To Be a Christian.....

[devildavid]

I expected this verse to be cited.

This verse at best demonstrates Jesus did not know while on earth in the “likeness of sinful flesh.” Hence, when he appears after death and resurrection His answer is entirely different to the question. “It is not for you to knowperiods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority;” Acts 1:7.

Talk about reading onto the bible, No sorry, Jesus flesh was not a detriment to knowing what god should know.

 

[NotreDame]

The gymnastics are adorable, but the French judges are not impressed.

The verse states explicitly that "only the Father" knows. This means that the Holy Ghost, which never had any “likeness of sinful flesh” for you to do gymnastics with also did not know, and therefore also does not possess omniscience. If the Father has omniscience, it is a property exclusive to the personhood of the Father, and not an essential characteristic of godhood. Much in the same way that getting His holy diapers changed was (presumably) a property exclusive to the personhood of the Son, and not an essential characteristic of godhood.

First, I’m not French. There’s a reason a Golden Dome is depicted.

Second, that you and every child on the planet can easily claim “gymnastics” isn’t impressing anyone.

Second, the best reading of the Greek is “but the Father alone.” Again, at the time only the “Father alone” knew. The Son did not have the knowledge while in the “likeness of flesh.” The Son isn’t commenting upon his knowledge at all times. Only the Father alone knew the dates at the time He made the remarks.

This means that the Holy Ghost, which never had any “likeness of sinful flesh” for you to do gymnastics with also did not know

Irrelevant to my POV. I’ve never commented upon the Holy Ghost and isn’t necessary I do.

My focus is upon the claim the Bible said/established He is not omniscient. The verse of Matthew doesn’t establish Jesus is not omniscient but merely that Jesus, while flesh, did not have the knowledge.

Jesus, while in the flesh, did not exercise the full canopy of powers, authority, with His deity.
He was unaware of the season fig trees grew figs, He did not know John the Baptist had been killed and experienced hunger, pain, fatigue, etcetera.

Yet, at other times he exercised some of those powers. He saw Nathanael under a tree before ever seeing Nathael in person, He knew of Satan falling from Heaven like lightning, He knew Satan asked to sift Peter like wheat, and knew the thoughts of people.

 

[NotreDame]

Matt 24:36, does explicitly state that Jesus does not know about that day or hour. Your headcanon about Jesus later gaining omniscience after He ascends to Godhood like Cayden Cailean does not change the fact that in Matt 24:36 it is explicitly stated that Jesus does not know about that day or hour.

If you want to come up with some fan theory about how it is plausible that Superman eventually became invincible against Kryptonite when he took a dose of the same supersoldier serum used to give Captain America his superpowers, be my guest. That doesn't change the fact that Superman is described in canon as being vulnerable to Kryptonite.

QUOTE]Matt 24:36, does explicitly state that Jesus does not know about that day or hour.[/QUOTE]

At the time and moment He made the remarks. Matthew 24:36 doesn’t assert Jesus never knows as you so misconstrue the verse, which is significant because you’ve invoked the verse to establish Jesus, at this moment, and Jesus, when He made the remark, isn’t omniscient.

Yet the verse doesn’t assert Jesus, post resurrection, isn’t omniscient. Neither does the verse establish Jesus is never omniscient for any specific amount of time. At best what can be deduced is Jesus, when He made the comment, did not know.

If you want to come up with some fan theory

You can dispense with the silly “fan theory” regarding “Superman” and kryptonite. It isn’t parallel.

What this dialogue involves is deductive reasoning, hermeneutics and plain text meaning, content of the verse, deductive reasoning, and what can be deduced. The verse simply doesn’t support your broad claim of Jesus, specifically including Jesus post resurrection ascended into Heaven as the Son of God and also God the Son, is not omniscient.

Especially since, again the Acts verse I referenced, and Jesus’ comments in Revelation He is returning soon. In Revelation 22 Jesus says “for the time is near” and “Behold, I am coming quickly,” and “He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.”

Jesus not knowing the day and hour in Matthew is at best showing Jesus did not know while in the flesh. There is evidence elsewhere in the Bible, post resurrection, strongly suggesting Jesus does now know the day and hour.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What this dialogue involves is deductive reasoning, hermeneutics and plain text meaning, content of the verse, deductive reasoning, and what can be deduced. The verse simply doesn’t support your broad claim of Jesus, specifically including Jesus post resurrection ascended into Heaven as the Son of God and also God the Son, is not omniscient.

