Question for non-literalist folks: When does literal biblical history begin?

[rmwilliamsll]

The other limits you listed have a biblical basis, however, there is no biblical basis for NOT being omniscient (if you can provide this then that would be great) there is in fact plenty of evidence (half the letters written in red) that He was omniscient.

“A large crowd followed and pressed around Him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind Him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, ‘If I just touch His clothes, I will be healed.’ Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from Him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ ‘You see the people crowding against you,’ His disciples answered, ‘and yet you can ask, “Who touched Me?”’ But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and knelt at His feet, and trembling with fear, told Him the whole truth. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering’” (MAR 5:25-34).



“As Jesus was on His way, the crowds almost crushed Him. And there was a woman there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind Him and touched the edge of His cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped. ‘Who touched Me?’ Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.’ But Jesus said, ‘Someone touched Me; I know that power has gone out from Me.’ The woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at His feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched Him and how she had been instantly healed. Then He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace’” (LUK 8:43-47).

from: http://www.biblebb.com/files/KSS/kss-bleedingwoman.htm

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Because you're making an assumption that is not given in the bible. The other limits you listed have a biblical basis, however, there is no biblical basis for NOT being omniscient (if you can provide this then that would be great) there is in fact plenty of evidence (half the letters written in red) that He was omniscient.

Matthew 24:30-50 30and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh; 33even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. 34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. 35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.

quote from: http://www.bibletime.com/home/faq/notknown/

 

[Willtor]

I'm very aware he was fully human, but not just human, HE was also fully God.

He was aware of WHO HE was and the plan of salvation, He spoke with all the authority of God and marveled the most religiously learned men of His day at the age of twelve.

What biblical support do you have for saying He would be limited in His knowledge of the world and history?

Mark 13:32 - But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Given that the Son is the true Word of God, if the Son doesn't know the day or the hour, would it be reasonable to infer that the "emptying" process caused Christ to give up his omniscience?

Besides that, even if Adam weren't an historical person, why would that make references to him uninformed? I can make references to Robin Hood or Jean-Luc Picard. I could make comparisons to these people even though they don't actually exist. But most TE's (who think Adam was non-historical) don't even go as far as Captain Picard. I, for one, think that if Adam is not an historical person, he represents an historical group of people.

 

[charityagape]

The other limits you listed have a biblical basis, however, there is no biblical basis for NOT being omniscient (if you can provide this then that would be great) there is in fact plenty of evidence (half the letters written in red) that He was omniscient.


from: http://www.biblebb.com/files/KSS/kss-bleedingwoman.htm

Actually, I read that as a retorical "Who touched me?" After all as the disciples said, hundreds of people were touching Him, the who touched me seemed like a crazy question to the disciples, but He knew that someone "touched" Him in a way unlike the rest of the crowd and I think the text supports the probability that He knew who, like when he asked the woman at the well to go get her husband, He knew she had had many husbands and that at the time was living with someone not her husband (omniscents ((sp?).

Granted that is my opinion, an opinion I feel is pretty supported and that your use of it to prove non-omniscents is very weak.

 

[charityagape]

Because you're making an assumption that is not given in the bible. The other limits you listed have a biblical basis, however, there is no biblical basis for NOT being omniscient (if you can provide this then that would be great) there is in fact plenty of evidence (half the letters written in red) that He was omniscient.



quote from: http://www.bibletime.com/home/faq/notknown/

Now that is very far fetched.

 

[charityagape]

Mark 13:32 - But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Given that the Son is the true Word of God, if the Son doesn't know the day or the hour, would it be reasonable to infer that the "emptying" process caused Christ to give up his omniscience?

Very far fetched. There are many more instances of omniscince. The woman at the well, the disciple he was under the tree, his own death, Judas' betrayal, the donkey and colt, Peter's denial, the destruction of the temple, the knowledge that the woman who anointed him would be told about in the generations to come, John 8:58 Before Abraham was I am, etc etc.

I think there's a very stong case for His omniscience.

Besides that, even if Adam weren't an historical person, why would that make references to him uninformed? I can make references to Robin Hood or Jean-Luc Picard. I could make comparisons to these people even though they don't actually exist. But most TE's (who think Adam was non-historical) don't even go as far as Captain Picard. I, for one, think that if Adam is not an historical person, he represents an historical group of people.

That's the whole basis of this discussion. It started when someone suggested that Jesus spoke about Adam and other people in Genesis as if they were real people, someone else suggested that Jesus could have thought the were real people because He read about them and didn't have the research and reasoning abilities that we have today and that's why he didn't realize that Adam was NOT a real person.

My reply to that was well, Jesus, being God would have known if Adam was real or not.

