Omniscience of Jesus question

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your response.

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.

In the circumstances of this dialogue, you are likely right in terms of tone, TK. I apologize to Matt for being so snarky here.

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?

I have not claimed that everything must be clinically verifiable and explainable; as I have mentioned elsewhere, I embrace a romantic approach to God. But I also have mentioned that this "is not to say that romantic relationships should not be submitted to rational critique - they must be so, as a safeguard." The doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity are a drastic innovation in light of their precursors in the Yahwistic tradition, and they warrant critical review.

The problem with theological mystery is that it can provide a convenient exemption from critical review. How may one gauge the truth of a claim, once "mystery" has been invoked?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Matt,

Thank you for your response, and for your patience with my snarkiness.

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?

Job is not to be regarded as a trustworthy theologian; he is a human character speaking out of physical and emotional pain.

For my own part, I see no need for a mediator per se. Abraham and God appear to have communicated and covenanted without a mediator.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Job is not to be regarded as a trustworthy theologian; he is a human character speaking out of physical and emotional pain.

Pardon my interruption, but doesn't that description fit a lot of people? Why would experiencing physical or emotional pain exclude a human figure from being a trustworthy theologian? You implied as much about the Apostles, and Elaine Pagels, too. Do you believe that pain prevents clear thinking? I guess it can sometimes, but other times the opposite, extreme clarity of thought happens. Just my opinion.

[Guest]

Hello, Michelle,

Thank you for your response.

People who have experienced pain are not necessarily untrustworthy, and I will agree that such experience can yield deeper insight for some people. It must also be acknowledged, though, that severe pain places a pressure on the human psyche that can lead to distortion of perspective - and sometimes the basic desire to address the pain can eclipse even the truth.

Job is not untrustworthy as a theologian simply because he has experienced pain; rather, the text itself paints the character as less than fully exemplary under his duress.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hey Emmet,

Job is not untrustworthy as a theologian simply because he has experienced pain; rather, the text itself paints the character as less than fully exemplary under his duress.

OK, but doesn't that help explain his longing for a mediator?

[Guest]

Hello, Michelle,

Thank you for your response.

Quote: Job is not untrustworthy as a theologian simply because he has experienced pain; rather, the text itself paints the character as less than fully exemplary under his duress.

OK, but doesn't that help explain his longing for a mediator?

Please pardon my asking - would you elaborate, for my sake?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[edited once to correct]

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

Can I ask a question first? Well another one after that one.

Maybe I'm not clear on the term mediator (I don't have the greatest vocabulary skills.) Having just been through a labor dispute (don't ask) I tend to think of a mediator as a person who brings parties at odds with one another together to find a way to settle their differences. If that's the case, wouldn't Job's failings put him at odds with God, and therefore he might see the need for a mediator between himself and God? I, frankly, can relate to that!

So, what does mediator mean, anyway?

[Guest]

Also, Emmett is asking a question that I have also been pondering - namely, if becoming a man required Jesus to give up certain attributes, then surely Him continuing to be a man require Him to continue in these limitations.

Can anyone show any scriptures which teach that Jesus was omniscientafter the resurrection and ascension?

[Guest]

Hi, Michelle,

So, what does mediator mean, anyway?

I'll come at it a few different ways:

the Hebrew of Job 9:33 literally uses the phrase "man between us" - or, depending on how one construes the sentence structure, "man between us arbitrating/deciding/reproving" ("mediating" might also be an option, but the verbal root might be a bit more aggressive - and often more authoritative/definitive - than what we might usually imagine for mediation);

the Septuagint rendering of Job 9:33 seems to have had some difficulty trying to render that Hebrew participle (so maybe I shouldn't feel too bad ) - but as part of its attempt, it uses the same Greek term that we find translated as "mediator" in the New Testament passages I quoted above, meaning "one who mediates between parties in order to resolve a disagreement or reach a common goal";

in English, the word "mediator" means "one who acts between parties, especially parties at variance, to bring about an agreement, compromise, and/or reconciliation."

I'm open to suggestions for refinement, too.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

'Morning Emmet,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. So, twenty-first century labor disputes can be educational -- who knew?

I want to apologize for interrupting the flow of this thread. I seem to have a bad habit of doing that; it's probably the best reason for me to just keep quiet.

In order to try to undo the damage:

Also, Emmett is asking a question that I have also been pondering - namely, if becoming a man required Jesus to give up certain attributes, then surely Him continuing to be a man require Him to continue in these limitations.

Can anyone show any scriptures which teach that Jesus was omniscientafter the resurrection and ascension?

I don't know of any scriptures. (Well, I keep thinking that Jesus is now set at the right hand of God, but I'm not really sure what all that means.) What are the implications if Jesus continues in his human limitations? On another, similar thread (here), Mattrose said that some people he spoke to were uncomfortable about Jesus not having divine attributes available. Why?