Jesus = God = Omniscient....right?


#1

He said he does not know when the end of the world will be.


#2

Care to site a passage where he says this?

-ACEGC


#3

Basically it amounts to that Jesus is omniscient insofar as what He was sent to do. In other words, since He was not sent to reveal when the end of the world was, He did not “know” that. It’s like He did know it but He didn’t let Himself know it at the time.

You will get a better answer.


#4

hmm…still confused… but I must be off; I will return tomorrow.

edward_george, I will try to find it for you tonight.


#5

[quote=cardenio]Jesus = God = Omniscient
[/quote]

What about Jesus = Man ≠ Omniscient?

Seriously. I don’t know what it is like to be the Son of God, but I know humans are not omniscient. I believe Jesus was True Man as well as True God.

When Jesus became man he became non-Omnipresent. Jesus was only in one place at a time. When Jesus was on the cross he was only on the cross. I don’t think Jesus retained the other Omni qualities either, when he became man.

I don’t see how Jesus could in any way be True Man if he was Omniscient.


#6

That brings up the interesting point of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Angainor may not believe in the real presence, but Catholics do. Was Jesus present in more than one place during the last supper?

I think the best answer is that in His hypostatic union, Christ’s omni-qualities were conditional on whether He wanted them to work at that time.

In other words, He turned off omnipresence, but at the last supper He turned it on again or something. Similarly, I think He probably packed up all the divine knowledge He intended to reveal and then He turned that feature off too.

(as a side note… is the Second Person omnipresent? Or is it just the Third? Or the Third and the First? Or…)


#7

In essence Jesus is saying, it is not for us to know when, the Father has revealed all we need.

just my dos centavos.:slight_smile:


#8

[quote=as-a-child]In essence Jesus is saying, it is not for us to know when, the Father has revealed all we need.

just my dos centavos.:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Quite honestly, it always struck me as a fancy way to say just that too.

-Rob


#9

Jesus = One Person (2nd Person of Trinity) with TWO NATURES: a human nature, and a divine nature.

In his human nature, Jesus is not omniscient. In his human nature, he has only human knowledge. In his human nature, he can say, “The Father is greater than I.”

In his divine nature, Jesus IS omniscient. In his divine nature he knows all things. In his divine nature, he can say “The Father and I are One.”

With respect to the Last Supper, it is not a matter of being in two places at once, but rather of bringing two particular events in the space-time continuum into simultaneity. No problem at all for God.


#10

Jesus, as a human being, set aside the fullness of His divinity for a time, so as to be absolutely and completely one of us. He had to be taught to walk, to talk, to read and write, etc., etc. He hungered, thirsted, and got tired. It was the only way Jesus could both experience the fullness of humanity the way we do, and show us how to overcome our limitations.

Phil 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

After He rose from the dead Jesus re-embraced the totality of his divine self, because his life as a human was completed. Before He rose from the dead, Jesus had to open doors to enter rooms. After He rose from the dead He walked through walls, or simply appeared and disappeared.

Does that help?


#11

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Is there anything in this that can help us here?

It isn’t that He allowed Him to be killed: that was His will.

It wasn’t that he would be the thing that would save us: that is not a loss to God, it is an honor.

How did God the Father “loose” His Son? And is the answer to that at least part of the answer to this question?


#12

On this question of Christ’s knowledge, especially regarding the particular issue at hand, one must remember that Christ is not only in the Nature of God, but of Man, and so in His human nature He is able to (and does) grow in the knowledge and wisdom that pertains to being a Man. So when addressed about “the End” we see Him limiting His answer to what He knows as Man, because this is information that is not for mankind to know, only to be prepared for. As St. Augustine said, “It was no part of His teaching duty to make it [the day of the General Judgment] known to us.”

These two articles are helpful:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5793

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/jesusknow.htm


#13

[quote=as-a-child]In essence Jesus is saying, it is not for us to know when, the Father has revealed all we need.

just my dos centavos.:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Then why not say “It is not for you to know”? It would make him sound more honest. Not honest…voracious… ohh, I am gonna ace my vocab quiz tomorrow.


