Omnicience and omnipresence of Christ

Who said that Jesus only "looked like a human"?

The language of Paul is Philippians is guarded. He could not say that Jesus has our "nature" in its complete form, since this would not be true. Jesus' humanity is 100% real, complete with human personailty and soul, the only exception being that His human nature which He actually derived from Mary, is without sin, sinless. In every other respect He was like unto us. It must be remembered, that Jesus caould never be regarded as a "human being", since He is not this. He always possesed His "Divine nature", since He is always Almighty God, but, while retaining His Divine nature, to took upon Himself the nature of us humans, and thus became the God-Man, 1005 God, and 100% Man. I am sorry if my previous post was not clear on the human nature of Jesus Christ, There is no room for Docetism in the human nature of Jesus.

 

So are you saying that the risen Christ is not omniscient? Just trying to clarify what you are stating. </font>[/QUOTE]===


No I'm not saying that. The term "Christ" refers to two natures. I am saying that IMO the human nature never becomes possessor of the divine qualities. It is not made God!

Among those who affirm that Christ is only temporally, not eternally, role subordinate three positions are discernable:

1) Erickson--His subordination ceases when He is glorified because His humbling was that of His deity.

2) Derickson--His subordination (note in role now, not in essence) always will continue because He always will be Man as well as God.

3) Mine--He never at any time in His deity was subordinate only in His humanity.

IMO mind and will inhere not in person but in nature. Therefore I do not see it that in God are three minds and three wills.

And I see in Christ two natures and so two minds and two wills because these inhere in nature. So, IMO what can be said of one nature need not be said of the other.

I think that while all experiences and qualities and acts of Christ must be predicated of the one Person, it nevertheless is true that any experience, quality, or act of the one Person may be properly said to occur in one nature in distinction from the other nature but not in distinction from the one Person!

Consequently I do not see the human mind of Christ ever becoming omniscient, but I see the divine mind always omniscient because God has only one mind , and so Christ in His deity is omniscient always.

I do not think that either the human body of Jesus becomes omnipresent or omnipotent or that the human mind becomes omniscient.

IMO human remains ever human and God remains ever God.

 

Maybe I just misunderstood this quote. Seems it is implying that if He had a "limited" body, mind, or will, then he couldnt be deity. If he wasnt as a human is, then he only looked human.

Sorry if I misunderstood. </font>[/QUOTE]===

No. His humanity is limited, not His deity. See above.

 

UZThD, what do you mean that Jesus' humanity was "limited"? I don't see any Scripture that supports such a teaching. To say that His humanity was anything but full (apart from sin), is opening up the heresy that it was incomplete.

 

===

Whoa! Before I am burned at the stake ,No!

I am NOT saying that Jesus is only partly human. I am NOT saying His humanity is incomplete. Humans are limited!

Indeed my whole hearted affirmation of its completeness is why I must energetically assert that there are limits on it.

If His humanity were as unlimited as , ie, equal to in powers , His deity, then that humanity would be absorbed into that deity.

He is fully human. I am saying His humanity is not deified. Therefore, compared to His deity that humanity is limited because His humanity is not equal to His deity . See?

My statement was a reply to Marcia asking whether or not IMO the glorified Christ is omniscient.

I replied that IMO His humanity is not omniscient. If it were, then IT WOULD NOT BE HUMAN! ( I am not yelling, just striving for emphasis).

That is, His humanity has limitations on its knowledge. THAT was my meaning as the context of what I say above shows!

 

Joh 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.
Joh 1:49
Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

So what we have here is Jesus using His attributes of Deity?

1Ti 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.



Fascinating stuff; the study of the Person of Christ.
God manifest in the flesh.

This knowledge is too wonderful for me. (FULL of wonder)

In HIS service;
Jim

 

UZThD, Ok. I get your drift. I agree that in His humanity Jesus could not be omniscient, as He Himself says that He did not know the time of his Return, something impossible as God. But, we must be very careful not to push the "division" of the two natures in Christ, lest we make "two Persons" of the two natures. Nor can we allow for, what soem hold to, an "impersonal" human narure of Jesus Christ, where they say that His Divine nature was His only personality. This is very dangerious, as it would reduce His human nature as being sub-human. I see no problem in Jesus having two Personalities, but yet remaining one Person. Its a mystery, but so is the Trinity.

 

===

I agree. Many do not understand that in the literature of the Ancients and modern Conservatives / Evangelicals the views

(1) that each nature in Christ acts , ( I will take Theodoret over Cyril any day) and,

(2) that the kenosis, emptying, was not a placing of limitations on the Son as God who as God cannot be limited , but was rather providing a mode through which Christ could experience subordination : His humanity ( I will take Hodge over Buswell any day)

are very prevalent.

