T
Tomdstone
Guest
Jesus is God. God knows everything. Jesus did not know everything. —Contradiction.
- Status
T
Tomdstone
Guest
This does not answer why the Holy Spirit does not know the day or the hour, but only the Father knows. If the Holy Spirit is God, why does He not know the day or the hour, but only the Father knows?Here, I’m just going to quote Matt Slick of CARM:
Matt. 24:35-37,
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn’t He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn’t know all things, then He cannot be God.
Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union, that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 it says Jesus was “. . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . .” Also, in Phil. 2:5-8 it says that Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . .” Col. 2:9 says, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” Jesus was both God and man at the same time.
As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says “Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Therefore, at this point in His ministry He could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God but a confirmation of His being man.
Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove He was God, wouldn’t it?
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep” (John 21:17–NASB).
Jesus did not correct Peter and say, “Hold on Peter, I do not know all things.” He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true.
What if we have a verse that says Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn’t that a contradiction? No, it is not.
Before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn’t until after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience was attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus’ resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man; it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man, and He knew all things.
carm.org/if-jesus-god-then-why-did-he-not-know-time-his-return
G
Gorgias
Guest
God’s divine nature cannot change.Zachary:
Contradiction.
Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature.
Jesus’ human nature changed.
No contradiction.
Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature.
God, in his divine nature, knows everything.
Jesus, in his human nature, did not know everything.
No contradiction.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
You wrote, “Jesus is God. God knows everything. Jesus did not know everything. —Contradiction.”
Wouldn’t you say that is kind of like a half-truth?
Jesus Is considered God-Incarnate, Jesus Is considered True Man and True God.
When He Who became known as Jesus was only God, He was not yet Jesus.
It was when Mary said YES, that Who is referred to as the Second Person of the Trinity became Incarnated as True Man and True God and there is a difference between before Mary said YES and after Mary said YES.
Jesus is the One Who said that He did not know.
Jesus is the One Who is responsible for what you call a “Contradiction”.
Are you saying that He lied?
I, personally, think/believe that there was more to the Incarnation than some seem to think/believe.
Of course, I also think/believe that God did more for creation, which includes humanity, than some seem to think/believe is even possible.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Jesus then has two sources of knowledge: One human and One divine and they did NOT coincide? They were not the same? Did Jesus know as a human and as God? Or did Jesus know only as a human and not as God?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
When Jesus knew something, did He know that something as a Man only, or did He know that something as God?
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
I don’t know.
Something that came to me tho is that Jesus said that He would “send the Holy Spirit to guide…”, remember hearing that?
Jesus did not say that He would ‘send Dad to guide…’, did He?
Since Jesus did phrase it the way that He did, no one can say that the Holy Spirit revealed it them, can they?
Lots of people seem to think that they have “God all figured out”.
Personally, I would say that NO ONE has God “all figured out” and those that think they have God figured out the most, have God figured out the least.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
As I said on another post, I think/believe that Jesus gave up His Omnis in the Incarnation which includes Omniscience.
As I have said other places, I believe that Jesus was born just as empty headed as all of the rest of us human beings.
As far as your question goes, I would say that Jesus knew what He knew as Jesus.
I can not “explain” the Incarnation but I would say that Jesus was NOT two separate Beings in that He was truly God and truly Man but that God, voluntarily, gave up His Omnis during His earthly life.
D
Duane1966
Guest
From Haydock’s Catholic commentary:
Ver. 28. The Father is greater than I.[3] According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God
the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says St. Chrysostom, will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. St. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections. (Witham) — The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him. (St. Basil, St. Augustine, &c.) — Others, likewise, answer it thus: Following the confused opinion of the world, and even of the apostles themselves, who as yet only considered Christ as a prophet, and as a man, eminent in virtue and sanctity, he was less than the Father. (St. Chrysostom; Leont.; Theophylactus; Euthymius) — And likewise the title of Father, (as we generally use the word) is greater, and much more honourable, than that of Son; and in this respect, Christ is inferior to his Father. (St. Athanasius; St. Hilary; St. Epiphanius; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; and St. Cyril) —But this appellation, though really true, does not destroy the equality of the persons, because Christ has declared, in numerous other places, that he is equal to the Father; that he is in the Father; and that he and the Father are one. The apostles ought to have rejoiced that Christ was going to the Father, who was superior to him, considering him in his human nature; because, then, would the Son shew forth his honour and glory to be equal to the Father’s, in heaven. This would have been a mark of a pure, solid, and disinterested love, which ought to have inspired the apostles, if they truly loved their divine Master. (Calmet
