The fallible Jesus?
The question of the knowledge (and ignorance) of Jess exploded back onto the blog this week when Andy Derksen commented the following in my article “How many wrong beliefs did Jesus have?”
unless Jesus was in fact wrong about his very identity and mission(!) … whatever he actually *taught* as recorded in the gospels–including statements that have a bearing on evolutionary theory–is TRUTH.
And if this is not the case, then we might as well abandon the faith right here and now.
The bluntness of Andy’s reasoning caught my attention. I responded as follows:
Let’s take Jesus at his word and say that he thought the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. He was wrong. Thus, by your reasoning “we might as well abandon the faith right here and now.” Think about it. You have made your entire faith contingent upon the view that Jesus did not really believe the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. That strikes me as an absurd set of priorities.
The point here is not that Jesus did teach the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. The point rather, is that it is problematic to tie the authority of Jesus to incidental details he may have believed (and taught) about seed sizes. Paul said that if Christ has not been raised our faith is in vain. Case closed. I don’t think he would have said if Christ got the sizes of seeds wrong then our faith is in vain.
This launched a lively discussion with MGT2 and Mike Gantt in particular. Mike Gantt chastised me for being “provocative” even though I hadn’t been. Rather, as the conversation progressed I was merely seeking to flush docetic tendencies which would seek to deny the human psychological development of Jesus out into the light of day.
But since I had already been charged with provocation, I thought: why not live up to the charge? So I called the latest installment in this conversation: “The fallible Jesus?”.
Let’s begin with Philippians 2:6-8 which confesses that Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man….”
What is required for Jesus to have “made himself nothing” and been made “in human likeness”?
I am going to assume that my interlocutors are agreed that it minimally requires this: there was a time when Jesus had no beliefs at all (just like every other human zygote … fetus … neonate). The problem then arises when these same interlocutors want to claim that as Jesus acquired beliefs he would have acquired no false ones. Every other child in history has acquired some false beliefs at some point in time. This is minimally a reflection of the fallibility and finitude of the doxastic communities in which all children are reared. There has not been a doxastic community in history that had only true beliefs about theology, science and history (to name but three areas).
And that was certainly true of the Palestinian community in which Jesus was reared. So if every other child in history would have acquired some false beliefs as a result of the falliblity of his or her doxastic community, why think Jesus would be the single exception?
Possibility one: if Jesus had a false belief the faith collapses
This is the type of scenario suggested by Andy Derksen. But this isn’t a good reason to accept that Jesus could have no false beliefs because the faith wouldn’t in fact collapse if he did. (Admittedly, the faith of some individuals might collapse if they came to believe that Jesus had false beliefs, but that’s a different issue.) As far as the beliefs of Jesus are concerned, what matters for the Christian faith is not that Jesus only held true beliefs throughout his life. What matters, rather, is that the main lineaments of his teaching are trustworthy and true.
Possibility two: having a false belief is equivalent to a sin
I believe that Jesus was impeccable. He could not have sinned. If someone equates having a false belief with sinning then one might find themselves dogmatically committed to insisting that Jesus never held a false belief in the same way I am dogmatically committed to insisting that Jesus never sinned.
But there is nothing sinful per se with holding a false belief. In the kenosis described in Philippians 2 Jesus enters into a broken, suffering world. There were docetists in the early church who balked at this notion. They thought it was offensive to suggest that Jesus suffered. He could not have suffered, in their view. Fortunately the church rejected this gnostic idea.
Sometimes it is sinful to hold a false belief as it is when some of those following Jesus’ ministry attributed his miraculous works to the devil. Their belief was a sinful one, an eschewing of epistemic virtue based upon the constraints of their confirmation bias. But there is nothing inherently sinful with holding a false belief. And thus when Jesus entered into a broken world he subjected himself to the likelihood not only that he would suffer non-culpably but that he would hold some false beliefs non-culpably.
Example? Here’s one of countless possible scenarios on which to end.
Jesus (at four): Mamma, why is the sky blue?
Mary: Well Jesus, when God created the world he made a hard dome and placed an ocean above it. That’s why the sky is blue!
Jesus (in wonderment): Wow! A whole ocean. Does it have boats too?
Mary (laughing): No Jesus. At least I don’t think so!
Tags: christology, incarnation, Jesus, omniscience
133 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
pete says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 3:54pm
Regarding the mustard seed, is there any smaller seed that would have been salient in the minds of Israelites in the first century?
Mustard seeds aside, I think the point is not to teach mustard seeds are the smallest seeds in existence, but the positive consequences of faith.
