Was Jesus omniscient?

[OzSpen]

cubinity,

Come on, Oz. The guy has been up front since he started that he is here sharing his thoughts in hopes of nothing more than having a friendly discussion, and all you've done is goaded him for evidence.

If you don't want to discuss anything with him, then don't reply to his posts. But, do you really think its fruitful to talk to him just to tell him you don't want to talk to him?

I personally like what he has to say, and have been interestedly following his developing thoughts on the subject. I am glad he feels comfortable sharing his personal thoughts and ideas, and I want him to continue.

So you are prepared to let somebody continue conversation when he provides this kind of nonsensical statement?

concerning his fisical body, I think we do not have evidence (in 4 Gospels; the NT or the OT) that Jesus did medically died. Probably all his vital fuctions did seaced, but his organs, tisues and cells probably did not died. I compare to a dead man from wich are exctracted organs to be transplanted. Those organs are not dead by alive after the body has seaced to live (as a body)

But he did died in a spiritual way of talking.

Communication with transparency by this person and me are essential for honest communication.

Oz

 

[cubinity]

cubinity,

So you are prepared to let somebody continue conversation when he provides this kind of nonsensical statement?

Yes. I like what he has to say.

Communication with transparency by this person and me are essential for honest communication.

Oz

What are you communicating, but that you don't want to communicate with him?

If you want to talk about the subject, as he is doing, then you are welcome.

However, all you're doing is goading him for something he has never assumed to provide, and has clearly told you that he has no interest in providing, which just goes to reveal more about you than him, and derails our conversation further.

So, if you want to communicate about this topic, then do so.

Otherwise, I have to honestly wonder why you are here...

 

[OzSpen]

Yes. I like what he has to say.

What are you communicating, but that you don't want to communicate with him?

If you want to talk about the subject, as he is doing, then you are welcome.

However, all you're doing is goading him for something he has never assumed to provide, and has clearly told you that he has no interest in providing, which just goes to reveal more about you than him, and derails our conversation further.

So, if you want to communicate about this topic, then do so.

Otherwise, I have to honestly wonder why you are here...

When somebody lies about what happened at the death of my Lord Jesus Christ, I will speak up.

That doesn't seem to matter to you.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

livesINchrist,

no, he couldnt be omniscient, he was a man. i doubt he even died at all

There is only one God. Jesus Christ was the God-man. I'd recommend a read of this article by Richard Strauss, "Perfect knowledge".

What evidence would you gather to determine if Jesus died or didn't die?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[cubinity]

When somebody lies about what happened at the death of my Lord Jesus Christ, I will speak up.

That doesn't seem to matter to you.

Oz

Lying assumes he believes something other than what he is saying.
He has owned the ideas he's shared as genuinely his own.
There is no evidence he is lying.
If he is in error, then discuss the error.

His "lying" doesn't matter to me because I do not perceive him as lying.

Your inflammatory derailing of this thread, however, seriously matters to me.

 

[sensational]

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.

I always think of the somewhat odd state Aquinas made

"Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very Essence of God; since God's understanding is His substance, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. xii, text. 39). Hence this act could not belong to the human soul of Christ, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there had been no other knowledge in the soul of Christ, it would have known nothing; and thus it would have been assumed to no purpose, since everything is on account of its operation."

It means that He held both the natures separately, distinctly and without any overlap. All that His human mind knew other than could be learned through experience/instruction was specifically infused by/revealed to him by the Father and the Holy Spirit, as per the needs of His mission. He would not have unilaterally 'picked it up' from the inherent knowledge residing in His divine nature. He would have respected the distinction between His two natures.

 

[sensational]

I think; just I think. I have not evidence, I can not give you any verse to support what I think. That is why I said "I think", because I am not sure my self of being right or wrong.

Anyhow, this present thread is about Jesus being omnicient or not. We shall respect the treath and keep focused. If you want to discus Jesus death, open an specific treath and I will tell you what make me think that Jesus body never did died.

I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging your guesswork. I dont think there is any NT evidence that supports the idea Jesus did not know who he was. However I do think you bring up a good point and that is all too often are added to "without sin" other attributes such as "without ignorance" or "without temptation" etc.

In Christ,
JMS

 

[cubinity]

I always think of the somewhat odd state Aquinas made

"Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very Essence of God; since God's understanding is His substance, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. xii, text. 39). Hence this act could not belong to the human soul of Christ, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there had been no other knowledge in the soul of Christ, it would have known nothing; and thus it would have been assumed to no purpose, since everything is on account of its operation."

It means that He held both the natures separately, distinctly and without any overlap. All that His human mind knew other than could be learned through experience/instruction was specifically infused by/revealed to him by the Father and the Holy Spirit, as per the needs of His mission. He would not have unilaterally 'picked it up' from the inherent knowledge residing in His divine nature. He would have respected the distinction between His two natures.

