The name of my interlocutor has been changed to keep him anonymous.
Malcolm: Jesus in Acts 1 does not say that he is nescient but rather that it is not for the disciples to know.
Edgar: Strictly speaking, you may be correct. Christ may not say that he does not know the times and seasons, but that the Father has simply placed them in His own jurisdiction. Certainly, however, based on the context and wording of Acts 1:6-7, it could be argued that Christ was admitting ignorance [nescience] concerning God's times and seasons, especially since he did profess nescience with respect to the day and the hour mentioned in Mt 24:36.
Looking at some of the early Fathers, I find their interpretation of Acts 1:7 informative:
"Also in the Acts of the Apostles: 'No one can know the times or the seasons which the Father has placed in His own power'" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle XII-Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews).
"It was necessary, therefore, that the Lord, coming to the lost sheep, and making recapitulation of so comprehensive a dispensation, and seeking after His own handiwork, should save that very man who had been created after His image and likeness, that is, Adam, filling up the times of His condemnation, which had been incurred through disobedience,-[times] 'which the Father had placed in His own power.' [This was necessary] too, inasmuch as the whole economy of salvation regarding man came to pass according to the good pleasure of the Father, in order that God might not be conquered, nor His wisdom lessened, [in the estimation of His creatures]" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.23.1)
Malcolm: The Father gives the Son a revelation for the Church. This fact need not imply that the content was previously unknown to the Son, only that it's outline was determined by the Father. If the president of a company gave a report to the vice-president to distribute to the employees, this fact would not necessarily imply that the vice-president was previously unaware of the contents of the report. Every fact in the report could have been common knowledge to the two company heads, but the president determined the outline that the facts shared by these company heads should take as those facts went to the employees.
Edgar: This illustration simply does not work. Furthermore, it is at odds with 1 Cor 2:11. If I disclose or reveal P to B, then I more than likely knew P before B did or else it was not a "revelation." For instance, if I tell my wife that I'm going for a walk in the park today, that is information she did not know prior to my disclosing it to her. or what about this example? If I tell a waiter to inform the chef that I don't want onions in my dinner salad, I am disclosing something about myself to B that I want conveyed to C. Surely, the waiter did not know my culinary preferences until I disclosed them to him. I would contend that something similar has to occur when two company heads convey important information to employees, or one executive discloses something to another executive. At some point in time, one head knew something that the other head did not know or else we could not describe one head "revealing" something to another.
Malcolm: I don't know how things at such a detailed level work in the Trinity. It seems here that the issue could be one of authority rather than knowledge. The Son submits Himself to the Father.
Edgar: If the Son submits himself to the Father, then he evidently has his own consciousness, mind and will. But if he has his own consciousness and will, then there are at least two "I thinks" in the Trinity. If the holy spirit is also an "I think" then we have tritheism or a Mt. Olympus scenario. I refer you to a quote by Trinitarian scholar Gerald O'Collins from an earlier post, which I don't believed you ever addressed:
"The philosophical input from Descartes, Kant, and John Locke (1632-1704) led to the emergence of a (but not THE) typically modern notion of person as the subject of self-awareness and freedom--in brief, person as a conscious and autonomous self ('I think and am free, therefore I am a person'). This notion, when applied to the doctrine of the Trinity, readily produces what looks suspiciously like tritheism: three autonomous subjects living and working together in a quasi-social unity" (The Tripersonal God, pp. 155-156).