Was Jesus omniscient?

[Goinheix]

For some insight to the Deity of Christ, go to Chapter 26 of the following link. There is a lot to read, but explained well.

Founders Ministries | Abstract of Systematic Theology by J. P. Boyce

Even though I am not a Baptist, I found this very interesting.

They are refusing what the Bible teaches. The Bible teacahes of God the Son emptying of his atributes; and portait a Jesus without divine atributes. The Bible present God the Son encarnated and without divine atributes.

Present christology is an herecy , and refuse the Bible.

 

[Deaver]

They are refusing what the Bible teaches. The Bible teacahes of God the Son emptying of his atributes; and portait a Jesus without divine atributes. The Bible present God the Son encarnated and without divine atributes.

Present christology is an herecy , and refuse the Bible.

How do you disagree with this, which I copied from the link I referred you to.

“It was only necessary that he should appear to men as man, and not as God. His divinity was, therefore, concealed in his human form. But he, being God equally with the Father and the Spirit, possessed, of right, rule and authority over all creatures and worlds. This he continued to possess essentially as God; but, as the Son, he yielded its exercise exclusively into the hands of the Father; so that during the period of his earthly residence, he consented to be as one that was sent, and thus as the servant of the Father, doing his will and obedient to his authority.”

What scripture, other than possibly Philippians 2:5-8 (which I believe does not), refutes that Jesus, in his incarnation, preserved unaltered his essential relations to the divine nature or essence.

 

[Goinheix]

How do you disagree with this, which I copied from the link I referred you to.

“It was only necessary that he should appear to men as man, and not as God. His divinity was, therefore, concealed in his human form. But he, being God equally with the Father and the Spirit, possessed, of right, rule and authority over all creatures and worlds. This he continued to possess essentially as God; but, as the Son, he yielded its exercise exclusively into the hands of the Father; so that during the period of his earthly residence, he consented to be as one that was sent, and thus as the servant of the Father, doing his will and obedient to his authority.”

I never sugested that every word was wrong. He is wrong on the way interprete kenosis.

It was necessary that God the Son not only appears to be a man; but it was necessary for God the Son to be (became) a man. It was necessatry for God the Son to live as we do; in order to: 1) be the Lamb for living without sin; 2) to be our High Priest understanding us. God the Son consented to be as one of us. That is living under the same conditions as we do. For that is that it was necessary for him to live without omniscience (for example) because we are not oniscient.

During the period of his earthy residence, God the Son never stop being God. He did empty himself of being omniscient (for example) but continued to be God.

 

[Deaver]

I never sugested that every word was wrong. He is wrong on the way interprete kenosis.

It was necessary that God the Son not only appears to be a man; but it was necessary for God the Son to be (became) a man. It was necessatry for God the Son to live as we do; in order to: 1) be the Lamb for living without sin; 2) to be our High Priest understanding us. God the Son consented to be as one of us. That is living under the same conditions as we do. For that is that it was necessary for him to live without omniscience (for example) because we are not oniscient.

During the period of his earthy residence, God the Son never stop being God. He did empty himself of being omniscient (for example) but continued to be God.

Except that Jesus was both (at the same time) 100% man and 100% God. One of God's attributes is that He is immutable, that is God is unchangeable in His nature, character, or dependability.

 

[Goinheix]

Except that Jesus was both (at the same time) 100% man and 100% God. One of God's attributes is that He is immutable, that is God is unchangeable in His nature, character, or dependability.

Good point. God is unchangeable; but he did empty himself. If he did empty himself; he did change. I say that he empty of all divine atributes. Different theologists explanin that he did empty of something else. Whatever he did empty of, he did change. My teaching is that he empty of his divine atributes. One of the divine atributes he did empty out was being unchangeable. God the Son did change /enpty of whatever did empty) because he did empty of being unchangeable.

Was Jesus unchangeable. He grew up in body and mind. This is not my observation, but the Gospel. Jesus changes that much that he was not recogniced after the resurrection. Not only that; he told Magdalene not to touch him because he didnt went to the Father yet. And he told Thomas to touch him. As you see; before resurrection he had niot problem to be touched. He changed and was "untouchable"; and he changed again and became "touchble" again.

