quote:

---

Practically everybody who holds to kenotic theory, and even some who don't, would hold that Jesus' knowledge was limited during his incarnation. Mt. 24:36 seems to directly teach that Jesus was not omniscient at that time, and there are a range of other relevant scriptures which have been debated ad nauseum on a previous post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selah

Ok, I was talking with someone about their view on hell when this interesting question came up "If Jesus was fully human, lived in the culture, and shared common beliefs with His contemporaries, then could He have been wrong about some things?" After all, what we know now, through discovery etc, is certainly not what they knew then (e.g. did Jesus know that the world was round? Did He know about electricity? cars? the toilet? )

All things considered, shouldn't we wonder about the possibility of Jesus being wrong in some of His teachings (like the imagery He used about hell) due to His humanity and share in common beliefs/language of the time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

2. Do you know (I'm sure you do.) the difference between Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom. Above you seem to have crossed lines of definition without realizing it. Knowledge can be a dangerouse thing. (Know how to light a match?) Understanding is of a higher order. (Understand the nature of fire.) Widsom trandscends and penetrates them both. (Be wise with fire, and with people around fire, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selah

Ok, I was talking with someone about their view on hell when this interesting question came up "If Jesus was fully human, lived in the culture, and shared common beliefs with His contemporaries, then could He have been wrong about some things?" After all, what we know now, through discovery etc, is certainly not what they knew then (e.g. did Jesus know that the world was round? Did He know about electricity? cars? the toilet? )

All things considered, shouldn't we wonder about the possibility of Jesus being wrong in some of His teachings (like the imagery He used about hell) due to His humanity and share in common beliefs/language of the time?

hmmm.

love,
selah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by albert

While Jesus could err, the Father could not. Tom has also summed things up pretty well.

---

quote:

---

Selah, are you REALLY stuck on this. Or is this a plaything where there aught to be holy AWE?
...
NOW, WORK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. AND PRAY ABOUT IT.

TAKE OF YOUR SHOES, SELAH; YOU STAND ON HOLY GROUND.

WORSHIP, DON'T QUESTION THE SAVIOR.

READ JOB AND SEE GOD'S RETORT TO JOB'S PRESUMPTUOUSNESS.

REALLY, I'M SUPRISED. DON'T FIND SECURITY IN MIND/WORD GAMES.

REALLY.

HOW MUCH LONGER IS THIS TO GO ON? YEARS? REALLY!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TGB

Selah-

If some of Jesus’ claims with regard to his teaching and message are true and some are false, how do you decide which are true and which are false?

Tom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by albert

Practically everybody who holds to kenotic theory, and even some who don't, would hold that Jesus' knowledge was limited during his incarnation. Mt. 24:36 seems to directly teach that Jesus was not omniscient at that time, and there are a range of other relevant scriptures which have been debated ad nauseum on a previous post.

The next issue is, if Jesus could be wrong, does that mean that any error made it into scripture? It doesn't follow that if Jesus was limited in knowledge and could err, that any error has made it into scripture. For example, Isaiah was just a man and had limited knowledge and could err, but that doesn't necessarily entail that there are errors in the book of Isaiah. If you think that inspiration guarantees freedom from error, then that could be true of the gospels and Jesus' teaching, even if Jesus himself could err. Hope you follow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by feelinahole

POW: we all seem to question God when we question in general, so I am not sure what you mean by "don't question the savior."
For me it would seem that Tom is right. In growing up it would seem to me that Jesus would have to learn to be a carpenter (he wouldn't just become one) that he would learn to speak (and say words incorrectly, etc.). I just don't believe his divinity supercedes his humanness in this way.
Scripture says that he knew men's hearts. Yes, but it was talking about him as an adult. Spen, same with you. All the scriptures you touch on talk about Jesus as an adult.

---

quote:

---

PoW,

Breathe ...

Just kidding. To answer your question, yes, I am playing around with this a bit. I'm not concerned that Jesus' gig is up or something. I'm just curious how others respond to questions like these... In other words, I'm deliberately looking to be corrected/enlightened here.