#14

[quote=Angainor]What about Jesus = Man ≠ Omniscient?

Seriously. I don’t know what it is like to be the Son of God, but I know humans are not omniscient. I believe Jesus was True Man as well as True God.

When Jesus became man he became non-Omnipresent. Jesus was only in one place at a time. When Jesus was on the cross he was only on the cross. I don’t think Jesus retained the other Omni qualities either, when he became man.

I don’t see how Jesus could in any way be True Man if he was Omniscient.
[/quote]

Or for that, be omniscient if He was true man :slight_smile:

IMHO, one of the problems here is that the Church is trying to say things that can’t in fact be said, simply because the language available has no resources to say them.

  1. Jesus is the Word Incarnate
  2. Jesus is a man like us in all things - sin only excepted.
  3. Jesus knows as God and as man
  4. Jesus is not to be split in two, or separated into a Divine slice and a human slice. There is only the one inseparable Jesus Christ, Who is God and Man, to the prejudice neither of His humanity nor of His Godhead
  5. Some of the attributes and activities of the Word Incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth are “economic” - that is, they are present in Him in the way that they are, because of the oikonomia, the dispensation and purpose, for which He was Incarnate - that is, to be the Redeemer and Saviour and Head of the fallen human race.
  6. Any theological account of Jesus has to be of a humanly credible Jesus - not of a “Superman” figure. Jesus is not the caped Kryptonian.

IOW, the Church can experience Christ - but she can’t decant Who and What He is into words; it is easier to know than to describe Him. She can describe aspects of What and Who He is, taking these aspects separately - but she can’t describe how He unites in His own Person things so utterly different from each other as “being man” & “Being God”. So any description of the knowledge of Christ is going to look very artificial - because the description, is not the thing described. She can analyse His knowing - but that is not the same as exercising that Divine yet human knowing. Some questions about Him, can be answered only by being Him.

So it’s easier to say what the problems in discussing the knowing of Christ are, than it is to come up with decent answers.

We’ve only had 1970 years to think about these things - maybe our remote descendants will understand them more deeply and fully ##


#15

RECANT!! RECANT!! I AM A MORON!!

[quote=cardenio]Then why not say “It is not for you to know”? It would make him sound more honest. Not honest…voracious… ohh, I am gonna ace my vocab quiz tomorrow.
[/quote]

The word I meant was veracious. I did figure that out before the quiz, though.


#16

Don’t read the Bible as a literalist, read it in its contextual sense. Jesus was telling his listenners that they do not need to know when the end of the world is in order to follow him and his teachings.In other words, it is a non-issue for faithful Catholic Christians.


#17

Jesus was always a dutiful Son–to His Mother AND to His Father.
He deferred constantly to the Father. . .remember, “Thy Will be Done, not Mine” he prayed in the garden.

Well, if Jesus and God the Father are both God, how does Jesus pray, “THY will be done, not Mine?” Wouldn’t they both have the SAME will, by your logic?

And as has been mentioned (probably by me, LOL) before, God CREATED time but exists outside of it (because a creator cannot exist IN a creation). Jesus, God/Man, exists outside of time AND because of His incarnation, birth, life and death ALSO existed IN TIME for 33 earth years. So, it would be perfectly logical for JESUS to speak of TIME (as a human, He had a “time” existence") but God the Father would be, in a sense, “Time-less”–since He never has and never will exist IN TIME. So–in a “time” question, it is the Father and the Father ALONE who can “know” the answer which basically ENDS TIME. Everybody else is or HAS BEEN along the time continuum (yes, the Spirit is existing in time NOW).

At the risk of terminal nerdiness, basically, all of us who are, or WERE, “in time” are incapable of knowing its end. Only the One who created “time” knows when the end will be.

Which does not make Jesus “less than” the Father, less than omniscient, etc. etc. We don’t argue that the Father is “less than” the Son because the Father never became incarnate man. . .as though because Jesus had the “human experience” He now has “more” than the Father–so certainly we should try not to make the mistake of thinking that because Jesus submits Himself to the Father that He is somehow lesser. . .

