Omniscience of Jesus question

[Guest]

i guess i have always assumed that if Jesus "emptied himself" of divine attributes for the incarnation then he "filled Himself back up again" when he returned to heaven. the Bible may imply this somewhere but i am not sure where to look.

TK

[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?

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?

I tell you why I think this makes people uncomfortable. I tihnk it's because they (we) are all aware of the following line of reasoning:

If Jesus really did not have divine attributes avaliable, then surely, he was not divine. And if he still does not have divine attributes, then he is not God divine now either. If either of these is true, then it follows that he has never been divine, and the doctrine of the Trinity is thus false.

[Guest]

I tell you why I think this makes people uncomfortable. I tihnk it's because they (we) are all aware of the following line of reasoning:

If Jesus really did not have divine attributes avaliable, then surely, he was not divine. And if he still does not have divine attributes, then he is not God divine now either. If either of these is true, then it follows that he has never been divine, and the doctrine of the Trinity is thus false.

OK, yeah, that makes sense.

What do you think all those references to Jesus being set at the right hand of God mean? What about this one: (Matt 28:18 ) And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." What authority does it talk about? Could it be about Jesus taking back his divine attributes?

[Guest]

If Jesus really did not have divine attributes avaliable, then surely, he was not divine.

Ely, the apodosis does not logically follow from the protasis.
If Jesus truly divested Himself of His divine attributes as the self-emptying seems to suggest, then those attributes were not available because He didn't have them after the self-emptying. He was still divine because he retained His identity as the Son of God. He was the same divine Individual that the Father begat at the beginning of time, His only-begotten son, yes, also the "only-begotten God" (John 1:18 early manuscripts).

And if he still does not have divine attributes, then he is not God divine now either.

So much depends on what you mean by "God". He never was the Father.
But if by "God" you mean "Deity", there's no doubt that He, like His Father is pure Deity. "In Him the fulness of Deity was pleased to dwell".
But even in this sense, the apodosis does not logically follow from the protasis in my quote of you above, either. For if He does not now possess divine attributes, He would still be Deity in the sense of His very essence, that is, His identity as the unique Son of God. Having said that, I must affirm that He has been exalted by God and holds the same position including the same divine attributes that He held before His incarnation. However, in the light of Revelation 1:1,I am not sure that omniscience was one of those attributes.

If either of these is true, then it follows that he has never been divine, and the doctrine of the Trinity is thus false.

No, neither one follows.

[Guest]

Hi, Michelle,

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.

A tardy note: your question was worthwhile; please don't "just keep quiet."

Shlamaa,
Emmet

[edited twice]

[Guest]

If Jesus really did not have divine attributes avaliable, then surely, he was not divine.

Ely, the apodosis does not logically follow from the protasis.
If Jesus truly divested Himself of His divine attributes as the self-emptying seems to suggest, then those attributes were not available because He didn't have them after the self-emptying.

Obviously, this idea stands and falls on a particular understanding of the Philipians 2 passage. If there is another way of interpreting this text, then this view is unnecessary, and we are thus saved from such reasoing.

He was still divine because he retained His identity as the Son of God. He was the same divine Individual that the Father begat at the beginning of time, His only-begotten son, yes, also the "only-begotten God" (John 1:18 early manuscripts).

You'll have to clarify for me - are you saying that Jesus was begotten as the the son of God before he was begotten in the womb of Mary?

And if he still does not have divine attributes, then he is not God divine now either.

So much depends on what you mean by "God". He never was the Father.
But if by "God" you mean "Deity", there's no doubt that He, like His Father is pure Deity. "In Him the fulness of Deity was pleased to dwell".
But even in this sense, the apodosis does not logically follow from the protasis in my quote of you above, either. For if He does not now possess divine attributes, He would still be Deity in the sense of His very essence, that is, His identity as the unique Son of God.

As you say, this absolutely depends on what we mean by "God." This is what is causing me to really think about all of this. I'm struggling to maintain that God is able to be less than all-knowing and all-powerful as Jesus was (and apoparently still is).

Having said that, I must affirm that He has been exalted by God and holds the same position including the same divine attributes that He held before His incarnation. However, in the light of Revelation 1:1,I am not sure that omniscience was one of those attributes.

If either of these is true, then it follows that he has never been divine, and the doctrine of the Trinity is thus false.

No, neither one follows.

I'll tell you the truth. I'm now getting that same impression that I have got whenever I have tried to understand all the theological controversies that racked the Christian world concerning Christology. When I try and understand the concepts of dual natures, hypostatic union, etc., it just all sound like incomprehensible philosophical musings and I switch-off.

However, I'm now at that stage where I'm looking hard and long at the biblical evidence, and seeing whether or not it requires us to enter into such musings. I must confess that I'm being drawn heavily toward the simple and clear idea that God is one and only one person, the Father.

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate them.

Hi Ely,

However, I'm now at that stage where I'm looking hard and long at the biblical evidence, and seeing whether or not it requires us to enter into such musings. I must confess that I'm being drawn heavily toward the simple and clear idea that God is one and only one person, the Father.

Wow. If you adopt that position, what would you say about Jesus then?

Michelle

[Guest]

ely-

i second Michelle's "wow" as to your last statement. be careful (and prayerful) as to how you proceed!

there is mystery that we will never be able to grasp. how can we? we are limited by words and our limited brainpower. that doesnt mean we should "give up the ship."

TK

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

However, I'm now at that stage where I'm looking hard and long at the biblical evidence, and seeing whether or not it requires us to enter into such musings. I must confess that I'm being drawn heavily toward the simple and clear idea that God is one and only one person, the Father.

Wow. If you adopt that position, what would you say about Jesus then?

Michelle

Hi Michelle. If I adopt this positon (which I haven't as yet, though I'm leaning toward it) I would say everything the Bible clearly says about him. e.g., he is the unique son of God, he is the Messiah (the Christ), he is our saviour, he came in the flesh, he died and was raised form the dead and is now seated on the right hand of the Father until his glorious bodily return, etc. I love Jesus and I will never turn away from him. However, I will turn away from any doctrines about him (or any thing else) which I don't recognise in the scirptures.

ely-

i second Michelle's "wow" as to your last statement. be careful (and prayerful) as to how you proceed!

there is mystery that we will never be able to grasp. how can we? we are limited by words and our limited brainpower. that doesnt mean we should "give up the ship."

TK

Thanks for your concern TK. The thing is, I will (and have up til now) happily accept the mystery of the Trinity if I thought the scirptures required me to. However, the more I think about it, the less I'm sure that the scriptures do require me to.

But I am well aware of the weighty-ness of this and I'd appreciate yours (and anyone else's) prayer as I consider this.

[Guest]

Ely,

Although I am trinitarian, I believe more is said than necessary on this subject, a lot of it little more than speculation. Peter's confession was commended by Jesus. If we must know more than this to be saved, then most people aren't smart enough to make it, including perhaps all who post here. (Perhaps there is a test on judgement day where a correct explanation of the exact nature of the Trinity must be given to pass!)

How many of those who faithfully fill the pews on Sunday do you suppose could explain the Trinity? Perhaps simple faith in and faithfulness to our Lord isn't enough?