Featured Is Jesus Omniscient?

How do you define God, @JonC?

 

I don't see how not being omnipresent while in a human body negates Christ Jesus from being omniscient while being in a human body.

 

I am not denying the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures teach that Christ Jesus on this earth was fully God and fully Man. Where have I denied this?

 

Not sure I will succeed, but I'll give it a go.

Christ Jesus while on earth did have two natures - fully God and fully Man - in one human body. I really don't see how this statement can be controversial in mainstream Biblical theological circles such as Baptist Board.

 

Because that is the title of this thread.

 

Sounds like you are saying that God may know something and not know something at the same time.

 

I'm not saying that at all. Christ Jesus was certainly immutable on earth. And, while His human body was not omnipresent, well, in His Divine nature...

John 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

(emphasis mine)

 

Well, I am sort running out of ways to express what I am saying. Christ Jesus lived in a human body, just like we do. He had to in order to die as a propitiation for the sins of His people and save His people from their sins. God cannot die. A human body can die. While living in a human body, Christ Jesus was fully God and fully human - two natures(I have no other terminology at hand to express this any other way) - a Divine Nature(God) and a human nature(Man), yet without sin in His human nature. He was never a sinner, He never sinned, the sins of His people were imputed to Him, yet without making Him into a sinner. He was never not God while He lived in a human body, including all that being God encompasses.

I was looking to see how this issue may have been explained in the past by others and there was the Council of Chalcedon that made a declaration in 451 A.D. I found an English translation of it that reads in part as to what we are discussing:

"We...all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten...of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary...according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us..."

I hope this helps.

Note: I probably should add that quoting a portion of the declaration from the Council of Chalcedon does mean I am going along with Roman Catholic Church doctrine. This declaration concerned the subject matter at hand and since my previous attempts at explaining my viewpoint were evidently not succeeding, I thought maybe a writing on the subject from 1,571 years ago might help.

 

Gill aligns well with my own observations, except that he seems not to understand the limitations applied to the incarnation, namely that the Son of God would live as a man totally dependent on the Father as the Son of Man.

Therefore, what knowledge he had of future things in his humanity, he had from the Father.

John 9:16ff gives indication of how Jesus was operating from the Father.