الرجوع إلى لائحة المقالات الرجوع إلى هل البابا اثناسيوس قال ان المسيح يجهل الساعة
مت 24
هل البابا اثناسيوس قال ان المسيح يجهل الساعة
Holy_bible_1
1 April 2, 2021
تكلمت سابقا عن الاعداد التي تتكلم عن معرفة الساعة
إنجيل متى 24: 36
«وَأَمَّا ذلِكَ الْيَوْمُ وَتِلْكَ السَّاعَةُ فَلاَ يَعْلَمُ بِهِمَا أَحَدٌ، وَلاَ مَلاَئِكَةُ السَّمَاوَاتِ، إِلاَّ أَبِي وَحْدَهُ.
إنجيل مرقس 13: 32
«وَأَمَّا ذلِكَ الْيَوْمُ وَتِلْكَ السَّاعَةُ فَلاَ يَعْلَمُ بِهِمَا أَحَدٌ، وَلاَ الْمَلاَئِكَةُ الَّذِينَ فِي السَّمَاءِ، وَلاَ الابْنُ، إِلاَّ الآبُ.
وهذه شرحتها من ابعاد مختلفة في الملفات التالية
معرفة الساعه. كيف لا يعرف الاله الساعه
هل هناك تناقض بين عدم معرفة الساعه في متي 24 وعلامات الساعه في لوقا 21 ومرقس 13
وفي الملف الأول وضحت فيه بعض المعاني
اولا المعني اللفظي لبعض الكلمات في العدد يوناني ومنها ان اليوم والساعة هذا فوق ادراك البشر لأنه يتعلق بالأبدية ولا نستطيع ان نعرفها لأننا في نطاق المادة لا نستطيع ان نعرف ما هو ما بعد المادة وتأكدنا ان اللفظ اليوناني عدم الاخبار العيان وليس الجهل
ثانيا ماذا يتكلم عنه رب المجد في هذا الاصحاح ملخص وعرفنا انه بالفعل بوصف دقيق اعلان عن الاحداث والعلامات التي تسبق مجيؤه بدقة شديدة وهذا يؤكد معرفته ولكن لن يخبر بها
ثالثا هل المسيح يجهل الساعة وهل هذا انكار للاهوته؟ ووضحت فيه باختصار خطة الله المعلنة للخلاص في الكتاب المقدس وان عدم الإعلان عن الساعة لانه ليس تمييز وظيفي له في هذا الوقت ووضح انه وظيفته بعد ان أخلى ذاته هو الاخبار بحدود
رابعا ملخص لاقوال الاباء في هذا الامر
بما فيهم ابونا متى المسكين الذي ذكر بعض النقاط تتفق تماما مع ما قالت وغيرها من اقوال الإباء التي أيضا تؤكد عدم الجهل بل عدم الاخبار
وفي الملف الثاني شرحت خلفية بيئية يفهمها التلاميذ اليهود ولهذا لم يعترضوا كونه الله الظاهر في الجسد ولا يتكلم عن الساعة لان هذا من صفات العريس اليهودي فرغم انه يعرف الميعاد بدقة ولكنه يجب ان ينتظر كلمة الاب
وفي الملف الثالث شرحت انه من الثلاث اصحاحات هو بوضوح يعلم الساعة لانه ذكر علاماتها بدقة بل حتى ترتيب الاحداث المتتالية حتى تأتي الساعة
وأيضا في الملف الأخير وضحت الروح القدس لم يقول العدد انه لا يعرف بل لانه روح الله فيعرف أيضا الساعة
أيضا تكلمت في
لقب ابن الانسان والفرق بينه وبين لقب الابن وبعض الشبهات والردود عليها المتعلقه به (drghaly.com)
عن كيف ان لقب الابن هو لقب اعلان لطبيعة المسيح البشرية الحال بها ملئ اللاهوت أي الله المتجسد وليس طبيعته الناسوتية فقط. فلقب الابن الذي يعلن
إنجيل متى 11: 27
كُلُّ شَيْءٍ قَدْ دُفِعَ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَبِي، وَلَيْسَ أَحَدٌ يَعْرِفُ الابْنَ إِلاَّ الآبُ، وَلاَ أَحَدٌ يَعْرِفُ الآبَ إِلاَّ الابْنُ وَمَنْ أَرَادَ الابْنُ أَنْ يُعْلِنَ لَهُ.
رسالة بولس الرسول إلى العبرانيين 1: 8
وَأَمَّا عَنْ الابْنِ: «كُرْسِيُّكَ يَا أَللهُ إِلَى دَهْرِ الدُّهُورِ. قَضِيبُ اسْتِقَامَةٍ قَضِيبُ مُلْكِكَ.