I don't believe I made any specific claims regarding Jesus post-resurrection ascended into Heaven as the Son of God and also God the Son. My claim was with regard to Jesus as He is described in the Bible. Jesus is explicitly described in the Bible as not knowing only and all truths in Matt 24:36. Does that make him non-omniscient? Let's look at your definition for the answer:

Omniscient: omniscience is defined as propositional knowledge, of knowing only and all truths, while not necessarily having or including all non-propositional knowledge. Yes, God is omniscient.

Since the day and hour are truths that the Father knows, and the Son does not, the Son is not omniscient according to Matt 24:36. Jesus is not explicitly described elsewhere in the Bible as knowing only and all truths, but you are welcome to whatever fan theories or apocrypha you like. Whether or not Jesus gained omniscience after traveling in the TARDIS as a companion to The Doctor has no bearing on my claim regarding how Jesus is described in Biblical canon.

Irrelevant to my POV. I’ve never commented upon the Holy Ghost and isn’t necessary I do.

But it is relevant to the context of my claim in response to the OP. If someone believes that the Holy Ghost is God, and also believes that the Holy Ghost is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. If someone believes that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. Even if Jesus later gains omniscience, that doesn't change the fact that if He was God when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, and He was simultaneously not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, then He was a god that was not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour. Therefore, belief in a god that is not omniscient has to be a part of Trinitarian theology in order for it to be consistent with the Bible. This was obviously the point that I was trying to make in my response to the OP.

Suppose someone were to ask whether one has to have superpowers in order to be one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I might point out that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe despite not having superpowers, in order to demonstrate the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger. If you were to make the pedantic argument that Iron Man is no longer an Avenger due to events in Endgame that I shall not spoil here, I would be unable to refrain from pointing out that because of the five-year blip, the events of Endgame don't happen until well into 2023. If I then go on to point out that Hawkeye is also an Avenger without superpowers, it is only because I am trying to veer back in the direction of the actual topic.

Your hang-up on the semantics of my claim that Iron Man is one of the Avengers is pure pedantry to begin with. Even if you were right about Iron Man no longer being an Avenger at the beginning of 2023, it still isn't incorrect to acknowledge that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even though he was explicitly not an Avenger in Iron Man 1, and hadn't even heard of the Avengers yet, it is still a true statement that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. None of that is relevant to the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger according to the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

[NotreDame]

hat Jesus is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. Even if Jesus later gains omniscience, that doesn't change the fact that if He was God when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, and He was simultaneously not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, then He was a god that was not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour. Therefore, belief in a god that is not omniscient has to be a part of Trinitarian theology in order for it to be consistent with the Bible. This was obviously the point that I was trying to make in my response to the OP.

Suppose someone were to ask whether one has to have superpowers in order to be one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I might point out that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe despite not having superpowers, in order to demonstrate the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger. If you were to make the pedantic argument that Iron Man is no longer an Avenger due to events in Endgame that I shall not spoil here, I would be unable to refrain from pointing out that because of the five-year blip, the events of Endgame don't happen until well into 2023. If I then go on to point out that Hawkeye is also an Avenger without superpowers, it is only because I am trying to veer back in the direction of the actual topic.

Your hang-up on the semantics of my claim that Iron Man is one of the Avengers is pure pedantry to begin with. Even if you were right about Iron Man no longer being an Avenger at the beginning of 2023, it still isn't incorrect to acknowledge that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even though he was explicitly not an Avenger in Iron Man 1, and hadn't even heard of the Avengers yet, it is still a true statement that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. None of that is relevant to the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger according to the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I don't believe I made any specific claims regarding Jesus post-resurrection ascended into Heaven as the Son of God and also God the Son. My claim was with regard to Jesus as He is described in the Bible. Jesus is explicitly described in the Bible as not knowing only and all truths in Matt 24:36. Does that make him non-omniscient? :

My goodness man. Jesus, as “described in the Bible” includes post resurrection! Post resurrection Jesus IS a description of Jesus in the Bible. Post resurrection Jesus and what he said and did post resurrection IS a description of Jesus and in the Bible.