God the Son did change into Jesus
Jesus was not unchangeable.

 

[OzSpen]

Was Jesus unchangeable. He grew up in body and mind. This is not my observation, but the Gospel. Jesus changes that much that he was not recogniced after the resurrection. Not only that; he told Magdalene not to touch him because he didnt went to the Father yet. And he told Thomas to touch him. As you see; before resurrection he had niot problem to be touched. He changed and was "untouchable"; and he changed again and became "touchble" again.

It doesn't seem to enter your mind that you are in the wrong with your understanding of kenosis.

You still haven't told me how many Jesus-type miracles like walking on the water you have performed or feeding the 5,000. Jesus' omnipotence was clearly evident in these miracles.

It is your definition of kenosis that is at fault.

Oz

 

[Goinheix]

It doesn't seem to enter your mind that you are in the wrong with your understanding of kenosis.

You still haven't told me how many Jesus-type miracles like walking on the water you have performed or feeding the 5,000. Jesus' omnipotence was clearly evident in these miracles.

It is your definition of kenosis that is at fault.

Oz

Your interpretation of not-kenosis is based in that God dont change. Well, as I have demostrated to you, God did change at kenosis. But not a litie bit, but a big lot. By kenosis God the Son did emty himself of the atribute of not unchengeable. So he changed. He birth, he grew up, he died and he rose back to life. God the Son did experienced many changes because he emty himself of the divine atribute of being unchanging.

The other atribute he did empty of is omnipotence. As Luke is saying, Jesus didnt have any power of his own. Not that he was not omnipotent, but that he didnt have any power at all, from himself. He wlaked over the water? Some other prophets did open the Red Sea; dried out the Joedan River; and make afloat a axe head. How big were Jesus miracles? According to himself, not as big as the miracles we can do.

 

[cubinity]

Deaver and OzSpen,

I'm excited to see others faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ here.
I'm going to sit back and observe.
I'm confident you guys will continue to stand for the truth!
God bless you both.

-Cubinity

 

[OzSpen]

Deaver and OzSpen,

I'm excited to see others faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ here.
I'm going to sit back and observe.
I'm confident you guys will continue to stand for the truth!
God bless you both.

-Cubinity

Cubinity,

I will not be replying any further to Goinheix on this topic as he seems to be so fixed in his understanding of Kenosis that he will not consider another view than what he has stated.

I am exiting this topic of Kenosis as I believe Wayne Grudem's statement is a better hermeneutic than Goinheix's view.

Thanks so much for the interaction. I have enjoyed it. I must get back to my assessment of J. D. Crossan's stratification model for the gospels (doctoral topic).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Your interpretation of not-kenosis is based in that God dont change. Well, as I have demostrated to you, God did change at kenosis. But not a litie bit, but a big lot. By kenosis God the Son did emty himself of the atribute of not unchengeable. So he changed. He birth, he grew up, he died and he rose back to life. God the Son did experienced many changes because he emty himself of the divine atribute of being unchanging.

The other atribute he did empty of is omnipotence. As Luke is saying, Jesus didnt have any power of his own. Not that he was not omnipotent, but that he didnt have any power at all, from himself. He wlaked over the water? Some other prophets did open the Red Sea; dried out the Joedan River; and make afloat a axe head. How big were Jesus miracles? According to himself, not as big as the miracles we can do.

God did not change at the incarnation, but the role of God the Son did. Change of role does not mean change of attributes.

Thanks for the interaction, but I'm moving on from this topic of discussion with you.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Deaver]

Everyone, I have been away for a few hours, but I too am moving on from this discussion. It has been interesting.

Goinheix, I hope that our differences are really a result of our language differences.

OzSpen and Cubinity, keep the faith, our reward is in Heaven not on this ball. Perhaps we will engage each other in another discussion.

It's been fun and interesting.

 

[Goinheix]

God did not change at the incarnation, but the role of God the Son did. Change of role does not mean change of attributes.

Thanks for the interaction, but I'm moving on from this topic of discussion with you.

