Trinity - Why doesn't Jesus know everything the Father knows?

[Holoman]

In Mark 13:32 Jesus says "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

I am struggling to understand how the Trinity works, and I know that it is considered a mystery, but if Jesus and God are the same, and he clearly knew a lot of things that only God knows, like what was in peoples hearts, and that he would be crucified, how come he doesn't have all the knowledge of the father?

There are other examples, like when Jesus asks God to spare him the cross if there is another way. If he had the knowledge of God, he would know there was no other way surely? And on the cross he asks God why he has foresaken him.

So clearly God and the Son are not exactly the same, one has knowledge the other does not, but at the same time there is only one God, so they cannot be different. A bit confused.

 

[Albion]

In Mark 13:32 Jesus says "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

I am struggling to understand how the Trinity works, and I know that it is considered a mystery, but if Jesus and God are the same, and he clearly knew a lot of things that only God knows, like what was in peoples hearts, and that he would be crucified, how come he doesn't have all the knowledge of the father?

We usually think that, by taking on our human nature, Jesus was affected by it. He was not just a God who appeared to us dressed in a human shell. On the other hand, you worded your question in the present tense, and I think we all agree that he now is completely in synch with the Father after his Ascension.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Jesus didn't explain things plainly or clearly until after his resurrection that is why.

Remember John 16:25

 

[Holoman]

Jesus didn't explain things plainly or clearly until after his resurrection that is why.

Remember John 16:25

But it isn't that he wasn't explaining it, he says literally that he doesn't know

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Two big theology ideas on this. One is that Christ "emptied himself" of his divine power but still remained God. He voluntarily relinquished His divine power when He became a man. and then there is the one where he still remained omni-everything and just chose not to use any of it.

 

[Albion]

Two big theology ideas on this. One is that Christ "emptied himself" of his divine power but still remained God. He voluntarily relinquished His divine power when He became a man. and then there is the one where he still remained omni-everything and just chose not to use any of it.

Except that much of what he did--miracles of healing, for example--show that he didn't "empty" himself of his divine "power." But we believe that he was genuinely a human, like us. If he was a human, as well as God, he would have to have been limited to some degree by our nature or else he would have been merely a God who looked to us to be a man but really wasn't. If that were true, the whole of the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection narrative would be rendered as nothing but playacting on his part.

 

[Steeno7]

In Mark 13:32 Jesus says "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

I am struggling to understand how the Trinity works, and I know that it is considered a mystery, but if Jesus and God are the same, and he clearly knew a lot of things that only God knows, like what was in peoples hearts, and that he would be crucified, how come he doesn't have all the knowledge of the father?

Because He had Self-limited Himself to function as a man.

 

[Steeno7]

Except that much of what he did--miracles of healing, for example--show that he didn't "empty" himself of his divine "power." But we believe that he was genuinely a human, like us. If he was a human, as well as God, he would have to have been limited to some degree by our nature or else he would have been merely a God who looked to us to be a man but really wasn't. If that were true, the whole of the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection narrative would be rendered as nothing but playacting on his part.

Nope. Jesus repeatedly stated that He could do nothing on His own. That includes the miracles, wonders and signs. All were performed by God the Father through Him (Acts 2:22).

 

[Albion]

Fascinating. Aside from the obvious misunderstanding of those verses (to be unable to do X "alone" does not mean that he had no part in it at all), your theory would seem to make him nothing but a human whom the Father operated like a marionette.

 

[Steeno7]

Fascinating. Aside from the obvious misunderstanding of those verses (to be unable to do X "alone" does not mean that he had no part in it at all), your theory would seem to make him nothing but a human whom the Father operated like a marionette.

Is that how you view Christ working now through you?

 

[Holoman]

I think I understand better now, there is a difference between Jesus as a man on earth, and Jesus as Son of God in heaven? His earthly body and mind were limited?

 

[Albion]

Is that how you view Christ working now through you?

I view Christ pretty much as the Nicene Creed describes him. Where did you get your theory (and please don't say "the Bible" or "Scripture")?

 

[Albion]

I think I understand better now, there is a difference between Jesus as a man on earth, and Jesus as Son of God in heaven? His earthly body and mind were limited?

There is a difference, but we have to be careful about how we envision that. He was both completely God at all times and he was completely, fully human, while on Earth.