We’ll understand once we are “out of time” ourselves. . .one way or the other.


#18

[quote=Tantum ergo]Jesus was always a dutiful Son–to His Mother AND to His Father.
He deferred constantly to the Father. . .remember, “Thy Will be Done, not Mine” he prayed in the garden.

Well, if Jesus and God the Father are both God, how does Jesus pray, “THY will be done, not Mine?” Wouldn’t they both have the SAME will, by your logic?
[/quote]

One must be careful to avoid monotheletism :slight_smile:

The Will of the Three Divine Persons is identical - it also identical with God, because God is metaphysically simple. So all His attributes are identical with His Essence. We need to make the distinctions between Essence and attributes, and between attribute and attribute, because we are not simple.

The Will of the man Jesus, is not identical with of the Father - for one is man as well as God, and the other is not man at all, but God.

So Jesus has a Divine Will - and a human will. And therefore, not only two faculties of will, but two volitions or willings: two capacities for exercising His Will.

English, unfortunately, lacks the vocabulary to make the distinction between volition and will (and velleity, indeed) immediately clear: both things, the faculty and its exercise, are called “will”. As are others. This does not help in discussions with Calvinists - it leads to much misunderstanding.

And the two were in perfect agreement; because Jesus was perfectly integrated - unlike us. So, in one sense, a moral sense, He had one will; in another, the ontological sense, He had two. This distinction - or lack of it - caused a lot of trouble in the sixth and seventh centuries. ##

And as has been mentioned (probably by me, LOL) before, God CREATED time but exists outside of it (because a creator cannot exist IN a creation).

Well, He can do both - because He is transcendent as well as immanent. He is not confined by creation, though

Jesus, God/Man, exists outside of time AND because of His incarnation, birth, life and death ALSO existed IN TIME for 33 earth years. So, it would be perfectly logical for JESUS to speak of TIME (as a human, He had a “time” existence") but God the Father would be, in a sense, “Time-less”–since He never has and never will exist IN TIME. So–in a “time” question, it is the Father and the Father ALONE who can “know” the answer which basically ENDS TIME. Everybody else is or HAS BEEN along the time continuum (yes, the Spirit is existing in time NOW).

At the risk of terminal nerdiness, basically, all of us who are, or WERE, “in time” are incapable of knowing its end. Only the One who created “time” knows when the end will be.

Which does not make Jesus “less than” the Father, less than omniscient, etc. etc. We don’t argue that the Father is “less than” the Son because the Father never became incarnate man. . .as though because Jesus had the “human experience” He now has “more” than the Father–so certainly we should try not to make the mistake of thinking that because Jesus submits Himself to the Father that He is somehow lesser. . .

We’ll understand once we are “out of time” ourselves. . .one way or the other.

Nicely said :slight_smile:


#19

Gottle of Geer - YOU USED THE WORD VELLEITY!! I LOVE YOU!!

Anyway, here’s what I’ve got so far:

Jesus had the same problem we have: “what I want now” verses “what’s good for the people I love.” He was praying for love, because we, as humans, do not have the same capacity for love that God has (making pure altruism impossible for us). He was praying that his love for us would win over his “i really do not want to be crucified.”

How could Jesus set aside his full divinity? When he walked around was he 100% man and 50% God? If he set aside his divinity he could not have performed any miracles, etc. Unless, like Peter, he was just the medium God used to perform the miracles. Which would explain why he kept calling himself the son of man.

Ohh, this is all my fault. I was talking with my friend, and I used C. S. Lewis’s liar/lunatic/Lord argument, as explained by Peter Kreeft in the book Socrates Meets Jesus. I made the point that if Jesus was God, he probably had a pretty good idea, since God is omniscient.

But, if Jesus was 100% Man and 0% God as he got tired and opened doors, the liar/lunatic/Lord theory fails.


#20

[quote=edward_george]Care to site a passage where he says this?

-ACEGC
[/quote]

Matthew 24:36


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.