وبالطبع لن اكرر هنا ما قدمته في الملف السابق
مع ملاحظة الملخص هنا لا يكفي فلا يجيب أحد على الملخص بل من يريد ان يعترض يعود للتفصيل بادلته. المهم
بعضهم والمحزن انهم مسيحيين فاعتقد لأجل أسباب في نفسيتهم تركوا كل ما قدمت وفقط ليخطؤا كلامي في غيابي (تحاشوا وجودي) رغم انه في وقت الحوار أعلنوا انهم لا يعرفوا الإجابة ولكن لأنهم يرفضوني فيرفضوا ما أقول بغض النظر عن محتواه. وهم في هذا قبلوا ان يتفقوا مع المشككين الغير مسيحيين بل يؤيدوهم ولهذا فرح المشككين بكلامهم وحيوهم. وأيضا قبلوا ان يعثروا المسيحيين صغار النفوس الموجودين وقت الحوار. بل وصلوا لدرجة انهم لا يوجد عندهم إشكالية ان يتهموا رب المجد نفسه واسف على التعبير الذي قالوه بانه جاهل ولكن ليجملوا الصورة هم يتهموا ناسوت المسيح انه جاهل. كل هذا لتخطيئي وانا ارفض ان ربي والهي يوصف ممن يدعون انهم مسيحيين بهذا الوصف فالهي بلاهوته وناسوته فهو الله الظاهر في الجسد كلي العلم ولا يصلح الفصل
والغريبة رغم انهم ينتموا لمدرسة ابونا متى المسكين وصفوا كلامي بانه خطا وسطحية وكلام ابونا متى يطابق كلامي في أحد الزوايا التي شرحتها فهم بوصفي باني سطحى وهم ينتموا لمدرسة ابونا متى هم بدون ان ينتبهوا او يعرفوا ويداروا اتهموا معلمهم بانه سطحي لأنه قال ما قلته في أحد النقاط وها هو نص كلامه مرة ثانية
يكمل
وايضا يقول في انجيل مرقس
وضعت نص كلامه كامل لكيلا يقتطع أحد شيء من كلامه. لأنه واضح ان الموضوع ليس بحث عن الحقيقة بل هؤلاء فقط يريدوا كيل اتهامات لي فقط
فهل ابيهم متى المسكين ليس لاهوتي؟ هل هو سطحي وجاهل؟ فهو قال ما قلت.
فماذا فعل هؤلاء؟
بحثوا كثيرا عن أي شيء يخالف ما قالته ولكن لاني غطيت الموضوع من زوايا كثيرة والاباء الذي اتعلم منهم كل منهم غطاها من زاوية واحدة او أكثر فوجدوا صعوبة
فما كان منهم الا انهم حرفوا كلامي الذي لم اتطرق فيه لناسوتية المسيح وادعوا أنى قلت ان من يقول ان ناسوت المسيح يجهل فهو مهرطق رغم أنى لم أقول ذلك فقط لأنهم وجدوا مقولة للبابا اثناسيوس الرسولي يفهم من بدايتها ذلك فاعتقدوا بهذا انهم لو قولوني ما لم أقول وهو ان من يقول ناسوت المسيح جاهل هو مهرطق وان البابا اثناسيوس قال ذلك أي يحاولوا يدعوا على اني أقول ان البابا اثناسيوس مهرطق. وبالطبع لم أقول هذا ولا يوجد عندهم دليل أنى قلت هذا فما قالوه هو كذب بسبب الكراهية التي تملاء القلوب. بل الموضوع ليس عن هذا أصلا.
فرغم أنى لم أتكلم عن دور اللاهوت والناسوت أصلا ورغم انه يوجد تمييز في بعض الأحيان بين اللاهوت والناسوت بدون انفصال فهو طبيعة واحدة الله المتجسد نتيجة اتحاد طبيعتين اللاهوتية والناسوتية اتحاد كامل بدون اختلاط ولا امتزاج ولا تغيير.
ولكن الحقيقة لماذا ذكروا سطر واحد من كلام البابا اثناسيوس وهو التالي للعدد مباشرة كما قالوا؟ هل هذا مصداقية ان يختصر شرحه صفحات في سطر؟
ولهذا أقدم كلام البابا اثناسيوس كامل توضيحا لعدم تديقيق البعض وأقول عدم تدقيق لاني لا اريد ان أقول عدم امانة على كلام البابا اثناسيوس
ولن أقدم الترجمات العربية التي عليها خلاف حسب المترجم وهدفه (مثل جورج حبيب وغيره) ولكن أقدم الترجمة الإنجليزية لعالم الابائيات فليب شاف ومجموعته
فهو يقول مع تظليل للأجزاء المهمة (وتعليق بسيط توضيحي من ضعفي بين الاقواس)
ص 743
Chapter XXVIII.--Texts Explained; Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke ii. 52 Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father; if He created and upholds all things, He knows when they will cease to be. He knows not as Man, argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about Lazarus's grave, &c., yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, `whether in the body I know not,' &c., yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He did not say He knew not). As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows [as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on.