 

Icthus, thanks for your response. I agreed with all of it except I'm still having trouble with some of what you said in the last paragraph of your post above (the long one).

I did not think this passage in Phil. meant that Jesus emptied himself of equality with God, but he emptied himself of his glory with God. When it says that he saw equality with God was not something to be grasped, are there not interpretations that say this means something else, i.e., not that he means he gave up equality?
I don't know Greek so I can't delve into it that way. I just can't see Christ as never not being equal with God, even in human form, since he was still God as man.

Wonder what others think.

 

Are you saying Jesus has two minds and two wills? Does this go against the Chalcedon Creed/Confession, and/or do you agree with that creed?

Is saying that Jesus has two wills "dividing" his person? Open to anyone's view on this. Thanks.

 

Marcia, I will answer as I am sure that others will. Orthodoxy affirmed "two wills" against (among other groups) the monophysites (one nature) who responded to the Chalcedon statement with monothelotism (one will). Both views were deemed heretical. The classic argument against chalcedonian Christology is that it seems to stretch the unity of the Person because of two minds, wills, etc.

BJ

 

Are you saying Jesus has two minds and two wills? Does this go against the Chalcedon Creed/Confession, and/or do you agree with that creed?

Is saying that Jesus has two wills "dividing" his person? Open to anyone's view on this. Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]===

Yes. IMO Christ has two minds and two wills. These terms are difficult to define. What I mean is that Christ in His humanity as distinct from but never in separation from His deity has the faculty to choose and the faculty to learn.

No. I do not think that such a view is anti Chalcedonian. Chalcedon postulates two complete and true natures: divine and human.

Brandon is correct that the later Constantinople symbol defined more precisely Chalcedon by saying, contrary to monothelitism, that Christ has TWO wills. Obviously that requires TWO minds.

How is His humanity complete unless He has a human mind and will? I cannot agree with Apollinarius that the Logos served in place of human reason. I cannot agree with Athanasius who thinks the acts of Christ are the Logos moving the body around. God acting like a man is not true man.

IMO in order for our Lord to learn and be tempted requires that His mind and will which do those things are human.

Neither do I think as Buswell that a nature is merely a complex of behavior patterns ; I agree with Hodge that a nature requires an ENTITY that has the ability to act.

I agree with John of Damascus that will and mind inhere in nature--not in person.

I really appreciate the opportunity to express my peculiarites on BB.

I confess that that much of my Christology is not a product of exegeses , but of syntheses. EG, as God cannot change or be tempted,it is the humanity of Christ which must learn (mind) and choose not to sin (will). The very acts of Christ and God's nature lead me to my conclusions.

I urge you to read Cyril's 12 Anathemas and the response by Theodoret as well as the Damascene on The Faith.

Bill

[ June 11, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Hi Marcia,

The grammar of the pasage in Philippians 2:6,7, clearly shows that what was "emptied" by Jesus, was, "to einai isa theoi", the being "on equality with God". Here the Greek "isa" is used adverbabilly, and is in the neuter plural, "on equal terms, without advantage to either side". Jesus counted this being on equality with the Father, something that He did not have to grasp, but of His own free will, laid this down by becoming a "bond Servant" and placing Himself in subordination to the Father. Hence He could say that "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), something which He would not have said, had He been equal to the Father while on earth.

Dr E H Gifford wrote an excellent work on this very passage in 1897, called The Incarnation, in which he does a very deep study of the Greek words used by Paul in this passage, and the grammar. I have yet to see a work on this better. Even that of Dr J B Lightfoot, that great scholar, will come a second to this.

As for your other remarks on the "Two Wills" in Christ. It might be said, that had he not had a human will, then His human nature was no more than a phantom.

 

===

I will try, but not today.

I have diabetes which gives me neuropathy. I'm trying a new prescription for that. It makes me very sleepy and a little disoriented. Let me try please when I'm a little more alert. I promise to in a day or two.

Thanks for your patience.

 

I'm following along, so I look forward to your reply! Thanks to everyone so far!

 

If Scholar A says one thing and Scholar B says the opposite then I am not impressed because a Scholar says something.

1 Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

It doesn't say we have one of the minds of Christ. It is kind of the whole point of the incarnation that it is THIS mind that Christ used and not the omniscient one of pre/post incarnation. If Christ used His Diety, even once, during His incarnation then He was not a full time man.

I know He raised the dead but, so have other men. I know He healed people but, so have other men. I know He had extrasensory knowledge but, so have other men. He even said of His own works that other men would do greater works. Jesus showed us what it would be like for a man to be 100% submissive to the Father 100% of the time. It would be meaningless to show us what it would be like for Deity to do that.