Jesus wasn't all-knowing as a human?

[Good_Fella]

I do not think there is anything wrong with realizing that Jesus did not “Know” everything. Jesus knew he did not know everything. “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

If Jesus did not know everything actual, he couldn’t be a divine person, but only a human creature. God is omniscient. Jesus did claim to be “one” with the Father (John 10:30) .

To be ignorant is not necessarily to be sinful. I think there is a false equivalency here that “all knowing” is an essential quality of being “all good”.

Jesus was sinless in his humanity because of his hypostatic union of grace with the Father. By that same union he knew all actual things past, present, and future through the divine knowledge infused into his human soul. It isn’t a question of whether ignorance makes one sinful, although ignorance is an effect of original sin.

:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

I’m surprised modernists don’t present the same argument with respect to whether Jesus sinned. Of course, they don’t because the Scriptures are explicitly clear on that point. But according to their reasoning, the person of Jesus must have sinned in his human nature, and not just that part of him. To be logically consistent in their argument, albeit the Scriptures, they would have to concede that the person of Jesus did sin, but only by his human nature. Jesus did not sin because his human nature was divinized in the hypostatic union. The same can be said with respect to the knowledge he possessed. In the words of St. Paul: **“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,” (Col 2:9). **

:juggle:

Hi!

…so how can one reasonably argue that Christ was ignorant or was not aware of Who He Is or was not connected to the Father’s Knowledge?

… someone once said: ‘…a little knowledge is dangerous…’

…I suspect “intellectualism” is deadly lethal! They begin their argument from their personal convictions… prodding, and cutting and pasting to make the ends congruent with their vision/s… talk about “big head” meets Chinese acrobatics… reason is mute… Divine Providence is ditched.

…their reason relies on false philosophy… akin to ‘whatever the mind of man con dream man can conceive…’ Removing God from the human experience only leads empty achievements… yeah, there are accomplishments… no, they do not necessarily benefit man’s corporeal and spiritual wellbeing.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I do not think there is anything wrong with realizing that Jesus did not “Know” everything. Jesus knew he did not know everything. “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

To be ignorant is not necessarily to be sinful. I think there is a false equivalency here that “all knowing” is an essential quality of being “all good”.

Hi!

The reality is that we do not really know what Christ, as the Lamb of God, was to Reveal to man… also His language can be confusing at times… i.e.: He blessed Peter… and just a little time later stated: ‘depart from me, Satan.’ Clearly, Jesus was not Revealing that Cephas *was *the anti-Christ!

…so the issue is not simply about ignorance or “goodness;” rather, the argument, I have come to believe, is to put into question the actual Divinity of Christ–‘if He is not “all-Knowing,” then how can He be God?’ Consequently, ‘if one of the Persons of God is deficient/ignorant/imperfect/fallible, how can God be Omniscient… for that matter, be God?’

…to my estimation, the underlying argument is about the dissolution of the existence of God.

…the problem that I find is that the arguments are set forth in absolute terms while the launching platforms are founded on finite and incomplete understanding of God and His Revelations.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi!
The reality is that we do not really know what Christ, as the Lamb of God, was to Reveal to man… also His language can be confusing at times… i.e.: He blessed Peter… and just a little time later stated: ‘depart from me, Satan.’ Clearly, Jesus was not Revealing that Cephas *was *the anti-Christ!

Hi!

Speaking of Peter, he received a direct revelation from God as to who Jesus actually was. He didn’t simply believe that Jesus was the Christ, he knew it. His response to Jesus was much more than a profession of faith. On this occasion, Peter knew or understood something that was actually known only to the Father and the Son: Blessed are you, Peter…" Jesus was as much a man in flesh and blood as Peter was, but the only difference was that our Lord knew everything that was actually known to the Father by the infused knowledge he received in his human soul in the hypostatic union. All grace and all knowledge flowed from Christ’s divine nature to his human nature. In Peter’s case, the knowledge did not come naturally to him, but by Divine mediation extrinsic of him. Mary’s freedom from all stain of sin was also made possible by Divine intervention. Unlike her Son, our Blessed Lady wasn’t sinless by nature. Jesus was sinless and all-knowing by his divine nature. Grace and knowledge were mediated to him intrinsic of him. Peter’s acquisition of divine knowledge was a supernatural occurrence, since he was a human creature. “Flesh and blood” did not reveal the divine truth to him. Nor did he possess a divine nature undividedly united to his human nature.

