PDA

View Full Version : The Omnipotence and Omniscience of Jesus



foudroyant
01-28-2014, 06:36 PM
A. The words defined
1. Omnipresent: the omnipresent God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
2. Omnipotent: (1) almighty, or infinite in power, as God or a deity (4) the Omnipotent, God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
3. Omniscient: (3) the Omniscient God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
4. Almighty: (1) having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God or a deity (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 41, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
5. Omnipotence: The quality of having all power (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible 4:595, omnipotence, A. H. Leitch).
6. Omnipotence: In God resides the power to produce and control everything that comes to pass. Nothing evades God's omnipotence (Dan. 4:35; Amos 9:2-3), and even the most minute things, such as the falling sparrow or the hairs of our head, are under his personal control (Matt. 10:30; Lk. 12:7). There is nothing accidental or incidental, and the thought of "omnipotence" merges easily into omnipresence (being present everywhere at all times) and omniscience (knowing all things) (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible 4:596, Omnipotence, A. H. Leitch).
7. Omnipresence is closely related to omnipotence and omniscience, that is, God who is everywhere is able to act everywhere, and he acts in infinite wisdom at every point because he knows all things. He has access to all places and all secrets. The omnipresence of God, therefore, is a source of comfort and strength to the believer (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible 4:597, Omnipresence, A. H. Leitch).

B. Matthew 6 - The Father sees in secret.
1. Richard Watson: It is also most worthy of our notice, that when this duty is enjoined upon us by our Lord, he presents the Divine Being before us under a relation most of all adapted to inspire that unlimited confidence with which he would have us to approach him: - "Pray to thy Father which is in secret." Thus is the dread of his omniscience, indicated by his "seeing in secret," and of those other overwhelming attributes which omnipresence and omniscience cannot fail to suggest, mitigated, or only employed to inspire greater freedom, and a stronger affiance (Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, Volume 2, page 495).
2. TDNT: He who penetrates all things regulates worship, Mt. 6:4, 6, 18 (5:991, pater, Schrenk).
3. TDNT: Hence the disciples are not to be as the hypocrites. They must not give, pray, or fast so as to be seen by men. On the contrary, these things are to be done by them in the concealment in which only God can see them, Mt. 6:2-4, 5, 16 (8:568, hupokrinomai, Wilckens).
4. Holman Bible Dictionary: Omniscience
The state of being all-knowing which theology ascribes to God. Though Scripture affirms God's immeasurable understanding (Psalm 147:5), God's omniscience is not a matter of abstract speculation. Rather, God's knowing is a matter of personal experience. God knows us intimately (Psalm 139:1-6; Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:4,6, 8). Such knowledge is cause for alarm for the unrighteous but for confidence for God's saints (Job 23:10; Psalm 34:15-16; Psalm 90:8; Proverbs 15:3; 1 Peter 3:12).
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?n=4710
5. Since the Lord Jesus is prayed to this would prove that He is omniscient (God).
a. NIDNTT: It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests made to god, it emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7-11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn. 14:13f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt, and prayer dies...In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
b. NIDOTTE: Prayer is, indeed a serious matter. It is regarded in the Bible as the most fundamental of all expressions of religion. It concerns the deepest feelings and most central motivation of the persons who are offering their prayer to their God, and it concerns the covenant relationship, with its blessings and sanctions, as the inevitable fabric of the living communion between the people and their God. To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God, who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef).
c. Side note: The above citations do no help to those who claim that the Lord Jesus is not God but He can still receive prayer. If the Lord Jesus is not omniscient then He wouldn't be able to judge every motive and thought each audible or silent prayer carries. Furthermore, if He were not omnipotent/Almighty then He may not be able to always act on all the prayers He receives.

C. Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18, KJV).
1. The Greek word pantokratwr is translated into English as "Almighty". In Revelation 19:6 the KJV translates it as "omnipotent" while the NASB renders it "Almighty". To be omnipotent (all-powerful) means the same thing as being Almighty.
a. NIDNTT: The term pantokratwr, the Almighty, the Lord of all, occurs both in connexion with OT quotations (2 Cor. 6:18; cf. Hos. 1:10; Isa. 43:6) and independently (Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). In both cases the title serves to describe the immense greatness of God. He has power over all men and all things (3:718, Strength, G. Braumann).
b. NIDNTT: To the OT phrase kyrios ho theos the author of Rev. sometimes adds an emphatic, solemn pantokratwr, All-Sovereign (Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:7; 19:6; 21:22; cf. Arndt, 613f.) (2:513,514, Lord, H. Bietenhard).
c. Danker: Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pantokratwr, page 755).
d. EDNT: almighty, ruler over all*
This interpretation of the epithet as "Yahweh the powerful" or "Yahweh the almighty" corresponds to the primary translation found in the LXX, kurios pantokratwr (3:11, pantokratwr, H. Langkammer).
e. Louw/Nida: (a title for God, literally 'all powerful') - 'the Almighty, the One who has all power' (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.7, pantokratwr, page 139).
f. Mounce: pantokratwr is a compound of the two Greek words meaning "all" and "power"-thus either "the Almighty" or "the all-powerful One" (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Almighty, page 15).
g. Thayer: he holds sway over all things; the ruler of all; almighty (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pantokratwr, page 476).
h. Vine: almighty, or ruler of all (pas, all, kratew, to hold, or to have strength) (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Almighty, page 40).

2. Matthew 28:18 teaches that the Lord Jesus possesses "all-power" in all places (heaven and earth) which is the same thing as being Almighty (see the definitions above).
a. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, ge, Sasse).
b. A.H. Leitch: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omnipotence (Matt. 28:18) (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible 2:92, deity of Christ).
c. Thayer: Christ, appointed by God the leader and lord of the citizens of the divine kingdom, is said to have all power in heaven and on earth, Mt. 28:18 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ouranos, page 465).
d. NIDNTT: The exaltation of the Son confirms that all authority (-> Might) has been given to him (Matt. 28:18) (NIDNTT 1:95, All, F. Graber).
e. NIDNTT: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to the Risen One (Matt. 28:18) (NIDNTT 2:194, Heaven, H. Bietenhard).
f. Vine: the power of one whose will and commands must be obeyed by others, e.g., Matt. 28:18 (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Authority, page 81).
g. Danker: the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
Of Jesus' total authority Mt 28:18 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, exousia, page 353).
h. TDNT: The inclusion of heaven and earth in the saving event in Jesus Christ means that no entity in heaven or on earth can possess autonomy: Mt. 28:18. By the resurrection all power has been placed exclusively in the hands of the risen Lord (5:518, ouranos, Traub).
i. NIDOTTE: Jesus Christ, after his resurrection, was given all power in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) (4:166, samayim, David Toshio Tsumura).

