Why would God create those that He knew would end up in Hell.

[empther]

Don't disregard Catechism paragraph 473. Be balanced in your view.

　
All right. Let’s take a look at 473.

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God." Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

The human nature of Jesus was in full agreement with the divine personhood of the Son of God, and the Father in that all the moral decisions he made were perfect, without sin or the possibility of sin, self-sacrificing, holy etc etc etc etc etc,
But the human nature of Jesus did not know all knowledge human nature cannot be unlimited but had to learn by experience as Paragraph 472 said.　
　
And while we’re at it, let’s take a look at 474 so I won’t be accused of cherry picking.

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

Same thing. No infinite knowledge there.

[empther]

The word in Greek isn't "amazed" as we understand it today; it's ἐθαύμασεν ("marveled"). Jesus wasn't saying, "here's something I never knew about until I learned it today!", but rather, he was expressing wonder and admiration -- "look, Israelites -- the greatest faith I've encountered in my ministry comes from this man!"

The Catholic Bible doesn’t use the word marveled. It uses the word amazed.

The Bible doesn’t say Jesus had marveled at the centurion’s faith ever since his birth in Bethelehem. It says:

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed

--------------------------------

This began when somebody quoted John as saying Jesus knew the betrayer "from the beginning"/
All right. Let's go back to John.

John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written

Well now! Unless John lied, all the books in the Library of Congress couldn't describe what Jesus did in one minute.

John's agenda was to focus on Jesus's divinity, "In the beginning was the Word", and his wording must be understood in this context.

[Gorgias]

Originally Posted by empther

The Bible doesn’t use the word marveled. It uses the word amazed.

You're gonna have to be more precise. Let me help: "The NAB doesn't use the word 'marveled'. It uses the word 'amazed'."

Let's take a look:

RSV-CE: When Jesus heard him, he marveled
Westcott/Hort GNT: ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν
(as does the UBS Aland GNT, by the way, and all others -- I haven't run across any that use a different verb here)

Please note that this is a different word than ἐξίστημι, which carries the connotation that you're looking for here -- the notion of being snapped into a state of amazement (or being flabbergasted) based on something new that has presented itself. Let's see this word in context:

"Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute. He cured the mute person so that he could speak and see. All the crowd was astounded, and said, 'Could this perhaps be the Son of David?'" (NAB, Mt 12:22-23)

The RSV-CE renders it as, "And all the people were amazed, and said, 'Can this be the Son of David?'"

See the difference? The people who saw the miracle were shaken out of their shoes -- the occurrence (that is, the experience they just unexpectedly shared) is what brings them to this state of being beside themselves. In the case of the centurion, Jesus isn't standing there at a complete loss -- rather, he's shaking his head and using this as a teaching moment.

The Bible doesn’t say Jesus had marveled at the centurion’s faith ever since his birth in Bethelehem. It says:

... it says something in a different manner than expressed in the original language. if you want to split hairs, you have to do so much closer to the original; trying this in English can only get you in trouble. (As an example, this is what happens to "KJV-only" folks, who attempt to proof-text based on an English-language verse.)

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by empther

　
All right. Let’s take a look at 473.


The human nature of Jesus was in full agreement with the divine personhood of the Son of God, and the Father in that all the moral decisions he made were perfect, without sin or the possibility of sin, self-sacrificing, holy etc etc etc etc etc,
But the human nature of Jesus did not know all knowledge human nature cannot be unlimited but had to learn by experience as Paragraph 472 said.　
　
And while we’re at it, let’s take a look at 474 so I won’t be accused of cherry picking.



[/color]Same thing. No infinite knowledge there.

You are misreading the catechism. As I already pointed out in post #92, the type of knowledge the catechism is referring to is functional knowledge. Types of knowledge that are particular to human experience. Things like, say, learning carpentry. Or learning to walk, as He would have had to do as a child.
It does not refer to eventual knowledge (knowledge of the future), which is fundamentally present in His divine nature. But don't take my word for it:

"If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the day of the last judgment ... let him be anathema."—Pope Vigilius, Against Nestorians, May 14, 553

"If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God just as [His] Father is true God [and] He is all-powerful and omniscient and equal to the Father, he is a heretic."—Council of Rome, Tome of Pope Damasus, Canon 12 (A.D. 382), in DEN,31

"Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify Your Son ,'[John 17:1] it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Savior's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh . And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,'[Mark 13:32] that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men." --St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 43, c. AD 370

"For one who is not prescient of all things is not God."--St Augustine, The City of God, Book 5 Chapter 9

[empther]

progigalson's comments:

You are misreading the catechism. As I already pointed out in post #92, the type of knowledge the catechism is referring to is functional knowledge. Types of knowledge that are particular to human experience. Things like, say, learning carpentry. Or learning to walk, as He would have had to do as a child.
It does not refer to eventual knowledge (knowledge of the future), which is fundamentally present in His divine nature. But don't take my word for it:

"If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the day of the last judgment ... let him be anathema."—Pope Vigilius, Against Nestorians, May 14, 553

"If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God just as [His] Father is true God [and] He is all-powerful and omniscient and equal to the Father, he is a heretic."—Council of Rome, Tome of Pope Damasus, Canon 12 (A.D. 382), in DEN,31

Pope Virgilius and the Council of Rome are talking about the Son of God, not the human nature of Jesus which is not even mentioned.

"Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify Your Son ,'[John 17:1] it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Savior's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh . And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,'[Mark 13:32] that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men." --St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 43, c. AD 370

Did you even bother to read your own quote?
Am I wasting my time with people who don't do their homework?
I'm beginning to think so.

"For one who is not prescient of all things is not God."--St Augustine, The City of God, Book 5 Chapter 9

True, but the Son of God had two natures, and the human nature didn't know everything and couldn't as Catechism para 472 said.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I think part of the reason I'm having such a hard time with this, is because, ultimately, it just amounts to the same thing.

I am imagining a long blue line - this represents God.

Underneath this blue line, lots of things are going on - for example, a car driving, someone getting exam results, someone sitting an exam, someone killing someone, someone giving birth, all of human life is there.

All of this activity is happening underneath the continuous blue line at the top.

So, this line has no prior or post - it just is, and everything is happening at some point in our time, relative to us, under it.

Sarah:

That is not a good representation of it. The fact of the matter is that God does more than just "know (it)," He controls it. He controls everything except one small (well, maybe not so small) exigency. He does not control our intentions. In fact, the action by which Christ was pointed out to the Jewish elders is not evil, in and of itself, nor does it belie any kind of imperfection. Had it been done without "intent," there would be no sin, no "evil." Had Judas not intended to do Christ harm, the entire action would have simply been an everyday natural occurrence, a mere corruption within the corruptibilities of matter. That Judas stole his way into the scene may have worked to further God's purposes. At least, we get to consider the possibility of evil intent.

God KNOWS the guy will leave the house,

Not so. He knows the guy intends to leave the house, then He knows that he left the house (if, in fact, he does).

God KNOWS He will kill the neighbor,

Not so. God knows the guy intends to kill the neighbor, then He knows that he killed the neighbor (if, in fact, he does).

God KNOWS he will die unrepentant,

Not so. God knows that he does not repent, and that he died unrepentant (if, in fact, he did).

and God KNOWS HE will, in line with His justice, will condemn him to hell.

No so. God knows that he condemned him to hell (if in fact He did). We are not told, nor could we ever know, whether or not Judas said two little words before he passed on. Those two words are, "I'm sorry." And, if he truly meant it, he was saved. We simply do not know if that happened. All we can do is conjecture, maybe it did or maybe it didn't.

In all of your examples above, you are conflating the past, present, and future imperfect tenses with the past and future perfect tenses, by the addition of the words, "will have..." Quit using the perfect tenses. Perfect tenses have their usefulness, for example, if one wishes to project the facticity of something into the future (in motion's "time"). This is how we know that Truth outlives us.

Because it has all happened under this continuous blue line.

You seem to see "infinity" as a continuous, rather linear, thin line. Mathematically, one can postulate an infinite line, but then, it is no more than a mathematical abstraction. Such a postulation of fact would be wrong. An actual infinity is infinite magnitudes more than a "line." In other words, infinity includes everything, material and spiritual, which includes all lines, everywhere and everywhen. There is no "under this line." An actual infinity would include all of that area of the universe as well.

Now, now. No more shrugging. It will all be OK.

God bless,
jd

[ivebeenshown]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

1. If God were static He couldn't create anything

2. God is Love and Love is dynamic

3. God doesn't change but He causes change

4. "In Him we live, move and have our being"

We share a dynamic relationship with existence, but existence is static (which is synonymous with 'unchanging'.)

All I meant was that God isn't in a state of not creating one moment and in a state of creating the next. It's not like God was existing happily one day and then decided to create people. That may be the basic human perception of it, but that is just not the case.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Anthony V

Very well put. It hard to understand, in our finite minds, that God exists in an infinite "now", but not in a way such that he exists at all times at the same time. Otherwise, he would be and infinite being bound by the same "time-travel paradox" that the sci-fi nerd conventions rage over. Bluntly put, there would be no logical conclusion to the extent of that which exists: you cannot exist more than existence exists.

