Was Jesus omniscient?

[OzSpen]

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?

You continue to miss a fundamental point. To change the role does not mean to change attributes.

I have recently changed my role in employment. I have retired so that I can work on my PhD dissertation. My role has changed, but my attributes have not.

You miss this point entirely when you are faced with the God-man, Jesus. A change of role during his incarnation (with its human dimensions) does not change the nature or attributes of Jesus, who is God.

Bye, Oz

 

[cubinity]

I have recently changed my role in employment. I have retired so that I can work on my PhD dissertation.

Bye, Oz

Hey, that's really great! Congratulations! I hope it all goes really well for you.

 

[OzSpen]

Hey, that's really great! Congratulations! I hope it all goes really well for you.

Thanks for your kind comments. I'm into chapter 3 of 6 (I think), analysing some of the unorthodox theology promoted by John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar.

Oz

 

[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.

Is that your opinion on theology? Do you thing that knowing and learning about Jesus is futil and useless? Do you think that theology is unnecessary? Do you think that formulating the question if Jesus was omniscient was a mistake on your part? Do ypou think we shall not porsue to give an answer to your own question?

The answer to your own question is that Jesus was not omniscient because he did empty of all divine atributes.

 

[Goinheix]

You continue to miss a fundamental point. To change the role does not mean to change attributes.

I have recently changed my role in employment. I have retired so that I can work on my PhD dissertation. My role has changed, but my attributes have not.

You miss this point entirely when you are faced with the God-man, Jesus. A change of role during his incarnation (with its human dimensions) does not change the nature or attributes of Jesus, who is God.

Bye, Oz

Correct. To changew the role is not to change the atributes. If God did change the role; he did change. If God did change, then God do change. Since you have proved that God do change; nothing stop him from changing his atributes.

 

[cubinity]

Is that your opinion on theology?

I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't.

Do you thing that knowing and learning about Jesus is futil and useless?

No. I didn't say that.

Do you think that theology is unnecessary?

Yes. What would make it necessary?

Do you think that formulating the question if Jesus was omniscient was a mistake on your part?

No. I never said that.

Do ypou think we shall not porsue to give an answer to your own question?

No. If I didn't want an answer, I wouldn't have asked.

The answer to your own question is that Jesus was not omniscient because he did empty of all divine atributes.

An answer, not the answer.

 

[Deaver]

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.

cubinity, very thoughtful comments and much appreciated by me. I think often times I look to hard for answers to questions that arise as I read the Bible.

I am fully confident in my salvation and that is the most important. However, because I have an apologetic slant to my nature, I go looking to find the answer that persuades and perhaps to try to hard.

I snipped your last sentence because that is what we should hope for in most of these forums. Well said, my friend.

Your brother in Christ

John

 

[Goinheix]

I can see that for you it is important the topic we are developing. It is important all we are saying. THE naswer is gived by PAUL who teaches of kenosis; but you dont wnat to accept it. Probably you have another answer. How do you explain that God being omniscient; Jesus is not?

 

[cubinity]

I can see that for you it is important the topic we are developing. It is important all we are saying. THE naswer is gived by PAUL who teaches of kenosis; but you dont wnat to accept it. Probably you have another answer. How do you explain that God being omniscient; Jesus is not?

The topic is not developing because you refuse to get over kenosis.

Oh, and yes we do have other answers, all of which you are refusing to accept. Tell me: what makes your refusal to accept our answers any different than our refusals to accept yours? Hypocrisy, or something else?

 

[Goinheix]

The topic is not developing because you refuse to get over kenosis.

Oh, and yes we do have other answers, all of which you are refusing to accept. Tell me: what makes your refusal to accept our answers any different than our refusals to accept yours? Hypocrisy, or something else?

Yes i do have the answer, and all of you refuse to accept. tell me. what makes you refuse to accept my answer? Is it ... or is it something else?

I do refuse your answers becuase are answers of the same theologist you dont care. Those theologist and you are refusing to accept kenosis. Kenosis is part of the Bible and good christology can not be understood denaying kenosis. Pay attention to all the efforts those theologist do to try to explain kenosis as something else than emptying.

How do you denay kenosis? By saying that God can not change. But whatever God did empty of; he did change. If God is omniscient and Jesus is not...the only answer we have in the Bible is the kenosis teached by Paul. What is it too hard to accept kenosis?

 

[cubinity]

Yes i do have the answer, and all of you refuse to accept. tell me. what makes you refuse to accept my answer? Is it ... or is it something else?

I do refuse your answers becuase are answers of the same theologist you dont care. Those theologist and you are refusing to accept kenosis. Kenosis is part of the Bible and good christology can not be understood denaying kenosis. Pay attention to all the efforts those theologist do to try to explain kenosis as something else than emptying.

How do you denay kenosis? By saying that God can not change. But whatever God did empty of; he did change. If God is omniscient and Jesus is not...the only answer we have in the Bible is the kenosis teached by Paul. What is it too hard to accept kenosis?

My signature held the answer for you this entire time... Amazing...

 

[Goinheix]

On one side of the scale we have you people quoting some theologyst as Daniel Wallace, Richard Strauss, Aquinas, Wayne Grudem, saying that Jesus had all divine atributes and that kenosis was not an emtying.
on the other side of the scale is me quoting Paul explaining kenosis and Matthew, Mark, luke and John portraying a Jesus without any divine atribute.

