How was Jesus aware of His divinity?

[TWells]

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.

[Xmansmommy]

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

[TWells]

Today @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156367#post156367)
Xmansmommy:

For starting it TWells...some pearls! :thumb:

Thanks!

[Xmansmommy]

Welcome! :yipee:

[jpholding]

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

[Thomas2003]

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

[mickiel]

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.

[TWells]

Today @ 07:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156414#post156414)
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

[Marcus1962]

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.

[jpholding]

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

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.

[Thomas2003]

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

[Thomas2003]

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

[jpholding]

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! :huh:

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.

[o2bwise]

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)

[SaintMorpheus]

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.

[Jaltus]

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.

[AVmetro]

Today @ 02:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=158242#post158242)
Jaltus:

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.

I have never really thought about that before :smile:

God bless

[o2bwise]

Hi Saint Morpheus,

I'm not Trinitarian. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Not the Son of God the Father, but the Son of GOD.

I do not believe that God is His own Son any more than I believe that my father is me.

God Bless Ya,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Hi Jaltus,

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

Correct me if I am wrong, but where I am concerned, I think it is more pertinent had you asked:

What part of being human negates being divine?

Let me pose an analogy. Let's say some guy is somehow able to come back to earth as a dog, so as to minister to dogs as a dog.

A theology is adopted. When this person came as a dog, he was actually 100% human and 100% dog.

Now, as with Jesus being a man, this person SEEMED to be entirely canine. He had a tail. He had fur all about him. He was about as smart as a dog. He walked on all fours.

Now, I ask you. What would furnish as proof that this "being" was not JUST 100% dog, he was also 100% man?

What would you consider sufficient evidence?

I can only think of one thing. I would test this being for human attributes. Is he without a tail? Is he sparsely hairy? Is he loads smarter than a dog? Etc.

Now, you might claim this is an unfair means of assessment to which I ask:

What then is a fair means of assessment?

Regarding Christ:
He physically looked 100% human.

He increased in wisdom and stature and knew not the time of the second coming (was not omniscient).

He claimed that of His own self He could do nothing.

He was subject to death.

He was subject to temptation.

He was not omnipresent.

He was not ominipotent.


What is your mode of assessment, Jaltus?


I submit that the strong arm of orthodoxy denies the need for rational assessment.

It is, after all, "a mystery."


May God Bless,

Tony

[markporter]

"What part of being human negates being divine?

Let me pose an analogy. Let's say some guy is somehow able to come back to earth as a dog, so as to minister to dogs as a dog.

A theology is adopted. When this person came as a dog, he was actually 100% human and 100% dog.

Now, as with Jesus being a man, this person SEEMED to be entirely canine. He had a tail. He had fur all about him. He was about as smart as a dog. He walked on all fours.

Now, I ask you. What would furnish as proof that this "being" was not JUST 100% dog, he was also 100% man?"

I don't think this analogy works...you are comparing two different fleshly existences...with Jesus, as with humans I like to think of it as a spirit in union with flesh, or masked behind it somehow.....

[o2bwise]

Hi Mark,

I didn't intend to extend the analogy that far.

I only intended to extend it to the realm of having the attributes of both natures.

Where that is concerned, I believe I touched on this for what I intended the analogy to represent. In other words, Christ was not omniscient, not omnipresent, and not omnipotent. Or, to put another, way, He completely lacked divine attributes all the while He completely had human attributes.

Take Care...

Tony (o2)

[Xmansmommy]

Awesome thread!

[Thomas2003]

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).

I just read the quote you provided, from memory it said something on the line of "Jesus did not know He was God like you know you are a man or a woman."

This confuses the wills because it implicity denies that his human will was at all times in submission. That He was ignorant of His divine origin and nature in any real sense.

The whole concept proposed is a division of the incarnation thus an absorption of the deity, is the concept proposed - very similar to Nestorianism.

Could? Could? "Could" says nothing. Show me "does".

"Jesus did not, in other words, 'know that he was God' in the same way that one knows one is male or female"

That's "does." The "could" part was attached to meaning of the denial, not the denial.

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!

The Chalcedon Creed does not teach His human nature is a divested aspect of the incarnation - but rather that it is fully human. It is explicit - without confusion, without separation, without division, without mixture. There is no dispossesion there - He was fully human and fully divine.

Citation, please?

Ephesus condemned the worship of man. You are saying that the incarnation resulted in a divested God, that is to say a dispossesion of His deity. Very similar to the kenotic Christ I subsequently explained.

That leaves us with a partially divine man tackling the greek gnosis in the expansion of his being, not an incarnation of one person in two natures being both fully God and fully man. Instead of dealing with philosophy in terms of the incarnation, you are dealing with the incarnation in terms of philosophy. Reality is the incarnation, not mans knowledge.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15, 18

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

Functional subordination doesn't attack the incarnation. To say the Jesus Christ did not know He was God manifested in human flesh is the very epitomy of that which is called antichrist. 1 John 4

That's not reactionary fear - it's calling a spade a spade. You can't start at Scripture outside of the authority of God's revealed word, the purpose of the early creeds is to limit Biblical definitions to Biblical revelation.


Thomas

[TWells]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Jaltus,



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?



