I brought this up in another fourm but thought I might get some more hits here.

Ive been reading Meier, Wright and Witherington lately trying to understand the Gospels and Christ better. In JVG by Wright he states:

"Jesus did not, in other words, 'know that he was God' in the same way that one knows one is male or female, hungry or thirsty, or that one ate an orange an hour ago. His 'knowledge' was of a more risky, but perhaps more significant sort: like knowing one is loved. One cannot 'prove' it except by living by it. (p. 653)"

My question is to anyone who agrees with this (or doesnt) - was Jesus born knowing He was God on some level or was it something that he became aware as He grew older? Did he understand that he had a role to fulfill and became more aware of his relationship to the Father as His ministry began to culminate in the Passion week? This seems to make sense to me as the Gospels show him as growing in wisdom etc.

Also, does Wrights view conflict with Witheringtons view of Jesus claiming to be Wisdom incarnate?

Thanks for any help.

Awesome topic! I'm sure I'll enjoy reading the responses to this thread. For starting it TWells...some pearls!

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here
Xmansmommy:

For starting it TWells...some pearls!

Thanks!

Welcome!

TWells, do you still have my answer that I sent you by email and can you post it here?

Dear Sir,

It has long been settled, probably 1500 or 1600 years on the doctrine of Christ's wills and the full knowledge of His Deity.

Whoever this fellow is that wrote this he is simply raising an old heresy on the confusion of Christ's wills, the human and divine. He's just doing it from a different angle.

Cordially,

Thomas

I think God did something to his mind to limit him in understanding who he was. It seems to me God kept him hiddened from public view for long periods, and from his own identity. I don't see how we can rightly know where his mind was between the years of 12-30, but we can know whatever it was, it was concerning Gods plan of salvation, or his Fathers business. This whole senerio is plain truth revealed that God and Jesus are two seperate beings, they are not one being. The father God has never been a baby in flesh or spirit. He is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. Christ has not been the same being, he was reduced to human flesh, vastly different from a spirit being.


Jesus had to be reduced in power and awareness of who he was. That was the only way he could endure being in the flesh for so long, keeping a relitively low profile, and escapeing satans notice while he was a child. Had he been in full power, his humanity would have been null and void.

Today @ 07:17 PM post located here
jpholding:

TWells, do you still have my answer that I sent you by email and can you post it here?

No problem, JP Holding said...

Practically speaking I am not sure Wright here differs from me in what I say at http://www.tektonics.org/mk1332.html -- this may be a function indeed of the "human nature" of Christ and it would also fit with some other ideas some have had, that for example, Jesus did not know that he could not sin. So it would affect SOME people's views of the Incarnation, but not in a direction that flows against what is already acknowledged as likely in other areas.

Do you think Wrights view clashes at all with Witheringtons view of Jesus as Wisdom incarnate? From what Ive gathered from Wright he seems to believe Jesus did become "aware" more as he got older.

Hey Thomas...

It has long been settled, probably 1500 or 1600 years on the doctrine of Christ's wills and the full knowledge of His Deity.

Whoever this fellow is that wrote this he is simply raising an old heresy on the confusion of Christ's wills, the human and divine. He's just doing it from a different angle.

Why do you believe his statement is heresy? It does seem to fit with Christs ignorance of certain things, such as the time of his vindication, who touched his hem etc. This type of view seems to make more sense than Jesus being simply the 'super God-man' and seems to be IMHO in line with Him emptying Himself.

In Christ......Travis

From reading the gospels, you can tell that He knew His calling at 12 at least and during His ministry knew He and the Father were one. Outside of that it is pure spectulation.

Thank you, Twells, I'm not one to keep old messages.

Do you think Wrights view clashes at all with Witheringtons view of Jesus as Wisdom incarnate?

Not really. Witherington doesn't go into the issue of why or how Jesus lacked knowledge on certain things; he could say all he does and agree with what Wright and I say. I don't know if he does.


Why do you believe his statement is heresy? It does seem to fit with Christs ignorance of certain things, such as the time of his

Thomas is overreacting the same way others have when they see the article of mine you referenced. They don't have a conception of how Wisdom/Memra had to divest itself of divine traits to enter into the world, lest the world itself be unmade and assume that it is contrary to the Chalcedonian definition (which it isn't -- for it is the same thing as saying Christ had two natures, one of which was often made inaccessible to the other). Jesus' lack of knowledge, and the things he did know of himself and others, are perfectly conistent with the divine nature opening a window as it were and giving the human nature the knowledge it needed.

Dear Travis,

Why do you believe his statement is heresy? It does seem to fit with Christs ignorance of certain things, such as the time of his vindication, who touched his hem etc. This type of view seems to make more sense than Jesus being simply the 'super God-man' and seems to be IMHO in line with Him emptying Himself.

In Christ......Travis

Dear Travis,

Because it implies there is a confusion of the wills, or maybe an absorption of the wills. Inversely it could present an incomplete incarnation, or a progressive incarnation. In this sense it could be similar to the concept espoused by Nestorius where he used he word incarnation but only to deny it's meaning.

You are correct that it would be in line with the unitarian conception of Kenosis, hence heretical.