الفصل 28 شرح نصوص الحادي عشر مرقس 13: 32 ولوقا 2: 52. التفسير الاريوسي للنص الأول ضد ريجيولا فيدي وضد السياق. ربنا قال انه كان جاهل باليوم بسبب طبيعته البشرية. (هذا هو الجزء الذي استشهد به المهاجمين لي فقط). ان كان الروح القدس يعرف اليوم لهذا الابن يعرف ان كان الابن يعرف الاب لهذا فهو يعرف اليوم: ان كان له كل ما للاب اذا معرفة اليوم. ان كان في الاب هو يعرف اليوم في الا. لو هو خلق ويمسك كل الأشياء فهو يعرف متى ستنتهي. انه لا يعرف كانسان هو يختلف عليه من متى 24: 42 (هنا يشرح ان مقولة ان لا يعرف كانسان هو ليس رايه بل هذا بسبب الخلاف على تفسير متى 24: 42 اِسْهَرُوا إِذًا لأَنَّكُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ فِي أَيَّةِ سَاعَةٍ يَأْتِي رَبُّكُمْ) ولأنه سال عن قبر لعازر. ولكن مع هذا هو يعرف لانه كما قال القديس بولس سواء في الجسد لا اعرف. ولكن هو يعرف (بولس الرسول) اذا هو يعرف. هو قال انه لا يعرف لاجل فائدتنا لكي لا نكون فضوليين كما في اعمال 1: 7 (فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «لَيْسَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَعْرِفُوا الأَزْمِنَةَ وَالأَوْقَاتَ الَّتِي جَعَلَهَا الآبُ فِي سُلْطَانِهِ،) حيث على العكس انه لم يقول انه لا يعرف فهو مثل عندما سال العلي ادم وقايين رغم انه يعلم لهذا الابن يعلم. ومرة أخرى هو كان متقدم في الحكمة كانسان وهو جعل الملائكة رائعين امامه. هو متقدم لان الذات الإلهية تجسد فيه بشكل كامل مع مرور الوقت
تعليق
هل من هذا يفهم ان البابا اثناسيوس يقول انه بانسانيته لا يعرف؟ من الواضح لا هو يذكر كلام اريوس ويرد عليه ويرد على مقولة ان المسيح لا يعرف بانسانيته ان هذا فهم خطأ بسبب الخلاف على تفسير متى ولكن من اعداد أخرى مثل اعمال 1: 7 ان المسيح بناسوته يعرف وأيضا بمثال ان بولس قال في الجسد لا اعرف رغم انه يعرف فالمسيح قال لا اعرف رغم انه يعرف ولكن لا يخبر لأجلنا لكيلا نكون نحن فضوليين وأيضا ضرب مثال ان الرب يسال ادم اين انت ويسال قايين اين اخيك رغم ان الرب بالطبع يعرف فهو يعرف وبخاصة انه متقدم في الحكمة حتى كانسان لان يحل فيه كل ملئ اللاهوت. فلماذا اختصر المشككين مقولة البابا لكي يقدموا معنى غير دقيق رغم ان شرحه هو يرد على هذه المقولة؟
يكمل البابا اثناسيوس
42. These things being so, come let us now examine into `But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son [3097] ;' for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied [3098] about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants [3099] again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the lection shews that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance.
ولما كانت الامر على هذا النحو فلنختبر الان في "ولكن هذا اليوم وتلك الساعة لا يعرف أحدا ولا الملائكة ولا الابن" ولجهلهم الشديد (اريوس وامثاله) من ناحية هذه الكلمات وتغييبهم فهم ظنوا انهم لديهم حجة مهمة على هرطقتهم. ولكن انا عندما يزعم الهراطقة ذلك ويعدوا انفسهم بها أرى فيهم عمالقة مرة أخرى يحاربوا ضد الله. (وهنا يبدا يرد على هرطقتهم بادعاء انه يجهل) لان رب السماوات والأرض الذي به كل الأشياء صنعت هو يحاكم امامهم عن اليوم والساعة والكلمة الذي يعرف كل شيء متهم منهم بالجهل عن اليوم والابن الذي يعرف الاب قيل عنه يجهل ساعة اليوم فما يمكن ان يقال اكثر ضد هذا واي جنون مممن ان يشبه به هذا؟ (أي ادعاء الهراطقة انه يجهل) من خلال الكلمة كل الأشياء صنعت الوقت والمواسم والليلة واليوم وكل الخليقة: وهل صانع كل شيء يقال عنه انه يجهل عمله؟ ونفس سياق الكلام يظهر ان ابن الله يعرف هذه الساعة وهذا اليوم ورغم هذا الاريوسيين سقطوا في جهلهم
تعليق
هنا يؤكد ان الذي يقول انه يجهل هو مهرطق ومجنون وما يؤكد انه يعلم ولم يفرق هنا البابا اثناسيوس لاهوته عن ناسوته فالمسيح يتكلم بناسوته وليس بلاهوته فقط لأنه في نفس سياق الكلام الذي يقوله الرب يسوع المسيح بشفتيه أي بناسوته في نفس الحديث في نفس الاصحاح يذكر ما يؤكد انه يعلم لأنه ذكر العلامات بوضوح مؤكدا معرفته للساعة.
الم اقل هذا نصا في ردي نفس ما قاله البابا اثناسيوس؟ عرفتم من هو الغير مدقق ان لم يكن غير امين في نقل كلام البابا اثناسيوس ليتهجم على ضعفي؟
يكمل البابا اثناسيوس
For after saying, `nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the day, saying, `This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all, said, `Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand.
