[Barnabas]
"and you raise the question, on what is supposedly, the ignorance of Jesus on certain things. Let's first of all understand that Jesus' knowledge was never on a level as our own limited awareness, people seem to just look at what Jesus appears not to know, and ignore what He does know. He knew an individual's undisclosed past (John 1:47; 4:29), and the thoughts of His enemies (Luke 6:8) and friends (Luke 9:47), which is a sole attribute of God (Acts 15:8; 2
Chron. 6:29; 1 Kings 8:38). And Jesus understood the Old Testament Scriptures in an unprecedented manner (Matt 22:29; 26:54-56; Luke 24;27).
[Edgar]
The Son of God certainly knew what was in the heart of humans (Jn 2:25). The question is, how did he know it? Was he omniscient? Alternatively, did God's spirit and his pre-existence as the first creature of God allow him to know the interior life of humans? The Scriptures answer that Jesus of Nazareth was anointed with God's spirit and power. Because of this fact, he was able to go through the land of Palestine doing good (Acts 10:38). The prophet Isaiah (11:1-3) foretold that the Messiah would be filled with "a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD [YHWH], and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD [YHWH]" (NAB).
[Barnabas]
"in fact Jesus even says this about Himself, "no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him" (Matt. 11:27). From this passage, both the omniscience and
incomprehensibility of Christ are declared by Himself. He who knows the Father is omniscient, and He who is known only by the Father is incomprehensible, we get glimpse of the divine nature only as Jesus will reveal."
[Edgar]
Again, I think you're reading far too much into this text, rather than extracting meaning from it, as one should do. If the Son fully knowing the Father and vice versa functions as proof of Christ's "omniscience and incomprehensibility," then what about the latter part of the passage? When Jesus reveals the Father to one of his disciples and the enlightened disciple comes to "fully know" the Father and Son, would you say that he/she then becomes omniscient or incomprehensible? Notice that OUDEIS (in Mt 11:27) is qualified by KAI hWi EAN BOULHTAI hO hUIOS APOKALUYAI.
[Barnabas]
"christ omniscience is further expressed in the fact that He hears and answers the prayers of His people (John 14:14). This ability to hear and answer the prayers of His disciples is a claim to omniscience. To be able to hear each prayer of His disciples—offered up to him night and day, day in and day out throughout the centuries—keep each request infallibly related to its petitioner, and answer each one in accordance with the divine mind and will, would require Him to be omniscient!"
[Edgar]
Jn 14:14 neither teaches that we should pray to Christ nor does it prove that he hears prayers. We are instructed to pray to God the Father through the Son in the spirit. Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified" (Mt 6:9 NWT). He did not encourage or exhort his disciples to offer prayers to him. Asking the Father for something in Jesus' name does not mean that we pray to Christ.
[Barnabas]
"but why does it show that Jesus didn't know certain things? Why for example, when His friend Lazarus died He knew about it without being told and set off for Bethany, but when He got there He asked where Lazarus had been laid (John 11)? The answer is quite simple. Just as in Genesis 18:20-21 and 22:12 where it is clear that God chooses to know and not know certain things, Jesus chooses not to know certain thing, that is He chooses not to exercising His omniscience. And so if we were to use the same line of reasoning that you employ that deny Jesus' Deity because it appears He has limited knowledge of certain things, then from Genesis 18:20-21 we can assume that Yahveh has limited knowledge and is not omniscient also."
[Edgar]
The two situations that you mention are not analogous. In the case of YHWH in the OT, we are told in no uncertain terms that He is "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16); no explicit statement of this sort is posited with respect to Christ. Furthermore, if your theory corresponded to reality, then one would expect that if the Father knows the day and hour, then the Son, if he is Almighty God, would also know the day and hour, which only the Father knows (Mt 24:36). To argue that the Son can choose not to know what the Father knows--yet they are supposedly hOMOOUSION--implies
that the Son has a different divine consciousness than the Father does, which implies tritheism rather than trinitarianism.
[Barnabas]
"my friend it seems that it is your theology that is getting in your way of understanding the scriptures; for only one that has a poor grasp of the idiom of certain phrases would read into the passage of Rev 3:14 that the subject was created."
[Edgar]
Evidently, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon also is controlled by the editor's theology and he also must have a poor grasp of the idiom in Rev 3:14 since this magisterial source states that the meaning "first created" for ARXH is "linguistically probable" which was upgraded from the older BAGD, which said this meaning is "linguistically possible."
