Jesus always gave credit to the Father. Several times He said that it was the Father who dwelled within Him who did the work, and of Him ownself could do nothing. John 14:10. So it was not Jesus who turned the water into wine. It was God.
Blessings
Is Jesus truly omniscient?
- Thread starter Juk
- Start date
Jesus always gave credit to the Father. Several times He said that it was the Father who dwelled within Him who did the work, and of Him ownself could do nothing. John 14:10. So it was not Jesus who turned the water into wine. It was God.
Blessings
But Jesus IS God! Anyway, though, Jesus did say that He and the Father are one, so technically, it is Him doing the works.
Just a thought, Jesus was God in human form. Can a human body contain all that God is? I would imagine not.
But let's say all of God was in Jesus. Could mere humans kill Jesus with all of God in Him? The power source of God alone would heal Jesus immediately. He could not have all of what God is inside Him, else He could not have been tempted. Forty days in the wilderness would mean nothing for Him. No, He was human and the power He left behind with the Father flowed through Him in a relatively small amount. Looking back on the pain and anguish He suffered starting in the Garden sweating drops of blood and through the beating He took and the cruel cross, all for us, He was very human.
"MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" He was separated from the power of God to cry this.
But let's say all of God was in Jesus. Could mere humans kill Jesus with all of God in Him? The power source of God alone would heal Jesus immediately. He could not have all of what God is inside Him, else He could not have been tempted. Forty days in the wilderness would mean nothing for Him. No, He was human and the power He left behind with the Father flowed through Him in a relatively small amount. Looking back on the pain and anguish He suffered starting in the Garden sweating drops of blood and through the beating He took and the cruel cross, all for us, He was very human.
"MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" He was separated from the power of God to cry this.
Jesus is God in the flesh, and every miraculous work He did was out of the power He walked in, continually. He constrained Himself, however, to do the works of the Father, following after His lead, including the things He said. He is the epitome of a servant.
John 8:28-29
So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man on the cross, then you will understand that I am he. I do nothing on my own but say only what the Father taught me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me—he has not deserted me. For I always do what pleases him.”
John 8:28-29
So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man on the cross, then you will understand that I am he. I do nothing on my own but say only what the Father taught me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me—he has not deserted me. For I always do what pleases him.”
Yes you are correct that Jesus is God. But while on the earth He did not operate that way. He chose to leave those things (powers) behind and walk this earth as a man filled with the Holy Spirit. So the work that was being done was by The Father working through Jesus's words and hands. Just like in today's world when a God works through a pastor or whoever submits to the Holy Spirit and allows Him to use them.
I am hard-pressed to believe Jesus laid down his power and knowledge. God doesn't change, he is eternal, always omniscient, always omnipotent. To say he laid these things down would be saying he laid down his Godhood.
Honestly I don't know how to interpret this passage. Maybe it was hyperbole? Speaking from his human nature? I don't know...
Honestly I don't know how to interpret this passage. Maybe it was hyperbole? Speaking from his human nature? I don't know...
I think I might have a reasonable answer!
The son and the father are ONE!
John 5:19
19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."
The son has nothing in and of himself, he get's everything from the father and they are one. So it can be said the son does not have knowledge of his second coming, but the father does, so truly the son does as well, but not of himself.
I don't know. What do you all think?
The son and the father are ONE!
John 5:19
19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."
The son has nothing in and of himself, he get's everything from the father and they are one. So it can be said the son does not have knowledge of his second coming, but the father does, so truly the son does as well, but not of himself.
I don't know. What do you all think?
Oh Lord, forgive us for forgeting such a beautiful verse.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, (Colossians 2:9 NIV)
I believe this verse answers the question of the thread.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, (Colossians 2:9 NIV)
I believe this verse answers the question of the thread.
In my thoughts this is talking about after His rising from the dead
John 14:10-11 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
Jesus had to say the underlined because He was speaking to people in darkness (with no disrespect ''idiots''). If Jesus was speaking to us He would have only needed to say the first part of verse 10. Jesus knew they saw a HUMAN standing before them. He had to say I am walking WITH God. ''''Don't stone me / can we please move on already....you just saw me walk on water and feed 5000 with two fish'''''.
There are MANY examples of Jesus going the extra mile in explaining Himself. Many times it sounds almost sarcastic. This is one of those times. He repeats Himself, says the underlined and then on to a last resort effort by saying the bold. What Jesus is trying to get accross to all in darkness....is that He is God in the flesh.
Last edited:
1. We can't put God in a box. He can do anything. If the devil can appear as an angel of light God can appear to us as anything. God gave Moses a hard time because He wanted Moses to 'know' that he was liaising with God of the universe.
2. God gave His human form / body up. This is death as we know it. This was the 'greatest' act of love / sufficiently worthy self sacrifice God could give us.
