Maybe we could look at Dan's suggestion more productively if we did not
do so in the context of "creation" arguments, but instead picked another
example. So let's instead talk about Jesus' illustration of the Kingdom
of God in which he referred to the mustard seed as the smallest of all
seeds, something that is technically incorrect but would have been
thought to be correct by his listeners. It seems that we have 2
reasonable explanations for this:
1) [The position I had always taken without thinking much about it]:
Jesus knew this statement was technically incorrect, but since he wasn't
giving a botany lecture he was willing to say that (rather than saying
something distracting like "137th-smallest") in order to communicate the
message most effectively to the listeners. In other words, irrelevant
side aspects were accommodated to the framework in which the listeners lived.
2) [Dan's suggestion]:
Jesus while incarnated didn't know any more botany than the other people
around, and therefore was giving his message about the Kingdom (a subject
on which he did know more than anybody) in a framework that was
scientifically true as far as he knew.
Any reason for preferring either of these two explanations?
>I welcome corrections from the theologians on the list, but it seems to me
>that your assertion smacks of monophysitism, the assertion that there was no
>true humanity in Christ. (Some Gnostic monophysites went so far as to assert
>that Jesus only pretended to be human, and did not actually eat or excrete
>or even die on the Cross.) The common assertion that "it is hardly logical
>to assume the Creator would be ignorant in any area" hides within it the
>idea that the Savior did not assume full human nature because He did not
>participate in human limitations on knowledge.
>
>This is of first importance because "what is not assumed is not redeemed."
>Orthodox Christology asserts that, while Jesus the Christ was fully divine,
>He was also fully human and so shared the common limitations of humanity --
>including being limited to the knowledge base of the time in which He became
>Incarnate.
>
>Vernon, I am not making an accusation of heresy; but you should recognize
>that orthodox Christology can logically contain the assertion that Jesus,
>Incarnate Deity though He was, need not have held full omniscience in His
>human nature. Insofar as He was God He knew what was necessary; insofar as
>He was human He did not know what He did not have "need to know."
>
>I am using "need to know" in the sense used in compartmentalized
>intelligence work -- if you are not working in a particular area you don't
>have a need to know anything in that area which is not in the public domain.
>Jesus' mission was redemption, not science -- and would knowledge of the
>actual history of the universe, as opposed to the knowledge which was at
>that time in the public domain, have really been helpful in His mission? I
>think not; it would have been irrelevant at best and harmful at worst. Think
>how much less of a hearing He'd have gotten if He had asserted such
>self-evidently crazy things as temporal relativity or an evolving universe!
>He'd have been just another raving lunatic, not even worthy of execution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------