foudroyant
01-28-2014, 06:37 PM
3. Some may claim that since the Lord Jesus was "given" this power it proves that He is not God.
a. If God the Father created another omnipotent being then that means there are two that are Almighty. The Bible teaches there is only one Almighty God.
Those who believe the Lord Jesus is God can account for the fact that he was "given" all power in that He simply refused to always employ His omnipotence but those who deny the Lord Jesus is God are unable to satisfactorily explain that the Lord Jesus has (right now) all power - He is omnipotent/Almighty.
b. TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18-21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8 -> kenow 3, 661, 13-28, cf. the temptation of Jesus, Mt. 4:8 f. par. Lk. 4:5 f. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.
A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth". Cf. the proclamations of the heavenly King in Rev., e.g., concerning Alpha and Omega (5:895, pas, Reicke).
c. Leon Morris: He is making clear that the limitations that applied throughout the incarnation no longer apply to him. He has supreme authority throughout the universe (Pillar New Testament Commentary, page 745-746).
Footnote #28 on the meaning of exousia reads: It comes to mean "authority, absolute power" and is used here "of Jesus' absolute authority" (BAGD, 3).
d. TDNT: Here the phrase morphe doulou acquires its significance from the contrast on the one side with morphe theou and on the other with the title and dignity of kurios with which Jesus is invested at the end of the passage. It denotes the entry of Jesus into humanity, or more strictly what this means for Him in relation to the power and glory which He possessed and which He therefore renounced (2:278, doulos, Rengstorf).
Renounce: to give up or put aside voluntarily (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1215, Gramercy Books, c.1996).
e. Thayer: a most glorious condition, most exalted state; a. of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth: Lk. 24.26; Jn. 17:5 (where he is said to have been in the same condition before his incarnation, and even before the beginning of the world) (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, doxa, page 156).
f. Thayer: of God exalting, or rather restoring, Christ his Son to a state of glory in heaven; Jn. 7:39; 12:16, [23]; 13:31 sq.; 17:1, 5; Acts 3:13 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, doxazw, page 157).

4. The JW's affirm that the Lord Jesus is the Almighty (Matthew 28:18).
a. The JW's believe that God is Almighty (omnipotent):
He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. (Ge 17:1; Re 16:14) “All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him,” and he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” (Heb 4:13; Isa 46:10, 11; 1Sa 2:3) His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.—2Ch 16:9; Ps 139:7-12; Am 9:2-4 (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, God, page 968).
b. The JW's believe only God is Almighty (omnipotent)
Jehovah alone is all-powerful and able to foretell events accurately (Isaiah’s Prophecy—Light for All Mankind II, Jehovah Teaches Us for Our Good, Chapter 9, page 120).
c. What the JW's believe concerning the Lord Jesus:
Could the only-begotten Son receive even more power and authority? Following Jesus’ death on earth and his resurrection, he said: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” (Matthew 28:18) Yes, Jesus has been granted the ability and the right to exercise power universally. As “King of kings and Lord of lords,” he has been authorized to bring to “nothing all government and all authority and power”—visible and invisible—that stand in opposition to his Father. (Revelation 19:16; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26) God has “left nothing that is not subject to” Jesus—that is, with the exception of Jehovah himself.—Hebrews 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:27.
(Draw Close to Jehovah, "Christ the Power of God", Chapter 9)
d. Of course God will not be subject to the Lord Jesus. They are EQUALLY all-powerful (Almighty).


D. Acts 1:24-25
And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place (Acts 1:24-25, KJV).
1. See "Jesus as the heart-knower of all (καρδιογνώστης = omniscience)‏": http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?443-Jesus-as-the-heart-knower-of-all-%28%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B D%E1%BD%BD%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-omniscience%29%E2%80%8F

foudroyant
01-28-2014, 06:38 PM
E. 2 Corinthians 8:21
for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. (2 Corinthians 8:21, NASB)
a. Paul Barnett: Closely basing his words on LXX Prov 3:4, the apostle cites the important principle that his behavior in ministry must be open to the scrutiny of the Lord (i.e., of the Lord Jesus), but particularly of people. (The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, page 424)
b. Frank Matera: Here, however, Paul may be influenced by the Septuagint text of Proverbs 3:4 ("in the sight of the Lord, and of men," enwpion kyriou kai anthrwpwn; trans. Brenton). Thus, he acts honorably before the Lord (Christ), and the Lord is always aware of this. But unlike the Lord, human beings do not always comprehend Paul's honorable intentions. (2 Corinthians: A Commentary, page 198).
c. Gill: not only in the sight of the Lord: the same Lord as before, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is a diligent searcher of the hearts, and discerner of the thoughts, and observer of the ways and actions of all his people
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?bk=46&ch=8

F. Ephesians 4:10 (cf. Jeremiah 23:24)
1. To be able to "fill" the heavens and the earth (the universe) teaches that God is omniscient and omnipresent.
"Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD (Jeremiah 23:24, NASB).
a. NIDNTT: God hides himself from man, but man cannot hide from God. God is the Lord who fills heaven and earth (Jer. 23:24). Everywhere man is surrounded by God's presence; God's eye sees even in the darkness, nothing is hid from him (Ps. 139:7-12, 15; Sir. 39:19). To flee from God, as the case of Jonah shows (Jon. 1:3), is therefore a hopeless quest. Above all, human sin is not hidden from God (Jer. 16:17). There is no gloom or darkness where evildoers can hide themselves (Job 34:22; Sir. 17:15, 20). Sinful man is therefore threatened by God on every side (2:215, Hide, W. Mundle).
b. Mounce: Because God is omnipresent (Jer. 23:24b), he "sees" all things. "Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?" (Jer. 23:24a); he also sees the tears of his people (Isa. 38:5). As God interacts with humans his sight is an ever-present reality; worship is literally called, "being seen at the face of the LORD" (Deut. 31:11; 1 Sam. 1:22) (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, See, page 623).
c. NIDOTTE: In Jer 23:24 the omniscience of the Lord is expressed by the question: Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?" (3:1009, r'h - see - Jackie A. Naude).
d. NIDNOTTE: "Heaven and earth" is used to describe God as the only God (Deut 3:24), omnipresent (Deut 4:39; Jer 23:24 etc.) (4:160, samayim - heaven, sky, David Toshio Tsumura).

2. The fact that Christ is able to "fill all things" proves that He is omniscient and omnipresent (cf. Jeremiah 23:24).
He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things (Ephesians 4:10, NASB).
a. TDNT: V. 10 shows wherein the unlimited power of Christ has its basis in His all-comprehensive descent and ascent, which took place so that He might fill all things. The context suggests that fill is to be taken here along the lines sketched under C. This statement is transferred from God to Christ (6:290-291, plerow, Delling).
-> TDNT: C. God as the One who Fills the World in the Old Testament and Judaism.
That there are no limits to God's knowledge Jer. 23:24 bases on the fact that He is omnipresent. Fig. one might say that His eye reaches to every corner (6:288, plerow, Delling).
b. Thayer: Christ, exalted to share in the divine administration, is said to fill (pervade) the universe with his presence, power, activity, Eph. 4:10 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, plerow, page 518).
c. NIDNTT: Citing Ephesians 4:10 it applies "to Christ the OT statement that Yahweh fills heaven and earth. This is the consequence of the thought of Eph. 1:10 (cf. Col. 1:16, 20) that every created thing has its goal in Christ and has no independent existence apart from him" (2:195, Heaven, H. Bietenhard).
d. Danker: Of Christ, who passed through all the cosmic spheres Eph 4:10 (cp. Jer 23:24) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, plerow, page 827).

