Chalcedonian creed and Jesus not knowing the time of his return

[Rubiks]

I recently found out that the early church considered it heresy that Jesus didn't know the hour of his return. For the Chalcedonian creed says (via Wikipedia)

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

Do you think the Chalcedonian creed is correct? Explain why or why not.

 

[Albion]

What reason would there be for thinking that Jesus did not know the time of his return?

 

[com7fy8]

"'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'" (Mark 13:32)

 

[Uber Genius]

It is not clear above that,

early church considered it heresy that Jesus didn't know the hour of his return

Please justify your claim with quotes by the ante nicene church fathers.

 

[com7fy8]

I recently found out that the early church considered it heresy that Jesus didn't know the hour of his return.

If anyone considers the Gospel of Mark to be God's word, Rubiks, they know Jesus Himself said He did not know when He would return; He said that while He was in the flesh on this earth.

But ones might understand that now Jesus resurrected does know. So, you need to make things clear about when it is that the early church believed that Jesus knows. It appears from Mark 13:32, that Jesus while on this earth was saying He did not know. Do the ones you say are the early church, then, mean He always has known, or do they mean that now He knows?

Another thing, by the way, is I personally do not assume who was the real early church. There were erroneous people, even while our Apostle Paul was still on this earth. So, in case anyone ever has claimed that Jesus always has known His time for His return, that person could be contrary to what the Gospel of Mark says. But the person might be a Christian leader but not fully correct.

 

[Uber Genius]

The early church fathers struggled to identify Jesus nature. Was it one or two natures, or one or two persons (Nestorius)?

Here is a quote from William Lane Craig discussing the issue of the second person of the trinity "logos," and "logos" taking on a human nature. So the church fathers by mid-fifth century saw Jesus as one person with a fully divine and fully human nature.

"Similarly, in the incarnation, at least during his earthly state of humiliation, the Logos allowed only those facets of his person to be part of Christ’s waking consciousness which were compatible with a typical human experience. The bulk of his knowledge lay submerged with his other cognitive perfections like an iceberg beneath the water’s surface, submerged in subconsciousness.[6]

On this model Christ is one person but in that person conscious and subconscious elements are differentiated in a theologically significant way. Unlike Nestorianism this does not imply that there are two persons anymore than the conscious aspects of your life and the subconscious aspects of your life constitute two different persons. It is one person but you have both conscious and subconscious elements.

I think this model provides a satisfying account of Jesus as we see him described in the Gospel portrait. For example, in his conscious experience Jesus grew in knowledge and wisdom in the same way that an ordinary human child does. You don’t have the monstrosity of the baby Jesus lying in the manger contemplating the infinitesimal calculus. He had a genuine infant consciousness.

In his conscious experience, moreover we see Jesus genuinely tempted by the devil even though he is in fact impeccable (that is to say incapable of sin). But the enticements of sin were really felt. He really was tempted. They weren’t just blown away like smoke. Rather, resisting temptation required spiritual discipline and moral resoluteness on Jesus’ part."

For more see: Doctrine of Christ (Part 7) | Reasonable Faith

 

[HTacianas]

I recently found out that the early church considered it heresy that Jesus didn't know the hour of his return. For the Chalcedonian creed says (via Wikipedia)

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

Do you think the Chalcedonian creed is correct? Explain why or why not.

The Chalcedonian Creed is correct. The Council of Chalcedon was convened by the successors to the apostles under the authority of Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

What no one was saying is how that ties into the first century Judean marriage customs. Our Lord always took things that were familiar to teach spiritual truths.

 

[PloverWing]

The idea that Jesus had the mind of God in a human body (Apollinarianism) was rejected by the early church. Rather, the view of the church is that in Jesus, God took on both a human mind and a human body. Thus, while on earth, Jesus did not experience omniscience; he had the same mental limitations as any other human, which (according to the gospels) included not knowing the exact date of the Second Coming. I don't see anything in the Chalcedonian statement that disagrees with this.

 

[Karola]

What would we do without scholars and theologians to explain to us the mysteries of scripture

 

[ViaCrucis]

Fundamentally the Incarnation involves Mystery. The Definition of Chalcedon affirms this Mystery by stating explicitly that the one undivided Person of Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human, without a confusion of the two natures.

Asking how can God (Jesus) who knows all things not know the hour of His return is part of that Mystery. Likewise, the Mystery is that God (Jesus) who cannot suffer or die, did in fact suffer and die.

God who cannot suffer, did suffer.
God who cannot die, did die.

There are some who would argue "only the humanity suffered" or "only the humanity died", but this divides Christ. It was not a nature that was conceived, born, lived, suffered, died, buried, and rose again--it was a Person. Jesus suffered, not "the human nature of Jesus". The Same Person who, being fully human and thus nailed to the cross bodily is also fully God, and so God did suffer, God was crucified. Indeed, in the Acts of the Apostles we read that the Church was purchased by God's own blood (Acts of the Apostles 20:28).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave-W]

The idea that Jesus had the mind of God in a human body (Apollinarianism) was rejected by the early church. Rather, the view of the church is that in Jesus, God took on both a human mind and a human body. Thus, while on earth, Jesus did not experience omniscience; he had the same mental limitations as any other human, which (according to the gospels) included not knowing the exact date of the Second Coming. I don't see anything in the Chalcedonian statement that disagrees with this.

Except that does not connect with His listeners the way tieing into the marriage customs does.

 

[PloverWing]

Except that does not connect with His listeners the way tieing into the marriage customs does.

Can you elaborate? I don't see how to connect the Chalcedonian theologians to ancient marriage customs.

 

[1213]

I recently found out that the early church considered it heresy that Jesus didn't know the hour of his return. ...

That is interesting thing, because if true, then Bible is also “heresy”, because it says:

But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matt. 24:36