Which includes what He was asked and answered in Acts post resurrection and includes His remarks in Revelations post resurrection.

So, your qualified statement is as unpersuasive as the flawed deduction you’ve made from the Matthew verse.

However, I happily agree with your premise, this dialogue involves Jesus as described in the Bible. And to have an accurate depiction of this Jesus requires knowledge of what the Bible says about Jesus while physically on earth and post resurrection. Hence, having knowledge of the verses in Revelation, and Acts, which describe Jesus, what he says and does, post resurrection, informed me the Matthew verse quite likely was referring to limited knowledge of Jesus regarding dates and times while physically present on earth.

Since your myopic statements treats Matthew, the other Gospels, and the other books of the NT, in the Bible, as having no account of Jesus post resurrection, a false treatment, the rest of your post, built upon this false treatment, need not be addressed. But I will to illuminate the repeated error in your argument.

Whether or not Jesus gained omniscience after traveling in the TARDIS has no bearing on my claim regarding how Jesus is described in Biblical canon.

Error is to ignore Jesus in the Bible post resurrection. The Bible describes Jesus while physically on earth and post resurrection. Post resurrection contains verses undermining He is not aware of date and hour that you use to say He isn’t omniscient as that is too broad a statement.

More accurate to deduce Jesus, when making the comment, very likely wasn’t omniscient.

 

[NotreDame]

Since the day and hour are truths that the Father knows, and the Son does not, the Son is not omniscient according to Matt 24:36. Jesus is not explicitly described elsewhere in the Bible as knowing only and all truths, but you are welcome to whatever fan theories or apocrypha you like. Whether or not Jesus gained omniscience after traveling in the TARDIS as a companion to The Doctor has no bearing on my claim regarding how Jesus is described in Biblical canon.



But it is relevant to the context of my claim in response to the OP. If someone believes that the Holy Ghost is God, and also believes that the Holy Ghost is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. If someone believes that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. Even if Jesus later gains omniscience, that doesn't change the fact that if He was God when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, and He was simultaneously not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, then He was a god that was not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour. Therefore, belief in a god that is not omniscient has to be a part of Trinitarian theology in order for it to be consistent with the Bible. This was obviously the point that I was trying to make in my response to the OP.

Suppose someone were to ask whether one has to have superpowers in order to be one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I might point out that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe despite not having superpowers, in order to demonstrate the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger. If you were to make the pedantic argument that Iron Man is no longer an Avenger due to events in Endgame that I shall not spoil here, I would be unable to refrain from pointing out that because of the five-year blip, the events of Endgame don't happen until well into 2023. If I then go on to point out that Hawkeye is also an Avenger without superpowers, it is only because I am trying to veer back in the direction of the actual topic.

Your hang-up on the semantics of my claim that Iron Man is one of the Avengers is pure pedantry to begin with. Even if you were right about Iron Man no longer being an Avenger at the beginning of 2023, it still isn't incorrect to acknowledge that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even though he was explicitly not an Avenger in Iron Man 1, and hadn't even heard of the Avengers yet, it is still a true statement that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. None of that is relevant to the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger according to the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

But it is relevant to the context of my claim in response to the OP. If someone believes that the Holy Ghost is God, and also believes that the Holy Ghost is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient.

You replied to my comment about God and omniscience. You interjected with Jesus. I replied regarding Jesus’ omniscience. You do not get to add elements to my argument to defend, such as the Holy Ghost.

Good for you regarding the context of your claim in response to the OP. However, because it is relevant to your argument in relation to the OP doesn’t permit you to force it onto my argument and our dialogue regarding Jesus’ omniscience in the Bible. Again, you responded to my post by asserting the Bible says Jesus isn’t omniscient and I challenged whether the Bible so says. The Holy Ghost is irrelevant to my POV here.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

My goodness man. Jesus, as “described in the Bible” includes post resurrection! Post resurrection Jesus IS a description of Jesus in the Bible. Post resurrection Jesus and what he said and did post resurrection IS a description of Jesus and in the Bible.

Which includes what He was asked and answered in Acts post resurrection and includes His remarks in Revelations post resurrection.