G. 1 Peter 2:25
For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls (1 Peter 2:25, NASB).
1. See "Peter: The Worship of the Lord Jesus": http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?442-Peter-The-Worship-of-the-Lord-Jesus

H. Revelation 5:6
And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth (Revelation 5:6, NASB).
a. TDNT: But the Lamb overcame death (5:5-6) and is omnipotent and omniscient (5:6) (1:341, Lamb, J. Jeremias).
b. EDNT: In Revelation hepta plays an important role as an expression for the totality and fulness of God and his eschatological acts (2:47, Seven, H. Balz).
c. Mounce: Where symbolism is implied (e.g., the numerous uses of seven in Revelation), the number apparently serves as a symbol for fulness or completion (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Seven, page 638).
d. TDNT: On the seven horns (5:6) as a symbol of full power, keras, and on the seven eyes cf. Zech. 4:10 (the "seven eyes" of God) (2:633, Seven, Rengstorf).
e. TDNT: In accordance with the symbolical meaning of the number seven (hepta) and of the figure of the horn, the seven horns of the Lamb express the divine plenitude of power (3:670, keras, Foerster). This is cited verbatim in the NIDNTT 3:715 (Strength, H.G. Link, J. Schattenmann)
f. Vine: it generally expresses completeness, and is used most frequently in the Apocalypse (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Seven, page 1025).
g. Robert H. Mounce: While it is true that a slaughtered lamb obviously connoted sacrifice, the lamb in John's vision is now standing upright, having "seven horns and seven eyes" - symbols of perfect power and wisdom (The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Revelation, page 132).
h. Robert L. Thomas: Not only is He omnipotent, as indicated by His seven horns, He is also omniscient (Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary, page 392).
i. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: (4) Apocalyptic Use of Seven.
There cannot be a shadow of doubt that 7 for him expressed fullness, completeness (Number).
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?n=6400
j. The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia: Seven: The most sacred number (Numbers and Numerals).
http://www.studylight.org/enc/tje/view.cgi?n=11618
k. Number, Numeral: Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify completeness (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 510).

I. Revelation 5:12
saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing" (Revelation 5:12, NASB).
a. NIDNTT: In Revelation sophia is praised in two hymnic texts as an attribute of God (Rev. 7:12; cf. also Rom. 16:27); it is also to be attributed to the slain Lamb at his exaltation (Rev. 5:12). The exalted Christ has the same power and wisdom as God (3:1032, Wisdom, J. Goetzmann).
b. TDNT: In 5:12f. the angelic choirs extol the omnipotence of the Lamb in a seven-membered doxology (8:178, honor, J. Schneider).
c. Thayer: supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God: Rev. 7:12, also to Christ, exalted to God's right hand, Rev. 5:12 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, sophia, page 582).
d. Mounce: In a remarkable attestation to the deity of Jesus Christ, the apostle John records two doxologies in which what is ascribed to God (the Father) is also ascribed to the Lamb, who is Jesus the Son (Rev. 5:12, "Worthy is the Lamb to receive...strength"; 7:12, "Praise and ...strength be to our God forever") (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Strength, page 688).

J. The fact that the Lord Jesus is omnipotent and omniscient prove that He is God.

apostoli
01-31-2014, 08:45 PM
I. The fact that the Lord Jesus is omnipotent and omniscient prove that He is God.Slight problem in your eisegesis: scripture explicitly demonstrates that the Son is not omniscient (ie: all knowing). Mt 24:36 "“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only".

JohnnyP
01-31-2014, 09:37 PM
Slight problem in your eisegesis: scripture explicitly demonstrates that the Son is not omniscient (ie: all knowing). Mt 24:36 "“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only".

While it's my position the Son as God always had nature and access to all "God Omnis" of the Father (thought it not robbery to be equal to God), he chose not to exercise them until after his death, up to then only receiving what the Father gave him. Not only with your cite, but also not knowing if the Father would allow the cup to pass concerning his prayer in Gethsemane.

But later implies Jesus exercises all "God Omis" being equal to the Father in His Throne:


Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Revelation 5:12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

foudroyant
02-01-2014, 03:52 AM
Stephen J. Wellum: In regard to omniscience, biblical authors, including Jesus himself, also affirm that the Son grew in knowledge and that he did not know certain things (Luke 2:52; Mark 13:32). How one reconciles the tension between an affirmation of the omniscience and ignorance of the Son is one of the most difficult areas in christological reflection. It is no doubt tied to the nature of the incarnation - the relation of the Son to the Father in the state of humiliation as the Son obediently does and knows all that the Father allows him for the purpose of our redemption (John 5:18-47), as well as the Son's relation to the Spirit. For our purposes, it is crucial to note that one cannot do justice to the Scripture's presentation of Christ without acknowledging that it teaches simultaneously the growth of Jesus in wisdom and knowledge in his human nature and the omniscience of Jesus as God the Son (The Deity of Christ, Ed. Christopher W. Morgan, Robert A. Peterson, page 141).

You cited Matthew 24:36 and wrote "is not" (present tense). The Bible is crystal clear that RIGHT NOW Christ is omniscient. No one will ever fully (or even come to close) to understanding the goings on concerning the Incarnation. This is why it is best to stick with the passages concerning Christ's knowledge after His Ascension.

Danker: of Jesus as a boy Lk 2:40, 52. Of him as an adult Mt 13:54; Mk 6:2. Of the exalted Christ Col 2:3. - Rv 5:12 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, sophia, page 935).

apostoli
02-01-2014, 05:59 AM
The idea of the doctrine of Kenosis is a very recent development in Christian theology. Whilst it might be used to solve many a problem in thought, it is in direct conflict with the ancient contemplations and declarations of Chalcedon (ie: one hypostasis, two pyhses) which apply to the Son before and after the ascension (ie: Jesus remains both God and Man! And so retains whatever constraints such an amalgamation entails).

That aside: Romans 15:28 demonstrates that even after the resurrection the Son has conditional omnipotence (and presumably omniscience) = "And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him [the Father] that put all things under him, that God [the Father] may be all in all.".

foudroyant
02-01-2014, 08:13 AM
I think you meant 1 Corinthians 15:28 not Romans 15:28.
Functional subjection does not necessitate a limit of Christ's power.

a. NIDNTT: Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28) (2:80, God, J. Schneider).
1. co-ordinate: (1) of the same order or degree; equal in rank or importance (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, coordinate, page 321).
b. TDNT: On the use of "the Son": In this way the community avoids a unitarian concept of God on the one side and a doctrine of two Gods on the other. The theological concern of the later doctrine of the Trinity is thus protected. What can be pictured in this aeon only as a duality of God will be seen to be His unity in the consummation. Hence the Son does not possess a dignity alongside the Father and in competition with Him. He has his place within the one glory of God (8:371-372, huios, Schweizer).

Furthermore, if the Father gave the Lord Jesus the ability to be omniscient then by definition the Father would have created another God.
a. NIDNTT: Only God has infinite powers of knowledge and revelation (1:222, Blood, F. Laubach).
b. Omniscient: (3) the Omniscient God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).

In fact, if the Almighty gave the Lord Jesus the ability to be all-power (omnipotent) then by definition the Almighty would have created another Almighty.
a. Almighty: (1) having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God or a deity (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 41, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
a. Omnipotent: (1) almighty, or infinite in power, as God or a deity (4) the Omnipotent, God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
c. Omnipotence: The quality of having all power (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible 4:595, omnipotence, A. H. Leitch).

Revelation 19:6 For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns. (NASB)
Revelation 19:6 for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. (KJV)
Almighty = omnipotence

apostoli
02-03-2014, 09:14 AM
I think you meant 1 Corinthians 15:28 not Romans 15:28.
Functional subjection does not necessitate a limit of Christ's power.

a. NIDNTT: Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28) (2:80, God, J. Schneider).
1. co-ordinate: (1) of the same order or degree; equal in rank or importance (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, coordinate, page 321).
b. TDNT: On the use of "the Son": In this way the community avoids a unitarian concept of God on the one side and a doctrine of two Gods on the other. The theological concern of the later doctrine of the Trinity is thus protected. What can be pictured in this aeon only as a duality of God will be seen to be His unity in the consummation. Hence the Son does not possess a dignity alongside the Father and in competition with Him. He has his place within the one glory of God (8:371-372, huios, Schweizer).