43 Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious
يكمل البابا اثناسيوس مؤكدا بطريقة قاطعة ان المسيح بناسوته يعرف اليوم والساعة لانه يتكلم ليس بلاهوته فقط بل بفمه أي ناسوته من علامات تؤكد انه يعرف بناسوته اليوم والساعة فها هو يخبر بعلاماتهما فيقول
لأنه بعد ان قال ولا الابن أخبر التلاميذ بما يسبق اليوم قائلا هذا وذلك يكون ثم النهاية. ولهذا الذي يقول بما يسبق اليوم يعرف بكل تأكيد اليوم أيضا: الذي سيظهر لاحقا بالأمور المتنبأ عنها. ولكن لو كان هو لا يعرف الساعة لما كان أشار للأحداث التي قبلها لأنه لا يعرف متى ستكون. فهو مثل واحد الذي هو يشير لمنزل او مدينة للذين يجهلونها ويعطي حساب لما يأتي أولا قبل البيت او المدينة ويصف كل شيء وقال بوعد هذا مباشرة يأتي المدينة او المنزل هو يعرف بكل تأكيد البيت او المدينة لانه لو كان لا يعرف لما كان وصف ما يأتي قبل، على الأقل من الجهل لئلا يلقي ممستمعيه بعيدا عن الطريق، او في كلامه بدون ان يدري يرسلهم لما ابعد من الهدف. لهذا الرب عندما يقول ما يسبق اليوم والساعة يعرف تحديدا وليس يجهل متى الساعة واليوم تكون على مقربة.
43 والان لماذا على الرغم من علمه لم يخبر التلاميذ بوضوح في ذلك الوقت، لكيلا يكون أحد فضوليا.
تعليق
هل بعد هذا يتجرأ أحد ويقول ان البابا اثناسيوس يتهم الرب يسوع المسيح او حتى ناسوته فقط بالجهل؟ الذي ادعى ذلك الاريوسيين ولكن البابا اثناسيوس يؤكد بطريقة قاطعة بان الرب بناسوته يعرف اليوم والساعة ويضرب امثلة مؤكد هذا.
ويكمل البابا اثناسيوس الرسولي في شرح مطول بعد هذا لتوضيح ان الرب قال هذا ليوضح ان الطبيعة البشرية من خصائصها ان لا تعرف فهو بعد ان اكد ان المسيح وهو يتكلم فهو يعرف ويتكلم بفمه أي ببشريته أي هو يعرف بلاهوته وناسوته فلا فصل ولكن تعبير لا يعرف ليس جهل ولكن لتوضيح ان البشرية لا تعرف ولهذا كما قال لكي لا يكونوا فضوليين فيما بعد لانه وضح لهم ان البشرية وخصائص البشر وطبيعتهم البشرية لا تعرف. بل يؤكد البابا اثناسيوس انه لم يقول لأني لا اعرف بل قال لأنكم لا تعرفون فيوضح ان طبيعتهم البشرية لا تعرف.
بل سيذكر نصا البابا اثناسيوس ويقول
concerning Himself in His human character, `Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son [3106] ,' it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things
من ناحية خصائص بشريته قال أيها الاب أتت الساعة مجد ابنك وهذا من الواضح انه أيضا يعرف ساعة نهاية الاشياء
[3100] where He has been silent; for `Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor [3101] ?' but why, though He knew, He said, `no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency [3102] , but of that human nature [3103] whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word `disposing all things [3104] ,' nor before He became man did He say it, but when `the Word became flesh [3105] .' On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly.
For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or of the end of these (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He wrought, and the limit of their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He knows surely the general and common end of all. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, `Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son [3106] ,' 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 [3107] , and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant [3108] , to say `I know not,' that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh [3109] . And therefore He said not, `no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, `no, not the Son,' that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men.
44. On this account, He alludes to the Angels, but He did not go further and say, `not the Holy Ghost;' but He was silent, with a double intimation; first that if the Spirit knew, much more must the Word know, considered as the Word, from whom the Spirit receives [3110] ; and next by His silence about the Spirit, He made it clear, that He said of His human ministry, `no, not the Son.' And a proof of it is this; that, when He had spoken humanly [3111] `No, not the Son knows,' He yet shews that divinely He knew all things. For that Son whom He declares not to know the day, Him He declares to know the Father; for `No one,' He says, `knoweth the Father save the Son [3112] .' And all men but the Arians would join in confessing, that He who knows the Father, much more knows the whole of the creation; and in that whole, its end. And if already the day and the hour be determined by the Father, it is plain that through the Son are they determined, and He
Page 744
knows Himself what through Him has been determined [3113] , for there is nothing but has come to be and has been determined through the Son. Therefore He, being the Framer of the universe, knows of what nature, and of what magnitude, and with what limits, the Father has willed it to be made; and in the how much and how far is included its period. And again, if all that is the Father's, is the Son's (and this He Himself has [3114] said), and it is the Father's attribute to know the day, it is plain that the Son too knows it, having this proper to Him from the Father. And again, if the Son be in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing the things of the Father, knows Himself also the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the Father's Very Image, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son has this likeness [3115] also to the Father of knowing them. And it is not wonderful if He, through whom all things were made, and in whom the universe consists, Himself knows what has been brought to be, and when the end will be of each and of all together; rather is it wonderful that this audacity, suitable as it is to the madness of the Ario-maniacs, should have forced us to have recourse to so long a defence. For ranking the Son of God, the Eternal Word, among things originate, they are not far from venturing to maintain that the Father Himself is second to the creation; for if He who knows the Father knows not the day nor the hour, I fear lest the knowledge of the creation, or rather of the lower portion of it, be greater, as they in their madness would say, than knowledge concerning the Father.
45. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, they must expect no remission ever of such irreligion, as the Lord has said [3116] ; but let us, who love Christ and bear Christ within us, know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered as Word, has said `I know not,' for He knows, but as shewing His manhood [3117] , in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was ignorant [3118] , being in which, He said according to the flesh, `I know not.' And for this reason, after saying, `No not the Son knows,' and mentioning the ignorance of the men in Noah's day, immediately He added, `Watch therefore, for ye know not in what hour your Lord doth come,' and again, `In such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh [3119] .' For I too, having become as you for you, said `no, not the Son.' For, had He been ignorant divinely, He must have said, `Watch therefore, for I know not,' and, `In an hour when I think not;' but in fact this hath He not said; but by saying `Ye know not' and `When ye think not,' He has signified that it belongs to man to be ignorant; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs and having become man, said `No, not the Son knows,' for He knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word. And again the example from Noah exposes the shamelessness of
Christ's enemies; for there too He said not, `I knew not,' but `They knew not until the flood came [3120] .' For men did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour in which He opened the cataracts of heaven and broke up the great deep, and said to Noah, `Come thou and all thy house into the ark [3121] .' For were He ignorant, He had not foretold to Noah, `Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth.' But if in describing the day He makes use of the parallel of Noah's time, and He did know the day of the flood, therefore He knows also the day of His own coming.
46. Moreover, after narrating the parable of the Virgins, again He shews more clearly who they are who are ignorant of the day and the hour, saying, `Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour [3122] .' He who said shortly before, `No one knoweth, no not the Son,' now says not `I know not,' but `ye know not.' In like manner then, when His disciples asked about the end, suitably said He then, `no, nor the Son,' according to the flesh because of the body; that He might shew that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance is proper to man [3123] . If however He is the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to be Judge, He to be the Bridegroom, He knoweth when and in what hour He cometh, and when He is to say, `Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light [3124] .' For as, on
Page 745
027 npnf204
becoming man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men as man He knows not; though divinely, being in the Father Word and Wisdom, He knows, and there is nothing which He knows not. In like manner also about Lazarus [3125] He asks humanly, who was on His way to raise him, and knew whence He should recall Lazarus's soul; and it was a greater thing to know where the soul was, than to know where the body lay; but He asked humanly, that He might raise divinely. So too He asks of the disciples, on coming into the parts of Caesarea, though knowing even before Peter made answer. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the Lord's question, it is plain that through the Son [3126] was the revelation, for `No one knoweth the Son,' saith He, `save the Father, neither the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him [3127] .' But if through the Son is revealed the knowledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no room for doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to Peter from the Father, next asked humanly; in order to shew, that asking after the flesh, He knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son then knew, as knowing all things, and knowing His own Father, than which knowledge nothing can be greater or more perfect.
أيضا تم الاستشهاد بالبابا كيرلس الكبير الاسكندري وقالوا انه أيضا قال المسيح بناسوته جاهل
والحقيقة البابا كيرلس ذكر 21 رد على هذه النقطة يسمي كل منهم رد اخر
فلا اعرف هل من قلة الدقة أيضا لأني لا اريد ان أقول من قلة الأمانة ان يذكر واحد من 22 رد؟
ولهذا أقدم 22 رد اخر للبابا كيرلس كثير منهم مثل ما قلت
بل من اول رد في النقطة الثانية يوضح ان المسيح بناسوته يعرف لأنه قال كل العلامات ولكن قال هذا ليؤكد طبيعته البشرية رغم انه بنفسه قال ما يؤكد معرفته
وأيضا في النقطة الرابعة يؤكد انه يعرف كانسان الساعة من يوحنا 17: 1 ولكن فقط تواضع كانسان
وأيضا النقطة 6 يكرر نفس المعنى وأيضا نقطة 11 و12 وأيضا 14 التي يؤكد فيها انه من امثلة كثيرة بناسوته يعرف ولكنه تصرف كأنه لا يعرفها وأيضا نقطة 15 يقول تظاهر بهذا ونقطة 16 يضرب أيضا امثلة تؤكد انه يعرف ولكن يكلمهم بمفهومهم وأيضا 17 هو فقط يهدف لشيء مفيد وأيضا نقطة 18 هو يعرف ولكن تعلل بهذا وهكذا حتى في نقطة 22 يقول ان من يقول على المسيح لا يعرف هذا يعد تجديفا لانه اعلن (بناسوته) انه يعرف كل شيء حتى اليوم السابق لمجيؤه وان كل من يقول هذا من كل الجوانب اغبياء ويتجرؤا بتقديم حقيقة مزيفة لان الابن يعرف كل شيء حتى لو كان بالتدبير يقول انه لا يعرف شيئا
اكتمل كلام البابا كيرلس
أيضا في الملف الأول قدمت نصا اقوال الإباء كما وضعهم تفسير ابونا تادرس يعقوب ملطي وقلت نصا
واخيرا اقوال الاباء من تفسير ابونا تادرس يعقوب
13. عدم معرفة الساعة
قبل أن يختم حديثه بالدعوة للسهر أراد أن يوجه أنظار تلاميذه إلى عدم الانشغال بمعرفة الأزمنة والأوقات، إنما بالاستعداد بالسهر المستمر وترقب مجيئه، لهذا قال: "وأما ذلك اليوم وتلك الساعة فلا يعلم بها أحد ولا الملائكة الذين في السماء ولا الابن إلا الآب" [32].