I agree with Randal that sin and false scientific belief are not the same thing. However, Jesus wasn’t giving a list of seeds from smallest to largest. He was teaching on the Kingdom of Heaven using a well known ANE referent.
Just like Genesis 10 wasn’t giving a list of the development of every single nation on earth: Just the nations surrounding Israel.
And just like Genesis 1-2 wasn’t giving a scientific play-by-play of God’s bursting of stars to form planets…. it ws telling Israel of their national and creaturely origins, firmly affirming Yahweh as God and Sovereign who creates ex fiat, using a literary convention and imagery that they would have understood.
star2 says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:43pm
Randal,
You reject what God says in His Word on how He created the universe and that all that is contained within it in favor of man’s opinion on how it all came into being.
You reject God’s clear teaching in His Word through Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, the Apostles Peter, John, and Paul, through Jude, and through the Prophets Daniel and Isaiah of what happens to unrepentant sinners who die (suffer ECT) in favor of a view based on your human intuition of the devine that the unrepentant sinner does not suffer consciously in the afterlife and after a period of time will be annihilated. This view of yours is calling God a liar.
You lack the ability to rightly divide the Word of Truth. You lack the ability to appropriately apply biblical principles to real life situations.
A good portion of the Word of God you seem to reject in favor of man’s views or opinions.
Does your seminary know that you hold such views?
They should review carefully what you blog on so they can have a better understanding what kind of ‘unbelieving and unbiblical’ professor they have unleashed on their students. Maybe they don’t really care. Who knows.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 7:05pm
Blah blah blah.
When you’re done thumping your pulpit perhaps you could address the content of the article.
Tom Larsen says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:49am
“Star2,” how do you know that the Bible is the word of God?
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:24am
Dude… I beg you … don’t get her started
With that being said, it is… don’t get me started.
amator veritatis says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:44am
Star2: “Does your seminary know that you hold such views?”
Sounds like a threat. Carry on.
http://blogs.christianpost.com/ambassador-of-reconciliation/2012/01/sorrow-and-hope-24/
Morrison says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:43pm
Randall, how much do you think you can get for your deconversion book?
Be sure to strike a better deal than Loftus…word is, by the way, he trashed you in your new joint effort…because he is only getting about a dollar a book.
True story.
pete says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 7:10pm
Just think:
If Holy Scripture was intended to be a science lesson for people who held a more rudimentary scientific understanding, would they be getting the theological message.
I think Calvin and others were right when they said that God’s revelation is an accomodated revelation.
Just like we understand God based on words and concepts, which Paul and Aquainas have both testified is “as straw” when faced with the real thing.
Jesus was human. At this point, I see attempts to ascribe him a non-kenosis incarnation smacks of docetism.
Chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:04am
If you say Jesus made incorrect statements the your beef is with His Father.
John 8:28
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:30am
Chris,
What do you think it means to be human?
I think gaps of knowledge might be in there.
Your proof text speaks to Christ’s identity and divinity. Not his humanity.
You are also referencing his crucifixion, and the proof of his identity which will be confirmed upon his resurrection.
The “teachings” that you reference from the Father pertains to Jesus teaching on the Kingdom of God; Jesus as God’s eschatological agent; and his rebuke of the Pharasaical/Sadduceal religious system.
But for next time on “When Proof-texts go wrong”…. (sorry, just a bit of humour)
Chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:45am
I guess is doesn’t really matter what I think it means to be human as He was not “merely” human. But I’m sure you can have some fun with that comment
Care to explain why the teachings Jesus is referring to only apply to the subjects you listed?
And it may be worth mentioning that when you say:
“The “teachings” that you reference from the Father pertains to Jesus teaching on the Kingdom of God;”
I must point out to you that that is the very issue we are discussing! Apparently you aren’t following the conversation because the text in discussion starts with the Jesus saying:
“..The kingdom of heaven is like..”
So please take your proof texting comments and mix them with some humble pie amd enjoy while you watch an episode of “when rebukes go wrong”
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 7:00am
I’m glad you see the humour.
Okay… In all seriousness, how do you see your cited text as supporting Jesus’ omniscience durning the incarnation?
I don’t think that John 8:28 supports and incarntional omniscience.
Here is why:
The Pharisees are only questioning the one and main propositional truth that Jesus is attesting to:
Namely that he is equal with God.
Your assertion that Jesus is affirming the absolute scientific truth of all the words he has ever uttered doesn’t pass the exegetical mustard.
Horizontally, in Luke 2:40, we see that Jesus grew. Although english translations differ, you will get the following gist:
English Standard Version (©2001)
“And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.”
I picked two of the more consistent translations.