That's interesting and something that I had forgot about but I dont think that is really what Wright is getting at. I think Wright is speaking more about the nature of Jesus's knowledge of His divinity. That Jesus "knew" as we know we are loved and the way to show that was to simply live out that vocation and do it. That he wasnt simply God the Father walking around in a human body which seems to be how most percieve the incarnation. So I think I do agree with Wright but maybe not to the extent he takes it as I do have a hard time meshing it with John's Gospel. So back to my original question from what ive gathered whether one agrees with Wright or not, most do seem to generally believe that Jesus did become more "aware" as he got older and that he pretty much knew His purpose by the age of 12. I dont think its stretching it very far to say that this continued until he began His ministry "growing in stature and wisdom".

[Paulbarbee]

o2bwise


He claimed that of His own self He could do nothing.


Well, most humans don't claim this for themselves, they in fact claim to be able to do something of themselves, even if it's just breathing.

As for the dog analogy it would prove the dog were somehow "more than just dog" if he had fed 5,000 dogs at once or walked on water or something of that type and the only way the dogs could tell the history of the dog who was more than mere dog would be barking. At least with Jesus we humans had writing and were able to conveyhis works for all time.

[AVmetro]

O2bwise:

I'm not Trinitarian. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Not the Son of God the Father, but the Son of GOD.

I do not believe that God is His own Son any more than I believe that my father is me.

Anyway you cut it, both the above assume Unitarianism from the start. Yet that is the very thing under dispute. It's like the old WTS objection "How can God sit at the right hand of Himself?" seemingly unaware that this is more object to Sabellianism than Trinitarianism.

O2bwise:

A theology is adopted. When this person came as a dog, he was actually 100% human and 100% dog.

I too do not find this analogy to be the best. Man, afterall, was made in the very image of God. There's quite a difference between dogs and men. Christ is the image of God. The divine logos made flesh.
The doctrine of the hypostatic union is found clearly in scripture:

"There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and humans- a human, Christ Jesus." 1Tim2:5 - God's Word

"...and {Stephen} said, Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man {i.e. a 'man'} standing at the right hand of God." Act7:56 - Darby

..cf..

"Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, the One raising Him from the dead,.." Gal1:1 - LITV

..cf..

"For in Him all the fullness {plnrwma} of Deity dwells in bodily form". Col2:9 - NASB

I.e. fully man and fully God. Are the scriptures presenting us with a "contradiction"? Not at all.

I know we have touched on this before but I wasn't too clear on your objection(s). Could you clarify it again? Thanks.

O2bwise:

Where that is concerned, I believe I touched on this for what I intended the analogy to represent. In other words, Christ was not omniscient, not omnipresent, and not omnipotent. Or, to put another, way, He completely lacked divine attributes all the while He completely had human attributes.

Which would only fit the doctrine of the incarnation and the principle of Phil2:6. Some would even contend that Christ was not any or all of the above. However, I wanted to simply touch on one. Do you believe that Christ is currently not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.?

God bless

[o2bwise]

Hi Paulbarbee,

I guess I don't see your point with respect to Christ and feeding the 5000, etc.

Elijah raised someone from the dead. Did he have a divine nature since he did so?

Did Christ do what He did by faith? Or by reliance on Himself?

I think the breathing comment is such a stretch that I won't comment on that.


Hi Jaltus,

I do not see how you can contend that the hypostatic union is biblical. I propose that Christ had His divine attributes laid aside. They were no more. Now, how does this contention harmonize with the biblical record?

I think much better.

As for whether or not Christ has divine attributes presently, I tend to think not. I only base this on the Bible and the Bible ONLY. I am aware of only two verses that seem to suggest Christ's post-resurrection attributes.

One is Rev 1:1 where it is written that God gave the revelation of Christ to Christ. I wonder why God had to bother - unless Christ lacks full cognizance of the revelation of His earthly life. The other verse is in Rev 14 where the angel informs Christ that it is time to reap. Knowing that the literal second coming takes place when harvest is come and knowing that Christ stated He did not know the time of the second coming, it appears that He still does not know.

It is not a lot to go on, but these are the only Bible texts I am aware of that hint at what are (are not?) Christ's attributes, post-resurrection.

Perhaps you can share some other Bible text that talks of the same?

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[jpholding]

Here we go again! :shrug:

I just read the quote you provided, from memory it said something on the line of "Jesus did not know He was God like you know you are a man or a woman."

This confuses the wills because it implicity denies that his human will was at all times in submission. That He was ignorant of His divine origin and nature in any real sense.

"Implicitly" -- "could" -- not a single "does" in there. You're playing the same game of reading implications into what is said, with no justification whatsoever. NOWHERE does it EVER say, "His human will was sometimes/ever not in submission." Nor does that follow from saying "He was ignorant..." (which is not implied, either; what it does imply is that Jesus' self-knowledge came from outside his human nature, which is no "worse" than noting his ignorance of when the end of the age would be, or who touched him in the crowd).

I'm certainly glad you weren't serving Torquemada! You'd burn 3 out of 4 dentists at the stake just for looking at you funny!

The whole concept proposed is a division of the incarnation thus an absorption of the deity, is the concept proposed - very similar to Nestorianism.

As Trinitarianism is "similar" to Arianism. If guilt by association is your best call, you may as well hide in the corner from all of us thinking minds! There is also no "division of the incarnation" any more than there is in the two natures thesis.


That's "does." The "could" part was attached to meaning of the denial, not the denial.