هل يجهل السيد المسيح الساعة؟
أولاً: يقول القديس أمبروسيوس[323] أن السيد المسيح هو الديان وهو الذي قدم علامات يوم مجيئه لذا فهو لا يجهل اليوم.هذا وإن كان يوم مجيئه هو "السبت" الحقيقي الذي فيه يستريح الله وقديسوه فكيف يجهل هذا اليوم وهو "رب السبت" (مت 12: 18)؟
ثانيًا: يرى القديس أغسطينوسأن السيد المسيح لا يجهل اليوم، إنما يعلن أنه لا يعرفه، إذ لا يعرفه معرفة من يبيح بالأمر.لعله يقصد بذلك ما يعلنه أحيانًا مدرس حين يُسأل عن أسئلة الامتحانات التي وضعها فيجيب أنه لا يعرف بمعنى عدم إمكانيته أن يُعلن ما قد وضعه، وأيضًا إن سُئل أب اعتراف عن اعترافات إنسان يحسب نفسه كمن لا يعرفها. يقول القديس أغسطينوس: [حقًا إن الآب لا يعرف شيئًا لا يعرفه الابن، لأن الابن هو معرفة الآب نفسه وحكمته، فهو ابنه وكلمته وحكمته. لكن ليس من صالحنا أن يخبرنا بما ليس في صالحنا أن نعرفه...إنه كمعلم يعلمنا بعض الأمور ويترك الأخرى لا يعرفنا بها.إنه يعرف أن يخبرنا بما هو لصالحنا ولا يخبرنا بالأمور التي تضرنا معرفتها[324].]
كما يقول: [قيل هذا بمعنى أن البشر لا يعرفونها بواسطة الابن، وليس أنه هو نفسه لا يعرفها، وذلك بنفس التعبير كالقول: "لأن الرب إلهكم يمتحنكم لكي يعلم" (تث 13: 3)، بمعنى أنه يجعلكم تعلمون.وكالقول: "قم يا رب" (مز 3: 7)، بمعنى "اجعلنا أن نقوم"، هكذا عندما يُقال أن الابن لا يعرف هذا اليوم فذلك ليس لأنه لا يعرفه وإنما لا يظهره لنا[325].]
بنفس الفكر يقول القديس يوحنا الذهبي الفم:[بقوله "ولا ملائكة" يسد شفاهم عن طلب معرفة ما لا تعرفه الملائكة، وبقوله "ولا الابن" يمنعهم ليس فقط من معرفته وإنما حتى عن السؤال عنه[326].]
هكذا أيضًا قال الأب ثيؤفلاكتيوس: [لو فقال لهم أنني أعرف الساعة لكنني لا أعلنها لكم لأحزنهم إلى وقت ليس بقليل لكنه بحكمة منعهم من التساؤل في هذا الأمر.]وقال القديس هيلاري أسقف بواتييه: إن السيد المسيح فيه كنوز المعرفة، فقوله إنه لا يعرف الساعة إنما يعني إخفاءه كنوز الحكمة التي فيه[327].
ثالثًا: يرى القديس إيريناؤس أنه وإن كان السيد المسيح العارف بكل شيء لم يخجل من أن ينسب معرفة يوم الرب للآب وحده كمن لا يعرفه، أفلا يليق بنا بروح التواضع أن نقتدي به حين نُسأل في أمور فائقة مثل كيفية ولادة الابن من الآب أن نُعلن أنها فائقة للعقل لا نعرفها.
ولكن لكيلا يشكك احد فايضا اضع كلامهم حسب الموسوعة الابائية بالانجليزي
Mark 13:32-37
The Necessity of Watchfulness
Overview: Augustine’s comment on this passage focused upon the perplexing question of the Son’s not knowing the final day. When the Son is said not to know the final day, it is not because he is ignorant of it but because he causes it not to be known by them for whom it is not expedient to know it. He does not show it to them, and they will not learn it from him. It would not have been for our good to have known everything that was known to him. He spoke of knowing something by analogy, in the sense of knowing that which was fitting that hearers should know from him. The fullness of time is not yet humanly known as present but only as future. Christ “knew not that day” with no other meaning than that he, by concealing it, caused others not to know it. It is according to a common form of speech that the Son is said not to know what he does not teach; hence he is said not to know what he causes us not to know (Augustine).