 

[Steeno7]

I think I understand better now, there is a difference between Jesus as a man on earth, and Jesus as Son of God in heaven? His earthly body and mind were limited?

Self-limited, to function as a man. A real, true man. Man as He Himself created man to be, living in total dependence upon God. Such a man is a man God can do anything through.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Except that much of what he did--miracles of healing, for example--show that he didn't "empty" himself of his divine "power." But we believe that he was genuinely a human, like us. If he was a human, as well as God, he would have to have been limited to some degree by our nature or else he would have been merely a God who looked to us to be a man but really wasn't. If that were true, the whole of the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection narrative would be rendered as nothing but playacting on his part.

Oh I agree with that, but I am just saying that there is two major schools of thought on it. It doesn't make sense to me that God can make Himself less than God, but He does choose not to use His omnipotence quite a bit



...or maybe he does anyhow, but I don't want to argue over freewill and God's will, because that is a rabbit hole I avoid going down. lol

 

[Albion]

Oh I agree with that, but I am just saying that there is two major schools of thought on it. It doesn't make sense to me that God can make Himself less than God, but He does choose not to use His omnipotence quite a bit

All right, but can't we say that this was not a matter of him deciding to limit himself per se, but that it comes naturally with his assumption of a human nature (not a human appearance, but a genuinely human nature)?

 

[Optimax]

In Mark 13:32 Jesus says "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

I am struggling to understand how the Trinity works, and I know that it is considered a mystery, but if Jesus and God are the same, and he clearly knew a lot of things that only God knows, like what was in peoples hearts, and that he would be crucified, how come he doesn't have all the knowledge of the father?

There are other examples, like when Jesus asks God to spare him the cross if there is another way. If he had the knowledge of God, he would know there was no other way surely? And on the cross he asks God why he has foresaken him.

So clearly God and the Son are not exactly the same, one has knowledge the other does not, but at the same time there is only one God, so they cannot be different. A bit confused.

Consider this.

God the Father plans

God the Son carries out the plan.

The Holy Spirit reveals the plan to man.

 

[com7fy8]

In Mark 13:32 Jesus says "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

I am struggling to understand how the Trinity works, and I know that it is considered a mystery, but if Jesus and God are the same, and he clearly knew a lot of things that only God knows, like what was in peoples hearts, and that he would be crucified, how come he doesn't have all the knowledge of the father?

"God is love" (in 1 John 4:8 & 16). You don't need to know everything, to have love Also, I understand it can be like how your head knows a lot more than your hand. But your head is you and your hand is you. But, in the "case" of Jesus and our Father, Jesus is not only a part of a body, but Jesus is a Person of God Himself. And it could be like how a computer has all knowledge that it has, but not every part of the computer has all the knowledge; but all parts are one computer.

And it could be like in a family, how your mother and father know things you don't, but if you do what they have you doing you are acting in relation to the benefit of all they know; and it is like us who are children of God > while we do what He has us doing, we are acting in relation with all He knows about people around us and all He knows about the past and present and what is coming in the future. So, among other things, it is good to make sure with God about who we marry, trust, and how to trust each person if we do, and what He really desires for us to do . . . no matter what we think we know about ourselves and circumstances.

So - - - for learning how to love, in any case, Jesus shows how well we can love, whether we know all things, at once, or not.

"Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." (in 1 Corinthians 8:2)

Jesus is not "limited", by not having all knowledge, but Jesus is specialized for His love purposes, while our Heavenly Father is specialized for His love activities. Jesus had "enough" knowledge for doing the loving He did; and God will give you all you need, for loving. In any case knowledge is not what makes you a loving person, nor is knowledge what makes God love, though He does have it all.

But there is an interesting thing > if you care, God knows you care, and so He will make sure you have the knowledge which you can use to care for others, and understand Him as much as He pleases . . . in His love >

"Now this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

In love, not only do we have knowledge, but "discernment" for what to do with it.

So, grow in God's love, and discover how to know.

There are other examples, like when Jesus asks God to spare him the cross if there is another way. If he had the knowledge of God, he would know there was no other way surely?

I consider that Jesus knew, but He came here to be our example of how we need to pray about hard things which we may go through. Or . . . He did not know, but in love prayer He was one with our Father and They were personally communicating with one another. While Jesus was saying those things, our Father could be deeply communicating with His Son so Jesus "got" how He needed to do not His own will but our Father's. But you "might" notice > it could seem it did not take Jesus "very long" to say that He was committed to our Father's will. So, I think They were very much in oneness with one another about that.