Irrelevant. It is nevertheless gross supposition.

The Chalcedon Creed does not teach His human nature is a divested aspect of the incarnation - but rather that it is fully human.

If it is "fully human" then it obviously does not possess uniquely divine traits. Hence, it MUST be "divested" in some way or another with respect to the divine nature. It must LACK something the divine nature has, otherwise it is not a second and distinct nature.

Ephesus condemned the worship of man. You are saying that the incarnation resulted in a divested God, that is to say a dispossesion of His deity.

Here we go again! He reads it INTO what is said, then condemns it as heresy! The "divested God" (actually, the divested Wisdom of God -- you DO comprehend Wisdom theology, and hypostases, yes?) -- remains God in terms of IDENTITY. If Superman can fly through the air, he does not cease having Superman's identity when kryptonite keeps him from flying. You are confusing BEING God with FUNCTIONING AS God.

Very similar to the kenotic Christ I subsequently explained.

With the important difference that the Christ in this scenario retains his identity.

Instead of dealing with philosophy in terms of the incarnation, you are dealing with the incarnation in terms of philosophy. Reality is the incarnation, not mans knowledge.

Perhaps you should tell the authors of the NT, who used documents containing philosophical speculations about God -- which I would assume you believe were written by men, not God -- feel free to correct me! -- to describe how the Word/Christ related to the Father hypostatically. Thus:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15, 18

Take a guess as to where Paul go this language? Hmm --

Colossians 1:15a He is the image of the invisible God...

Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 (Wisdom is) a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.

Colossians 1:15b ...the firstborn over all creation.

Philo's reference to Wisdom as the "firstborn son" and offspring of God.

Colossians 1:16a ...by him all things were created..

Wisdom of Solomon 1:14 "for he created all things that they might exist"

Sirach 1:4 and Philo refer to Wisdom as the "master workman" of creation.

Colossians 1:17b He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Wisdom of Solomon 1:7 ...that which holds all things together knows what is said...

To say the Jesus Christ did not know He was God manifested in human flesh is the very epitomy of that which is called antichrist. 1 John 4

That's it, just throw the whole darned chapter out with no exegesis. And it's not "didn't know" but "didn't know the SAME WAY" we have knowledge about ourselves. Get it right! Then start getting specific on which 1 John 4 verses say this. Paranoid accusation is not sufficient.

That's not reactionary fear - it's calling a spade a spade. You can't start at Scripture outside of the authority of God's revealed word, the purpose of the early creeds is to limit Biblical definitions to Biblical revelation.

The word for the view you propond here is "decontextualization" or "Sola Scriptura Extremis". It IS reactionary fear, for it portends to shut the Bible off from its defining contexts to protect a favored point of view. If that is your view, I hope you have no lexicons in your household, because you'll go straight to damnation for reading them! :thumb:

Now try to find "dids" and not "coulds" -- let's get rid of the black helicopters and Bigfoot and deal with what is actually SAID.

[Thomas2003]

I just read the quote you provided, from memory it said something on the line of "Jesus did not know He was God like you know you are a man or a woman."

This confuses the wills because it implicity denies that his human will was at all times in submission. That He was ignorant of His divine origin and nature in any real sense.

"Implicitly" -- "could" -- not a single "does" in there. You're playing the same game of reading implications into what is said, with no justification whatsoever. NOWHERE does it EVER say, "His human will was sometimes/ever not in submission." Nor does that follow from saying "He was ignorant..." (which is not implied, either; what it does imply is that Jesus' self-knowledge came from outside his human nature, which is no "worse" than noting his ignorance of when the end of the age would be, or who touched him in the crowd).

Again, the quote says what it says, that Jesus didn't know He was God in His nature.

That's not an implication, it is an explicit denial of the incarnation.

If it is "fully human" then it obviously does not possess uniquely divine traits. Hence, it MUST be "divested" in some way or another with respect to the divine nature. It must LACK something the divine nature has, otherwise it is not a second and distinct nature.

The Scripture teaches what it teaches, no where is the incarnation presupposed in what He is not. The purpose of the creeds is to put a stop to philosophic meandering, His divine nature was never mixed to be divested.

The Scripture says let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay, you are addressing a sacred issue from a double negative

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matthew 5:37

Divest is a legal term, the only application one could make in regards to it and the incarnation would be to say, for example, that Christ was divested of His glory for a time, divested of His rights - but never as to His nature.

Ephesus condemned the worship of man. You are saying that the incarnation resulted in a divested God, that is to say a dispossesion of His deity.

Here we go again! He reads it INTO what is said, then condemns it as heresy! The "divested God" (actually, the divested Wisdom of God -- you DO comprehend Wisdom theology, and hypostases, yes?) -- remains God in terms of IDENTITY. If Superman can fly through the air, he does not cease having Superman's identity when kryptonite keeps him from flying. You are confusing BEING God with FUNCTIONING AS God.

I've read exactly what was said, Jesus Christ doesn't know He is God as to His nature, by implication using being male or female as an example. A person is male or female in nature, not merely function.

A divestiture has absolutely nothing to do with functioning. In no way was Christ dispossed of His deity.

Very similar to the kenotic Christ I subsequently explained.

With the important difference that the Christ in this scenario retains his identity.

Not if He is divested He does not

Instead of dealing with philosophy in terms of the incarnation, you are dealing with the incarnation in terms of philosophy. Reality is the incarnation, not mans knowledge.

