Featured Is Jesus Omniscient?

I totally disagree, if our understanding makes no sense, we should check our assumptions.

Yahweh of the OT and Jesus of the NT both indicated they were able to not know something. To deny this facet of omnipotence is unbiblical. Cognitive Dissonance sows confusion and is thus not of God.

 

It is one thing to admit we do not know everything about God, but quite another to accept an irrational view on the basis we cannot see its rationality.

Yes we agree God the Son had the omnipotent power to set aside some of His knowledge to be God incarnate. But the part you did not acknowledge is as an adult He was said to be "all knowing" or know all things, John 21:17 yet did not know the future exhaustively. So what is your basis for defining omniscience as knowing everything imaginable, past, present and future?

 

Oh, I am sorry, I thought you had one.

How do you define "omniscience?"

 

Would you please clarify the difference between options #1 & #3?

 

God is omniscient...all the time.

 

Sorry but since you already agreed that Jesus set aside some aspect of Omniscience, and He was said to be "all knowing" (John 21:17) you do not really define it that way.

Of course I define it as demonstrated from scripture, God knows whatever He chooses to know, but has the power to choose to not know what He decides He does not want to know, such as the time of Christ return for God the Son and whether Abraham would sacrifice his Son for Yahweh. The scholars define this view as "Inherent Omniscience." It fits with all scripture, whereas the "everything imaginable" view does not.

 

These things are very difficult and all sorts of theologians have beaten their brains out trying to get to grips with the two natures of Christ.
I have been reading quite a lot of Puritan stuff over the past year or two, and I have come to appreciate the Christology of men like John Owen and Thomas Goodwin. They vigorously maintained a distinction between the two natures of Christ. Goodwin points out that the two natures 2could not be changed one into the other because God is immutable; and it was impossible that the Nature of Man should become the Nature of God since the essence of God is incommunicable." The Puritans declared that "the finite cannot comprehend (contain) the infinite.. In other words, the Person who is divine can become finite, but the Divine Nature of Christ cannot become finite, nor can human nature become infinite. Therefore, given the limitations of human nature, there was room for development in the human nature in Christ (e.g.Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8).
John Owen argues that because the Spirit is constantly mentioned in connection with Christ (Isaiah 42:1;Matthew 4:1; 12:28; John 3:34), the miracles that our Lord performed and the knowledge He displayed were the by the power of the Spirit rather than by the immediate power of His Godhead. If this is so, then our Lord's lack of knowledge of the timing of His return is simply because God the Father had not revealed it to Him. To admit this is not to deny our Lord's Divinity (God forbid!), but to accept the implications of Philippians 2:5-8. It is not that He emptied Himself of His Divinity, but that all His Divine nature could not be assimilated by His human nature.

I hope that makes some sort of sense while keeping the post reasonably short. I have made use of A Puritan Theology by Joel Beeke and Mark Jones (RHB, 2012) which has helped me see the wood through the trees.

 

One of the words that has spawned mistaken views of scripture is "all." If we see the word, we can think it refers to everything imaginable, but if we consider context a more limited view emerges. For example, I am playing marbles and I say, my goal is to obtain all the marbles. Are the marbles in the Chinese Checkers games in Europe in view? Nope so all does not always indicate everything imaginable. When we see if Jesus is high and lifted up He will draw "all" men, is this limited to the people who become aware He died for them. Of course. If you have never heard of Jesus, His death will not draw you. The key is to hold a consistent view, whatever the speaker had in mind when he or she used "all" is the actual intended meaning, never everything imaginable.

 

It is nonsense to claim that almighty God sometimes "chooses" to not know something - to not be omniscient. It springs from the same branch of nonsense that claims that almighty God sometimes "chooses" to not be sovereign. I wonder when those kind of folks will be claiming that God sometimes "chooses" to not be omnipotent, or sometimes "chooses" to not be omnipresent.

I can't imagine living in a universe where almighty God "chooses" to be anything less than almighty God 100% of the time.

 

Well if he so chose, how then could he die for our sins? IMHO there is a reason for The Father and The Son, There is a reason God took the woman from the man.

What was the plan before the foundation of the world? DEATH?

Gal 4:4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

What does that mean? Becoming out of woman? Why?

Does Phil 2:7 apply to this OP?

 

Yes, most definitely. Philippians 2:6-8 describes the incarnation through.

If the OP were to exclude this passage, then it would not be a serious inquiry, or it would be seriously flawed.

 

Sorry, I don't see what that question has to do with the attributes of God

 

All three of the Godhead - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - are all equally God. Seems like there is some implying in this thread that there is inequality among the Godhead. Seems like there is so much nuance going on in this thread that there is nuancing around the attributes of God - like the attributes of God are pliable and twistable.