Of course someone could make (IMO) the farfetched case that Jesus knew Adam was just a literary device used in place of a group of people and was only telling a "story" to teach theology, but I think there's very little support for saying Jesus only though Adam was real because He didn't have the ability in that day and age to research and find the facts.

 

[charityagape]

Also, there's the first Chapter of John.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.


Of course, that's all literary device and has little "factual" meaning.

 

[charityagape]

OY! I just wrote for thirty minutes and everything has disappeared. Oh, nevermind. Everything seems out of order. Weird.

 

[charityagape]

Oy, I just wrote for thirty minutes and it all disappeared. I'm too disgusted to redo tonight, but I do have plenty to say, see yall later.

 

[charityagape]

Mark 13:32 - But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Given that the Son is the true Word of God, if the Son doesn't know the day or the hour, would it be reasonable to infer that the "emptying" process caused Christ to give up his omniscience?

Besides that, even if Adam weren't an historical person, why would that make references to him uninformed? I can make references to Robin Hood or Jean-Luc Picard. I could make comparisons to these people even though they don't actually exist. But most TE's (who think Adam was non-historical) don't even go as far as Captain Picard. I, for one, think that if Adam is not an historical person, he represents an historical group of people.

I wrote a response to this and somehow it ended up on page four instead of five. Weird.

 

[charityagape]

OKAY, I am missing something now, I just wrote a post that should be number 51 but is instead been inserted into the middle of the posts post number 42.

 

[Mark2010]

Because you're making an assumption that is not given in the bible. The other limits you listed have a biblical basis, however, there is no biblical basis for NOT being omniscient (if you can provide this then that would be great) there is in fact plenty of evidence (half the letters written in red) that He was omniscient.









Arty implied something that would be a hearesy and I implied something else that would be a hearesy.





His only difference was that He was free from sin? Nothing else?

Jesus knew of things to come, He knew who He was, He had authority to heal and control His physical environment (of course there are some miracles you may not believe in, I think I recall something about the feeding of the five thousand to be a miracle of sharing and not a physical miracle of producing)

He had wisdom beyond that of any man.................and so much more.......and you expect that He spoke of men in Genesis as if they were real men, not because they WERE real men, but because He'd read about them and didn't know any better because he didn't have the research capability that we have in this day and age?



Adam? The fictious literary device Adam?



You seem to think I don't realize Jesus was fully human and I think you don't realize He was also fully God.

So is it your belief that Jesus had ALL of the characteristics and attributes of God? Some of the attributes of God? None of the attributes of God? How would you determine this?

 

[Willtor]

Very far fetched. There are many more instances of omniscince. The woman at the well, the disciple he was under the tree, his own death, Judas' betrayal, the donkey and colt, Peter's denial, the destruction of the temple, the knowledge that the woman who anointed him would be told about in the generations to come, John 8:58 Before Abraham was I am, etc etc.

I think there's a very stong case for His omniscience.

I don't think anybody will deny that there are things that the Father gave him. But it's not clear to me how my example was far-fetched. You don't realize, but it doesn't help anybody for you merely to say, "far fetched," and leave it at that without addressing it. If you are right, you've merely stated that you are right. You haven't shown how you are right. That's why we typically try to back up what we say in these sorts of discussions. Besides, how do you know whether you've thought things out, suffciently, if you don't put them out there to be tested? Thus, you might do better to let your argument stand for itself and present your reasoning, and let us infer, "far fetched." You'd make a much stronger case, that way. Also, you don't end up belittling anybody in the process.

Just a suggestion.

That's the whole basis of this discussion. It started when someone suggested that Jesus spoke about Adam and other people in Genesis as if they were real people, someone else suggested that Jesus could have thought the were real people because He read about them and didn't have the research and reasoning abilities that we have today and that's why he didn't realize that Adam was NOT a real person.

My reply to that was well, Jesus, being God would have known if Adam was real or not.

Of course someone could make (IMO) the farfetched case that Jesus knew Adam was just a literary device used in place of a group of people and was only telling a "story" to teach theology, but I think there's very little support for saying Jesus only though Adam was real because He didn't have the ability in that day and age to research and find the facts.

I don't recall anybody saying he didn't have the reasoning abilities we have today. Maybe you could cite a post number (if the posts didn't keep getting moved around), or at least an author.

 

[shernren]

Very far fetched. There are many more instances of omniscince. The woman at the well, the disciple he was under the tree, his own death, Judas' betrayal, the donkey and colt, Peter's denial, the destruction of the temple, the knowledge that the woman who anointed him would be told about in the generations to come, John 8:58 Before Abraham was I am, etc etc.

I think there's a very stong case for His omniscience.