3. God chose to have all the temptations and restrictions of a human body on Him. He does things properly. He doesn't cheat. Examples like the wilderness are included as proof for us that He chose to endure and experience what we endure and experience.
4. Jesus could at anytime jump ship. That is evidence of having full power. He explains it as angels able to come and rescue Him....because He is talking to people in darkness
.All scripture of Jesus speaking to the Father is for our sake. It is to help us understand what Jesus / God was going through in Himself. I do not believe it is what was literally taking place. It is the best way to explain it to us in darkness (idiots / human minds). God was conflicted within Himself. It was never fleshly pain that caused Him to sweat blood. It was what He hates the most coming upon Him (sin) that caused the conflict / ''talking'' to Himself.
Last edited:
I often wonder what Jesus would pray to the Father for.
Dear Father please give me my daily food? Dear Father please help me at work, we can't sell these chairs?
Then I think about how He cried out on the cross ''forgive them for they know not what they do''. That is something we would include in our prayers. But why did Jesus say it aloud for all to hear? He was making a point. He wanted it recorded that He forgave those who killed Him, for they knew not who they were killing. It was not person A speaking to person B.
Dear Father please give me my daily food? Dear Father please help me at work, we can't sell these chairs?
Then I think about how He cried out on the cross ''forgive them for they know not what they do''. That is something we would include in our prayers. But why did Jesus say it aloud for all to hear? He was making a point. He wanted it recorded that He forgave those who killed Him, for they knew not who they were killing. It was not person A speaking to person B.
When Jesus said He does not know, it simply meant He did not know. There is no other interpretation for this. Jesus does not lie. Or rather it was not a response with convoluted understanding. I don't know if someone else has highlighted this verse already. I think this is a key verse as well. We can see Jesus emptied himself. This scripture shows that He himself restrained his omniscient powers. Certainly Christ did exhibit his omniscient powers while walking on earth. But He let the flesh cover his powers on most of the occasions. And knowing last hour is one such thing. He chose not to know while He was man.
Philippians 2:6-8
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
This response from Jesus is crucial for another aspect as well. It is one of the few verses which clearly indicate that Jesus was fully man. Something that gnostics took out of proportion. They claimed Jesus was not man at all! This verse is a clear indicator that Jesus was man and constrained himself in not knowing everything.
Philippians 2:6-8
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
This response from Jesus is crucial for another aspect as well. It is one of the few verses which clearly indicate that Jesus was fully man. Something that gnostics took out of proportion. They claimed Jesus was not man at all! This verse is a clear indicator that Jesus was man and constrained himself in not knowing everything.
With fewest assumptions in your favor, your position would be embraced by the "law of parsimony" or "Occam's razor" (the simplest explanation is the best one)
Your view supports "relational-subordinationism" but only in a finite role when Christ was a man. This position technically only supports "partial subordinational relations," that Christ was only limited in his physical corporeal body performing a duty in a finite role. Many Trinitarians believe in this view.
A second Trinitarian argument is that the chosen or delegated "role of Christ, as a whole (is a constant, physical and spiritual)" is relationally subordinate (also not in substance but role only). Many Trinitarians also believe in this view.
However, regarding "chosen or delegated" relational-subordination, to me it does not matter since His "role calls for an action of limited knowledge" either during his time as a man or in a time-constant that will by our timeline materialize His coming. A role is a role, physical or spiritual, if its a delegation or chosen sacrifice of knowledge.
There is also the third argument that would say that "eternal same-substance can retain different knowledge levels or stages of knowledge" but not by delegated relational-subordination but instead by increasing capability which causes relational-subordianation to diminish. Thus no limitations are delivered but instead unlimited knowledge is not yet "obtained." Many Trinitarians will scrutinize this view because it would insinuate that Christ is "less" than God. However this view would not challenge the essence of Christ himself, which would be pure subordinationism; this view like the first two delineate relational-subordination for knowledge and role only.
This third view will cause many to call it a form of Dynamic-Monarchianism (adoptionism) where Chirst as a man "achieved status with God." However this third view is not Dynamic-Monarchianism because this view will say that Christ is still and always was the "eternal same-substance" as God and Holy Spirit, and that knowledge, relationship and role is the only differentiators.
Matthew 26:53
Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
John 19:11
Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”
Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
John 19:11
Then Jesus said, “You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”
I believe that the Monotheistic Triune God-head "not only has all knowledge" but "controls it" and is the "creator of it." Thus knowledge and remembrance can be a property that is divinely managed.
For example; we know from scripture that knowledge can be eradicated or at a minimum, inside the essence of God, remembrance can be eradicated.
Hebrews 8:12 - For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Thus God "limits" his knowledge at will