Ver. 28. The Father is greater than I.[3] According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God
the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says St. Chrysostom, will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. St. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections. (Witham) — The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him. (St. Basil, St. Augustine, &c.) — Others, likewise, answer it thus: Following the confused opinion of the world, and even of the apostles themselves, who as yet only considered Christ as a prophet, and as a man, eminent in virtue and sanctity, he was less than the Father. (St. Chrysostom; Leont.; Theophylactus; Euthymius) — And likewise the title of Father, (as we generally use the word) is greater, and much more honourable, than that of Son; and in this respect, Christ is inferior to his Father. (St. Athanasius; St. Hilary; St. Epiphanius; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; and St. Cyril) —But this appellation, though really true, does not destroy the equality of the persons, because Christ has declared, in numerous other places, that he is equal to the Father; that he is in the Father; and that he and the Father are one. The apostles ought to have rejoiced that Christ was going to the Father, who was superior to him, considering him in his human nature; because, then, would the Son shew forth his honour and glory to be equal to the Father’s, in heaven. This would have been a mark of a pure, solid, and disinterested love, which ought to have inspired the apostles, if they truly loved their divine Master. (Calmet
D
Duane1966
Guest
Again from Haydocks, key word in verse is highlighted:
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the Angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
Ver. 32. But how can the Son be ignorant of that last day? Were this the case, we must thence conclude that his nature was imperfect: since he was under the necessity of a second coming, and yet was ignorant when that time should be. But we must remember, that the meaning of this sentence is not, that Christ was really ignorant of this circumstance, but only that it was not then a convenient time to disclose the secret. (St. Augustine) — Not as if Christ were ignorant himself, as certain Eutychian heretics, called Agnoitæ, held; but because he knew it not as our teacher, to teach it others, as being not expedient. (St. Ambrose, de fide, lib. v. chap. viii.) — The Son of God is ignorant of this day, not according to his divinity, which sees and knows all things; but according to his humanity, which does not know it of itself, of its own light, but by revelation which is made to it by the divinity, which is intimately united to it. In naturâ quidem divinitatis novit, says St. Gregory, non ex naturâ humanitatis. See St. Matthew xxiv. 36.
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the Angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
Ver. 32. But how can the Son be ignorant of that last day? Were this the case, we must thence conclude that his nature was imperfect: since he was under the necessity of a second coming, and yet was ignorant when that time should be. But we must remember, that the meaning of this sentence is not, that Christ was really ignorant of this circumstance, but only that it was not then a convenient time to disclose the secret. (St. Augustine) — Not as if Christ were ignorant himself, as certain Eutychian heretics, called Agnoitæ, held; but because he knew it not as our teacher, to teach it others, as being not expedient. (St. Ambrose, de fide, lib. v. chap. viii.) — The Son of God is ignorant of this day, not according to his divinity, which sees and knows all things; but according to his humanity, which does not know it of itself, of its own light, but by revelation which is made to it by the divinity, which is intimately united to it. In naturâ quidem divinitatis novit, says St. Gregory, non ex naturâ humanitatis. See St. Matthew xxiv. 36.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
If the Holy Spirit is God, why did He not know the day or hour, but only the Father knew?
D
Duane1966
Guest
Does it say the Spirit does not know?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Yes it is implied. Only the Father knows. No one else knows.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The answer has been given.
Jesus took the form of a slave. The slave does not know what his master is doing. Jesus willed not to know. You simply refuse to accept this answer and keep asking the same question over and over.
And you refuse to answer my question. Are you Jehovah’s Witness?
-Tim-
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus was not making a theological argument, and He was not concerned with having to go into a full explanation of the Trinity at that time.
Over the course of many centuries, the Jews had come to understand God as Father. Jesus was introducing Himself as Son. The Holy Spirit was revealed more fully in the coming years with only glimpses of Him pointed out in the pages of the NT.
God has revealed Himself in progressive stages…not all at once.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Luke 2:52
52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
How can God grow in wisdom and stature or in favor with Himself?
Clearly, many passages of scripture are referring to Jesus in His humanity.
Wouldn’t it be great if we fully understood the Trinity? But how can we with our finite minds understand God who is infinite?
Unfortunately, many people reach the point of mystery and are dissatisfied, but rather than simply acknowledging that mystery, they satisfy their own reasoning by reducing or simplifying their version of God.
It doesn’t work that way.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I don’t think it’s implied at all.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, it’s not implied. In fact, the word for “no one” (not “no man”, as your translation renders) is οὐδείς (oudeis), a word which absolutely negates: “οὐδείς (“no one, nothing at all”) is a powerful negating conjunction. It rules out by definition, i.e. “shuts the door” objectively and leaves no exceptions. οὐδείς is deductive in force so it excludes every (any) example that is included within the premise (supposition).”
Note the qualifier in the definition: it excludes every example that is included within the premise. Here, Jesus provides two examples: ‘angels’ and ‘the son’. Other beings are not included within that premise.
T
truetofaith
Guest
Yeah!
T
truetofaith
Guest
Jesus knew just like the Father …He just wasn’t telling!
- Status