/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Others have said that Jesus did know because all that the Father has also belongs to the Son. As the Father has knowledge of the hour, so the Son surely has the same knowledge?? But then his response about 'not knowing' would be dishonest.

"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father"

"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand." … etc so this suggests that the Son should be Omniscient, since knowledge is a real thing, a real power and property.

Maybe the hour has not been decided yet. And it is up to the Father to decide, and once it is decided then the Son would know. But this implies the Father and Son exist in some sort of temporal continuum, instead of an absolute infinite timeless present.

well i mean the whole of the incarnation is a paradox, that is kind of the point. But it could be said that since Christ through the incarnation emptied himself of the Glory of God he lack some aspects. However this does not affect the Christology of him being fully God and fully human. Because while fully human he rose from the dead and was glorified on Mt Tabour, it isn't mentioned but i would assume at this point he would have knowledge of the end.

This is some sort of "can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift" problem, isn't it?

>>615613

learning new things isn't possible for God since he already knows all things, his understanding is infinite and nothing is hidden from him, ever.

I want to be clear about my conception of God and who it is I worship. If I worship a created being who learns new things, then what am I even doing?

>>615616

it's more like, can a being be God without having all the qualities of God?

bump

>>615609

>God is all knowing

>the Son is not all knowing

>therefore the Son is not God

This is no different than saying God is all Good, finding a verse where the Son says he is not Good only the Father is good, and then concluding he is not God.

>>615897

Isn't that slightly different? In that Jesus was forcing them to confront the fact that, because he's good in the way God is (i.e. sinless), he is in fact God?

I feel as if this thread was made by a Muslim.

>>615913

im not referring to that actual verse which is very vague, I'm saying imagine a verse where he says directly "the Son is not good, nor any angel in heaven, only the father is good."

Such a verse would be just as powerful at disproving his divinity as "I am not all-knowing, neither are the angels, only the Father knows all." as per Mark 13:32

But for some reason people don't want to admit this.

>>615918

nope, not a fan of muhammad or his circumcision fetish

would like to know what's going on

>>615617

I'm not talking about God learning new things, in the divine nature of Christ i am suggesting he always knew these things. however as we are told in the scriptures he emptied himself for a time before being transfigured on Mount tabour. So Christ always had his divine nature but it wasn't fully realised until after the transfiguration. I'm probably committing some kind of heresy here but Christology is complicated sue me.

>>616086

Here is a video that attempts to give a historical contextual explanation. The language used in Matthew 25:1-13 and Revelation 19:7 seem to support the interpretation.

To much of a brainlet right now to give a theological response

>>616093

Thanks that actually helps a lot