Perhaps you should tell the authors of the NT, who used documents containing philosophical speculations about God -- which I would assume you believe were written by men, not God -- feel free to correct me! -- to describe how the Word/Christ related to the Father hypostatically. Thus:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15, 18

Take a guess as to where Paul go this language? Hmm --

Colossians 1:15a He is the image of the invisible God...

Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 (Wisdom is) a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.

Colossians 1:15b ...the firstborn over all creation.

Philo's reference to Wisdom as the "firstborn son" and offspring of God.

Colossians 1:16a ...by him all things were created..

Wisdom of Solomon 1:14 "for he created all things that they might exist"

Sirach 1:4 and Philo refer to Wisdom as the "master workman" of creation.

Colossians 1:17b He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Wisdom of Solomon 1:7 ...that which holds all things together knows what is said...

All truth is God's created truth. Just because a man can experience and test reality and extract truth from the creation and express it in terms of his own knowledge does not license a reductionist and negative attack upon revelation.

Peter quoted Virgil in Acts 4:12 and rightly so, the difference is it is by divine revelation that this man truly is the incarnation of God, this man Jesus Christ truly is "august."

I'm also familiar with Philo, it is his syncretic teachings that brought in a great many heresies into the Church, Paul was clear on his admonition concerning philosophical speculations of the word:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

That's it, just throw the whole darned chapter out with no exegesis. And it's not "didn't know" but "didn't know the SAME WAY" we have knowledge about ourselves. Get it right! Then start getting specific on which 1 John 4 verses say this. Paranoid accusation is not sufficient.


And your Scripture reference for Christ's nature and His knowledge regarding the incarnation, in a negative conclusion is? There are none.

That's not reactionary fear - it's calling a spade a spade. You can't start at Scripture outside of the authority of God's revealed word, the purpose of the early creeds is to limit Biblical definitions to Biblical revelation.

The word for the view you propond here is "decontextualization" or "Sola Scriptura Extremis". It IS reactionary fear, for it portends to shut the Bible off from its defining contexts to protect a favored point of view. If that is your view, I hope you have no lexicons in your household, because you'll go straight to damnation for reading them!

Now try to find "dids" and not "coulds" -- let's get rid of the black helicopters and Bigfoot and deal with what is actually said.

It looks plain to me,

" "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)""

Christ proved it. He claimed who He was, He told us He would be killed and would rise from the dead on the third day - He proved it by infallible proofs whereby even the Apostles were compelled to admit, My LORD and My God.

There is nothing in Scripture to frame a negative attack upon the incarnation, to frame a double negative to arrive at a better understanding of Christ.

If you want to understand Him better, go to the Chalcedon creed - it has the hedges established to keep a man's mind focused and meditated upon what Scripture teaches, not what Scripture does not teach being left to a logical deduction - which will lead you straight into a ditch.

Sincerely,


Thomas

[jpholding]

Here we go again,

That's not an implication, it is an explicit denial of the incarnation.

In other words, you have no actual answer, so you merely re-assert your original position. Not a surprise.

The Scripture teaches what it teaches, no where is the incarnation presupposed in what He is not.

And on he goes! It's never what he CAN find, but what he CAN'T; it's never what DOES but what COULD!

The purpose of the creeds is to put a stop to philosophic meandering, His divine nature was never mixed to be divested.

I.e., again mere re-assertion of your position without reply.

Divest is a legal term,

"Divest" is a word in the English language sometimes used legally. There you go again, assuming things. And again:

the only application one could make in regards to it and the incarnation would be to say, for example, that Christ was divested of His glory for a time, divested of His rights - but never as to His nature.

And this is in full accord with my position and Wright's, except by slopping all manners of could bes and maybees and paranoid accusations on top of it. As I said, thank thee much, Torquemada!

I've read exactly what was said, Jesus Christ doesn't know He is God as to His nature, by implication using being male or female as an example.

He doesn't know THE SAME WAY, which means by Wright's view that it was something he had to be informed of, just as he had to be informed of the end of the age and who touched him in the crowd. Now explain why one is heresy and the other is not.

Not if He is divested He does not

If he is divested of KNOWLEDGE he is NOT divested of identity. You remain unable to discern between identity and function.

and express it in terms of his own knowledge does not license a reductionist and negative attack upon revelation.

If there ever is one, I'll be sure and take note of it! :rofl:

I'm also familiar with Philo, it is his syncretic teachings that brought in a great many heresies into the Church, Paul was clear on his admonition concerning philosophical speculations of the word:

That's it, put your head back in the sand -- I know for sure now I'm dealing with one of those types, now that you've used this:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Pfft! Hack! You think this is against stuff like Philo's? Get educated! Paul's attack is on a specific heresy at Colosse that mixed Judaism with mystical, perhaps proto-Gnostic, speculations. The "basic principles of this world" refers to the spirits thought to represent stars and planets; elsewhere there are hints of belief in/recognition of demonic and heavenly powers; cf. Col. 1:16, 2;10, 2:15. In light of the context and what the heresy consisted of Paul is either sarcastically using the word that the heretics themselves used to describe their movement (In other words, either put "philsophy" in sarcastic quotes, or else put the qualification "so-called" in front of it), or else he is using the word as it was in this time with a broader meaning that included under its definition groups as diverse as the Essenes, the Pharisees, the Stoics, and even magicians. (You know how in some stories the magician has a "philosopher's stone"...? The famous Harry Potter book referring to a sorceror's stone carries the title with the words philsopher's stone in Britain, where the term is still used that way.) You're WAY down the scholarship scale, buddy.