Furthermore, if the Father gave the Lord Jesus the ability to be omniscient then by definition the Father would have created another God.
a. NIDNTT: Only God has infinite powers of knowledge and revelation (1:222, Blood, F. Laubach).
b. Omniscient: (3) the Omniscient God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).

In fact, if the Almighty gave the Lord Jesus the ability to be all-power (omnipotent) then by definition the Almighty would have created another Almighty.
a. Almighty: (1) having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God or a deity (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 41, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
a. Omnipotent: (1) almighty, or infinite in power, as God or a deity (4) the Omnipotent, God (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
c. Omnipotence: The quality of having all power (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible 4:595, omnipotence, A. H. Leitch).

Revelation 19:6 For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns. (NASB)
Revelation 19:6 for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. (KJV)
Almighty = omnipotenceOops! I did mean 1 Cor 15:28 which I at least quoted correctly.

The omnies are generally considered in orthodox theology to be a philosophical constraint placed on God by man and are not essential to his nature. All that can be said of God/the Godhead (and the Jews agree) is that it "is" - ie: an absolute.

Here is an article that discusses both sides of the issue, it might help bring you up to speed on Orthodox (Rcc, ROC, EOC etc) Trinitarian theology...
A Biblical and Theological Answer to the False Doctrine of Kenosis
https://bible.org/article/empty-god

foudroyant
02-03-2014, 01:28 PM
I appreciate the link that you sent. Thank you.

Part of it reads:
If we were to make an illustration of Jesus as if He were a policeman going under cover in a bad neighborhood, the Kenosis doctrine has the policeman leaving his weapons at home, along with his badge and other symbols of authority. He can call on headquarters for help, but he himself is helpless and defenseless. The orthodox teaching has the policeman himself as a "lethal weapon", he is a martial arts expert who can kill with a blow--he is skilled on the level that he can reach within a man's chest and pull out his still-beating heart--he can defeat multiple opponents. He can leave His I.D. , badge, uniform, etc., behind just like cop number one, but he cannot cease to be the walking weapon that he is. He looks normal, he appears as helpless as the first policeman, but he has the ability within himself to defend himself. He might choose to call for help; he might even choose to allow himself to be shackled, hurt or killed for the good of the mission--but he has the ability within himself to defeat his enemies. Raise that illustration, and the powers of the second policeman to infinity, and the illustration shows the difference in the two doctrines.
---------
I agree. Christ simply chose to not always exercise all His power. Refusal to always use does not necessitate innate inability to use. Perhaps this may be semantics but isn't that the same thing as laying aside His power? He simply chose not to employ the power that was His.

Also in the article it read:
(1) Omniscience--John 11:11-14 ("...when Jesus was fifty miles away...")14 John 2:24-25, 6:64, 70-71. As for the instances when He seems to be claiming ignorance, they have to do with Him speaking from His humanity, and taking our place, and involve a complete understanding of the orthodox teaching concerning the relationship between the Divine and Human in Christ, which will be discussed in section IV.

Where is Section 4?


I've read parts of Paul Anderson's book "The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity" which I have found to be quite insightful.

apostoli
02-04-2014, 07:57 AM
I appreciate the link that you sent. Thank you. I agree. Christ simply chose to not always exercise all His power.You are most welcome. To me: the important points in the article are:

1. The kenosis of the Son refers to his divestment of the glory he had with his Father before the incarnation, which after the resurrection was re-established (cp. Jn 17:5; Phil 2:9-11) not the divestment of his ousia/physis as the Son of God (cp. Heb 1:3 where we read that the Son is an exact replica of his Father's hypostasis (the word used in the original Greek, this he cannot revoke (cp: Jn 12:45; 14:9)).

2. This kenosis we can emulate (cp. Phil 2:5) eg: if one were born a king, then he remains a king even if he has the appearance of a peasant (Aristotle once postulated that a king who becomes a slave was never a king by nature, but a slave who becomes a king, was always a king by nature. Have a think on that one ;-) So if we are of the elite, we can be a servant to everyone else but remain by nature amongst the elite...

apostoli
02-06-2014, 08:15 PM
Christ simply chose to not always exercise all His power.Whilst that may be true, from scripture it is self evident his prescience was restricted...again I'll cite Mt 24:36 "“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only".

From a Trinitarian perspective there is no problem in such an observation. As I said before: the omnies are simply philosophical speculations that constrain God/the Godhead, they have no impact on its ousia/physis (essence/nature).

There are numerous texts in the OT that demonstrate that the God of Israel was not omniscient or at the minimum was forgetful...

foudroyant
02-07-2014, 02:39 AM
See Post #6

Please supply the clearest text from the Old Testament in which you think the God of Israel was not omniscient.

apostoli
02-08-2014, 06:11 AM
See Post #6

Please supply the clearest text from the Old Testament in which you think the God of Israel was not omniscient.Lets start with Genesis 3:9, where we learn YHWH elohim didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding...

One thing you need to learn is the difference between omniscience (a retrospective) and prescience. Jesus did demonstrate a limited degree of prescience (eg: the fall of Jerusalem) but nothing more than any intelligent person might predispose over a wide time frame given the history of the region.

Given we have been waiting close to two thousand years for the coming of the kingdom, I am of the opinion that it will arrive when we are ready for it! ie: when we divest ourselves of the concept of "God/s" and instead embrace the concept of the universal family and, via Biblical metaphor, accept our adoption by the Father via the mechanism of us being the bride of his only true Son...

ps: Note the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples did not begin with "Dear God" but "Our Father..."

JohnnyP
02-08-2014, 02:58 PM
Lets start with Genesis 3:9, where we learn YHWH elohim didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding...

I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg

foudroyant
02-08-2014, 03:26 PM
ps: Note the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples did not begin with "Dear God" but "Our Father..."

But they also addressed the Father as δέσποτα in Acts 4:24 and "Lord" in Acts 4:29.
And both of these are also applied to the Lord Jesus.

apostoli
02-08-2014, 06:08 PM
I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpgA valid comment, but consider how it was that "God" did not know that mankind and certain angels would become degenerative, causing "God", as if in surprise, to irrationally lose his temper and wipe out all living things upon the earth (apart from those he set apart on the Ark).

apostoli
02-08-2014, 06:15 PM
But they also addressed the Father as δέσποτα in Acts 4:24 and "Lord" in Acts 4:29.
And both of these are also applied to the Lord Jesus.But if you are a Trinitarian, then you accept Jesus is not the Father...and all attributes, attributed to Jesus are at the grace of the Father...including his resurrection (Acts 2:32, 4:10, 10:40, 13:30,37; Rom 10:9 " if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved").

JohnnyP
02-08-2014, 07:47 PM
A valid comment, but consider how it was that "God" did not know that mankind and certain angels would become degenerative, causing "God", as if in surprise, to irrationally lose his temper and wipe out all living things upon the earth (apart from those he set apart on the Ark).

The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.

apostoli
02-09-2014, 01:51 AM
The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.In my view, it is necessary to read what is written and not read into the text our own imaginings. For instance: for whatever reason God chose the scum of the earth to be his biblical heroes eg: Abraham who for the sake of self preservation attempted to prostitute his wife (who was in fact his sister). David who broke most of the ten commandments - a statutory rapist, adulterer, murderer etc who usurped the high priesthood and had himself worshiped as God (1 Chronicles 29:20). In the case of Abraham we read of God's intervention after the event. In the case of David - well ultimately his linage was condemned and his temporal throne ceased to exist.

Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...

foudroyant
02-09-2014, 04:17 AM
I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg


Agree.

The same thing can be said of Genesis 22:12.
He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (NASB)

Please see Steven C. Roy's "How Much Does God Foreknow: A Comprehensive Biblical Study" (page 180)
Norman Geisler speaks of the difference between cognition and demonstration.
There is nothing here [in Gen 22] about God's desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chr 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. By passing the test, Abraham demonstrated what God already knew: namely that he feared God. ("Creating God in the Image of Man?", Norman Geisler, page 88).
Geisler gives an illustration of a math teacher who might say to her class, "Let's see if we can find the square root of 49." Then, after demonstrating to her class what the square root of 49 is, she declares, "Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7." And she could legitimately say this even though she knew the correct answer all along. Geisler comments, "Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, "Now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God." (Ibid.)

foudroyant
02-09-2014, 06:52 AM
From "The Finished Mystery" on Revelation 5:6 in application to the Lord Jesus (page 100):
Having seven horns.- Perfect power. "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." - Matt. 28:18; 1 Sam. 2:1, 10; Deut. 33:17; 1 Ki. 22:11.
Having seven eyes.- Perfect wisdom. "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." - Col. 2:3; Zech. 3:9; 4:10; Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 2 Chron. 16:9

apostoli
02-10-2014, 04:16 AM
The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.
Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for your speculations, you are simply relying on innuendo and wishful thinking.

The options are simple:

1. God created mankind (and all creation) to be defective and knew it would fail, so in the pursuit of vainglory set up a plan to redeem it, or...
2. God created mankind (and all creation) in perfection, but given the allowance of free will, God was not able to constrain their excesses (which demonstrates God is not omnipotent) and so destroyed all living things (except for the very defective creatures he preserved on the Ark, who simply perpetuated the problem).
3. God created mankind (and all creation) in perfection, but given the full scope of free will had allowed creation free reign with no direct interference in their choices.
4 etc etc

Read the OT! God is depicted as being hapless...reacting to one problem after another, and without consistency...(well apart from mass extermination of one society or another)...

Don't get me wrong. I believe that God exists, but probably not the pagan God most follow. I believe in the Father who sent his only begotten Son to save the world...and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds...and is received by us via the Son...

apostoli
02-10-2014, 04:28 AM
Agree.

The same thing can be said of Genesis 22:12.
He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (NASB)

Please see Steven C. Roy's "How Much Does God Foreknow: A Comprehensive Biblical Study" (page 180)
Norman Geisler speaks of the difference between cognition and demonstration.
There is nothing here [in Gen 22] about God's desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chr 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. By passing the test, Abraham demonstrated what God already knew: namely that he feared God. ("Creating God in the Image of Man?", Norman Geisler, page 88).
Geisler gives an illustration of a math teacher who might say to her class, "Let's see if we can find the square root of 49." Then, after demonstrating to her class what the square root of 49 is, she declares, "Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7." And she could legitimately say this even though she knew the correct answer all along. Geisler comments, "Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, "Now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God." (Ibid.)The failure of this argument is that there were no third non-aligned party witnesses to the event. Woopy do, Abram proved himself to God but nobody else!!! A good tale for Bedouins to tell around the camp fire (nb: According to my Muslim neighbors, it was Ishmael who Abram attempted to sacrifice, not Isaac - they have a party each year on their particular feast day).

We have this scenario of proof of faith throughout the OT. Either God knows someone's faithfulness or he doesn't!!! Unless such faithfulness is witnessed by a third non-aligned party then your retort fails...

foudroyant
02-10-2014, 12:12 PM
Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...


Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NASB).
a. Keil and Delitzsch: and of His understanding there is no number, i.e. in its depth and fulness it is definable by no number. What a comfort for the Church upon its often labyrinthine and entangled ways! Its Lord is the All-wise as well as its Almighty (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, page 409).


Why then does Psalm 147:5 teach the omniscience of God?
If you are going to diminish the omniscience of God then why not His omnipotence? Is He the "Almighty"?


Wasn't Isaac a witness to the event with what took place with Abraham?

Why is the Greek word kardiognwstes properly defined as being "omniscient"?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?443-Jesus-as-the-heart-knower-of-all-%28%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B D%E1%BD%BD%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-omniscience%29%E2%80%8F

JohnnyP
02-10-2014, 02:14 PM
Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...


Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for your speculations, you are simply relying on innuendo and wishful thinking.

Of course there is scriptural support for God knowing the future, it's called prophecy! :whack: Haha.

apostoli
02-11-2014, 03:11 AM
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NASB).Simple poetic rhetoric with no substance.

All Ps 147:5 demonstrates is that YHWH is infinitely compassionate, not that he is prescient. Compassion is a consequence of a retrospective viewpoint. Read all of Ps 145 and stop mining...


a. Keil and Delitzsch: and of His understanding there is no number, i.e. in its depth and fulness it is definable by no number. What a comfort for the Church upon its often labyrinthine and entangled ways! Its Lord is the All-wise as well as its Almighty (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, page 409).More fantastical commentary that has no basis in fact. Ps 147:6 states "The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground", which is a wishful thought that has no substance in history. Ps 147:2 says "The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel" and we all know from both the biblical and historical witness how many times Jerusalem fell, and we know from the NT that the "outcasts of Israel" have been thoroughly outcast...


Why then does Psalm 147:5 teach the omniscience of God?Well it doesn't! Read all of Ps147 and get a clue!!!


If you are going to diminish the omniscience of God then why not His omnipotence? Is He the "Almighty"?Trick question! How is it that God the Father is reliant on his Son to save the world??? How is it that Revelevation tells us that the Son and the Father share a throne, from which the waters of life flow?

Whilst I might agree that God is omnipotent (which automatically presumes he/they are omniscient and omnipresent), I would advocate, given human history, he/they have never exercised this faculty...



Wasn't Isaac a witness to the event with what took place with Abraham?Nope! According to scripture he was the traumatised victim. In any case the worlds majority religion, Islam, reckons it was Ishmael who Abraham attempted to offer as a human sacrifice. There is an interesting debate amongst Jewish scholars concerning how prevalent human sacrifice was in early Hebrew culture. There are a couple of pointers in the OT that it was practiced...


Why is the Greek word kardiognwstes properly defined as being "omniscient"?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?443-Jesus-as-the-heart-knower-of-all-%28%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B D%E1%BD%BD%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-omniscience%29%E2%80%8FThe Greek word means "heart knower". Which is not a precursor to prescience but a retrospective (knowledge after the fact). If you wish to contend with this observation then realise you are accusing God of fore-knowledge of man's fall ie: man was setup to fail from the start...

apostoli
02-11-2014, 03:33 AM
Of course there is scriptural support for God knowing the future, it's called prophecy! :whack: Haha.:whack: Haha. Well God seems to be very human in his predictive failings. For instance: he didn't foresee the corruption of the Levites, the Judges, the Davidic kingship, the moral, financial and social bankrupcy of Israel as a result of Moses' ordinances etc... Apart from the fall of Jerusalem (several times) which anyone could have predicted, I can't think of any supposed prophecy that has as yet come to fruition, including the coming of Christ which the Jews were totally unprepared...