And, like this, in love's prayer we can have deeper-than-words communion with communication with our Father.

So, possibly you can see that there is something to learn about loving, in learning about each item in the Bible > not only getting explanations, but feeding on how to love, in prayer and caring for people.

And on the cross he asks God why he has foresaken him.

Well, if someone asks you "why" you have done something . . .

(1) The person can be doubting you and confronting you, or calling for you to evaluate what you are doing so you see you need to not do it.

(2) The person can be simply asking for an explanation, thinking he or she might learn something . . . something about you and/or something about how to do something.

(3) The person can be asking you to "bring on" and do whatever is your purpose for doing something. So, asking "why" can be an invitation . . . a question of confirmation calling for the reason of your doing something, so it will come and be done.

(4) And, in the "case" of Jesus, ones consider that Jesus was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22. This Psalm starts with asking why God has forsaken the person, but then the person goes on to realize and testify how God has always been present, never has failed. And then the person is encouraged. So . . . possibly, Jesus on the cross was on top of things, but giving a Bible quote for the sake of those with Him . . . and for us . . . that we might learn not to look at how things happening to us seem awful, but know that in truth we are never forsaken by our Father, and call and look for the good purpose > "why" . . . for what good purpose . . . have You done this?? Bring it on!!!

(5) And people understand, then, that Jesus was being our example, on the cross . . . of how we with Jesus in us can more and more love and have faith like Jesus on the cross >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

I note how this says Jesus on the cross was "a sweet-smelling aroma". Therefore, our Savior Jesus was sweetly pleasing to our Father, in that sacrifice > not displeasing so God would turn His back on Him, as ones say < I would think, if Jesus was pleasing in that sacrifice. But ones might not agree with this. But I understand He was forsaken, in circumstance "only", but He who is God Himself "could" not have become separate from God; plus it does say, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," in 2 Corinthians 5:19; so if God was in Jesus during the reconciliation of Calvary, I "think" it would have been kind of "hard" for Jesus to be separate from the Father, on Calvary.

And this is our example, of how if we are in Jesus, living in God's grace, obeying how He rules us in His own peace (Colossians 3:15) . . . therefore submitting to our Father like Jesus in us has us submitting to our Father . . . always we are with God; and "bring it on", no matter what is happening, Father, bring on Your purpose which is all-loving . . . not only what is good for me and ones closer to me

(6) Also, ones understand that Jesus was forsaken, instead of us, taking our punishment on Himself; so, it could have been a question for which Jesus knew the answer, but He called it out, in order for us to consider it and learn the answer; after all, isn't Jesus our Teacher??? But, I offer, Jesus did this in oneness with our Father . . . suffering and dying right, so that the sacrifice could be pleasing and satisfy our Father to reconcile with us and forgive us. We ourselves could not suffer and die right for our own sins; we "might" be screaming and crying and cursing . . . not exactly making up for our own sins.

"For He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

So, Jesus was not only about Himself, even on Calvary, but Jesus was about being pleasing, always, to our Father, and always all-loving, having hope for any and all people. So, He is our example of how we also need to care in prayer for any person, at all, have this hope for any person, at all.

And we need to also be sweet in making our sacrifices . . . not wasting ourselves in stress and worry and hurry and workaholic ministering and trying to possess people >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So clearly God and the Son are not exactly the same, one has knowledge the other does not, but at the same time there is only one God, so they cannot be different. A bit confused.

It is like how two people can be exactly human, but each one can have different purposes of love.

God bless you, too It is good to see you

Bill

 

[Steeno7]

All right, but can't we say that this was not a matter of him deciding to limit himself per se, but that it comes naturally with his assumption of a human nature (not a human appearance, but a genuinely human nature)?

The taking on of genuine human nature and functioning as a genuine man is Him Self-limiting Himself. Obviously. Why would we not say it is?

What Jesus emptied Himself of was His prerogative of independent and inherent divine function. Man is a derivative, contingent and dependent creature. God alone is independent. In order for Jesus to be a man, a real man, and not just God pretending to be man, He had to live as a contingent, dependent man, deriving all from His Father. And that is His exact testimony about Himself.

 

[Albion]

The taking on of genuine human nature and functioning as a genuine man is Him Self-limiting Himself. Obviously. Why would we not say it is?

The point there was that many people DO contend for some other explanation.