And your Scripture reference for Christ's nature and His knowledge regarding the incarnation, in a negative conclusion is? There are none.

None is needed (though the lack of knowledge of the time of the end, etc is corollary support). Putting your head in the sand and saying "if it's not in the Bible it's not true" is an act of fear and ignorance.

Christ proved it. He claimed who He was, He told us He would be killed and would rise from the dead on the third day

And he got this knowledge, from who and how? And why did he LACK knowledge of the time of the end, and of who touched him in the crowd? Well? Back up your answer with Scripture.

If you want to understand Him better, go to the Chalcedon creed - it has the hedges established to keep a man's mind focused and meditated upon what Scripture teaches, not what Scripture does not teach being left to a logical deduction - which will lead you straight into a ditch.

In other words, in your hands, it is an instrument of fear and oppression. I know the Creed and I know what it says. It does not answer ALL questions and does not intend to. Nor does Scripture. if it did the Bible would be moved in a fleet of vans. As for logic, I remind you of Paul's admonition: "Test everything." If you are one who rejects thinking, as the Col. 2:8 abuse suggests, you are a worse influence than the worst atheist.

[o2bwise]

Has anyone explained how one with omniscience does not know something?

If so, simply cite the post.

Thanks!

Tony (o2)

[TWells]

In taking on the incarnation Jesus took on certain limitations (Phil 2) and as the Word/Wisdom of God if the event (such as His vindication) hadnt occured yet or if the Father hadnt decreed or spoke it then He would be ignorant of it.

[OldShepherd]

08-04-2003 @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166689#post166689)
o2bwise:

Has anyone explained how one with omniscience does not know something?

If so, simply cite the post.

Thanks!

Tony (o2)

Isaiah 55:8-9, Philippians 2:6-11. Your comment about omniscience is a "thought" about God, God already said that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. God can do what He wants to do, when He wants to do it, and how He wants to do it, and our insiginificant so-called laws of Physics, reason, logic, etc. mean absolutely nothing to him.

[Chanoch]

its funny the confusion between identity and attributes or abilities as defining a person - I am not primarily a philosopher, however, this is exactly the kind of problems we come across in the pro-abortion <> pro life debate.

Are your capabilities the defining attributes of your humanity? Keep in mind that the primary conclusion of limiting what you are to what you can do is this also defines you value - therefore justifying abortion.

Is it fair for me to compare the argument over how to define a persons humanity with the problem of deciding (I am sure he is waiting with baited breath to find out) Jesus' Divinity?

[OldShepherd]

08-04-2003 @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166689#post166689)
o2bwise:

Has anyone explained how one with omniscience does not know something?

If so, simply cite the post.

Thanks!

Tony (o2)

Has anyone explained how one with omniscience forgets something?
Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

[Chanoch]

Has anyone explained how one with omniscience forgets something?
Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

When someone tells you that their team killed the competition, do you dial 911?

Also, do respond to the concept of the kenotic christ please rather than repeating this sound byte ad nausium.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176559#post176559)
Chanoch:



When someone tells you that their team killed the competition, do you dial 911?

Also, do respond to the concept of the kenotic christ please rather than repeating this sound byte ad nausium.

After you, sir.

[Chanoch]

Today @ 08:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=177166#post177166)
OldShepherd:



After you, sir.

The kenotic christ (not the kenotic heresy please) does seem to deal with those verses that talk about Jesus not knowing things, there are plenty of informed articles that deal with this issue (and compare it with the heresy from Phil. 2:6-11. I take exception, however, with the usual quote about "Jesus not knowing who touched him in the crowd" since this verse is ambiguous - Jesus being a typical jewish teacher, it would not have been unusual for him to feign lack of knowledge in order to allow the woman to take responsibility - and thus absolve her of "stealing" healing from him. On the other hand, I dont have a problem with Jesus genuinely not knowing and searching for her in the crowd for the reason I state above.

My main issue with this argument is that I see several key arguments on human rights being won or lost on the issue of identity - in the area of abortion, on the treatment of war criminals, and so on - the argument usually comes down to what makes a person human (conciousness, ability to feel pain, autonomy) and can that humaness be surrendered (in the case of war criminals - "he doesnt deserve to be treated like a human, with the things he's done."

Let me say now, I am not yet convinced of a particular view - but i dont believe that an argument on abilities (even if you call them attributes) satisfactorily answers the identity question. can Jesus cease to be divine tho he (arguably) for a time does not manifest devine attributes or abilities?


are your abilities to read, write, walk, think, laugh, sleep what make you human?

[TWells]

Hey Jaltus,



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.



IMO, Johns kick in utero doesnt tell us anything concerning this matter other than the fact that Jesus was special in some way. If this was a sub conscious reaction to Jesus's divinity then its something he obviously forgot later on in life (John 1:29-34).

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203775#post203775)
TWells:

Hey Jaltus,

IMO, Johns kick in utero doesnt tell us anything concerning this matter other than the fact that Jesus was special in some way. If this was a sub conscious reaction to Jesus's divinity then its something he obviously forgot later on in life (John 1:29-34).