9 comments:
No matter how hard they try, when a trinitarian says Jesus what limited in human form, like it is ok to blaspheme the son but not the holy spirit, or the day and the hour unknown to him. They make it clear that somehow Jesus is 2 types of person in one. They separate him from there so-called trinity. But he is the same, only because that is what they suppose to and choose to believe. Complete nonscience.
They want to say 2 natures, but one person; however, many thingsd still don't add up, including the point you mention about blaspheming the Son. Some Trinitarians have honestly called the Incarnation of Christ a mystery or a contradiction.
And when they say "mystery," these writers don't necessarily mean in the sense of the Greek mysterion. See Rev. 10:7.
I wonder if they feel the father has 2 natures, as well as the holy spirit. It would lead one to believe in a double triple/ triple double(not sure which) God. I don't know if they are either. On the serious side of things, it is amazing what the human mind can comprehend. Making up this 2 natures in one person thing. It is enough to give anyone trying to make sense of what is being said go crazy. The Trinity makes a reasonable person unsound in mind. I don't think God wants a people who are unsound in mind worshipping him. Just my thoughts.
From my experience with Trinitarians, they usually believe that only the Son has two natures: the Father only has one and it's the same for the holy spirit. The three persons are one substance, but each person is supposed to be distinct from the other, like Peter, James, and John are three humans, but three distinct persons. The Trinity is dizzying.
GREGORY OF NYSSA (circa. 335-395 C.E.): "...In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions, and either to say “there are three Gods,” which is unlawful, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd. The argument which you state is something like this: -- Peter, James, and John, -- being in one human nature, are called three men: and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If, then, in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two, or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the Faith, though confessing the Three Persons, and acknowledging no difference of nature between them, we are in some sense at variance with our confession, when we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and yet forbid men to say “there are three Gods”? The question is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma..." - (Paragraphs 2-3, Translated by H.A. Wilson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.)
It's designed confusion. A more refined same *identity* heresy.
You argue that Jesus' knowledge, as described in passages like Matthew 24:36, suggests He is not omniscient. However, this view oversimplifies the hypostatic union—the theological doctrine that Christ is fully God and fully man. The limitations of Christ's knowledge in His human nature do not negate His divine omniscience. Just as He voluntarily assumed human limitations in His incarnation (Philippians 2:6-7), His knowledge was also subject to this self-emptying. This is precisely why theologians distinguish between Christ's divine knowledge and His human knowledge.
For example, as you pointed out in your response, Christ demonstrates supernatural knowledge (e.g., knowing the thoughts of His enemies and the past of the Samaritan woman). These instances of divine insight show that Jesus possessed knowledge beyond human capability, indicating His divine omniscience. The point is not that He had a different consciousness from the Father (which would imply tritheism), but that He chose to limit the exercise of His divine attributes in certain situations, as part of His incarnation.
Regarding your claim that John 14:14 does not support the idea that prayers should be directed to Christ, your interpretation does not account for the broader biblical context. While Jesus teaches His disciples to pray to the Father in Matthew 6:9, this does not exclude prayer to Christ, particularly in the context of John 14:14, where Jesus explicitly says, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." The early Christian church did, in fact, pray to Jesus (e.g., Stephen's prayer to Jesus in Acts 7:59, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"), and the consistent testimony of church history affirms this practice.
Your objection also overlooks the fact that asking the Father "in Jesus' name" implies recognition of Jesus' divine authority and His mediatory role. The request is made in His name because He has the power to grant the request, which is a clear indication of His divine status.
You argue that if the Son can choose not to know what the Father knows, this implies separate divine consciousnesses, leading to tritheism. However, this mischaracterizes the nature of the Trinity. The Church teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine essence, will, and knowledge. The Son’s choice to limit His omniscience in the context of His incarnation does not imply a difference in nature or consciousness from the Father. Rather, it reflects the mystery of the incarnation, where Jesus, in His human nature, submits to the Father’s will (John 6:38).
To say that Christ did not know something in His human capacity does not negate His omniscience as God. As St. Gregory the Great explained, Christ knew the day and hour of the Last Judgment in His divine nature but chose not to reveal it according to His human nature. This distinction is key to maintaining the unity of the Trinity while acknowledging the reality of the incarnation.