Sincerely, Oz

I can see that you have not any atgument to refute what Paul and the Gospels clearly state concerning kenosis.
Sorry you are so close to the traditional christology that can not accept the truth.

 

[Goinheix]

Everyone, I have been away for a few hours, but I too am moving on from this discussion. It has been interesting.

Goinheix, I hope that our differences are really a result of our language differences.

OzSpen and Cubinity, keep the faith, our reward is in Heaven not on this ball. Perhaps we will engage each other in another discussion.

It's been fun and interesting.

Wow. Keep defending the present christology and denay the evidence in the Bible; because this brothers have run out of arguments.

 

[cubinity]

So, here is a thread asking a rather interesting question: Was Jesus omniscient?

It is an interesting question because God is omniscient, because Jesus is God, and because there are several things mentioned in the Gospel that Jesus did not know.

What do we do when we encounter information in the Bible that seems to go against what we thought we knew?

I asked the question because I was raised to believe Jesus was fully God, and thus in every quality exactly like God. Yet, in the text, I encounter a Jesus that admittedly does not know something His Heavenly Father knows. Jesus gets famished when He goes without food, and gets tired when He walks around the countryside. He has to learn that His friend Lazarus is dying and dead from the lips of messengers. He, perhaps most unlike God, is killable.

But, does it trouble me that God, while fully God and fully man, does not look the way I imagined Him to?
No. Actually, it excites me.

I know that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. As God, He is immutable, even when He is fully man.
He is also fully infinite, and beyond the scope of human understanding.

I appreciate systematic theology. It does a great job at explaining theological points. But, I don't always go looking for explanations for everything. Not anymore.

My reason? In a lot of ways, I appreciate that God has infinite attributes that are not visible to us. He is infinitely unknowable. He is infinitely unexplainable.
And to me, that is actually part of the attraction.

If I sat here and pompously insisted that I could explain why Jesus wasn't the way I expected Him to be, what I would really be saying is that at my core, I didn't believe He was the infinite God. I would say that I was able to explain Him because I was able to fully see Him, and to fully know Him.
And, to this end, I would be sadly mistaken.

So, when, in the OP of this thread, I asked if Jesus was omniscient, it was not to challenge His deity, but to exemplify it.
His infinite capacity to surprise me reminds me who He is and who He will always be: God.

I do hope that some part of this thread ministered to you and reminded you to celebrate today the awesomeness and glory of Jesus Christ, our God.

 

[Goinheix]

God did not change at the incarnation, but the role of God the Son did. Change of role does not mean change of attributes.

Thanks for the interaction, but I'm moving on from this topic of discussion with you.

Sincerely, Oz

Change means not to be unchengeable. If God change the role, God change in sometrhing. All the arguments is based on that God can not change by emptying his atributes because God can not change. But we see that God can change; at least in his roles. What prevent God from changing also in emptying his atributes?

 

[Goinheix]

So, here is a thread asking a rather interesting question: Was Jesus omniscient?

It is an interesting question because God is omniscient, because Jesus is God, and because there are several things mentioned in the Gospel that Jesus did not know.

What do we do when we encounter information in the Bible that seems to go against what we thought we knew?

I asked the question because I was raised to believe Jesus was fully God, and thus in every quality exactly like God. Yet, in the text, I encounter a Jesus that admittedly does not know something His Heavenly Father knows. Jesus gets famished when He goes without food, and gets tired when He walks around the countryside. He has to learn that His friend Lazarus is dying and dead from the lips of messengers. He, perhaps most unlike God, is killable.

But, does it trouble me that God, while fully God and fully man, does not look the way I imagined Him to?
No. Actually, it excites me.

I know that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. As God, He is immutable, even when He is fully man.
He is also fully infinite, and beyond the scope of human understanding.

I appreciate systematic theology. It does a great job at explaining theological points. But, I don't always go looking for explanations for everything. Not anymore.

My reason? In a lot of ways, I appreciate that God has infinite attributes that are not visible to us. He is infinitely unknowable. He is infinitely unexplainable.
And to me, that is actually part of the attraction.