The scriptures you cited do NOT prove your argument. This is called "proof texting," citing one or two scriptures, out-of-context, disregarding all other scriptures, thinking the few verses prove the argument.

In Jn 1:29, John knew Jesus was the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. According to the Jewish leaders ONLY God can do that, Mk 2:7, Lk 5:21.

Note Isaiah 40:3, is a prophesy of the forerunner preparing the way for יהוה and all four gospels refer that to Jesus. Matt, Mark, and Luke identify John as the forerunner, and John identifies himself as the forerunner. In Matt 17:11-13, Jesus applies Isaiah 40:3 to Himself. Jesus IS the son of man, the son of God, and יהוה.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, [יהוה] make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4)

John 1:23 He [John the Baptizer] said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

Matt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

[o2bwise]

Hi Chanoch,

Also, do respond to the concept of the kenotic christ please rather than repeating this sound byte ad nausium.
This sounds like something I wouldn't be surprised if it rang from the ivory towers of the scribes and the pharisees.

"The kenotic theory."

Hmmm, perhaps submission to the Word and a desire to understand it, is not enough. I need to understand "the kenotic theory."

I have no idea what it is Chaoch. And I am inclined to presume it is not so important to this discussion. Maybe you could use english words that are a little more familiar to the average layman, that mean much what "kenotic" means.

You cited verses that referred to God forgetting this or that. I think they simply mean that our omniscient God, while still omniscient, simply does not hold our sins against us. He who knows the position of every atom in this universe, still is aware of every moral impulse every intelligent being, ever had.

Here is how I believe Christ became aware of His pre-incarnate Sonship to God, His Father.

By faith in the Word of God. I believe He saw things like the 70 week prophecy of Daniel. He saw Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, etc. I believe He somehow had a faith according to His intimate pre-incarnate relationship with His Dad and He knew, BY faith, that He is the only begotten Son of God.

By FAITH, not by SIGHT. Which is why Satan knew he could tempt Him on that point, i.e. "IF Thou be the Son of God..."

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[TWells]

Yesterday @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=204438#post204438)
OldShepherd:

[font=times new georgia][size=3]The scriptures you cited do NOT prove your argument. This is called &quot;proof texting,&quot; citing one or two scriptures, out-of-context, disregarding all other scriptures, thinking the few verses prove the argument.

And this is called "missing the point." Im not denying that John thought Jesus to be the Incarnation, nor am I saying that Jesus didnt believe himself to be divine.

My original question was what was the nature of Jesus's knowledge or understanding of His divinity. From what I understood Jaltus to be saying was that since John knew in utero something about Jesus that it extends to Jesus knowledge as well. To which my reply was that that incident doesnt tell us anything especially considering that John didnt realize who Jesus was as they grew up together and Jesus had to be singled out by the Father: "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." (v. 33).

[PioneerSDA]

Dear O2BWISE
I believe like you in that Christ is the literal Son of God born from Him in eternity equal with Him in nature and character and all the attributes of divinity but I disagree with you on what could be the most important doctrine to the Christian, the incarnation.

Where you believe that Christ stopeed having His divine nature simply because He emptied Himself of some of His Divine Attributes omnipresence being everywhere at the same time,omnipotence being all powerful,omnisence knowing all things, and immortality not being subject to death.

You used an anlogy to try and disprove that Jesus was one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man during his incarnation. You asked if man could come back as a dog to minister to dogs how would we know that he was one hundred percent human while looking like a dog and had the brain of a dog ecetera.

Your analogy makes me wonder what is a human, is it just a body and a brain. Has the false theory of evolution corrupted my thinking where a man is not more than this and the only thing seperateing the animal kingdom from human kind is our diferent attributes.

This is where most all people of every religion except darwinism and atheism would say that the diference between animals and humans is that humans have an immortal soul that is seperate from their body which includes the brain and seperate from their mind.

But I believe man's soul is as mortal as man is mortal and a man's soul is his mind, his character, his human nature, and that if God reincarnated which He doesn't reincarnate anyone except for Jesus. Anyways for the sake of your analogy. If God reincarnated any man as a dog with a dog's body even a dog's brain but gave him his human spirit/mind/character and even if he doesn't have the phisical abilities of humans and he doesn't even know what a human knows because he has a dog's brain he still reasons like a human reasons because he has his human mind. He is the only one who has free will where all the other dogs only have instinct. He is still made in the image of God because of his human nature,spirit/mind even though his body is that of a dog and even his brain is. This is similar to Christ's incarnation. He in herited our sinful nature when he became a human he had our instinct to be a sinner but he wasn't a slave to it nor ever followed it because he had a divine character, a divine nature, a divine mind that he brought with him, even if his human brain was fighting him trying to make him sin. His mind wouldn't let him. His character of love that only Him and His Father have. Yes that one guy was right because Jesus had the fullness of the Godhead while he was on earth proves he had the divine nature. "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." Colosians 1:19 Yes I saw you wrote a verse that is supposed to disprove that let's take a look at that. "And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." Ephesians 3:19 You said because we can have the fullness of God in us that proves that Christ could have had his divine nature on earth because we are just like Him. But wait a minute. If you looked up just two more verses to Ephesians 3:17 than you could see how it is possible that we can have the fullness of God in us. "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love." Ephesians 3:17 tells us that we have the fullness of God dwelling in us because we have Christ dwell in us. Since He gives us His divine nature to overcome sinning than that must mean that he still had his divine nature. Peter tells us a little more about this. Sorry for all of my mispellings but it is late and I have to get back home. "Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." 2nd Peter 1:4. My prayer for you and your family is Ephesians 1:17. I was also confused about Christ's incarnation this tract on this website helped me http://restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/2000/open_face_dec__2000.htm

[PioneerSDA]

Reply to all truth seekers!