Sure. But none of those post-resurrection descriptions of Jesus establish whether He is omniscient or not, so they have no bearing on discerning what the Bible has to say with regards to the omniscience or nonomniscience of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus is depicted in the Bible as not being omniscient is established canon. He is explicitly depicted as not being omniscient Matt 24:36. If you want to claim that He is also depicted as later becoming omniscient post-resurrection, then you need to provide a book, chapter, and verse in which He is explicitly depicted as having become omniscient.

If there is no explicit depiction of Jesus as being omniscient post-resurrection, then your fan theory about Him gaining omniscience post-resurrection is not established canon. This would mean that the depiction of Jesus as not being omniscient remains the only established canon regarding His omniscience or lack thereof.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You replied to my comment about God and omniscience. You interjected with Jesus. I replied regarding Jesus’ omniscience. You do not get to add elements to my argument to defend, such as the Holy Ghost.

Good for you regarding the context of your claim in response to the OP. However, because it is relevant to your argument in relation to the OP doesn’t permit you to force it onto my argument and our dialogue regarding Jesus’ omniscience in the Bible. Again, you responded to my post by asserting the Bible says Jesus isn’t omniscient and I challenged whether the Bible so says. The Holy Ghost is irrelevant to my POV here.

Your original claim to which I replied was this:

Yes, God is omniscient.

For Trinitarians who believe that the Holy Ghost is god, and who also believe that the Holy Ghost is not omniscient, as established in Matt 24:36, the Holy Ghost is therefore a nonomniscient god.

Your pedantic hang-up over whether it is accurate to say that Jesus is depicted in the Bible as not being omniscient if there is any possibility that he might have gained omniscience later after that part where Jesus is depicted in the Bible as not being omniscient was getting a little boring, so I thought I would try bringing it back to the topic without all that post-resurrection baggage for you to get hung up on. But if you are only interested in defending your response to my reply, rather than the claim you made to which I was replying, that's cool too. We can keep talking about Jesus.

 

[Fearandloathing]

That is correct. Belief in the Trinity (and loving God's triune nature) is what separates Christianity from all other monotheistic religions.

I know a Rabbi or two who would take exception to that.

First, Jesus was NOT a Christian, the faith wasn't invented till about 100 years after His death. He never converted and died a "Jew".

So your 'religion' is an invention about the Christ. It has little to do with Jesus' faith and what he preached. Your "religion" is identical in structure as the Roman Empire, complete with "vestial virgins" called "nuns" and "saints instead of lesser gods. Typically there are gods of love, hate, war, etc., Christianity has the same, only they proffess the same minor gods as 'patron saints'.

It's the same old pig, just new lipstick.

 

[NotreDame]

But it is relevant to the context of my claim in response to the OP. If someone believes that the Holy Ghost is God, and also believes that the Holy Ghost is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. If someone believes that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is not omniscient, then they believe in a god that is not omniscient. Even if Jesus later gains omniscience, that doesn't change the fact that if He was God when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, and He was simultaneously not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour, then He was a god that was not omniscient when He said that He didn't know the day or hour. Therefore, belief in a god that is not omniscient has to be a part of Trinitarian theology in order for it to be consistent with the Bible. This was obviously the point that I was trying to make in my response to the OP.

Suppose someone were to ask whether one has to have superpowers in order to be one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I might point out that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe despite not having superpowers, in order to demonstrate the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger. If you were to make the pedantic argument that Iron Man is no longer an Avenger due to events in Endgame that I shall not spoil here, I would be unable to refrain from pointing out that because of the five-year blip, the events of Endgame don't happen until well into 2023. If I then go on to point out that Hawkeye is also an Avenger without superpowers, it is only because I am trying to veer back in the direction of the actual topic.

Your hang-up on the semantics of my claim that Iron Man is one of the Avengers is pure pedantry to begin with. Even if you were right about Iron Man no longer being an Avenger at the beginning of 2023, it still isn't incorrect to acknowledge that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Even though he was explicitly not an Avenger in Iron Man 1, and hadn't even heard of the Avengers yet, it is still a true statement that Iron Man is one of the Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. None of that is relevant to the point that superpowers are not required in order to be an Avenger according to the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Omniscient: omniscience is defined as propositional knowledge, of knowing only and all truths, while not necessarily having or including all non-propositional knowledge. Yes, God is omniscient…Since the day and hour are truths that the Father knows, and the Son does not, the Son is not omniscient according to Matt 24:36.