Your reference to BDAG’s interpretation of the Greek term "ARXH" (Revelation 3:14) as potentially meaning "first created" needs further clarification. While some lexicons consider this translation linguistically possible, this does not reflect the broader theological context or the consistent interpretation of the term within Scripture. ARXH can also mean "source" or "origin," which aligns with Christ being the "origin" or "principle" of creation, not a created being Himself. The interpretation that Christ is "first created" runs contrary to Colossians 1:16-17, which explicitly states that "all things were created through Him and for Him," and that "He is before all things."
The concept of Christ having two natures—divine and human—is indeed a core tenet of Christian orthodoxy and is known as the doctrine of the hypostatic union. This doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, two natures united in one person. This does not mean that Christ is two persons; rather, He is one person with two distinct natures. The idea is challenging, but not logically contradictory when properly understood.
The confusion arises when people try to understand how these two natures interact. For example, Jesus in His human nature was subject to hunger, fatigue, and limited knowledge (as indicated by Matthew 24:36). However, in His divine nature, He remained all-knowing and omnipotent. These two natures do not blend into one, nor do they create two separate persons; rather, they exist in unity within the one person of Jesus Christ.
This is difficult to comprehend fully because the Incarnation involves God taking on a human nature, which is a unique event in history. The term "mystery" in Christian theology often refers to something that is beyond full human comprehension but is not inherently contradictory.
The distinction between blasphemy against the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32) is not a denial of the Son’s divinity. In context, Jesus was referring to how people could be forgiven for rejecting Him (as they might be ignorant or unsure about His identity), but the deliberate rejection of the Holy Spirit’s testimony, which reveals the truth about Christ, represents a final and unrepentant hardness of heart. This is why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is regarded as unforgivable, not because the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son, but because rejecting the Holy Spirit's work means rejecting God's offer of salvation entirely.
This distinction does not imply that Jesus is of a lower status than the Father or the Holy Spirit. Rather, it highlights the specific roles each Person of the Trinity plays in the work of salvation.
You mentioned that some Trinitarians refer to the Incarnation as a "mystery" or even a "contradiction." The term "mystery" in Christian theology (derived from the Greek word mysterion) refers to something that was once hidden but is now revealed, though not fully comprehensible. For instance, God's triune nature or the union of divine and human natures in Christ are not contradictions, but they do surpass full human understanding. Just because something is hard to grasp does not mean it is irrational or false. Human minds, while remarkable, are finite, and God, being infinite, naturally transcends our full understanding.
Yes, it is true that in Christian doctrine, only the Son has two natures—human and divine—because He alone became incarnate. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not have human natures because they did not become incarnate. This does not create confusion within the Trinity because the Son’s human nature does not detract from His divine nature. The Incarnation is unique to the Son, and while it adds complexity to our understanding of Him, it does not divide or multiply God’s nature.
The three Persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are distinct in their personhood but share one divine essence or substance (homoousios in Greek). They are not three separate gods (as in tritheism), nor are they three distinct parts of a divided God. They are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial (sharing the same divine nature), but distinct in their personal relations. This is why we say that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, yet all three are fully and truly God.
It is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is challenging and can feel "dizzying" at times. However, this does not mean that it is illogical or impossible to believe. Complex truths often require deep reflection and study. Just as advanced concepts in science (like quantum mechanics or the nature of black holes) can be difficult for even the most educated people to fully understand, so too are some of the deeper truths about God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is meant to capture the full biblical witness to who God is. The New Testament reveals the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God, yet insists that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). The doctrine of the Trinity is the Christian attempt to remain faithful to all of this biblical data, even when it surpasses our full comprehension.
It is understandable that the complexity of the Trinity could be frustrating or difficult to accept. However, faith in the Trinity does not make a person "unsound in mind." Many of the greatest minds in history—philosophers, theologians, and scientists—have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity as reasonable and coherent within the context of Christian revelation. The difficulty of the doctrine actually points to the greatness and mystery of God, who is not a being that can be fully comprehended by human reasoning alone.
While the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ may be challenging to fully understand, they are not irrational or contradictory. The Trinity remains a central tenet of Christian faith because it faithfully represents the way God has revealed Himself in Scripture—one God in three Persons, with Jesus Christ being fully God and fully man. These doctrines, though complex, have been rigorously defended throughout Christian history and continue to provide a profound and consistent understanding of the nature of God and His relationship with humanity.
Post a Comment