I believe that Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God and not God himself or any part of God so I deny the trinity because it denies Christ's full divinity and makes Him out to be only one third divine. Jesus inherited all of His Father's Divine nature when he was literally born from Him in eternity before anything was created for the Wisdom of God created all things and was not himself created. I wanted to lay down this background information before comment on a very interesting quote made by a very interesting person.

[ If Superman can fly through the air, he does not cease having Superman's identity when kryptonite keeps him from flying. You are confusing BEING God with FUNCTIONING AS God.]quote from jpholding #28

If you are offended by secular/worldly T.V. shows because you righly believe they are against Christianity Philipians 4:8 than don't continue reading my post. I am not trying to promote watching T.V. but I was backsliding one day and watched a Smallville episode one time and I think it is a good example of how the Son of God emptied himself of all His Divine attributes knowing all things, having all power,being everywhere at once, and being immortal yet still kept His full Divine nature even though He gave up all His Divine abilities and became human. The episode I watched was how this teenage superman lost his superpowers, super strength, super speed, super laser eyes everything about him that made him a superman and made him become a regular man but him loosing his superpowers didn't change who he was or where he came from. No, He was still the Son of Kripton even though he lost his superpowers.

Please reply to what you think about what I said? Let's revive this very interesting forum. How was Jesus aware of His Divinity? writen by Twells

[Child_Of_Wisdom]

Hello

Was christ omnipresent before his incarnation? If he was the angel of Yahweh then he must have had a limited presence. Also if Christ was God regardless of his divine attributes what was it that made him God? Does the incarnation involve the angel of Yahweh being born through a woman? How can this take place? or was jesus the incarnation of the Holy spirit?

[InChristAlways]

Hello

Was christ omnipresent before his incarnation? If he was the angel of Yahweh then he must have had a limited presence. Also if Christ was God regardless of his divine attributes what was it that made him God? Does the incarnation involve the angel of Yahweh being born through a woman? How can this take place? or was jesus the incarnation of the Holy spirit?Hi Child of W. Well, God formed the first man out of dust, and the woman came from man. Jeremiah shows a "new thing" where a woman will emcompass a man. So I suppose if God could literally form a man out of the dust, and a woman from a rib, I suppose God can do just about anything.

Jeremiah 31: 21 " Set up signposts, Make landmarks; Set your heart toward the highway, The way in [which] you went. Turn back, O virgin of Israel, Turn back to these your cities. 22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man."

[keith]

Hi Chanoch,


This sounds like something I wouldn't be surprised if it rang from the ivory towers of the scribes and the pharisees.

"The kenotic theory."

Hmmm, perhaps submission to the Word and a desire to understand it, is not enough. I need to understand "the kenotic theory."

I have no idea what it is Chaoch. And I am inclined to presume it is not so important to this discussion. Maybe you could use english words that are a little more familiar to the average layman, that mean much what "kenotic" means.

You cited verses that referred to God forgetting this or that. I think they simply mean that our omniscient God, while still omniscient, simply does not hold our sins against us. He who knows the position of every atom in this universe, still is aware of every moral impulse every intelligent being, ever had.

Here is how I believe Christ became aware of His pre-incarnate Sonship to God, His Father.

By faith in the Word of God. I believe He saw things like the 70 week prophecy of Daniel. He saw Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, etc. I believe He somehow had a faith according to His intimate pre-incarnate relationship with His Dad and He knew, BY faith, that He is the only begotten Son of God.

By FAITH, not by SIGHT. Which is why Satan knew he could tempt Him on that point, i.e. "IF Thou be the Son of God..."

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Hi Tony,

I have been trying to get up to speed with this thread which is really interesting. It is hard to know where to jump in when there is a lot going on but since you mentioned kenotic theory that seemed as good a place as any.

You are dead right that this came out of the 'ivory towers' but from the German universities rather than literal pharisees. The phrase comes from Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 - 11 where Paul tells us that Jesus made Himself nothing or poured Himself out(the verb translates into kenosis). However, most commentators see this verse as referring to the humility of Christ and his role as the humble suffering servant. It is not an ontological statement.

The early extreme version of kenotic theory has pretty well been discredited now as it amounts to incarnation by 'divine suicide' as one critic put it. Personally I remain unconvinced by old style kenotic theory but the idea of condescension to humanity, of self limitation on the part of Christ does make sense and more to the point fits the witness of Scripture. As Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 8 verse 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor so that you through his poverty might become rich

This image of Christ becoming poor for our sakes is part of a bigger picture of the salvation story. He came from the glory, humbled himself even to death on a cross and is now exalted at the right hand of the Father. In the whole redemption process those who put their faith in him will share in his glory.