I agree, one cannot always grasp the meaning of someone’s words written in the Scriptures. When Jesus asked “Who touched me?” it wasn’t because he had no idea who that woman in the crowd was. Rather, he asked a rhetorical question to invite the woman to step forward and publicly give witness to her faith. It was because of her faith that she was cured of her haemorrhage by touching the hem of Jesus’ cloak. Not only did Jesus know who the woman was, he also knew what ailed her. Our Lord wasn’t a live electrical wire with no mind of its own, but a person who was consciously in command of exercising his divine might. Jesus told the Pharisees that if they would not believe in him by the words he spoke, at least believe in him by his “works” which testified to his oneness with the Father.

…to my estimation, the underlying argument is about the dissolution of the existence of God.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

I believe the Orthodox position on this is that when God took on human nature, He voluntarily lived out His human life through that human nature. Thus, the Gospels can truly say that, throughout His childhood, He “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

Although He could have reached back into His divine nature to exercise His divine attributes, He voluntarily chose not to. Thus, when He spoke, He spoke as a man. When He performed miracles, He did not perform miracles by His own divine power, but performed then as a human being enabled with the power of The Holy Spirit.

He fully possessed all the “Omni” attributes, but between the time of the incarnation and the ascension He voluntarily chose not to exercise them. He voluntarily chose to live as a human being, with all the limitations and weaknesses that human nature entails.

At least, that is the way I understand it.

 

[Good_Fella]

I believe the Orthodox position on this is that when God took on human nature, He voluntarily lived out His human life through that human nature…Although He could have reached back into His divine nature to exercise His divine attributes, He voluntarily chose not to. Thus, when He spoke, He spoke as a man. When He performed miracles, He did not perform miracles by His own divine power, but performed them as a human being enabled with the power of The Holy Spirit.

It appears to be the predominant view among Orthodox and among more liberal Protestants that Jesus divested himself of some divine attributes to empty himself in our humanity. In other words, he relinquished the independent use of his divine powers in his humanity. For instance, they cite this passage: 'God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38). Having given up his own inherent power, they argue, Jesus performed miracles just as the apostles did dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). At first glance, it looks like an irrefutable argument, but only so without taking other things into consideration.

Jesus was the visible manifestation of God. And as such he would show that he possessed the attributes of the Deity. Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (Jn 14:9). Philip still couldn’t grasp who Jesus truly was despite all that time our Lord had been healing the sick and expelling demons. The miraculous deeds Jesus performed defined his divinity. If only Phillip could affirm the deity of Christ by affirming his divine attributes. Jesus said to the Pharisees: “But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38). The apostles were given the same power by the Holy Spirit to do the same works Jesus did, but none of them could claim to be one with God in substance and essence. Jesus had his divine attributes in mind when he pitied Phillip and admonished the Pharisees. He himself attributed his miraculous deeds to his inherent divine power. In fact, he was conscious of it. 'And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the virtue (power) that had proceeded from him, turning to the multitude, said: “Who hath touched my garments?” (Mk 5:30). This healing power Jesus possessed was not something foreign to himself, as it was to his apostles. It was something that could emanate from him, not something that he occasionally imparted while being dependent on the extrinsic intervention of the Holy Spirit. This power Jesus possessed dwelled within him.He could actually sense it. It belonged to his own divine fullness. ‘For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col 2:9).

We read: “But if it is by the spirit of God I…” (Matt 12, 28). So it’s a question of what Jesus means when he says “by the spirit of God”. To understand what he means, we can start with Genesis 1:1-3. In verse 3, the Divine Word (Jesus) is the active agent: “God said…” (cf. Col.1:16). The Divine Word sustains creation. Jesus couldn’t have relinquished this control in his humanity. And I can’t see the Holy Spirit operating if he did. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The truth is that the Triune God works in perfect unity. An inherent omnipotence belongs to each Person in the Holy Trinity. Neither the Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit operate unilaterally or independently from the other. All three Persons worked together during Jesus’ ministry as well to bring about the new creation. 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.*He was with God in the beginning.*Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.*In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (Jn 1:1-5). Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one in all that Jesus said and did. His saying that he did not act alone in what he did confirms his unity with the Father and the Spirit. It does not imply he lacked omnipotence. The Jews condemned Jesus to death for blasphemy. They understood that he equated himself with God when he said he sees what the Father does, does what the Father does, and does all that the Father shows him (Cf. Jn 5:17-18).