You are correct. The way an infinite being "experiences" (for lack of a better word) time is the opposite of how a finite being experiences time. A finite nature must experience infinity in a finite manner. An infinite nature "experiences" infinity in an infinite matter, which isn't something we can totally wrap our head around. Needless to say, predestination is simply a feeble attempt to try and explain this phenomenon. It will always be missing a the puzzle piece of an infinite sentience.

God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by cjmclark

A relevant point to consider (which has been raised already but I think was buried a few pages back) is that God does not condemn people to hell. Individuals, by their thoughts and deeds, willfully choose to separate themselves from God. Their "presence" in hell following their death is the result of God respecting their choice to remain separate, even though it must pain Him. God wants us to come to Him of our own free will. That's why he gave it to us...otherwise he's left with little more than slaves to His will.

CMJ:

Absolutely. This point is always one of the toughest for people to understand. Good explanation.

God bless,
jd

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by empther

progigalson's comments:


Pope Virgilius and the Council of Rome are talking about the Son of God, not the human nature of Jesus which is not even mentioned.

Actually, yes it is. Again:

"If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, true Son of God and true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things, or of the day of the last judgment ... let him be anathema."

This clearly refers to BOTH His Divine and human nature.

Did you even bother to read your own quote?
Am I wasting my time with people who don't do their homework?
I'm beginning to think so.

Your attitude is uncalled for. And yes, I did read it. However, I will repeat again, adding emphasis to the parts you chose to ignore:

"Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, 'Father, the hour is come, glorify Your Son ,'[John 17:1] it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Savior's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant , to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh. And therefore He said not, 'no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, 'no, not the Son,'[Mark 13:32] that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men." --St Athanasius, Discourse 3 Against the Arians Chapter 43, c. AD 370

It is Catholic dogma that Christ's divine and human nature are inseparable. As this quote clearly shows, when taken in full context, Jesus was fully aware of things to come, but, going back to the catechism, revealing those things was not part of his earthly mission, so He spoke in this instance solely from His human nature. This did not mean that He was ignorant of His divine knowledge. If you think this is so, then you are left with the burden of explaining his prediction of Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial, his own passion, the persecution of his disciples, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the events that would precede His second coming, things Nathaniel had been doing when He was not present, the history of the woman at the well and I'm sure several other examples that don't immediately spring to mind.

True, but the Son of God had two natures, and the human nature didn't know everything and couldn't as Catechism para 472 said.

Again, the two natures are fully intertwined. Jesus did not have a split consciousness. Any time He speaks of Himself as being ignorant, He is speaking from his human nature. This does not entail an unawareness of His divine knowledge. It is simply that certain parts of that knowledge were not meant to be revealed to mankind through His incarnation. As the longer quote above said, He claimed ignorance to teach man to have no shame in being ignorant, as ignorance of ultimate truth is proper to man.

[empther]

Prodigals' comment:

Again, the two natures are fully intertwined. Jesus did not have a split consciousness. Any time He speaks of Himself as being ignorant, He is speaking from his human nature. This does not entail an unawareness of His divine knowledge. It is simply that certain parts of that knowledge were not meant to be revealed to mankind through His incarnation. As the longer quote above said, He claimed ignorance to teach man to have no shame in being ignorant, as ignorance of ultimate truth is proper to man.

If you read it all at once, you forget what the first sentence said while you read the second, and so forth.
Let's take is one piece at a time.

Again, the two natures are fully intertwined. Jesus did not have a split consciousness.

He had two consciousnesses, one the divine Son of God, and the other in the human soul. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been a true man and the Incarnation would mean nothing.

Any time He speaks of Himself as being ignorant, He is speaking from his human nature. This does not entail an unawareness of His divine knowledge.

The human soul was aware of the infinite knowledge of the divine person, but did not have all of it.

It is simply that certain parts of that knowledge were not meant to be revealed to mankind through His incarnation.

Nor were certain parts of that knowledge revealed to the human soul which could not contain it all.

As the longer quote above said, He claimed ignorance to teach man to have no shame in being ignorant, as ignorance of ultimate truth is proper to man.

Any piece of the divine knowledge was available to the human soul if requested, but the man did not ask to know everything, which the man could not.

And that is the end of my involvement in this fruitless "discussion".
As Catechism para 472 said, the man's knowledge could not be "unllimited".
It's that simple. What is your problem?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

We share a dynamic relationship with existence, but existence is static (which is synonymous with 'unchanging'.)

All I meant was that God isn't in a state of not creating one moment and in a state of creating the next. It's not like God was existing happily one day and then decided to create people. That may be the basic human perception of it, but that is just not the case.

Can you explain what you mean by "We share a dynamic relationship with existence, but existence is static"?

It seems as if you regard existence as separate from us!

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by empther

progigalson's comments:


Pope Virgilius and the Council of Rome are talking about the Son of God, not the human nature of Jesus which is not even mentioned.



