Omniscience of Jesus question

[Guest]

Emmett-

I Cor. 15:35 et seq. is what i was referring to, particulary v 51-54. Also 1st John 3:2.

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

I Jn 3:2: Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

I thought you might bring up Philip's being "taken away" in the book of acts- you are correct, there are examples of "non-resurrected" people doing amazing things- Elijah outrunning a chariot is another one.

But, to me at least, it seems clear from the context of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus that his ability to do the things he did was inherent in himself, not merely through the power of the HS.

TK

[Guest]

Hello, Matt,

This being the case, do you think that Jesus retains those limitations even now?

Or for the more important question: if Jesus differs from God in all these respects, how shall one assert that he is God?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

Hello Emmet,

I do not think Jesus retains those limitations now, no

I believe it is still quite possible to assert that he is God b/c He voluntarily took on those limitations for a time in order to, in addition to His Deity, take on flesh.

[Guest]

Hi, TK,

Thank you for your reply.

Thank you also for identifying the Pauline material you were thinking of. Of course, Paul can be difficult to understand, and I for one do not claim to understand him. Happily enough, I don't need to .

Perhaps it is possible that Paul is talking in terms of character, and not in material terms? But I'm not sure that is viable.

If he were talking in material terms, it would seem to me that he had succumbed to the influence of Platonic dualism - understandable, but not justifiable. God's creative genius embraces the physical, including the flesh and blood he designed.

My question would be: if we all are to become "not 100% human" in the world to come, then what are we to make of God's creative purpose? Did God not intend for there to be humans?

But, to me at least, it seems clear from the context of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus that his ability to do the things he did was inherent in himself, not merely through the power of the HS.

Can you identify some specific factors that indicate Jesus' ability was inherent, and not derivative?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Matt,

Thank you for your response.

I do not think Jesus retains those limitations now, no

So Jesus is no longer human - no longer one of us?

I believe it is still quite possible to assert that he is God b/c He voluntarily took on those limitations for a time in order to, in addition to His Deity, take on flesh.

So Jesus was simultaneously complete and incomplete, untemptable and tempted, omniscient and ignorant, immortal and mortal?

Then again - if God is so estranged from humanity that he needs a mediator, how is it that he is able to serve as his own mediator?

Does not your apostle say, "Now a mediator is not for one {party only;} whereas God is {only} one" (Galatians 3:20)? Then again, your New Testament states this, but also uses the same Greek term to assert "For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5), and thrice over in Hebrews that Jesus is the "mediator" of the covenant (8:6, 9:15, 12:24).


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

1. I didn't say Jesus is no longer human. I said he is no longer limited. If he ignored (in a sense) his deity while he was on earth, why can't he ignore (in a sense) his humanity while he is in heaven? I don't profess to fully understand the 1 unique God-man, but I don't find the concept impossible to imagine. I recognize the insufficiency of the term ignore, but, to be blunt, it is almost 2am and I'm not real interested in thinking of a better word!

2. In a sense I suppose. But not practically. He voluntarily laid aside the divine attributes. I think it is a mistake to exclude any theology that can't be fully understood.

3. God is able to serve as His own mediator through incarnation

[Guest]

Hello, Matt,

Thank you for your response.

I didn't say Jesus is no longer human. I said he is no longer limited.

But is it not a definitive aspect of human being to be limited?

I think it is a mistake to exclude any theology that can't be fully understood.

This seems like a handy shelter for incoherent theology.

Then again - if God is so estranged from humanity that he needs a mediator, how is it that he is able to serve as his own mediator?

Does not your apostle say, "Now a mediator is not for one {party only;} whereas God is {only} one" (Galatians 3:20)? Then again, your New Testament states this, but also uses the same Greek term to assert "For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5), and thrice over in Hebrews that Jesus is the "mediator" of the covenant (8:6, 9:15, 12:24).

God is able to serve as His own mediator through incarnation

I recognize that it was early morning when you wrote this. Could I trouble you for more of an explanation?