When Jesus affirmed that he was doing the Father’s will, he affirmed the perfect harmony between the Father and Himself together with the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. We read: 'Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all" (I Cor 12:4-6). Jesus possessed the nine spiritual gifts that proceed from the Holy Spirit. These were the workings of the one God: Father, Son, and Spirit. Not Father and Spirit. Not one Person in the Holy Trinity is ever excluded. Nor could the Divine Word exclude himself without dissolving the Godhead. The unity of the Triune God can’t ever be fragmented by what Jesus said or did because of his divine knowledge and power. Prophetically, Jesus said, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (Jn 8:28).

:heaven:

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

It appears to be the predominant view among Orthodox and among more liberal Protestants that Jesus divested himself of some divine attributes to empty himself in our humanity. In other words, he relinquished the independent use of his divine powers in his humanity. For instance, they cite this passage: 'God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him" (Acts 10:38). Having given up his own inherent power, they argue, Jesus performed miracles just as the apostles did dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). At first glance, it looks like an irrefutable argument, but only so without taking other things into consideration.

Jesus was the visible manifestation of God. And as such he would show that he possessed the attributes of the Deity. Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (Jn 14:9). Philip still couldn’t grasp who Jesus truly was despite all that time our Lord had been healing the sick and expelling demons. The miraculous deeds Jesus performed defined his divinity. If only Phillip could affirm the deity of Christ by affirming his divine attributes. Jesus said to the Pharisees: “But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38). The apostles were given the same power by the Holy Spirit to do the same works Jesus did, but none of them could claim to be one with God in substance and essence. Jesus had his divine attributes in mind when he pitied Phillip and admonished the Pharisees. He himself attributed his miraculous deeds to his inherent divine power. In fact, he was conscious of it. 'And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the virtue (power) that had proceeded from him, turning to the multitude, said: “Who hath touched my garments?” (Mk 5:30). This healing power Jesus possessed was not something foreign to himself, as it was to his apostles. It was something that could emanate from him, not something that he occasionally imparted while being dependent on the extrinsic intervention of the Holy Spirit. This power Jesus possessed dwelled within him.He could actually sense it. It belonged to his own divine fullness. ‘For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col 2:9).

We read: “But if it is by the spirit of God I…” (Matt 12, 28). So it’s a question of what Jesus means when he says “by the spirit of God”. To understand what he means, we can start with Genesis 1:1-3. In verse 3, the Divine Word (Jesus) is the active agent: “God said…” (cf. Col.1:16). The Divine Word sustains creation. Jesus couldn’t have relinquished this control in his humanity. And I can’t see the Holy Spirit operating if he did. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The truth is that the Triune God works in perfect unity. An inherent omnipotence belongs to each Person in the Holy Trinity. Neither the Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit operate unilaterally or independently from the other. All three Persons worked together during Jesus’ ministry as well to bring about the new creation. 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.*He was with God in the beginning.*Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.*In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (Jn 1:1-5). Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one in all that Jesus said and did. His saying that he did not act alone in what he did confirms his unity with the Father and the Spirit. It does not imply he lacked omnipotence. The Jews condemned Jesus to death for blasphemy. They understood that he equated himself with God when he said he sees what the Father does, does what the Father does, and does all that the Father shows him (Cf. Jn 5:17-18).

When Jesus affirmed that he was doing the Father’s will, he affirmed the perfect harmony between the Father and Himself together with the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. We read: 'Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all" (I Cor 12:4-6). Jesus possessed the nine spiritual gifts that proceed from the Holy Spirit. These were the workings of the one God: Father, Son, and Spirit. Not Father and Spirit. Not one Person in the Holy Trinity is ever excluded. Nor could the Divine Word exclude himself without dissolving the Godhead. The unity of the Triune God can’t ever be fragmented by what Jesus said or did because of his divine knowledge and power. Prophetically, Jesus said, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (Jn 8:28).