Blessings and love,
selah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by feelinahole

Scripture says that he knew men's hearts. Yes, but it was talking about him as an adult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by albert

Moon River J: Does inspiration guarantee freedom from error? Job was wrong in his theology and the Father steps in in chapter 38 to correct him. The most righteous man God could find had skewed theology.

Albert: Hello! When scripture records something someone said, like the words of Job, that doesn't mean what they said was true. It only means that they actually said it. Scripture records the words of Satan on occasions, but that doesn't mean what Satan said was true. A doctrine of inerrancy only requires that when someone is recorded as having said something, that they said it as reported. It doesn't guarantee that what they said was true.

(Jo-Anne) Thanks Albert, for pointing that out to me.

(Albert) As for Job having a skewed theology, he certainly did. By our standards, practically everyone who lived in Old Testament times had a skewed theology, since they didn't know about Jesus or the Trinity etc. But that doesn't mean that when an author of scripture is writing under inspiration, that whatever skewness there was in their theology affected the text. That's the issue.

(Jo-Anne) I guess I just picked on Job as a prime example since he was "the most righteous man God could find." I'm not sure what you mean by the following though; "that whatever skewness there was in their theology affected the text." I found Job very encouraging because he did not see God correctly, but what was most important is that he remained open and trusting and responded to God. He ended up transformed because He saw God for who He really was and who he was in God. I love chapters 38 and 39. I love how the Father describes both the magnificence and complexity of creation and our place in it.

(Albert) Moon River J: But, I do not believe that God incarnate would err in what He thought, knew or taught.

Albert: Hold on a minute. How do you know what "God incarnate" said? Only because it was recorded by other humans. If those humans could err, and there isn't any inspiration of the text, then how can we know what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote was accurate? Maybe they misunderstood, or saw him through the lens of their own theological biases, or forgot stuff? Of course, I don't agree with you on the "God incarnate" bit anyway, but that's been discussed at length on another thread.

(Jo-Anne) Since Jesus was fully God as well as fully human, I do not believe that He erred in anything, and I believe that God empowered those who recorded what Jesus said and did, supernaturally.

What do you mean, you don't agree with "God incarnate?" John 1:1 says that the Word was with God in the beginning, became flesh and dwelt among us (Jesus; God incarnate). At least that is what I understand God incarnate to mean.

God Bless,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by feelinahole

The first part was not answered btw, POW. It really needed no answer. I simply was saying that we do question God. And God has no problem with that...as long as it is honest questioning.

---

quote:

---

St. Maximus distinguishes a dual assumption — the same distinction appears later in St. John of Damascus. First, there is natural or essential assumption. The Logos accepts the entire fullness of human nature in its primordial innocence and guiltlessness, but in that feeble condition into which it fell through sin, with all the weaknesses and flaws which are the consequences of sin or even retribution for sin but are themselves not anything sinful — the so-called "unreproachable passions" such as hunger and thirst, fear, fatigue. At the same time, though, the acceptance of weaknesses and disparagement are acts of free subordination, for in incorrupt nature there is no need to be feeble or under someone’s power. It is especially necessary to observe that St. Maximus directly ascribes omniscience to Christ through humanity as well. Indeed, as he understands it, "ignorance" was one of the most shameful flaws of human nature in sin. Secondly, there is relative or oikonomic assumption — acceptance in love and compassion. Thus the Savior accepted sin and man’s guilt, his sinful and guilty feebleness. In the portrayal by St. Maximus Christ’s human nature proves to be particularly active, efficacious, and free. This concerns the redemptive sufferings more than anything else. This was free passion, the free acceptance and fulfillment of the will of God. In the Savior’s chaste life the restoration of the image of God in man was accomplished — through human will. And by his free acceptance of cleansing — not punitive — suffering, Christ destroyed the power of the Old Adam’s free desire and sin. This was not retribution or punishment for sin, but the movement of saving Love.

St. Maximus explains Christ’s redeeming work as the restoration, the healing, the gathering of all creation in ontological, not moral, terms. But it is Love which is the moving force of salvation. The Love displayed on the Cross most of all. Christ’s work will be fulfilled in the Second Coming. The Gospels lead to this, to the "spiritual" appearance of the Logos, the God-Man, just as the Old Testament led to the Logos Incarnate. Here St. Maximus follows Origen’s motif.

---