Talk:Knowledge of Christ

Catholic Encylopedia template needed?

Hi History 2007, this is only a question, I haven't gone through the article/encyclopedia in detail to see. Does this new Wikipedia article require the template Catholic|wstitle=Knowledge of Christ (=  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Knowledge of Christ". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. )? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you have deleted Catholic Encyclopedia content. In that case perhaps no need for template. However the section heading Roman Catholicism is still required, even if Augustine and Aquinas are pre-Reformation.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure this all out. Do you have a clean list of how different Christian groups approach this? Are there big differences? What are the big points here? After we know that we can figure out the structure. I would really like to find the "common ground", present that then highlight the differences. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi History 2007. Not particularly, I have a minor interest in usually editing to ensure Schaff-Herzog, Jewish Encylopedia and Catholic Encyclopedia articles are dated authored 1910 etc. Your intention to present "common ground" first, then differences is laudable. Regarding Mark 13:32 there is a textual issue. I'd imagine that there's more "common ground" in the second section Knowing Christ Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the textual issue? History2007 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What Meier calls "the criteria of embarrassment". Why "nor the son" is missing from most MSS of Matthew. Ref insterted into article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you know and are focusing on this topic, the Hypostatic union article itself needs major help, so we should clean that too as we go along. History2007 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but not really my area, I'm more interested in the 16th-18thC. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Add Non Roman Catholic views

I've added the unorthodox Catholic Louis Ellies du Pin, although his L'histoire de l'Eglise (1712) was indexed, in the header as he notes the contradiction on this subject which is discussed at least among post-reformation commentators. At some point someone else might want to add Protestant views. Luther does discuss this, but right now I can't remember where.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Regarding: "Different solutions to this apparent contradiction have been posed by different religious traditions." Do you already know the solutions/refs etc. I have been looking into them, but if you already know of 3-4 sentences with refs that would help. I think we can not just leave it hanging. Certainly Arianism played on that but we should expand on the solutions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Cyril of Alexandria added. There could be 2 or 3 more.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, is "know the hour" the biggest issue among different groups? Is that the main point of contention? My feeling is starting with the contradiction just makes the reader stop reading anyway. So let us paint a general picture first, then look at the details. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the biggest issue, but as a point of divergence it certainly reappears from Arius onwards, and again with the Reformation, and Tubingen School as a focal point. Other verses get dragged in. There's extensive comment by Dunn etc. on the Luke 2 "grew in wisdom" and Heb 5 "learned from what he suffered" verses. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that means this is a "big topic" and we just opened Pandora's box here. The challenge is to write enough so people get an idea, but if we get lost in analyzing each verse, it guarantees that 3 people will actually read it over the next 7 years. So we need to find the key points and present them without writing a 20 page article. I would really like to keep this within 3-4 pages, else it will be like the rest of theology, much written, little read. History2007 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I'm afraid it is a "big topic" and in fact "hot potato", which is why the article in the Catholic Encylopedia exists I guess. There's no getting around that people got killed (or killed others) for this question - both in the 4thC and again in the 16th. The only way to demonstrate common ground, would be to add Protestant sources in whereever there's a Catholic source. And inevitably as all these kind of articles someone will come along and add a gigantic section on Greek orthodox beliefs dwarfing the others. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand that there are at least 3 major camps here: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, as well as probably 12 other minor views throughout history? If so we should, as a start, telegraph the 3 main views: Catholics (following Aquinas) assume total knowledge. Protestants assume......? Do the views of Luther and Calvin represent the Protestant camp? And Orthodox assume......? And are the Anglicans anywhere in the equation? If you those 3 main camp facts for sure and can add 2-3 sentences about each that will give me a start to do research and fill in the details. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll make a small start. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarified the Calvin angle. I will start to work on the Eastern Orthodox angle etc. I think the issue of omniscience will have to be worked in. I think by following up on the specific verses, etc. it will become clear. There are also issues about LDS beliefs etc. that I think we will leave to someone else to add, because I know so little about them. But for now, we should just do the Catholic/Protestant/EasternOrthodox items and let those who know LDS, etc. fill in those details. Thanks for your clarifications. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What an Article !! Thank you History2007 and all who have put it up. Knowledge of Christ is a wonderful concept that has been written about by many people throughout the centuries. There are so many more authors who have written about it !! thousands and thousands ! we could list nearly all the saints, many protestant and evangelical ministers, many priests, many lay men many many many books many many articles... So many authors have directly or indirectly put this concept as a leitmotif in their writings that it merits an independent review on wikipedia Alan347 (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan, yes, it is an important concept, specially the 2nd aspect. And our point about the Holy Spirit is certainly valid. I trimmed the Hinn sentence a little given that he is just one modern preacher. But that theme should probably be expanded elsewhere as well, e.g. the Holy Spirit page itself. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take that back please. I looked into Benny Hinn and it seems that he is not a theologian at all, but just a TV character, and his material is not of theological significance. I do not know what you read there Alan but personally, I would not buy a used car (or a used Bible) from that fellow. I am sure there are better sources than that. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)