Well, I'm not sure Aquinas understood Jesus better than Jesus did. Jesus said He didn't know. He also specified that ONLY the FATHER knew. I don't know much about your particular theology, but unless you're a modalist, I'm pretty sure you don't believe the divine "part" of Jesus is the Father.

So, either Jesus doesn't understand Himself and His divine nature as well as Aquinas did, or this theory is flawed. My bet's on the latter.

 

[Goinheix]

I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging your guesswork. I dont think there is any NT evidence that supports the idea Jesus did not know who he was. However I do think you bring up a good point and that is all too often are added to "without sin" other attributes such as "without ignorance" or "without temptation" etc.

In Christ,
JMS

"I think" as guesswork refers specifically to the dead of Jesus. Everything else is not a guesswork but a deep study of the gospels.

When I say that Jesus did not know who he was, I mean in a conscient manner. For example: we dont know who was or mother. we only know the woman that everybody says did birth to us. same woman that the documentations apoint as our mother. eventually we accept that she is our mother, but technically we dont know, because we have not memory of the moment of our birth.

Jesus did birth as a baby, a normal human baby. (except that he was with not sin, etc) At that stage of him he did not know the name of the town, did not know about Herod or anything. Do you think otherwise?

Jesus did not know who he was. He did not know at that time the name of his mother, nor he did know being the son of God and the son od man. Ofcourse there is not a verse that support that statement. Neither there is a verse that points out in the oposite direction.

What we have is a lot of verses showing us that Jesus did grow up in body and mind. We have verses where we understand that baby Jesus was anable to prevent his parents of the danger of Herod. After a couple of years he was not able to tel his parents to retrn to Judea. When he was 12 he did ask questions to the teachers of the Law. finally, when he was a grow up we can read of how many things he did not know. That seems to be enough to presume that at birth Jesus did not know who he was. He had no memories of being at the beginning participating of the creation of the universe. Eventually he was believing, having faith in the fact that he was the son of God. He did asume being the son of God by faith not by intelectual and concient knowing.

The point is all around the question: was Jesus omnicient? My answer is not. Since he was not omnicient, he did not "know" who he was.

 

[sensational]

Well, I'm not sure Aquinas understood Jesus better than Jesus did. Jesus said He didn't know. He also specified that ONLY the FATHER knew. I don't know much about your particular theology, but unless you're a modalist, I'm pretty sure you don't believe the divine "part" of Jesus is the Father.

So, either Jesus doesn't understand Himself and His divine nature as well as Aquinas did, or this theory is flawed. My bet's on the latter.

sorry i am not quite following you when you say "unless you're a modalist, im pretty sure you dont believe the divine part of Jesus is the Father"
what do you mean?
How does Sabellianism relate to what I wrote about Aquinas???

 

[cubinity]

sorry i am not quite following you when you say "unless you're a modalist, im pretty sure you dont believe the divine part of Jesus is the Father"
what do you mean?
How does Sabellianism relate to what I wrote about Aquinas???

Sorry for the confusion.
You wrote that Aquinas said something like that some part of Jesus knew everything.
I was correcting this point.
Jesus said He didn't know, and that only the Father knew.
So, for Jesus to know what only the Father knew, that would make Jesus the Father.
He's not, so Aquinas is clearly mistaken.
I hope that is clearer.

 

[sensational]

Sorry for the confusion.
You wrote that Aquinas said something like that some part of Jesus knew everything.
I was correcting this point.
Jesus said He didn't know, and that only the Father knew.
So, for Jesus to know what only the Father knew, that would make Jesus the Father.
He's not, so Aquinas is clearly mistaken.
I hope that is clearer.

The way i interpret Aquinas is in agreement with acknowledging that Jesus's human nature would have been limited in much the same way we are but he does allow for special knowledge revealed or given by the Father. He would not have received it from his divine nature. I think you are in agreement with Aquinas insofar as believing Jesus would not have had unlimited knowledge because of the separation of the two natures and the difference of how knowledge is aquired.

 

[Goinheix]

The knowledge of Jesus was equal, identical as that of any human. He did not have any divine knowledge only that limited. He did not have any divine knowledge at all. He, as well as all prophets did have some specific revelations. In that point, Jesus was - again - equal and identical to all of us.

 

[rosemary]

Jesus is supposed to be of one substance with the Father. That would seem to imply that Jesus shared all of the powers of the Father. If you attribute omniscience to the father then Jesus should have been omniscient. In fact, Jesus does appear omniscient at times. he foretells peter's denial, for example, and He challenges the group that were going to stone the prostitute by writing in the sand.

