The knowledge of Jesus compared to other religious figures. Lesser or Greater?

[CatholicHere_Hi]

So the adherents of other religions will say their leader was omniscient, especially the Eastern religions. Heck, even heretical Christians like the Gnostics claim to know all of the divine mysteries once they reach a stage of enlightenment.

I always assumed Jesus, while he was here on Earth, was also omniscient. but apparently his knowledge was purely human just like ours and he wasn’t all-knowing according to the CCC. (Unless I misread it)

I find this somewhat alarming, because the other leaders were claimed to be omniscient.

So if Jesus wasn’t all-knowing, how can we take his word over theirs (comparatively speaking)?

For example,

Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, an ‘enlightened’ cult leader all walk into the room. Jesus would be the only one in the room that doesn’t claim to be all-knowing. So why should I trust his word over theirs?

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Can you please point out the paragraphs in the CCC that says Jesus wasn’t all-knowing? I’d like to read them for myself.

"This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”. " (CCC 472)

So, while Jesus with his human nature could have been limited in knowledge, he got what he said from the Father, who is all-knowing.

This is what I find concerning. Because we are taking the word of someone who claims he is not all-knowing; the human Jesus. All our dogmas of the faith are taught by human Jesus, including the Trinity.

Whereas the dogmas (for lack of a better word) of the other religions are taught by historical people who claimed omniscience. I’m not saying these people are correct, I’m just saying if one were to approach these religious leaders with a clean slate, Jesus is already at a disadvantage since he is the only one who claims he doesn’t know everything.

 

[Arwing]

Whereas the dogmas (for lack of a better word) of the other religions are taught by historical people who claimed omniscience. I’m not saying these people are correct, I’m just saying if one were to approach these religious leaders with a clean slate, Jesus is already at a disadvantage since he is the only one who claims he doesn’t know everything.

#473 of the Cathechism quotes St. Maximus:

“The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”

Jesus certainly was (is) omniscient, just the knowledge of his human nature wasn’t so in itself. He is, however, and was when he walked on earth, God.

 

[Vico]

So the adherents of other religions will say their leader was omniscient, especially the Eastern religions. Heck, even heretical Christians like the Gnostics claim to know all of the divine mysteries once they reach a stage of enlightenment.

I always assumed Jesus, while he was here on Earth, was also omniscient. but apparently his knowledge was purely human just like ours and he wasn’t all-knowing according to the CCC. (Unless I misread it)

I find this somewhat alarming, because the other leaders were claimed to be omniscient.

So if Jesus wasn’t all-knowing, how can we take his word over theirs (comparatively speaking)?

For example,

Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, an ‘enlightened’ cult leader all walk into the room. Jesus would be the only one in the room that doesn’t claim to be all-knowing. So why should I trust his word over theirs?

Most significant is omnipotence. Some religions do not have a creator god.

Catechism
268 Of all the divine attributes, only God’s omnipotence is named in the Creed: …

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Ah. Ok.

This Hypostatic Union thing confuses me haha.

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

So I guess this leads to my next question.

How can we know when ‘human’ Jesus is talking and when ‘divine’ Jesus is talking? Or is it one in the same?

 

[Arwing]

Since Jesus is one person, I suppose it would be a “one in the same” type of thing. Nothing he said could have gone against his divine nature, because his divine nature is united with his human nature in one person. Naturally, there would be things Jesus said that he could not have known were he not divine, but that’s kind of the point.

I’m by no means an expert so there’s probably a much better way of putting this.

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Was there a time where he knew infallibly that he was God?