:heaven:

You are very caught up in protecting the divinity of Christ. And this is good. But Christ voluntarily chose to take on human nature. He did not stop being God, but He voluntarily chose to live as a human. He grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. He had to ask people questions. He had to learn how to walk, talk, cook, and work. He truly became a human. This means He took on all our human weaknesses and limitations, and was even tempted in every way that we are, except He did not sin.

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Speaking of Peter, he received a direct revelation from God as to who Jesus actually was. He didn’t simply believe that Jesus was the Christ, he knew it. His response to Jesus was much more than a profession of faith. On this occasion, Peter knew or understood something that was actually known only to the Father and the Son: Blessed are you, Peter…" Jesus was as much a man in flesh and blood as Peter was, but the only difference was that our Lord knew everything that was actually known to the Father by the infused knowledge he received in his human soul in the hypostatic union. All grace and all knowledge flowed from Christ’s divine nature to his human nature. In Peter’s case, the knowledge did not come naturally to him, but by Divine mediation extrinsic of him. Mary’s freedom from all stain of sin was also made possible by Divine intervention. Unlike her Son, our Blessed Lady wasn’t sinless by nature. Jesus was sinless and all-knowing by his divine nature. Grace and knowledge were mediated to him intrinsic of him. Peter’s acquisition of divine knowledge was a supernatural occurrence, since he was a human creature. “Flesh and blood” did not reveal the divine truth to him. Nor did he possess a divine nature undividedly united to his human nature.

The human mind can’t naturally apprehend anything more with absolute certainty other than an a priori truth, as in mathematics and science, for instance. These applications deal with categories which belong to this world. Even if Peter had inferred that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, the most he could do was speculate. To be absolutely sure, and not merely believe, he had to receive a direct revelation from God. His mind could assimilate the categories that transcend this world and are known by God only through Divine intervention. Peter discovered a spiritual and supernatural truth, not a physical or metaphysical truth. Hi!

I fully concur about St. Peter… the only other occasion of such infusion would be during the Virgin’s visit to Elizabeth as baby John, in her womb, is infused by the Holy Spirit and his mom through him, as they recognized Jesus as their Lord!

…the problem I find with man is that he wants God to elevate him into such relationships in order to “believe.”

It is always God’s Choice! He determines who gets to partake in His Intimacy! …the rest of us must trust in His Omniscience and Patience!

I agree, one cannot always grasp the meaning of someone’s words written in the Scriptures. When Jesus asked “Who touched me?” it wasn’t because he had no idea who that woman in the crowd was. Rather, he asked a rhetorical question to invite the woman to step forward and publicly give witness to her faith. It was because of her faith that she was cured of her haemorrhage by touching the hem of Jesus’ cloak. Not only did Jesus know who the woman was, he also knew what ailed her. Our Lord wasn’t a live electrical wire with no mind of its own, but a person who was consciously in command of exercising his divine might. Jesus told the Pharisees that if they would not believe in him by the words he spoke, at least believe in him by his “works” which testified to his oneness with the Father.

 

[jcrichton]

You are very caught up in protecting the divinity of Christ. And this is good. But Christ voluntarily chose to take on human nature. He did not stop being God, but He voluntarily chose to live as a human. He grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. He had to ask people questions. He had to learn how to walk, talk, cook, and work. He truly became a human. This means He took on all our human weaknesses and limitations, and was even tempted in every way that we are, except He did not sin.

Hi!

…but He never ceased being Divine…

The problem is not Jesus’ Divinity but our need to understand how He could exist as man (so that the Salvific Plan could fully develop) and yet still be God.

There are windows to this conundrum… one of them at the visit of the Magi (‘we have come to adore/Worship Him’)

…another, at age twelve: ‘…don’t you know I must Be about My Father’s Business?’

…still another: ‘…we know Who you are, have you come to torment us, before time?’

…then there are the various encounters with the religious… ‘…we do not seek to kill You for any good You’ve done; but, You, being a man, make Yourself Equal to God…’

…then there are the various moments where He is Worshipped/Adored… have you noticed that Jesus never corrects them (yeah, some want to inject that such events were not really of worship but of simple human cultural habit)… did all the Jews during Jesus’ time exclaimed: “…my Lord, and my God!, when astounded by some event?”