Again, while on earth at the time He made the comment. Jesus wasn’t the full canopy of deity on the earth in the fledge as He was in Heaven. Again, we know this by other verses where Jesus wasn’t aware John the Baptist died, He was unaware the fig tree didn’t produce fruit at the time, He hungered, had physical limitations, etcetera. In addition, He was on display as God the Son in Heaven during His transfiguration, which isn’t how He appeared at all other times on earth.

So, evidence for his omniscience post resurrection is He answered the query differently in Acts, rather than deny now knowing He admonished them it isn’t for Them to know, as opposed to saying it isn’t for Him or Them to know.

The other verses are in Revelation as He admonishes several times He is returning, coming “quickly.”

Those verses support He does know the date and hour post resurrection, and is therefore omniscient post resurrection and prior to coming to earth physically.

Therefore, belief in a god that is not omniscient has to be a part of Trinitarian theology in order for it to be consistent with the Bible. This was obviously the point that I was trying to make in my response to the OP.

All due respect, I didn’t read your posts in the thread. You interjected to my post about Jesus and omniscience with this entire background of your view in your head that you brought into the dialogue that I wasn’t aware of since, well, I never read your posts.

Regardless, I have an immediate answer. Jesus, as God in the flesh, had the full reservoir of His powers as a deity to exercise if he chose. He didn’t. Same for omniscience and William Lane Craig gave an excellent answer. https://www.worldviewsummit.org/amp/how-can-jesus-be-omniscient-and-not-know-certain-facts

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

So, evidence for his omniscience post resurrection is He answered the query differently in Acts, rather than deny now knowing He admonished them it isn’t for Them to know, as opposed to saying it isn’t for Him or Them to know.

Acts 1:6-7 does not establish that Jesus is omniscient. It doesn't even establish that He knows the day or hour. The fact that that particular verse does not explicitly establish that Jesus is not omniscient is not evidence of anything.

The other verses are in Revelation as He admonishes several times He is returning, coming “quickly.”

That doesn't even remotely indicate that he knew the day or hour. If someone says "I'll be there quickly," and then 2000 years later they still haven't arrived, that does not indicate that they knew exactly when they would arrive. If anything, it indicates the opposite.

Saying that He would be returning quickly also is not some new post-resurrection thing. He literally said He would be returning soon only two sentences before explicitly asserting His nonomniscience to that same audience.

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." -Matt 24:24

And even before that:

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” -Matt 16:27-28

Saying that he is coming back "quickly" does not at all indicate that he knew the hour or day.

And even if Dad did tell him the day or hour post-resurrection, that still isn't remotely the same thing as having omniscience.

 

[butterfly]

First, I’m not French. There’s a reason a Golden Dome is depicted.

Second, that you and every child on the planet can easily claim “gymnastics” isn’t impressing anyone.

Second, the best reading of the Greek is “but the Father alone.” Again, at the time only the “Father alone” knew. The Son did not have the knowledge while in the “likeness of flesh.” The Son isn’t commenting upon his knowledge at all times. Only the Father alone knew the dates at the time He made the remarks.



Irrelevant to my POV. I’ve never commented upon the Holy Ghost and isn’t necessary I do.

My focus is upon the claim the Bible said/established He is not omniscient. The verse of Matthew doesn’t establish Jesus is not omniscient but merely that Jesus, while flesh, did not have the knowledge.

Jesus, while in the flesh, did not exercise the full canopy of powers, authority, with His deity.
He was unaware of the season fig trees grew figs, He did not know John the Baptist had been killed and experienced hunger, pain, fatigue, etcetera.

Yet, at other times he exercised some of those powers. He saw Nathanael under a tree before ever seeing Nathael in person, He knew of Satan falling from Heaven like lightning, He knew Satan asked to sift Peter like wheat, and knew the thoughts of people.

I'm not trying to argue with your point which is directed to the post of another. But, I'm curious why you believe Jesus didn't know the season fig trees grew figs. Yes, I know the parable, It's just that unlike your other examples, the seasons of a fig tree were general knowledge in Jesus' culture.