Personally, I've always looked at these instances as the operation of the Holy Spirit through a normal (though sinless) human being (who was also God Incarnate). Kind of like how people today when they pray can occasionally receive a very specific word of wisdom about a situation in someone's life - we don't take that as proof that they're omniscient. and I think yes, we have to agree from the accounts that He was definitely aware that He was/is God in human form. But I don't think His omniscience was necessary for His mission on earth.

And of course, we can refer to people without actually believing they exist. We all find ourselves in the prodigal son's shoes - which doesn't show that I believe that the story of the prodigal son has a historical basis. But I'm not sure which specific passage of Jesus-believed-Adam-existed you have in mind.

 

[charityagape]

Is it just this thread that keeps moving the posts around? I though I answered those questions somewhere. Far fetched, I realize that's not exactly proof of anthing, and its not meant to be, its simply my opinion that your example of the end of the world is far fetched, its the one thing that no one knows.

I believe 1 John clearly states that Jesus was there at the beginning of time and that there's no evidence that he forgot everything in order to be a real human.


I'll try to find the post where someone said Jesus as well as the authors of the bible would only think Adam was real because of their limited abilities to know the facts.

 

[charityagape]

I don't recall anybody saying he didn't have the reasoning abilities we have today. Maybe you could cite a post number (if the posts didn't keep getting moved around), or at least an author.

Currently posts 15 and 16 by chetsinger and artybloke.

But I'll momentarily digress. To me, the bible reads like an account of events that happened. The authors of the New Testament, and Jesus himself, seem to refer to Old Testament figures as actual people.

But, in a way, you're right, they did probably think they were real people. However, they didn't have the benefit of historical and scientific method, nor the resources to actually find out whether these people really did exist. They just took it on the authority of what they had been told. They couldn't do anything else; we can.

 

[Willtor]

Is it just this thread that keeps moving the posts around? I though I answered those questions somewhere. Far fetched, I realize that's not exactly proof of anthing, and its not meant to be, its simply my opinion that your example of the end of the world is far fetched, its the one thing that no one knows.

The Father knows it. That's precisely what Christ says. If the Son is everything that the Father is, except Father, to what do we attribute the Son's lack of knowledge in this matter?

I believe 1 John clearly states that Jesus was there at the beginning of time and that there's no evidence that he forgot everything in order to be a real human.

It clearly states the former, but I'd be hard pressed to conclude the latter without analyzing the given evidence.

Think of it this way: suppose Christ knew everything, fully. Where did he store that knowledge? He emptied himself of some of the things he had had, before, so it's not necessary to say that he must have had omniscience. In taking on human flesh, he probably stored that knowledge in the same way we store it. But a human is finite and cannot comprehend anything. Therefore, if a human is limited to apprehension, Jesus probably was, too.

Currently posts 15 and 16 by chetsinger and artybloke.

Neither of these posts indicates that he was limited in his ability to reason. The latter indicates a lack of certain tools that we have, today, but why should that be surprising?

 

[Willtor]

I'm sure Erwin will get it straightened out. Rehosting servers is not a trivial task, so there are issues of temporal concurrency with the database, as well as (possibly) consistency in content. But it'll be sorted out pretty soon. These are things that have to be addressed, but none of them are particularly complex.

 

[gluadys]

So is it your belief that Jesus had ALL of the characteristics and attributes of God? Some of the attributes of God? None of the attributes of God? How would you determine this?

He certainly had all the characteristics of God. He was limited in terms of having all the powers of God. He could not exercise the powers of God that would be inconsistent with being human. If he could, he would not be fully human. But by virtue of having all the characteristics of God, he was still fully God in spite of accepting human limitations on the exercise of divine powers.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, I read that as a retorical "Who touched me?" After all as the disciples said, hundreds of people were touching Him, the who touched me seemed like a crazy question to the disciples, but He knew that someone "touched" Him in a way unlike the rest of the crowd and I think the text supports the probability that He knew who, like when he asked the woman at the well to go get her husband, He knew she had had many husbands and that at the time was living with someone not her husband (omniscents ((sp?).

Granted that is my opinion, an opinion I feel is pretty supported and that your use of it to prove non-omniscents is very weak.

So, you are interpreting the passage with your pre-suppositions of Jesus's omniscience in mind.

What if you drop those presuppositions and assume Jesus was asking a genuine, not a rhetorical question.

The disciples wonder why he asks "who touched me?" when it seems everyone is touching him. But Jesus explains that he felt healing power leave him.

He could still not know who benefitted from that healing until she identified herself.

Clearly, none of us can read Jesus' mind. We cannot know if the question was genuine (implying non-omniscience) or rhetorical (no hindrance to omniscience) . Still a third possibility is that the question was rhetorical and Jesus knew who had been healed, but that his knowledge did not come from omniscience, but from observation.

Whatever we conclude it is our opinion and nothing more.