I need to clarify the last comment: In the OT there are indicators but not predicators (predictives). It might be enlightening for you to observe that not once did Jesus directly reveal himself as the Christ to any Jew, including his disciples - looking at A.Peter's declaration they had to come to discovery via revelation. It is also note worthy that Jesus explicity revealed himself as the awaited Messiah to a group of Samaritans - the first mass conversion we find in scripture...

foudroyant
02-11-2014, 05:09 AM
1. Psalm 147:5 - You supplied zero sources while insisting that Keil and Delitzsch got it wrong.
2. You "might" agree that God is omnipotent? Just a simple answer of "yes" or "no" will suffice. I hope that isn't too difficult for you.
3. Isaac being a traumatized victim does not mean he wasn't aware what was taking place. Islam says it wasn't Isaac? Just another proof that Islam is wrong. Why you would even appeal to Islam concerning this is troubling.
4. So the TDNT, NIDNTT and Danker all affirm that "heart-knower" means omniscient but you say it doesn't. Any sources (besides your opinion) to back you up on this?
Furthermore, this complete knowing of the hearts of all people not only pertains to the present and the past but also to the future:
Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).

apostoli
02-11-2014, 09:36 AM
1. Psalm 147:5 - You supplied zero sources while insisting that Keil and Delitzsch got it wrong.For a start omniscience is not equivalent to prescience. Go read a decent book on theology and get an understanding of what the issues are. At the moment you seem to advocate that God (the Father) created all things for a known failure...

2. You "might" agree that God is omnipotent? Just a simple answer of "yes" or "no" will suffice. I hope that isn't too difficult for you.The omnipotency of God is a philosophical conclusion not a demonstratable fact!


3. Isaac being a traumatized victim does not mean he wasn't aware what was taking place. Islam says it wasn't Isaac? Just another proof that Islam is wrong. Why you would even appeal to Islam concerning this is troubling.Isaac under Jewish law would not be considered a reliable witness. In fact Jewish scholars argue about whether the event actually took place or was simply a polemic against human sacrifice...

The fact I brought Islam belief into the discussion is that they hold that it was Ishmael that Abram attempted to sacrafice - which has more plausibility given Ishmael was the eldest son, thus heir to all that Abram possessed.

The argument for Isaac is based on God's promise to Sarah.

Simple fact: the Jewish nation fell into steep decline and on face value YHWH's promises to Abram were never fulfilled but YHWH's promise to Abraham concerning Ishmael is self evident to this day "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (such a promise was never fulfilled and remains unfulfilled, except in possibly a spiritual sense)

"As for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation (such a fulfilled promise is historically self evident)." (Gen 17:19-20).

Now, I'm not a fan of Islam, but I am also not a fan of Sunday school polemics...


4. So the TDNT, NIDNTT and Danker all affirm that "heart-knower" means omniscient but you say it doesn't. Any sources (besides your opinion) to back you up on this?
Furthermore, this complete knowing of the hearts of all people not only pertains to the present and the past but also to the future:
Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).It would be useful for you to understand what you read. If someone knows someone else's heart then they can predict that one's actions. Doesn't make the observer omniscient just a good psychoanalyst...

That aside: you in your blindness and deafness (Is 6:10 etc) haven't realised that none of your arguments prove God to be prescient...from a philosophical and poetic perspective I'll grant him omniscience but I haven't as yet encountered a scripture that would grant him prescience...If you don't know the difference, do some study...

foudroyant
02-11-2014, 11:13 AM
The omnipotency of God is a philosophical conclusion not a demonstratable fact!

As you are in error concerning the omnipotence of God so too you are in error concerning His omniscience.

Concerning παντοκράτωρ
a. NIDNTT: The term pantokratwr, the Almighty, the Lord of all, occurs both in connexion with OT quotations (2 Cor. 6:18; cf. Hos. 1:10; Isa. 43:6) and independently (Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). In both cases the title serves to describe the immense greatness of God. He has power over all men and all things (3:718, Strength, G. Braumann).
b. Danker: Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pantokratwr, page 755).
c. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, gee, Sasse).
d. Louw/Nida: (a title for God, literally 'all powerful') - 'the Almighty, the One who has all power' (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.7, pantokratwr, page 139).
e. Mounce: pantokratwr is a compound of the two Greek words meaning "all" and "power"-thus either "the Almighty" or "the all-powerful One" (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Almighty, page 15).
f. Thayer: he holds sway over all things; the ruler of all; almighty (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pantokratwr, page 476).


So much for the God's omnipotence not being a demonstrable fact.
-------------------------------
Concerning knowing someone's heart your example doesn't even come close. God knows the TOTALITY of the hearts of ALL people.

Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it (Psalm 139:6, NASB).

Can you supply the name of any person who is able to attain this knowledge that David couldn't attain (Psalm 139:4, 6)?

apostoli
02-12-2014, 05:34 AM
Can you supply the name of any person who is able to attain this knowledge that David couldn't attain (Psalm 139:4, 6)?Sure! Jesus Christ!!! Even the Muslims believe the Son of Mary (they call him Isa) will come to judge the living and the dead.

As for your other ignorant comments and reliance on philosophic speculators it seems you still have not contemplated the difference between omniscience and prescience...

I've come to the conclusion from our discussion that you adhere to a gnostic perception of God...and that God created all things with a view to failure, so he could puff himself up with vainglory. Might work for the pgan religions but such an opinion is totally opposed to Christianity. Are you a Christian?

foudroyant
02-13-2014, 01:52 AM
Sure! Jesus Christ!!! Even the Muslims believe the Son of Mary (they call him Isa) will come to judge the living and the dead.

As for your other ignorant comments and reliance on philosophic speculators it seems you still have not contemplated the difference between omniscience and prescience...

I've come to the conclusion from our discussion that you adhere to a gnostic perception of God...and that God created all things with a view to failure, so he could puff himself up with vainglory. Might work for the pgan religions but such an opinion is totally opposed to Christianity. Are you a Christian?

Yes, Jesus Christ has knowledge that David couldn't attain because He (Jesus Christ) is omniscient (God). BEFORE we even speak He knows. So much for Him not knowing the totality of everyone's heart in terms of future prayers. The more you write the worse your position becomes.

Your delusions of towering so far above Danker, Mounce, Thayer, Louw and Nida and Braumnann are noted. Good thing we can depend on you to come along and straighten them out.

apostoli
02-13-2014, 01:29 PM
Yes, Jesus Christ has knowledge that David couldn't attain because He (Jesus Christ) is omniscient (God). BEFORE we even speak He knows. So much for Him not knowing the totality of everyone's heart in terms of future prayers. The more you write the worse your position becomes.I'm now wondering if your loyalties are to Islam. The Quaran says that Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein. Seems a sentiment you share!!! On second thoughts, you are probably an adherent to oneness Pentecostalism (Sabellianism) - a cult that has been rejected by the orthodox churches since its arise and rejection in the 3rd century. Read the Gospel of John and if you pretend to be Christian get an understanding of Christianity...


Your delusions of towering so far above Danker, Mounce, Thayer, Louwand Nida and Braumnann are noted. Good thing we can depend on you to come along and starighten them out.Obviously you still haven't made the effort to determine the difference between omniscience and prescience. Scripture is emphatic Jesus in certain respects did not have prescience - he only knew whatever his Father would reveal to him...

No demerit in his Godhood, simple fact of the scriptural witness.

As for your "experts" consider they each simply parrot each other on the basis of a philosophic perspective. The typical crap you get from masters and doctorate pursuits. Not long ago I read one of these guys that advocated that Mary was somehow inseminated (albeit, in his opinion, not by sexual penetration) by a priest named Simeon...