…for that matter, did the Holy Spirit inspired all of Judea to recognize a Lord outside of God as He did so with baby John and his mom?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Good_Fella]

You are very caught up in protecting the divinity of Christ. And this is good. But Christ voluntarily chose to take on human nature. He did not stop being God, but He voluntarily chose to live as a human. He grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. He had to ask people questions. He had to learn how to walk, talk, cook, and work. He truly became a human. This means He took on all our human weaknesses and limitations, and was even tempted in every way that we are, except He did not sin.

It’s good to be true to the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Jesus grew in wisdom and stature through experiential knowledge.

What questions would that be? When Jesus asked “Who touched me?” he was being rhetorical. It wasn’t because he didn’t know who it was. Moreover, he could sense the inherent power that went forth from him on this occasion. No apostle who performed miracles and exorcised demons by the power of the Holy Spirit could experience that.

It doesn’t take the power of the Holy Spirit to be able to walk and talk, or even engage in carpentry.

Jesus was tempted by Satan, but he didn’t suffer from the moral effects of original sin: concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life. When the Devil tempts us, all he does is make suggestions while exploiting our weaknesses. Satan suggested three things to Jesus, but our Lord wasn’t morally weak and ignorant. Jesus didn’t commit any personal sins, but neither did he contract original sin like the rest of humanity, save the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Jesus did not stop being God. That’s why he didn’t have to rely on the intervening power of the Holy Spirit to perform miracles and expel demons. Jesus performed these acts in union with the Father and the Spirit by the power inherent within him. And since Jesus did not cease to be God, there was no reason for him to exercise only some of his divine attributes, while repressing others. Jesus wasn’t a man by inhibiting some of his divine power, but rather by acquiring human attributes. Jesus experienced weaknesses and limitations, but not because he divested himself of some of his divinity. It wasn’t a question of what he lacked as a divine Person, but rather what he chose to possess as a human being born in this world. There’s no need to fractionalise Christ’s divinity to make him fully man. It’s a de fide teaching of the Catholic Church that Jesus was fully God and fully man. To say that Jesus was fully God but possessed only some divine attributes is a self-contradiction. Thus, he was able to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven by his own power in union with the Father and the Spirit. And he could even foretell his own passion and death by the divine knowledge that infused his human soul. This wasn’t experiential knowledge, but future factual knowledge. Jesus foresaw what the Father foresaw in his oneness with Him. And he exercised his divine power in accord with the will of his heavenly Father.

“The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day rise again.”
Luke 9, 22

“No man taketh it [my life] away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
John 10:18

:heaven:

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

Jesus is fully God and fully man. And while living life on earth as a human being He did not stop being God, nor did He lose any of His divine attributes. However, this does not mean that He allowed Himself to make use of those attributes while living through His human nature. He never stopped possessing the divine attributes, but it is fair to say based on the Scriptures that He did stop using them while living as a human being. If He did not, then He told a lie when He said that He did not know the hour of His return. Just because He did not exercise His divine omniscience does not mean He stopped possessing it. Just like an Olympic athlete may choose not to run at full speed, but may voluntarily decide to only walk at regular pace. So God, when He chose to become man, did not lose His divine attributes, but rather, according to the plain meaning of the Scriptures, voluntarily chose not to make full use of them. It would be like, I have a vocabulary of several thousand words, but in order to serve some purpose, I may choose to only use seven of them. It does not mean I stop having a large vocabulary, but only that I choose to use a smaller one.

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus is fully God and fully man. And while living life on earth as a human being He did not stop being God, nor did He lose any of His divine attributes. However, this does not mean that He allowed Himself to make use of those attributes while living through His human nature. He never stopped possessing the divine attributes, but it is fair to say based on the Scriptures that He did stop using them while living as a human being. If He did not, then He told a lie when He said that He did not know the hour of His return. Just because He did not exercise His divine omniscience…