Cordially,

Thomas

Why do you believe his statement is heresy? It does seem to fit with Christs ignorance of certain things, such as the time of his

Thomas is overreacting the same way others have when they see the article of mine you referenced. They don't have a conception of how Wisdom/Memra had to divest itself of divine traits to enter into the world, lest the world itself be unmade and assume that it is contrary to the Chalcedonian definition (which it isn't -- for it is the same thing as saying Christ had two natures, one of which was often made inaccessible to the other). Jesus' lack of knowledge, and the things he did know of himself and others, are perfectly conistent with the divine nature opening a window as it were and giving the human nature the knowledge it needed.

Dear Sir,

There is no overreaction or misunderstanding of the implication. God the Son divested himself of nothing in the incarnation, there are two natures and two wills, the human is in perfect submission and obedience to the divine.

What you are proposing is in contradiction to the Council of Ephesus, not Chalcedon.

The kenotic Christ of Eastern thought abandons His deity in the world in order to lead man, by His union and example, into the path of deification.

It is subordiantionism and anti-trinitarian and is biblically unsound.

Cordially,

Thomas

Indeed,

Because it implies there is a confusion of the wills, or maybe an absorption of the wills.

It implies no such thing unless you read it into the idea. Show me specifically how it indicates "confusion" (when it doesn't even make the wills at odds) or "absorption" (since it clearly bifurcates).

Inversely it could present an incomplete incarnation,

Could? Could? "Could" says nothing. Show me "does". A speceship "could" land in my backyard but that won't get me calling CNN. Orthodox Trinitarianism "could" lead to Arianism if someone overreacts and misreads and assumes. Let us have tangible evidence, not speculations and could bes and whispers in dark hallways. You used "could" at least 4 times and maybe more. If that's all that's needed then I will go and torch Josh McDowell's works because they "could" lead someone to an immature understanding of Christian faith and thereafter into apostasy.

There is no overreaction or misunderstanding of the implication. God the Son divested himself of nothing in the incarnation,

Oh? By the Chalcedonian definition, the human nature is a divested aspect of the incarnated Christ, lacking much that the divine nature possesses. Nothing? Indeed!

there are two natures and two wills, the human is in perfect submission and obedience to the divine.

No one questions that whatsoever and neither does Wright's explanation.

What you are proposing is in contradiction to the Council of Ephesus, not Chalcedon.

Citation, please?

The kenotic Christ of Eastern thought abandons His deity in the world in order to lead man, by His union and example, into the path of deification.

Does this kenotic Christ also maintain access to a divine nature?

It is subordiantionism and anti-trinitarian and is biblically unsound.

Not quite. Functional subordination has always been fully Trinitarian and Biblical. Ontological subordination IS an error. But this (and Wright) does not claim any sort of ontological subordination for it remains with the divine nature intact even as it is voluntarily not consulted or used. You may as well say one denies God's omnipotence when one speaks of Him not using his power as opposed to not having it.

Importing ideas not specified and founding arguments on "coulds" is the product of reactionary fear.

Hi All,

I believe the Son of God was emptied of all divine attributes at the incarnation, but somehow had faith according to His being the only begotten Son of God, that is according to His true relationship with God.

If Christ did not "know" He was divine, there is only one reason.

He was not divine. He let divinity go.

A divine being is omniscient, BY DEFINITION. An omniscient being knows all things.

The idea that Christ was 100% human and 100% divine is a contradiction. Nothing like that exists. It is a fallacy.

Christ did not have divine attributes while on earth. Testing for the presence of the attributes (nature, characteristics) of a thing is the means of identifying if something is that thing.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

o2bwise:
I believe the Son of God was emptied of all divine attributes at the incarnation, but somehow had faith according to His being the only begotten Son of God, that is according to His true relationship with God...
...A divine being is omniscient, BY DEFINITION.

Tony,

To say that a divine being is omniscient by definition and thereby prove that Jesus was not divine begs the question, IMHO. One could say : Jesus was not omniscient, but He was divine, and therefore divine beings are not necessarily omniscient.

I think I agree more with your first statement, that Jesus being the Son of God had more to do with His relationship to God than His attributes.

My understanding of the Trinity, particularly after studying Eastern thought on the subject, is that what is most important is the personal relationships between the Persons of the Trinity over and against whatever substance they share. In fact, I do not believe there is really any such thing as "substance," and therefore the creedal "homoousia" does not make sense to me. The way I conceptualize it, Jesus being divine flowed from His relationship to the Father and to the Holy Spirit -- He is God the Son and therefore divine. The Father said: "This is My Son..." and I think this is the sort of thing that eternally goes on, if you will.

And I think that is why through repentance (i.e. changing our mind) we can become children of God ... we conceptualize our relationship to God in a different way, we reconcile ourselves to Him, because He has shown forth grace in reconciling us to Himself, by calling us children in His Son Christ. It is all about relationships, not substance or attributes. God is love.

A few issues to deal with:

Tony,

What part of being divine negates being human? Mind you, I mean humanity before the fall, therefore sin and mortality do not enter into the picture.

I say there is nothing in being God that a priori destroys being human (that I can think of) with one exception.

TWells,

Note Luke 1:41 where John the Baptist in utero knew who Jesus was already before being born! Think about the significance of that, that John knew who Jesus was. What is the liklihood, then, that Jesus did not know who He Himself was?

We know He knew by the age of 12 (Luke 2:49), and there is no reason to assume He did not know before then.