Imo, and experience, your selective quotation of phrases and sentences, which I perceive you have plagiarised from some ignorant source, indicates you have done no independent research. Its a technique the JWs (WBTS) use to fool ignorant people...Why do you employ their tactics and rhetoric whilst you criticize them? At least try to show some originality!

foudroyant, there is at least 1700 hundred years of discussion you could read. I've only read the first several hundred years, and a bit after. In my opinion you would be considered aberant by all the early fathers of the church...

apostoli
02-13-2014, 02:44 PM
Your delusions of towering so far above Danker, Mounce, Thayer, Louwand Nida and Braumnann are noted. Good thing we can depend on you to come along and starighten them out.ps: Thayer, whilst a brillliant grammarian was a Unitarian, so he would not have supported your aberrant opinion! In fact I doubt if anyone with a knowledge of scripture would support your naivety!!!

foudroyant
02-17-2014, 02:28 AM
ps: Thayer, whilst a brillliant grammarian was a Unitarian, so he would not have supported your aberrant opinion! In fact I doubt if anyone with a knowledge of scripture would support your naivety!!!

Prove your assertion that Thayer was a Unitarian.

apostoli
02-19-2014, 10:47 PM
Prove your assertion that Thayer was a Unitarian.No proof required. It is common public knowledge!!! Discontinue your colon inspection. Then get off your arse and do some personal study. Much better than plagiarizing hillbilly pamphlets...

ps: whilst you on the omniscient bandwagon: Which one of the 30+ theological definitions do you support. eg: Do you support the notion that if God is omniscient then he has an experiential knowledge of all things detestable to himself (ie: he does all that Satan does and has personal experience of all evil, including rebelling against himself).

foudroyant
02-20-2014, 01:21 AM
No proof required.

You make an assertion so I ask for proof and this is your response. Yeah just believe it because renowned theologian and scholar apostoli said so.

Pitiful to the extreme.

Good bye.

apostoli
02-20-2014, 08:53 PM
You make an assertion so I ask for proof and this is your response. Yeah just believe it because renowned theologian and scholar apostoli said so.

Pitiful to the extreme.

Good bye.Yes you are 'Pitiful to the extreme", especially in your laziness and ignorance.

In regards to Thayer and proof that he adhered to Unitarianisn, it is not a hidden fact, he was totally open in professing his beliefs, which raised huge concerns by various conservatives whilst he participated in the creation of the ASV. In fact just go into Google and you will find loads of rants against him and the ASV...try the following
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?source=search_app#q=joseph+henry+thayer+unit arian

Also hunt out Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII. The publisher explicitly warns that Thayer was/is a Unitarian saying "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes..."

I'm wondering if in your general laziness you have found the effort to determine the difference between omniscience and prescience. I trust you haven't! So it would seem a waste (but I'll do it anyway) to invite you to investigate the difference between the Greek words gnosis, epignosis & ginosko all of which are simply translated as "knowledge" in the KJV & others...but such does not convey their exact meaning...

RBerman
02-20-2014, 09:05 PM
Yes you are 'Pitiful to the extreme", especially in your laziness and ignorance.

In regards to Thayer and proof that he adhered to Unitarianisn, it is not a hidden fact, he was totally open in professing his beliefs, which raised huge concerns by various conservatives whilst he participated in the creation of the ASV. In fact just go into Google and you will find loads of rants against him and the ASV...try the following
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?source=search_app#q=joseph+henry+thayer+unit arian

According to some of those links you suggest, Thayer's links with Unitarianism are dubious at best.

http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/4634#.UwbdnmeYbMo

apostoli
02-21-2014, 12:07 AM
According to some of those links you suggest, Thayer's links with Unitarianism are dubious at best.

http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/4634#.UwbdnmeYbMoI just provided a suggested search text in Google...I only looked up one of the links Google listed, as it has always been my understanding that Thayer has always been criticised for his lack of orthodoxy, but not his ability as a Grammarian...

I've heard it argued that he was a Congregationalist at some stage, but the fact remains that it is on public record that he denied the Trinity, Eternal Torment and a few other things that orthodoxy promotes...

Borrowing from one thread: "We simply quote the "Publishers Introduction" to Thayer's famous lexicon: "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy." (Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII)"
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/wts.trinitybrochure_thayer.htm

Believe it or not!

Doesn't really matter, his Lexicon is considered redundant...

foudroyant
03-24-2014, 04:20 AM
Yes you are 'Pitiful to the extreme", especially in your laziness and ignorance.

In regards to Thayer and proof that he adhered to Unitarianisn, it is not a hidden fact, he was totally open in professing his beliefs, which raised huge concerns by various conservatives whilst he participated in the creation of the ASV. In fact just go into Google and you will find loads of rants against him and the ASV...try the following
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?source=search_app#q=joseph+henry+thayer+unit arian

Also hunt out Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII. The publisher explicitly warns that Thayer was/is a Unitarian saying "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes..."

I'm wondering if in your general laziness you have found the effort to determine the difference between omniscience and prescience. I trust you haven't! So it would seem a waste (but I'll do it anyway) to invite you to investigate the difference between the Greek words gnosis, epignosis & ginosko all of which are simply translated as "knowledge" in the KJV & others...but such does not convey their exact meaning...

Zero hard core evidence that Thayer was a Unitarian.

apostoli
03-30-2014, 05:35 AM
Zero hard core evidence that Thayer was a Unitarian.I don't know whether you are illiterate, intellectually challnged or a complete moron. Thayer's publisher warned in the introductory notes to Thayer's Lexicon that Thayer was a Unitarian! Also, that he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and numerous other orthodox doctrines is well attested by both his friends and foes...

As I remarked to RBerman, it doesn't really matter as Thayer's lexicon has long been considered redundant...

foudroyant
03-30-2014, 07:23 AM
I don't know

That adequately sums up the proof that you have that Thayer was a Unitarian.

Oh his publisher said so which means that must make it true. You have zero citations from Thayer himself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

You asserted that he was a Unitarian but like I wrote earlier you have ZERO hard core evidence.


In fact, when I read Thayer's Lexicon I see:

1. Matthew 28:18 Thayer: the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed, [generally translated authority]); a. univ.: Mt. 28:18 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, exousia, page 225).
Christ has all-power. He is omnipotent which is the same thing as being "Almighty".

2. Ephesians 4:10: Christ, exalted to share in the divine administration, is said to fill (pervade) the universe with his presence, power, activity, Eph. 4:10 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, plerow, page 518).
Christ is able to fill the universe with his power ->See #1.

3. Colossians 2:9: the state of being God (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, theotes, page 288).
Clear enough?

4. Revelation 5:12: supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God: Rev. 7:12, also to Christ, exalted to God's right hand, Rev. 5:12 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, sophia, page 582).
Christ has "supreme" intelligence. You can look up "supreme" if you don't know what it means.

5. Revelation 19:16: kurios kuriwn i.e. Supreme Lord. (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios, page 366).
See the second sentence from my comments in #4 to help you out.

apostoli
05-27-2014, 01:57 AM
That adequately sums up the proof that you have that Thayer was a Unitarian.

Oh his publisher said so which means that must make it true. You have zero citations from Thayer himself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

You asserted that he was a Unitarian but like I wrote earlier you have ZERO hard core evidence.


In fact, when I read Thayer's Lexicon I see:

1. Matthew 28:18 Thayer: the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed, [generally translated authority]); a. univ.: Mt. 28:18 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, exousia, page 225).
Christ has all-power. He is omnipotent which is the same thing as being "Almighty".