Insofar as he truly assumes and participates in our ordinary humanity, the Son shares our human limitations of not seeing into the future (Athanasius). The not knowing is attributed to the humanity of the incarnate Lord, not to the Godhead (Gregory of Nazianzus). It is not a defect in the truly human Son of God that he does not know the final hour but that it is not yet the time to speak or within the divine plan to act (Hilary of Poitiers). Jesus knew the hour of judgment in the nature of his humanity but not from the nature of his humanity (Gregory the Great). Faith watches for the day of which it remains ignorant and trembles daily for that for which it daily hopes (Tertullian). Watchfulness for final judgment is not occasional but belongs to the continuing response of believers (Apostolic Constitutions). If we knew the future, we would easily be tempted to postpone all human seriousness and delay all decision making (Athanasius). The pride that pretends one knows something one does not know is a greater moral danger than awareness of limited knowledge (Augustine). Since everything is not yet revealed, the text calls us to humility (Irenaeus).
Mark 13:32
That Hour No One Knows, Not Even the Son
Ignorance of the Future Is Our Ordinary Human Condition. Athanasius: When his disciples asked him about the end, he said with precision: Of that day or that hour no one knows, not even he himself [Cf. Mat_24:36; Mar_13:32.]—that is, when viewed according to the flesh, because he too, as human, lives within the limits of the human condition. He said this to show that, viewed as an ordinary man, he does not know the future, for ignorance of the future is characteristic of the human condition. Insofar as he is viewed according to his divinity as the Word who is to come, to judge, to be bridegroom, however, he knows when and in what hour he will come.… For as upon becoming human he hungers, thirsts and suffers, [Cf. Mat_4:2; Mar_8:31; Luk_24:46; Joh_19:28.] along with all human beings, similarly as human he does not see the future. But viewed according to his divinity as the Word and wisdom of the Father, he knows, and there is nothing which he does not know. Four Discourses Against the Arians 3.46. [NPNF 24:419*; TLG 2035.042, 26.420.29-38, 421.1-5. The God-man according to his humanity shares with us our ordinary human condition of ignorance of the future.]
Whether the Son Is Deficient in Knowledge. Hilary of Poitiers: It is sometimes turned into a reproach against the only begotten God that he did not know the day and the hour. It is said that, though God, born of God, he is not in the perfection of divine nature, since he is subjected to the limitation of ignorance, namely, to an external force stronger than himself, triumphing, as it were, over his weakness. The heretics in their frenzy would try to drive us to this blasphemous interpretation: that he is thus captive to this external limitation, which makes such a confession inevitable. The words are those of the Lord himself. What could be more unholy, we ask, than to corrupt his express assertion by our attempt to explain it away? But, before we investigate the meaning and occasion of these words, let us first appeal to the judgment of common sense. Is it credible, that he, who stands to all things as the author [Cf. Heb_12:2.] of their present and future, should not know all things?… All that is derives from God alone its origin, and has in him alone the efficient cause of its present state and future development. Can anything be beyond the reach of his nature, through which is effected, and in which is contained, all that is and shall be? Jesus Christ knows the thoughts of the mind, as it is now, stirred by present motives, and as it will be tomorrow, aroused by the impulse of future desires.… Whenever God says that he does not know, he professes ignorance indeed, but is not under the defect of ignorance. It is not because of the infirmity of ignorance that he does not know, but because it is not yet the time to speak, or in the divine plan to act.… This knowledge is not, therefore, a change from ignorance, but the coming of a fullness of time. He waits still to know, but we cannot suppose that he does not know. Therefore his not knowing what he knows, and his knowing what he does not know, is nothing else than a divine economy in word and deed. On the Trinity 9.58-62. [Cetedoc 0433, 62 a.9.58.4; NPNF 29:175-77**. The hour referred to is the fullness of time, which is not yet known as present but is known as future. It is not a defect in the Son of God that he does not know, but it is not yet the time to speak.]
Whether the Son Knows All That the Father Knows. Augustine: According to “the form of God” [Cf. Php_2:6.] everything that the Father has belongs to the Son: for “All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine.” [Joh_17:10.] According to the form of a slave, [Cf. Php_2:7.] 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.” [Mat_24:36; Mar_13:32.] 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. Recall that in a similar way it was said to Abraham: “Now I know that you fear God,” [Cf. Gen_22:12.] in the sense that now I am taking you through a continuing journey to know yourself, because Abraham came to know himself only after he had been tried in adversity.… Jesus was “ignorant” in this sense, so to speak, among his disciples, of that which they were not yet able to know from him. He only said that which was seasonally fitting for them to know. Among those with mature wisdom he knew in a different way than among babes. [Cf. 1Co_3:1.] On the Trinity 1.12.23. [Cetedoc 0329, 50.1.11.31; FC 45:34-35**.]