On the point about how Jesus knew he was the Son of God (and I take that to mean His divine status) I would agree that what we see is a life of faith and obedience - the temptation in the desert being a prime example. To that I would only add that it was the Holy Spirit who drove him into the desert in the first place. When we talk about Jesus as the Christ it is worth recalling that Christ means Anointed One. What anointing? The presence of the Holy Spirit. This could sound like adoptionism but as well as being filled with the Spirit more than anyone we are also told that he is Lord and in that wonderful hymn in Colossians chapter 1 we find that "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together"

Keith

[PioneerSDA]

Hello

Was christ omnipresent before his incarnation? If he was the angel of Yahweh then he must have had a limited presence. Also if Christ was God regardless of his divine attributes what was it that made him God? Does the incarnation involve the angel of Yahweh being born through a woman? How can this take place? or was jesus the incarnation of the Holy spirit? post #45

Dear Child Of Wisdom.

Thank you very much for replying to me. I sincerly hope that you and your family are blessed and that people are treating you right here on T.Web.

[Was christ omnipresent before his incarnation? If he was the angel of Yahweh then he must have had a limited presence.] quoted from Child of Wisdom

“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him.” Exodus 23 20,21 King James Version

“And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:” Exodus 14:19 K.J.V.

“Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them on their way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night:” Exodus 13:21 World English Bible

The Messiah is Yahweh’s only born Son who He gave birth to in eternity who helped Him create everything (Prov. 30:4, Heb. 1:1,2) and He is His Father’s best angel because the Hebrew word for angel is mal'ak {mal-awk'} means messenger, representative and it does not have to mean that a being is created just because He is called an angel.

Yahweh means “The Self Existent One” so Yahweh could not give His name/ Self Existence to a creature that’s why I believe He gave it to the Messiah because he is Yahweh’s one and only born who He literally gave birth to before all creation. Micah 5:2 K.J.V. King James Version is a messianic prophecy that says His goings forth or origin or beginning is from everlasting meaning that He was born before creation.

If Yahweh is omnipresent than the His only born Son, this name bearing angel/messenger/representative who has His name is omnipresent as well and has inherited all of his father’s divine attributes and divine nature just like you inherited your parents human attributes and human nature from them.

One might ask is the Father has a Divine body and is literally sitting on His throne in heaven than how is He omnipresent? He is omnipresent by His holy spirit which is not a separate person from Himself or a separate part of Himself but it is His spiritual presence.

“Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” Psalms 139:7 K.J.V.

“But when they shall lead [you], and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” Mark 13:11 K.J.V.

“For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Matthew 10:20 K.J.V.

[Does the incarnation involve the angel of Yahweh being born through a woman? How can this take place? or was jesus the incarnation of the Holy spirit?] quoted from Child of Wisdom post #45

[The humiliation which Christ voluntarily took upon Himself is best expressed by Paul to the Philippians. "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being originally in the form of God, counted it not a thing to be grasped [that is, to be clung to] to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." Phil. 2:5-8, Revised Version, marginal reading. The above rendering makes this text much more plain than it is in the common version. The idea is that, although Christ was in the form of God, being "the brightness of His glory and the express image of His Person" (Heb. 1:3), having all the attributes of God, being the Ruler of the universe, and the One whom all Heaven delighted to honor, He did not think that any of these things were to be desired, so long as men were lost and without strength. He could not enjoy His glory while man was an outcast, without hope. So He emptied Himself, divested Himself of all His riches and His glory, and took upon Himself the nature of man, in order that He might redeem him. And so we may reconcile Christ's unity with the Father with the statement, "My Father is greater than I."] quoted from Christ Our Righeousness by E. J. Waggoner Chapter 5 God Manifest In the Flesh http://smyrna.org/Books/COR/christ_our_righteousness.htm

We have already seen that Yahweh’s holy spirit is not a separate person or separate part of Him but it is His spiritual presence. Besides Matthew 1:20 says that son would be coceived of the holy ghost not that the holy ghost would be conceived. The incarnation involves Yahweh’s Son who He gave birth to in eternity from His own substance “as the express image of his person” being sent to earth to be born again but this time by woman and this time as human. He exchanged His Divine body with all it’s glory and power and knowing all things and doing all things and all its immortality for a human mortal body that Yahweh prepared for Him but He didn’t give up his divine nature as one Seventh Day Adventist Pioneer put it.

“He is the seed of David according to the flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don’t go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh, but the mind [spirit] was ‘the mind of Christ Jesus.” (1895 General Conference Bulletin, p. 327)

[. Also if Christ was God regardless of his divine attributes what was it that made him God?] quoted from Child of Wisdom post #45

His Divine nature that He was born with in eternity made Him God.
[His divinity consisted of the fact of His identity. He was God’s Son. He possessed the mind, the characteristics, the nature of God, whether in human or divine form. Therefore He was divine, whether in heaven or on earth. Whether possessing all power, or having laid it aside.] quoted from the Humanity and Divinity Combined section of this article called The Divinity of Christ by David Clayton found at this website below.
http://restorationministry.com/Open_Face/html/2000/open_face_dec__2000.htm
Please read that whole article. It is one of the best I’ve seen on this subject.

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son” Hebrews 1:5 K.J.V.

“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1st John 4:9 K.J.V.

“And again when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.?” Hebrews 1:,6 K.J.V.

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,” Galations 4:4

“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.”
Hebrews 10:5-7 K.J.V.

My sincere prayer for and your family is “that THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE FATHER of glory may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of HIM.” Ephesians 1:7