The definition of omniscient is “having total knowledge; knowing everything.”

In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, why does Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) state that he doesn’t know the day or hour of his coming? Moreover, why is Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) affirming that only the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) knows the day and hour?



It is clear in these passages, that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) doesn’t have all knowledge, thus proving he cannot be omniscient. Several people will dismiss these clear passages, by stating that it was the flesh that was talking, thus limiting Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) of all knowledge. In response to this, I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier than the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? On the other hand, if the flesh does not limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), then the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) would certainly have knowledge of the day and hour. However, since Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), he does not know the day or hour.



KJV: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:



NRSV: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,



CLV: Revelation 1:1 The Unveiling of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gives to him, to show to his slaves what must occur swiftly; and He signifies it, dispatching through his messenger to his slave John,



KJV: 1st Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Elohim; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.



NRSV: 1st Corinthians 15:50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Elohim, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.



CLV: 1st Corinthians 15:50 Now this I am averring, brethren, that flesh and blood is not able to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom of Elohim, neither is corruption enjoying the allotment of incorruption.



In Revelation 1:1, Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) receives a revelation from the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). If Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), how would he receive a revelation from the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, why does Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) state that he doesn’t know the day or hour of his coming? Moreover, why is Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) affirming that only the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) knows the day and hour?

It's called the economic appropriation of the Godhead, as part of the Doctrine of the Trinity

It is clear in these passages, that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) doesn’t have all knowledge, thus proving he cannot be omniscient.

No it doesn't - it only proves that the eternal decree didn't pass from eternity into time, and that He is God the Son and not God the Father.

Scripture teaches that there is true union in the incarnation, yet two natures that form the one person of Jesus Christ, being God of God and man of man. However, the determination of all things, the eternal decree of God, never passed from eternity to time, nor from God to man. Thus, the incarnation did not deify humanity or humanize deity - but is a true union of the two natures.

Several people will dismiss these clear passages, by stating that it was the flesh that was talking, thus limiting Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) of all knowledge.

No, not at all. It is God the Son that is talking, the one person Jesus Christ being God of God and man of man. As he states,

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away._But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

He is making omnicient statements concerning the Eternal Decree of God the Father - its right there in the text - "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." The Father has yet to fulfill this work, in time. He is, at this saying, in time - fulfilling the Fathers work appointed unto Him.

In Ecclesiastes 3 we learn there is an appointed time for all things, this particular time was appointed for the suffering of the Son, whereby in well doing, He would redeem those whom His Father gave Him in that eternal decree.

In response to this, I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier than the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

No, because it isn't. You just have a errant presupposition and are attempting to work it out through a false standard. Your demand that God's omniscience must meet your definition in eternity and in time.

However, since Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), he does not know the day or hour.

You would do better in saying "I don't believe in the Trinity and here is why" than proposing this false absolute from whence to supposedly support your presupposition. Because it doens't support your presupposition.

You are simply misinterpretating the statements in those Scripture as being ontological statements, when they aren't.

Thus, in the negative implication of your statements you are asserting that Jesus Christ cannot be God because these Scriptures don't establish the eternal decree in time.

That is just a false presumption based upon a non-trinitarian presupposition, which would necessarily hold a deification of humanity as a response to the premise, even if you held He wasn't fully God. This would result in the error of the Nestorians, because it would create an alternating consciousness; or on the other hand a kenotic conception of the incarnation - both of which are unscriptural.

Cordially,


Thomas

This is no different than saying that one is poor because one has no money in one pocket, though in the other pocket one has a billion dollars.

How can a single person at once be infinite and finite?

The book of Yirmeyahu, chapter 23, gives us the name of the mashiach, and that name is YHWH, our righteousness.

YHVH our righteousness, yes very glorious name/title. But it doesn't make one YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) to have such a name/title.

Yeshua/Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is YHWH.

And your proof for this blasphemy?

Yeshua forgives sins.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

As his followers.

Yeshua created the world

Incorrect, please provide Scriptures (Genesis-Malachi) or Passages (Matthew-Revelation).

Yeshua is worshipped by men in His presence.

Worship who and how: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eeeshgee...ship%20who.htm

Both the Tanakh and Ha'Brit Hadashah are quite clear on this, especially that latter, which is explicit on this issue, particularly in the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 1.

Where have you found that it is "quite clear" that Tanach teaches Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam)?

Ohhhhh, are you Muslim, then?

You should state where you stand when going into issues like this. Definitions of terms can be very important in discussions of theological matters, and a Messianic Jew using a term may mean something entirely different from a Muslim using the same term or word.

So, before anyone discusses anything further... Uriyah, where do you stand?

In my signature, click on "Apostolic doctrine" link to find out where I stand.

Today @ 04:25 PM post located here
Ani Uriyah:
In my signature, click on "Apostolic doctrine" link to find out where I stand.

I didn't ask for a list of proof texts for your specific view on this specific subject. I asked what your belief system is. You sound very Islamic (and so does the page you sent me to). That's why I ask.

The link (Apostolic doctrine) is my belief system.

The definition of omnipotent is, “having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all powerful.”

Acts 10:38 reveals that the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) anointed Yehoshua of Nazareth (Alav ha’shalom) with power. I pose this question to you, how can the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) anoint Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) with power if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipotent?