Figurative Speech Concerning What the Son Does Not Will to Know. Augustine: I am by no means of the opinion that a figurative mode of expression can be rightly termed a falsehood. For it is no falsehood to call a day joyous because it makes people joyous. A lupine seed is not sad because it lengthens the face of the eater because of its bitter taste. So also we say that God “knows” something when he makes his hearers know it (an instance quoted by yourself in the words of God to Abraham, “Now I know that you fear God” [Gen_22:12.]). These are by no means false statements, as you yourself readily see. Accordingly, the blessed Hilary threw light on an obscure point by this kind of figurative expression, showing how we ought to understand the words that “he did not know the day,” [Cf. Mat_24:36; Mar_13:32.] with no other meaning than this: In proportion as he had made others ignorant by concealing his meaning, he spoke of it figuratively as his own lack of knowledge. So by concealing it, he so to speak caused others not to know it. He did not by this explanation condone lying, but he proved that it was not lying to use the common figures, including metaphors, as a form of speech available to all, a mode of expression entirely familiar to all in daily conversation. Would anyone call it a lie to say that vines are jeweled with buds, or that a grainfield waves, or that a young man is in the flower of his youth, because he sees in these objects neither waves nor precious stones, nor grass, nor trees to which these expressions would literally apply? Letter 180, To Oceanus 3. [Cetedoc 0262, 180.44.3.698.26; NPNF 1 1:547-48**; cf. FC 30:119. This is a true statement figuratively understood, for Christ knew not that day with no other meaning than that he, by concealing it, caused others not to know it.]
The Time Not Disclosed to Flesh. Augustine: No one should arrogate to oneself the knowledge of that time by any computation of years. For if that day is to come after seven thousand years, everyone could learn its advent simply by adding up years. What comes then of the Son’s even “not knowing” this? This is said with this meaning, that his hearers do not learn this from the Son, not that he by himself does not know it. It is to be understood according to that form of speech by which “The Lord your God tries you that he may know,” [Deu_13:3.] which means, that he may make you know. Again, the phrase “arise, O Lord” [Psa_3:7.] means make us arise. Thus when the Son is said not to know this day, it is not because he is ignorant of it, but because he causes those to know it not for whom it is not yet expedient to know it, for he does not show it to them. On the Psalms 6.1. [Cetedoc 0283, 38.6.1.9; NPNF 18:15**. When the Son is said not to know this day, it is not because he is ignorant of it but because he does not disclose its time to those for whom this knowledge would not be helpful.]
Mark 13:32
Only the Father
Whether Everything Is Already Revealed. Irenaeus: The gnostics presumptuously assume acquaintance with the unspeakable mysteries of God. Remember that even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment.… If then the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those enigmatic questions which come our way. Against Heresies 2.28.6.
[AHR 1:355; ANF 1:401*. The text calls us to humility.]
The All-Knowing God. Gregory of Nazianzus: The last day and hour no one knows, not even the Son himself, but the Father. [Mat_24:36; Mar_13:32.] Yet how can the source of wisdom be ignorant of anything—that is, wisdom who made the world, who perfects all, who remodels all, who is the limit of all things that were made, who knows the things of God and the spirit of a person, knowing the things that lie deep within? [1Co_2:2.] For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How then can you say that all things before that hour he knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but of the hour itself he is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle. It is as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself. Or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night. Yet knowledge of the one necessarily implies the other. Thus everyone must see that the Son knows as God, and knows not as man (if we may for the purposes of argument distinguish that which is discerned by sight from that which is discerned by thought alone). For the absolute and unconditioned use of the name “the Son” in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, [Whether the reference is to the son of Mary or Son of God.] leads us to conclude: We are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to his human nature, and not to the Godhead. Oration 30, On the Son, Second Oration 15. [TLG 2022.010, 15.1-17; NPNF 27:315**.]
Not for Our Good to Know All. Augustine: It was not part of his office as our master that through him the day should become known to us. [Augustine is asking whether it would have been for our good to have known everything that was known to God.] It remains true that the Father knows nothing that the Son does not know, since his Son, the Word, is his wisdom, and his wisdom is to know. But it was not for our good to know everything which was known to him who came to teach us. He surely did not come to teach us that which it was not good for us to know. As master he both taught some things and left other things untaught. He knew both how to teach us what was good for us to know, and not to teach us what was not for our good to know. It is according to this common form of speech that the Son is said “not to know” what he does not choose to teach. We are in the daily habit of speaking in this way. Accordingly he is said “not to know” what he causes us not to know. On the Psalms 37.1. [Cetedoc 0283, 38.36.1.1.5; NPNF 18:91**. It is according to a common form of speech that the Son is said not to know what he does not teach; hence he is said not to know what he causes us not to know.]
The Son’s Discernment of the Future. Gregory the Great: When we speak of a glad day, we do not mean that the day itself is glad, but that it makes us glad. So also the Almighty Son says that he does not know the day which he causes not to be known. It is not that he himself does not know it, but that he does not allow it to be known. Only the Father is said to know the future in this same way. [Similarly we say the Father alone knows, not so as to imply that it is known only by the Father and not the Son. The eternal Son knows what the eternal Father knows.] The Son, who according to his divinity is of the same essential nature with the Father, has knowledge of that which the angels are ignorant. The only begotten, being incarnate and made for us a perfect man, knew indeed in the nature of his incarnate humanity the day and hour of the judgment, but still it was not from the nature of his humanity as such that he knew it. What then he knew in his humanity he knew not from it. Epistle 39, To Eulogius. [Cetedoc 1714, 10.21.47; NPNF 213:48** (italics added).]
والمجد لله دائما