2. Ephesians 4:10: Christ, exalted to share in the divine administration, is said to fill (pervade) the universe with his presence, power, activity, Eph. 4:10 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, plerow, page 518).
Christ is able to fill the universe with his power ->See #1.

3. Colossians 2:9: the state of being God (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, theotes, page 288).
Clear enough?

4. Revelation 5:12: supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God: Rev. 7:12, also to Christ, exalted to God's right hand, Rev. 5:12 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, sophia, page 582).
Christ has "supreme" intelligence. You can look up "supreme" if you don't know what it means.

5. Revelation 19:16: kurios kuriwn i.e. Supreme Lord. (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kurios, page 366).
See the second sentence from my comments in #4 to help you out.To correctly quote myself (as opposed to your fabrication) "I don't know whether you are illiterate, intellectually challenged or a complete moron". On the evidence of your post/s, I've decided you are, to a major extent, all three!!! (although I presume you have some minor grasp in English comprehension).

foudroyant
05-27-2014, 02:02 AM
You make an assertion about what Thayer believed but when asked to offer evidence you cite what someone else said about him while I cited what he actually wrote!

Time for you to start growing a brain......at least one that can work.

apostoli
06-14-2014, 03:32 PM
You make an assertion about what Thayer believed but when asked to offer evidence you cite what someone else said about him while I cited what he actually wrote!

Time for you to start growing a brain......at least one that can work.Thayer once wrote that "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself", which puts you in a hole!!! Thayer may have had a similiar opinion to the Jewish philosopher/politician/Scribe Philo or for that matter the ancient Christian fathers Esuebuis,N, Eusibius,C, Novation, Athanasius, Basil the Great, the Gregories or any of the Nicene church fathers... you might start to grow a brain....at least one that can start to work. Might help you to start by reading Basil the Great and the Gregories who formulated much of the paradigm that the "modern" doctrine of the trinity is based on...

For a reality check (to see if you are actually a christian) read the Nicene Creed and see if you agree with it. If you disagree that (as christians) we believe in One God=Father and one Lord who is homoousios with the Father (=the Son, Jesus Christ), then we will all know where you stand!!!

foudroyant
06-14-2014, 03:41 PM
Citation please.

apostoli
06-14-2014, 03:48 PM
Citation please.Could do!!! But I'll let you get off your lazy ignorant butt and find it for yourself. It is a famous quote and one you should be able to find in a quick moment in your obvious aptitude in using Google,

ps:

Nice try at diversion...answer the following question I proposed earlier...

For a reality check (to see if you are actually a christian) read the Nicene Creed and see if you agree with it. If you disagree that (as christians) we believe in One God=Father and one Lord who is homoousios with the Father (=the Son, Jesus Christ), then we will all know where you stand!!! So what is your opinion?

foudroyant
06-14-2014, 04:12 PM
Another assertion without proof. You still haven't proved your assertion that Thayer was a Unitarian (Post #35). At best it's inconclusive (Post #44).

I don't feel compelled to respond to questions coming from an individual who doesn't have a clue as to how to properly cite his sources (Post #37 and #49). In addition to that when so much counter evidence gets ignored this lets me know that they are simply cuckoo and not worth responding to.

apostoli
06-14-2014, 09:31 PM
Another assertion without proof. You still haven't proved your assertion that Thayer was a Unitarian (Post #35). At best it's inconclusive (Post #44). And yet the public record and all Thayer's trinitarian critics refute your stance! (ie: the majority scholarly and informed opinion simply consider you in denial). As I suggested to RBerman, it doesn't matter what Thayer's opinion was, as his Lexicon is now considered redundant (ie: As manuscript discoveries (secular and otherwise) of modern times have enlightened our understanding of the dead languages, Thayer's understanding has been proved to be of little relevance).


I don't feel compelled to respond to questions coming from an individual who doesn't have a clue as to how to properly cite his sources (Post #37 and #49). In addition to that when so much counter evidence gets ignored this lets me know that they are simply cuckoo and not worth responding to.An interesting diversion which tells a lot. So you inadvertently admit you reject the testimony of Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul and the consensus of the Christian churches as admitted at the council of Nicea nearly 2000 years ago and has been supported ever since?

foudroyant
06-14-2014, 11:14 PM
Critics don't trump what Thayer wrote in his lexicon.

Omniskeptical
06-14-2014, 11:15 PM
Thayer's understanding has been proved to be of little relevanceSo you would prefer definitions in BAGD, even if they were crap. Thayer's was far ahead of its time.

Omniskeptical
06-14-2014, 11:21 PM
As you are in error concerning the omnipotence of God so too you are in error concerning His omniscience.

Concerning παντοκράτωρ
a. NIDNTT: The term pantokratwr, the Almighty, the Lord of all, occurs both in connexion with OT quotations (2 Cor. 6:18; cf. Hos. 1:10; Isa. 43:6) and independently (Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). In both cases the title serves to describe the immense greatness of God. He has power over all men and all things (3:718, Strength, G. Braumann).
b. Danker: Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pantokratwr, page 755).
c. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, gee, Sasse).
d. Louw/Nida: (a title for God, literally 'all powerful') - 'the Almighty, the One who has all power' (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.7, pantokratwr, page 139).
e. Mounce: pantokratwr is a compound of the two Greek words meaning "all" and "power"-thus either "the Almighty" or "the all-powerful One" (Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Almighty, page 15).
f. Thayer: he holds sway over all things; the ruler of all; almighty (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pantokratwr, page 476).


So much for the God's omnipotence not being a demonstrable fact.
-------------------------------
Concerning knowing someone's heart your example doesn't even come close. God knows the TOTALITY of the hearts of ALL people.

Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it (Psalm 139:6, NASB).

Can you supply the name of any person who is able to attain this knowledge that David couldn't attain (Psalm 139:4, 6)?Are there anytimes when the greek word is used in connection with Yeshu Christos.

apostoli
06-14-2014, 11:45 PM
Critics don't trump what Thayer wrote in his lexicon.It is a great pity you have no comprehension concerning Thayer. Historically, despite his personal opinion he is reputed to be a great grammarian of the Greek, to the extent that he is reported as often supporting translations of texts that undermined his own position. Imo, for this alone he should be acclaimed. But still, it is commonly reported, he to the end of his life rejected the orthodox position. As with Philo, Thayer seems to have accepted that the Son was another God, but not God properly so called.

apostoli
06-14-2014, 11:56 PM
So you would prefer definitions in BAGD, even if they were crap. Thayer's was far ahead of its time.Imo, Thayer's renditions are a good starter for a novice. Even in his lifetime discoveries were made that contradicted prior propositions and since that time more manuscript discoveries of everyday life in ancient times have enhanced our understanding of the meaning of words in the ancient languages. I like to emphasize the commonality of teaching of John 1:1 with the general Jewish Aramaic language of the first century AD. Every Jew in the first century (as well as those prior to and after) who attended synagogue would have been familiar with the Aramaic Targums commonly preached to explain the reading of the Hebrew reading of the Torah (which apart from an elite no one understood) concerning the Memra of YHWH (the Word of God=the messenger of God=the angel of the Lord).

foudroyant
06-15-2014, 03:14 AM
Are there anytimes when the greek word is used in connection with Yeshu Christos.

Never specifically but by implication. (Some claim Revelation 1:8 refers to the Lord Jesus but I am not [yet?] convinced).