Featured Is Jesus Omniscient?

Pretty close, but I guess maybe I have a different take on the Trinity. The Trinity is composed of three, obviously, but I am not sure I go along with that idea that God the Father knows things that God the Son doesn't know, or that God the Holy Spirit doesn't know things that God the Son knows. Now, granted, I have never really sat down and did a deep dive on if there are differences in the knowledge base among the persons of the Triune God so that one of the Trinity has to pass along information to another of the Trinity, but it seems a bit odd to me. But what do I know in my puny little life in my attempts to contemplate almighty God.

 

Never really given much thought to that question. There is this verse - 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

(emphasis mine)


Is that verse perhaps relevant to that question?

 

Do you think that Christ Jesus, in His Divine nature, changed His mind about anything while He was on this earth?

As I quoted earlier in referencing Matthew Henry's commentary on Mark 13:32 - "Christ, as God, could not be ignorant of any thing; but the divine wisdom which dwelt in our Saviour, did communicate itself to his human soul, according to the divine pleasure, so that his human nature might sometimes not know some things; therefore Christ is said to grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52), which he could not be said to do, if the human nature of Christ did necessarily know all things by virtue of its union with the divinity."

 

Looking into Nestorianism, the accusation is that it holds there must be two distinct persons, not just two natures. Having the two natures is considered the orthodox view.

On the other hand,

Nestorius had been anathematized at the Second Council of Ephesus in 431 for denouncing the use of the title Theotokos (“God-Bearer”) for Mary, insisting that this compromised the reality of Christ’s human nature.
Nestorianism | Definition, History, & Churches
​

 

The reference was to John 9:16ff. The "ff" means "and verses following," to the end of the chapter. If it had been just "f" that would have meant "and the verse following." HTH.

 

Oh, come on, man. Don't you like watching those two butt heads?

 

There seems to be a whole lot of bluster without anyone taking a firm stance.

There are only 2 votes (and I was one of them…and I’m wiggly on where I stand)… lol

Rob

 

Isn't he presently also man?

 

I wonder if the Father has told the Son, yet? If not umm

 

See my post #83 in this thread.

 

Discussing posts being off-topic is itself off-topic. (Isn’t there a way to report and PM?) But since we’re there, we may need a link to a policy thread explaining what off-topic means on this board.


If bringing to bear a directly related aspect of doctrine is to be considered off-topic, hardly anything will be resolvable, and division and even unorthodoxy will result.

This is a major problem with being consistent in theology, the inability or unwillingness to regard the “big picture.”

We have to keep in mind that, because we are not God, our perspectives are limited. Ultimately, the ability to see the big picture is beyond us, as are the inner workings of the divine.

It is not wrong to hit the limit of our understanding and admit that certain matters remain mystery.

If we think we have it all figured out, then we may be well into the realm of heresy.

 

What does it mean to be "omniscient?" To know all things, past, present and future? So when scripture says Jesus knows all things (John 21:17) that must mean Jesus is "omniscient." So when Jesus says He does not know the time of His return, that means He is not omniscient. Sounds like we are being double minded.

I see another ploy being hoisted, that God the Father is omniscient, knowing everything imaginable, but Jesus put some of His omniscience in a lock box while incarnate. But God said "now I know" when testing Abraham which means God, no matter the Person, is all powerful enough to put omniscience in a lock box. (Genesis 22:12)