contradiction involved in saying that he is God and yet is ignorant of something in his divine nature, or that one Person of the Blessed Trinity knows something that another doss not.
Another key difference is that the Church, with Christ's authority and which proposed the scriptures as dovinely revelaed in the first place, agrees with what I'm saying, and doesn't agree that a prima facie reading of the text as proposed here, is correct.
On reading the question I have my usual hair trigger reaction. I sit on this ( these days ) long enough to get to my ….response.
Reaction = emotional something like…are you calling Jesus a liar! Followed by suspicion as I contemplate a theological rationale. By now minutes have passed .
Slowly I see as I read , the sheer beauty in your post of those men who had the grace to ask , pray , meditate, study , debate and pray some more . And all this over years .
I understand the why , of the Church Fathers now .
At least I begin to .
However I fully understand ( now ) the chilling danger of “ anyone can interpret the Scriptures “.
Many thanks for this great post.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Thanks for this. I also thought the reason why He said that He did not know the day was because it was part of the Jewish wedding practice.
The father of the groom would decide when the wedding feast would start. So Christ is alluding to the last day as the beginning of the wedding banquet between Him and the Church.
If you want to call Jesus the christ a liar, do it boldly. If he didn't lie, then he didn't know.
There is no middle ground on this we need to believe what Jesus said is true. Not give his words some sort of "symbolic" meaning, as some do concerning the Eucharist.
This is not the teaching of the Church. In fact, it's a really old heresy.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215b.htm
It's not for us to decide what difficult parts of Scripture msan against the teaching of the Church and the Fathers.
Incorrect. I have not stated a heresy. What the christ said is true as stated. Did he "not know day or hour of his coming" because he hadn't studied enough or hadn't spent enough time in prayer? No. Because he lacked a divine nature? No.
You wish to explain the mystery of how he, being God, can say this, and this can be true, through some symbolic meaning. In the manner as some who do not understand the mystery of Eucharist attempt to explain that as merely a symbolic meaning: the bread is not his flesh, the wine is not his blood.
The difference is that there is no contradiction involved in saying that what appears to be bread is his flesh, etc; whereas there is a contradiction involved in saying that he is God and yet is ignorant of something in his divine nature, or that one Person of the Blessed Trinity knows something that another doss not.
Another key difference is that the Church, with Christ's authority and which proposed the scriptures as dovinely revelaed in the first place, agrees with what I'm saying, and doesn't agree that a prima facie reading of the text as proposed here, is correct.