Did you even bother to read your own quote?
Am I wasting my time with people who don't do their homework?
I'm beginning to think so.


True, but the Son of God had two natures, and the human nature didn't know everything and couldn't as Catechism para 472 said.

Originally Posted by empther

Prodigals' comment:



If you read it all at once, you forget what the first sentence said while you read the second, and so forth.
Let's take is one piece at a time.


He had two consciousnesses, one the divine Son of God, and the other in the human soul. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been a true man and the Incarnation would mean nothing.


The human soul was aware of the infinite knowledge of the divine person, but did not have all of it.


Nor were certain parts of that knowledge revealed to the human soul which could not contain it all.


Any piece of the divine knowledge was available to the human soul if requested, but the man did not ask to know everything, which the man could not.

And that is the end of my involvement in this fruitless "discussion".
As Catechism para 472 said, the man's knowledge could not be "unllimited".
It's that simple. What is your problem?

My problem is that what you are saying is essentially Nestorianism, which has been condemned as heresy.

How about we let an actual theologian weigh in:

"As God, Christ most certainly knew and knows all things without any qualification whatsoever. And, even as man, we affirm that our Savior knew and knows all things – excepting that he does not comprehend the Divine Essence (for such is beyond the powers of the human intellect).
However, when we speak of the human knowledge of Christ, we must affirm that his knowledge is of three types: Beatific knowledge, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge. Beatific knowledge is that by which a creature knows all things in the Word – in the vision of the Divine Essence. Infused knowledge is the divine gift of knowledge, infused directly and without any assistance from the senses. Finally, acquired knowledge is that which is gained through sense experience. Of these, only acquired knowledge is proper to human nature unaided by grace.
Now Christ our God knew the day and hour of the Second Coming in his divine intellect. Moreover, even in his humanity, our Lord knew the time of the Parousia – according to both beatific knowledge and infused knowledge. However, the Savior did not know the time of the Final Judgment through sense experience and, hence, it was not part of his acquired knowledge.
Thus, when Jesus says that he does not know the day or the hour, we must understand him to mean that he does not know the time from his humanity – i.e. he does not know it from acquired knowledge through sense experience. Nevertheless, he most certainly did and does know the day and the hour in his humanity – i.e. he knows it in his human intellect through both beatific and infused knowledge.
Hence, the Good Lord does not lie, nor even deceive, when he says that he does not know the day or the hour of the Final Judgment – he only means to tell us that he knows it not from his humanity.
What God does not make to be known, he is said not to know
When Christ our Savior states that the Son does not know the day or the hour of the Second Coming, he means that the Son does not make the time to be known. Much as when we say that a day is “happy” or “pleasant,” we do not intend that the day itself is pleasant but that it makes us to be pleasant; so too, Christ is said not to know insofar as he does not make us to know (so, St. Hilary of Potiers, St. Gregory the Great, and others).
St. Augustine offers the following commentary: “According to the form of God everything that the Father has belongs to the Son for All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine. According to the form of a slave, however, his teaching is not his own but of the One who sent him. Hence of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. He is ignorant of this in the special sense of making others ignorant. He did not know it in their presence in such a way as to be prepared to reveal it to them at that time.” So too the Catechism: “Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.”

The way you are depicting Jesus is as a human soul with a second Divine soul dwelling within Him. Again, flat out Nestorianism. And this is actually why in the creed, we say He is "consubstantial with the Father." In case you don't know (not saying that you don't), consubstantial means "of one and the same substance/essence." In saying that the Holy Trinity "saw to it that He knew what He needed to know," you are essentially saying that Jesus, the human being, was not God, but had a direct line to God. Not so.

So that is "my problem." I have come to understand that you don't like people disagreeing with you, so if you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine.

[empther]

So that is "my problem." I have come to understand that you don't like people disagreeing with you, so if you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine.

When even the Catechism of the Catholic Church says Christ's soul could not have "unlimited" knowledge,

and people come up with quotes from all over the place to be contrary just for the sake of arguing, but without explicitly contraditing the Catechism's idea which of course they can't.
I get annoyed. This is not honest. I respect the truth.

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by empther

When even the Catechism of the Catholic Church says Christ's soul could not have "unlimited" knowledge,

and people come up with quotes from all over the place to be contrary just for the sake of arguing, but without explicitly contraditing the Catechism's idea which of course they can't.
I get annoyed. This is not honest. I respect the truth.

I'm sorry; I'm not trying to annoy you or argue for the sake of it. I honestly disagree with you. Like I said, my understanding of the catechism is that it is referring to what I called "functional knowledge." That is, knowledge that is particular to being human, such as how to walk, read and write, etc. Things that He, as Father, did not do.
I guess we might just have to agree to disagree.