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus is supposed to be of one substance with the Father. That would seem to imply that Jesus shared all of the powers of the Father. If you attribute omniscience to the father then Jesus should have been omniscient. In fact, Jesus does appear omniscient at times. he foretells peter's denial, for example, and He challenges the group that were going to stone the prostitute by writing in the sand.

Rosemary,

Could the answer to this dilemma be found in what it means for Jesus to empty himself or as the ESV puts it, "made himself nothing" (Phil. 2:7)? We know that Jesus did not know the time of his second coming as that was the Father's prerogative to know.

In Christ, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The knowledge of Jesus was equal, identical as that of any human. He did not have any divine knowledge only that limited. He did not have any divine knowledge at all. He, as well as all prophets did have some specific revelations. In that point, Jesus was - again - equal and identical to all of us.

Goinheix,

Don't you accept the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Christ. Jesus is the God-man. It was Jesus who said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). How serious is it to say that Jesus is only man and not the God-man?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[Goinheix]

Paul did explaned that in order to enter the World as man, Christ did emptied out all his divinity. Jesus lived as a regular man, only that without sin. Jesus is God but without any of the divine atributes. He not only was not omniscient, he did not have any of all divine atributes.

Saying that he was omniscient, but he choose to limit hes omnioscience is only a human thinking with no boblical support. I can say that Paul was omniscient but he decided to limit his onicience. The differenece between Paul and Jesus is that we know that Jesus is God. Then we suppose he was omnicient; but he wasent. And then we say that he limited his omniscience; but that is not in the Bible.

The problem is that we (you) refuse to accept what Paul is teaching: that He emptied out all hes divinity and still remain being God.

 

[cubinity]

Paul did explaned that in order to enter the World as man, Christ did emptied out all his divinity. Jesus lived as a regular man, only that without sin. Jesus is God but without any of the divine atributes. He not only was not omniscient, he did not have any of all divine atributes.

Saying that he was omniscient, but he choose to limit hes omnioscience is only a human thinking with no boblical support. I can say that Paul was omniscient but he decided to limit his onicience. The differenece between Paul and Jesus is that we know that Jesus is God. Then we suppose he was omnicient; but he wasent. And then we say that he limited his omniscience; but that is not in the Bible.

The problem is that we (you) refuse to accept what Paul is teaching: that He emptied out all hes divinity and still remain being God.

Whoa! Long time since we've heard from you. Your English is a lot better! I hope life is treating you well.

 

[Goinheix]

Jesus is supposed to be of one substance with the Father. That would seem to imply that Jesus shared all of the powers of the Father. If you attribute omniscience to the father then Jesus should have been omniscient. In fact, Jesus does appear omniscient at times. he foretells peter's denial, for example, and He challenges the group that were going to stone the prostitute by writing in the sand.

foreknowledge can not be acounted as omniscience, if we do acount foreknowing, then we must asume that ALL prophets were omnisicent.
omniscient is knowing all and knowing all at all times. being omnoscient in a limited manner (some times) is not being omniscient. not knowing one single thimg is enough to stablish that it is not omniscient. Jesus did not know many facts. He was not omniscient.

The reasoning is always the same: if God is omniscient and Jesus is God, then necessarely Jesus was omniscient.
But the probloem is that clearly jesus was not oniscient. Is that meaning that he was not God?
It means that before entering this world he did emptied out of all his divine atributes. Paul<teaches that and can not be ignored.
Jesus did not have not even one single divine atribute at all. He was God without any divine atribute, but still was God.

 

[Goinheix]

Goinheix,

Don't you accept the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Christ. Jesus is the God-man. It was Jesus who said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). How serious is it to say that Jesus is only man and not the God-man?

Sincerely, Oz

Jesus is God. I have say that hundred and thousand times. What you refuse to understand is that God can be God despite not having divine atributes. God did emtied out, resigned to, gived up, all his divine atributes and become flesh as Jesus. And yet he continued to be God.

You are understanding all backwards. A house is made by breaks or wood, but a house is not breaks nor wood, is a construction where we live. It can be of any material and still be a house. Even after a tornado destroyes a house, it remaing being a house...a destroyed house, but a house.
God is not God because he is okniscient; he is omniscient because he is God. God is not God because he is allmighty, he is allmyghty because he is God.
What if God give away his omniscience and power? Is he quiting to be God? God is God because he is God. Everything else are consecuences of him being God. God is not the consecuence of having all atributes but he is God by himself. Gathering all atributes makes not a god but a colection of atributes. God is not his atributes or because of them.
God is allmighty, can do all, nothing is impossible; not even giving away all his atributes. God has the power of giving away all his atributes and yet remain God.
Anf he did it, and became a man: Jesus. A man with no divine atributes.

Am I wrong? Prove me wrong. Point out a single divine atribute that you can found in Jesus. You cant because God did emtied out all his atributes and God lived as man.