 

[Goinheix]

IMO, limitation in His knowledge is part of the "self-humbling" of Philippians 2.

Kenosis have been a core part of this topic since post #4

 

[cubinity]

I have wasted far too much of my life on religion. I quit.

 

[OzSpen]

I have wasted far too much of my life on religion. I quit.

Does this mean that you are giving up on a relationship with Jesus Christ that leads to eternal salvation?

Oz

 

[IntheFootsteps314]

It seems to me that part of the problem is the idea of Jesus being "fully man" and "fully God" simultaneously. But I think some of this is stuff that has come up AFTER Jesus. For example, the Ebionite Christians of the 2nd Century said that Jesus was man, but not God, but the Docetist Christians (same era) said Jesus was fully God, but not a man at all (since, by their thinking, God couldn't be debaucherized by entering a sinful world.. so Jesus was kind of like a hologram, in today's terms).. and so to stick these together, they made Jesus "fully God, and fully man".. and that's where this confusion comes from.

 

[OzSpen]

It seems to me that part of the problem is the idea of Jesus being "fully man" and "fully God" simultaneously. But I think some of this is stuff that has come up AFTER Jesus. For example, the Ebionite Christians of the 2nd Century said that Jesus was man, but not God, but the Docetist Christians (same era) said Jesus was fully God, but not a man at all (since, by their thinking, God couldn't be debaucherized by entering a sinful world.. so Jesus was kind of like a hologram, in today's terms).. and so to stick these together, they made Jesus "fully God, and fully man".. and that's where this confusion comes from.

That Jesus has two natures – fully God and fully man – is the orthodox teaching of the New Testament. See the following for biblical support:

• Jesus' two natures: God and man;
• How can Jesus be God and man?

Yes, this was as much an issue in the early church as it is today. It was debated at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Nestorian position was found to be unorthodox and his teachings were condemned as heresy. Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, may not have taught this doctrine himself, but Nestorianism, associated with his name, believed the error that Jesus was two distinct persons, one human and one divine. This doctrine threatens the nature of the atonement. Harold O. J. Brown stated that "Nestorius' incarnate person was a single person, not two as his critics thought, but he could not convince others that it was so. Consequently he has gone down in history as a great heretic although what he actually believed was reaffirmed at [the Council of] Chalcedon" (Heresies, p. 176).

The Scriptures do not indicate the human nature of Christ as an independent person. We don't find in the Bible any teaching such as: "Jesus' divine nature did this" and "Jesus' human nature did that" as if they were acting as two separate persons. The NT teaching always speaks of the PERSON of Christ did this or that.

So, the orthodox position is that Jesus was one person who possessed both a human nature and a divine nature.

We can talk of Christ's human nature, where he ascended to heaven and is no longer in our world (see John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). When speaking of Christ's divine nature we can say that he is present everywhere: "Where two or three are gathered in my name THERE AM I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20); "I am with you always to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:20).

So we can say that both of these things are true about the PERSON of Christ - he has returned to heaven AND he is also present with us.

We can say that Jesus was about 30 years old (Luke 3:23) if we speak of his human nature, but when speaking of his divine nature, we can say that he eternally existed (see John 1:1-2; 8:58). In his human nature, Jesus became weak and grew tired (see Matt. 4:2; 8:24; Mark 15:21; John 4:6), but we know that in his divine nature, he was omnipotent (Matt. 8:26-27; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3. Therefore, we know that he was omnipotent, but he grew tired.

We see these two natures at work in the situation where Jesus was asleep in the boat and then calmed the wind and the waves (Matt. 8:26-27). It is amazing that this one person was both tired and omnipotent. At time his weak human frailty hid his omnipotence. But we must never lose sight of the fact that Jesus was one person with both human and divine natures.

I find that the only way I can get my head around this teaching that opposes Nestorianism, is to read the Scriptures. Jesus was truly and fully God and truly and fully human - both natures in the one person.

Oz

 

[Simonline]

I'm just curious because Jesus learns and finds things out in the Gospels, which doesn't seem like a conditional possibility for an omniscient.

No. The very idea that a human creature could exist as omniscient is absurd in the extreme (and yet countless Christians believe it to be true)?!

However, the Messiah/Christ existing as both Divine Creator and human creature is both Omniscient and non-Omniscient (which is why the Scriptures are non-contradictory). As Divine Creator the Messiah/Christ Exists as Omniscient (Matt.11:20-24, 27) whilst as human creature the Messiah/Christ does not exist as omniscient (Mk.13:32) otherwise all human creatures would exist as omniscient (Heb.2:17)?!. Hardly rocket science?!

YHWH is the Infinite Divine Creator. Jesus of Nazareth is a finite human creature. The Messiah/Christ (i.e. the Son) exists as both YHWH and Jesus of Nazareth. The Messiah/Christ is the human incarnation of God NOT the Divine incarnation of God (Matt.1:23; 1Jn.4:1-3) because Divinity is incapable of incarnating (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17).

Simonline.

 

[Zeleste]

Excuse me, but you sound crasy. Somebody can not be omniscient and not omniscient at the same time. It have been cristal clear that Jesus was not omniscient. Period. Christ was not omniscient.

Can somebody prove that not being omniscient is not being God

 

[OzSpen]

Somebody can not be omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

This is an incoherent sentence.

Oz