In Matthew 28:18, Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) declares that all power “was given” to him. If Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) was the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipotent, how could power be given to him? Wouldn’t he already have all power, if he was the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?



In 1st Corinthians 15:27-28, it says that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) will be subject to the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) then how can the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) be subject to another when he is omnipotent?



The above verses, plainly assert, that Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) . As in the case with the true Elohim’s (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) omniscience, some will state that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) was limited in omnipotence, due to him being in the flesh. In response to this, I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) ? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier then the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) ? On the other hand, if the flesh does not limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) , then the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) would not vary in his power/authority. However, since Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) , he does vary in power/authority.

Your signature line is too long AU... I do not want to selectively edit it, so please condense it. We do not like posts broken up by that much. I do not know how the system allowed such a long one as it should block it.

Okay, I made it shorter.

Thank you that is much much better.

Oh dear, more silly comments from people unfamiliar with the concept of a hypostasis...

It is clear in these passages, that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) doesn’t have all knowledge, thus proving he cannot be omniscient.

Beg pardon....

In ancient Semitic and Jewish thought, deities possessed hypostases, which were personifications of their attributes that allowed them to act in the physical world. The Greek Logos is similar, but not quite. In Jewish thought Wisdom was such a hypostasis.

Because the divine could not directly interact with the world, being that the full exposure of the deity's power to the world would destroy it (as for example, unholy men would be destroyed by touching the Ark of the Covenant) the hypostasis acted as an agent of action in the world for the deity. However, in order to interact with the time-space continuum without destroying it, the hypostasis had to relinquish powers and abilities associated with deity. And omniscience is one such ability (for it comes of omnipresence).

I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier than the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

Another silly comment. It's like asking whether not being able to pour 11 gallons of milk into a 2 gallon container makes the 2 gallon container "mightier" than the 11 gallons of milk. I think you anti-Trinners get this stuff off of cereal boxes. It sure doesn't come from considered study of the culture of the ANE.

I pity these sorts who think that their bare minimum of exposure makes them bright enough to read the texts in ways scholarship as a whole finds laughable. And then show off and pretend to have more authority and knowledge by using the original Jewish names for God and Jesus.

The word omnipresent means “present everywhere simultaneously.”

Now take a balloon, fill it up with water. Fill the balloon with as much water as possible, then, continue to tie the end of the balloon. Now answer the following question:



Can water proceed forth and come out from water? The answer is no. Since the water is everywhere in the balloon, the water cannot proceed out from itself. The water would have nowhere to proceed to, since where it would proceed to it already exists. The next verse deals with this issue.



NRSV: John 8:42 Yehoshua said to them, ‘If Elohim were your Father, you would love me, for I came from Elohim and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me.



TV: John 8:42 Yehoshua said to them, If Elohim were your Father, you would love me, for I came out of Elohim and arrived, I have not yet come from myself, but that one sent me.



The above verse deals with two issues, which clearly show that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) cannot be the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). The first issue deals with the analogy of the water and balloon. The second deals with the additional words ‘I have not yet come from myself’. Let’s deal with the first issue. Here, Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) says he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). Keeping the balloon analogy in mind, if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), can he state that he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipresent? If the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) dwells everywhere (omnipresent), how can the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) come out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Where would Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) come out to, if he is omnipresent? The second issue deals with the words ‘I have not yet come from myself’. If Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), and came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), he came out of himself did he not? How could Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) come out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), but not from himself if he is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

Uriyah, your posts seems to be cut and pastes. Could you please site your sources for us? As a general rule we don't allow simple cut and pastes.

Also, please respond to JP's comments on hypostases. If you can.

I would also point out your fundamental lack of understanding regarding the distinction between emmenance and trancendance. Which is just another way, really, of agreeing with JP.

Today @ 06:24 PM post located here
Ani Uriyah:

The word omnipresent means “present everywhere simultaneously.”

Now take a balloon, fill it up with water. Fill the balloon with as much water as possible, then, continue to tie the end of the balloon. Now answer the following question:

Can water proceed forth and come out from water? The answer is no. Since the water is everywhere in the balloon, the water cannot proceed out from itself. The water would have nowhere to proceed to, since where it would proceed to it already exists. The next verse deals with this issue.

Yeesh. More silly anti-Trinitarian questions.

The balloon is a limited space in a physical realm outside of which more space exists. God is not in physical space with space He does not occupy outside of that. God exists in dimensional transcendance beyond time and space as we know it. Your balloon just got filled with air and is now let go and flying all around the room making noises like gas.

Beyond that your analogy to the Trinity is false. As you state it:

God the Father = water
Jesus/Wisdom = water from the water

That's actually closer to modalism. The real analogy is:

God the Father = a star
Jesus/Wisdom = light of the star

Here, Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) says he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). Keeping the balloon analogy in mind, if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), can he state that he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipresent?

Yes. Do you plan on dealing with the hypostasis issue or not?

he came out of himself did he not

No. The hypostasis issue again resolves this. As an aside, you need to grasp that theos in the NT is NOT a proper name like we use "God" today. It is more of an abstract noun like "deity". Thus a hypostasis is "true deity" as it comes from deity and is part of its ontological composition.

Will we get past kindergartren anytime soon?