If I sat here and pompously insisted that I could explain why Jesus wasn't the way I expected Him to be, what I would really be saying is that at my core, I didn't believe He was the infinite God. I would say that I was able to explain Him because I was able to fully see Him, and to fully know Him.
And, to this end, I would be sadly mistaken.

So, when, in the OP of this thread, I asked if Jesus was omniscient, it was not to challenge His deity, but to exemplify it.
His infinite capacity to surprise me reminds me who He is and who He will always be: God.

I do hope that some part of this thread ministered to you and reminded you to celebrate today the awesomeness and glory of Jesus Christ, our God.

I have good news for you: your troubles with that question has an answer. The answer is gived to you by Paul. Paul is teaching you that Jesus did empty himself. What did Jesus empty of is the question. But the answer will always be that Jesus did empty of somethig. And whatever he did empty of, it is proving that Jesus is not inmutable. Actually there is not any single verse saying that Jesus is inmutable.

How is that God is omniscient and Jesus is not? Because God the Son did empty of his omniscience. Simple as that. Is that going against what ypou have benen tought? Then what you have benn taught was not the truth; because it briged to you trouble in your mind anf hart. But the truth set you free. God the son did ampty of all his divine atributes.

I am very sorry if those teachers and theologist you trust on did fail. Now is up to you to choose who to trust: Paul or your teachers.

 

[cubinity]

It has always been up to me who to trust.

I don't think anyone would disagree with my decision not to trust you.

 

[Goinheix]

It has always been up to me who to trust.

I don't think anyone would disagree with my decision not to trust you.

Yes it is up to you.

 

[Goinheix]

I appreciate systematic theology. It does a great job at explaining theological points. But, I don't always go looking for explanations for everything. Not anymore.

My reason? In a lot of ways, I appreciate that God has infinite attributes that are not visible to us. He is infinitely unknowable. He is infinitely unexplainable.
And to me, that is actually part of the attraction.

If I sat here and pompously insisted that I could explain why Jesus wasn't the way I expected Him to be, what I would really be saying is that at my core, I didn't believe He was the infinite God. I would say that I was able to explain Him because I was able to fully see Him, and to fully know Him.
And, to this end, I would be sadly mistaken.

I can not agree with you. All theologist that have been trying to found an answer, and explanation; can not be labeled as pompous and says that are mistaked by the songle fact of giving an answer. If they are wrong is for founding the wrong answer; not for looking for an answer.

Our goal is to know Jesus our Lord and Savoir.

 

[cubinity]

I can not agree with you. All theologist that have been trying to found an answer, and explanation; can not be labeled as pompous and says that are mistaked by the songle fact of giving an answer. If they are wrong is for founding the wrong answer; not for looking for an answer.

Our goal is to know Jesus our Lord and Savoir.

Let me copy and paste your own words, and tell you why I agree with the words, and not the meaning...

"Our goal is to know Jesus our Lord and Savior." - Goinheix

In context, it is clear that you mean "know about," as that is the goal of a philosophical study like theology.

I agree that the goal is to know Jesus. I don't agree that the goal should be to know about Jesus.

Let me risk derailing the thread into a tangent to explain what I mean (If at any time the interpretation of my words gets to be too much for you, please feel free to simply ignore me).

When pursuing holiness, the Law provides a guideline for behaviors that are considered holy. Therefore, by studying and knowing the Law, a person can certainly know more about holiness. However, to actually be holy, a person must pursue a state of commitment to Jesus that results in them ultimately not needing the Law at all, because doing what Jesus would do because for them intuitive. Thus, to know holiness, they have to actually leave the Law behind, even though it is the thing to study if they want to know about holiness.

Therefore, I can say that the goal is to know Jesus, but not necessarily to know about Jesus, which is what theology helps us do.

So, you can disagree with me all you want, but I still find it pompous to say I know Jesus better than you just because I know about Jesus more than you.

On the other hand, I agree with you that theologians in general are not pompous. They are trying to know more about someone they know very intimately already. I would say that they walk a very fine line, and most I've encountered walk it very gracefully.

Nonetheless, Jesus is still God, which I can say with confidence because He shares distinct attributes with God, including, as you said, He is God simply because He is God, and as Deaver said, He is immutable, and as I said, He is the greatest love.