Thank you again for your response, Matt.

Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi emmett-

you wrote, in response to matt's assertion that "it is a mistake to exclude any theology that can't be fully understood."

This seems like a handy shelter for incoherent theology.

this is a tad harsh, i think. God Himself is unfathomable. You seem to expect us to be able to explain scientifically(?) how Jesus could have been both God and human. Just because we cannot explain exactly how it works does not mean that Jesus is just that (i.e. a God-man).

I welcome theological mystery. who wants to know everything?

TK

[Guest]

I didn't say Jesus is no longer human. I said he is no longer limited.

And this, Matt, seems to be the opinion of several other people who have posted in this thread. Presumably, if He was no longer limited after He was raised from death, then He was omniscient from that point on, even as the Father is omniscient.

However, this idea seems to be contradicted by the first verse of Revelation:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John...

God revealed to Jesus what must soon take place. Jesus made it known by sending his angel to tell it to John.

But if Jesus was omniscient immediately after He was raised from death, then He already knew what would soon take place. He wouldn't have needed a revelation from God in order to make it known.

[Guest]

That's fine. I don't see how any voluntary limitations that Jesus has at the present time or had between his resurrection and the writing of the book of revelation is very significant to any doctrinal discussion. That being said, I don't think, Paidion, that the verse you point too needs to be taken in that way at all. The Father can send the Son to reveal something without that implying that the Son didn't know the information beforehand. And even if we do take it that way the timing isn't given in detail.

I stand by my previous statement that it is a mistake to exclude any theology that can't be fully understood, Emmet. While it 'may' be a definitive aspect of humanity to be limited, that statement only really applies, in my mind, to those who are only human. If Jesus is the God-man, then he is someone entirely unique, to whom different rules apply. Thus, I don't see the problem or the need to categorize him. I have no desire to box him into something I can fully grasp. If I ever did that, I'd have a god that is too small, so far as I can tell.

I simply don't see a problem with Jesus being the Mediator between God and man. There was no-one truly qualified for that role. Job recognized this very fact:

32 He is not a man like me that I might answer him,
that we might confront each other in court.

33 If only there were someone to arbitrate between us,
to lay his hand upon us both,

34 someone to remove God's rod from me,
so that his terror would frighten me no more.

35 Then I would speak up without fear of him,
but as it now stands with me, I cannot.

The best qualification for such a role would be someone who is God AND man at the same time. No such person existed until the incarncation. To speculate that it is unfair for God to be the mediator himself assumes that Jesus was really just God acting like man to perform a duty. Otherwords, you'd consider it JUST AS unfair for Jesus, a man, to play the role of a mediator. But you were only concerned, apparently, by the idea of God serving as his own mediator. But there is no logical problem, so far as I can tell, with a true God-man filling the role Job hoped could be filled. Who better?

[Guest]

The Father can send the Son to reveal something without that implying that the Son didn't know the information beforehand.

True, Matt. But that is not what Rev 1:1 says. It says that it is the
"revelation of Jesus Christ". If that were ALL that it says, then we could take this in several different ways.

1. It could be the revealing of Jesus Christ.
2. I could be a revelation which Jesus Christ gave.
3. It could be a revelation given to Jesus Christ by God.

The words that follow the phrase "revelation of Jesus Christ" clearly indicates which of the three it is. It is "the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him". The "Him" can refer to no other than Jesus Christ. If Christ "knew the information beforehand" then it would be no revelation to Him.

And even if we do take it that way the timing isn't given in detail.

There's no other way to rationally take it. I presume, concerning your statement about the "timing", you are suggesting that God may have given Him the revelation before He died. That may be possible, but unlikely. When one examines the sentence closely:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

it seems likely that Jesus made it known to John by sending His angel, soon after He received the revelation. Also, what purpose would could God have by giving Jesus the revelation 90 years or more (or sixty-some years if you insist) before it was given to John?