But Jesus didn’t turn his divinity off and on like you suggested when you said that he performed miracles and expelled demons by the power of the Holy Spirit rather than by his own inherent power in union with the Father and the Spirit, so that he could be human like us. Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven by his own power, so why should he divest himself of his Deity by having to cooperate with the Holy Spirit instead of co-ordinating with Him in the Godhead to perform miraculous deeds and exorcisms? If it didn’t make Jesus less human to rise from the dead and ascend into heaven by his own power, then why should it make him less human to exercise his divine power in his public ministry? Are we too assume that Jesus was sometimes fully human and sometimes incompletely human? Or that he was sometimes more divine and sometimes less divine? By having sometimes relied on the Holy Spirit like we have, it logically follows that Jesus would have had to forfeit, at least temporarily, a measure of his divine attributes. For if Jesus did in fact co-operate with the Holy Spirit rather than co-ordinate with him at any time, he would have excluded himself from the Godhead, which is ontologically impossible. The Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence and substance. There is one God - not three Gods (tritheism). The three Persons in the undivided Trinity never operate unilaterally or bilaterally, or else there is no Trinity. It becomes extinct. And if that’s the case, Jesus possessed no divine attributes at all. Whenever Jesus decided not to exercise his divine power, he did so together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. None of the three Persons were operative at that time. In any event, Jesus’ humanity did not rest on whether he decided not to exercise his divine might so that he could completely identify himself with mankind. The Incarnation involved the co-ordinated operation of the Triune God with Mary’s faithful participation. The Son did not lay back and leave everything up to the Father and the Spirit to create.

We have the same problem with Jesus oscillating from being fully divine to being fully human, and so on back and forth, with respect to his knowledge. Jesus had both a divine mind and a human mind, so he was able to predict how his passion and death would occur; he even knew the life history of the man he healed at the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:30-31). When Jesus told the Samaritan woman to go get her husband, she told him that she had no husband. Was Jesus ignorant of the fact? Not at all. He continued by affirming that she was correct and that she had had five husbands, and the man she was now living with wasn’t her husband (Jn 4:16-18). Here Jesus shows his omniscience. Likewise, Jesus wasn’t ignorant of the day and the hour of his second coming. We read: But of that day or hour no man knows (eido), neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father (Mark 13:32). The Greek verb εἰδω is also used in this passage: For I determined not to know (eido) any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). In the given context, Paul is saying that he is resolved to “make known” the cross of Christ by preaching the gospel. This verb can be used to mean that this is the only object on which his mind should be fixed, that knowledge which he sought and should be diffused, Thus, what Jesus probably means to say is that it’s not up to him, but the Father to make known or announce his second coming. He doesn’t mean to say that he is ignorant of the day and the hour. He knew the exact moment, just as he knew how many husbands the Samaritan woman had before he met her. I’m afraid the Scriptures aren’t as plain as you think, at least not the passages you selected.

:heaven:

 

[NM505StKate]

What story of Moses didn’t happen?

All of it. From the Hebrew slaves in Egypt to the plagues to the traveling for many years. There is no evidence that it happened.

 

[James248]

All of it. From the Hebrew slaves in Egypt to the plagues to the traveling for many years. There is no evidence that it happened.

Here’s this for you: www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

 

[fbl9]

Here’s this for you: www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

thanks for the link
first i have heard of this.

 

[NM505StKate]

Here’s this for you: www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

Here you go: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

 

[Bookcat]

All of it. From the Hebrew slaves in Egypt to the plagues to the traveling for many years. .

Nonsense.

 

[Bookcat]

Here you go Jimmy Akin: catholic.com/video/were-moses-and-abraham-fictional-characters

 

[NM505StKate]

Sorry can’t really listen to the link at the moment.

 

[jcrichton]

All of it. From the Hebrew slaves in Egypt to the plagues to the traveling for many years. There is no evidence that it happened.

Hi!

…I hope that you’ve not bought into the “scholars” networks and their “Bible” programs…

…according to some of them there was no parting of the sea… it only happened that Moses was the only person who knew that there was some sort of natural phenomenon that would cause the water to recede so he walked the Hebrews through the little trench that would be formed…

…then there are the various other takes… one of them that places Jesus as a wonderer who seeks out the knowledge of the sages of the world so that He could then set up a Ministry… then the one that proposes that Jesus did not die on the cross… then the marriage to Marry of Magdalene… then the miracle of the multiplying the bread being just an accord of those in the crowd who had some food to share with the thousands that did not have anything…

…by the way, some “scholars” claim that the Egyptians did not use slave labor–apparently these people were millennia ahead of all their contemporary who did use forced and slave labor…

…there are whole cultures in the Americas that disappeared leaving no signs… since there’s no evidence left behind and no clues pointing to their journey… would you then state with absolute certainty that they were abducted by ets?

Maran atha!

Angel