Now how do you read that? He gained wisdom. He gained strength. How do you reconcile that to omniscience and omnipotence?
Or does the kenosis explain the discrepancy both logically and scripturally?…. ie. there is no discrepancy.
Does an incarnational non-omniscience or non-omnipotency lower your view of Christ’s divinity?
It doesn’t lower mine.
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 7:18am
and there is nothing in John 8:28 to indicate that Jesus was giving a science lesson, or didactic lesson on his scientific or lexicological impeccability.
Check out John 7:22, where John actually has to clarify the “truth” regarding circumcision coming from the Patriarchs, as opposed to Moses (as mentioned by Jesus).
Oh… and how’s bout Jesus not knowing the time of his own return?
Am I missing something here?
Its only the hamartalogical impeccability that God required for Jesus to be an unblemished sacrifice.
Jesus was a human. The church has embraced that for 2000 years
(well I guess I’m not telling the truth… I don’t really know the exact date of Peter’s confession at Caesarea Phillipi, and the actual date whereby the first witness saw Jesus risen in bodily form, but I’ll use “2000″ years as a theological heuristic…. just like Jesus used the mustard seed.)
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 7:33am
Sorry Chris… just one more quick comment and I’ll let you respond:
I agree. Jesus wasn’t merely human. He is my God and I worship him as such.
However, to do him and the field of hermeneutics justice, I have to take issue with this comment of yours:
“Care to explain why the teachings Jesus is referring to only apply to the subjects you listed?”
John 8:28 is not a stand alone passage. It is included in a discourse which stretches form John 8:12-59
Now what do you think John was trying to convey with this narrative? In a staunch monotheistic society, were the Pharisees debating finer poits of the Torah, horticultural minimalism, or wheter Jesus was the Son of God? (Son means “equal to” via inheritance rights in Ancient Near East Judaism)
You don’t get to read any meaning you like into the text. You would have to show that the narrative in question pertains contextually to Jesus saying that he is the ultimate encyclopedia britannica.
Your reading of John 8:28 is akin me (fictitiously) reading John 8:27 (previous verse) and saying that Jesus is referring here to Joseph, husband of Mary.
You would be right in telling me that I was way off base with respect to context.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:20pm
Chris, when Jesus refers to the things he speaks in the passage you quoted, are you claiming that refers to everything Jesus ever said in his entire life? Your passage only has relevance to this discussion if you are claiming that. If you are not aiming to defend that absurd interpretation then your proof-texting has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Instead, it serves a single rhretorical function to shut down reasoned reflection on what it meant for Christ to become incarnate (while opening the door to a cancerous docetism).
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:29pm
Randal, Im not so arrogant to postulate with certainty that beliefs that Jesus may or not have held, when the Bible is silent.
Yes, when He was in the temple at 12, He was asking questions of the leaders. Does that mean He was learning from them, no. The text does not say that He was being taught by them. In fact it was they who were astonished at His answers and His understanding. This corresponds to Him being taught by His Father. Luke says He grew in knowledge, but the method of His learning is not specified. And considering Jewish education at that time He, once we had 13 He was no longer under the instruction of an religious leader unless he was hand-chosen, which is a possibility, but again we are not told that in the text. But we are told that Jesus only speaks what His father taught HIm.
There are many times in scripture when Jesus asks questions, not because He does not know the answer.
In Mark Jesus asks who touched His clothes -again, to speculate that He did not know really says that He was unable to control His powers and that He was essentially taken advantage of. This is again another example of Him asking a question not for the purpose of learning the answer.
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:29pm
Should read “with certainty WHAT beliefs…”
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:42pm
With respect to “speculating” on whether “Jesus didn’t really know who touched him”, how does anyone naturally read the text?
It isn’t speculation to read a text in its natural light. Unless we are early easter theologians dealing with the Old Testament (and they were wrong too) ee aren’t dealing with allegory as a foundational means of exegeting scripture.
It should be read literally, unless you have a good reason as to why it should not be read that way.
This wasn’t a parable or anythig else… it was narrative.
Are we “speculating” that Jesus didn’t actually know the time of his return?
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:43pm
should say “eastern theologians”… not “easter theologians”
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:00pm
Man.. I wanted to talk about “easter theologians” and why the KJV correctly used the word “easter” in their translation.. but OK…
Pete I assume we both know that there are over 200 different figures of speech used in the bible? So when Jesus asks question, it very well could be a rhetorical question. I take it literally as a rhetorical question asked for a purpose other than gaining the unknown answer to the question asked. I see it as Jesus restoring the woman from what would likely have been a guilt conscience later in life by just coming to HIm with honestly and humility and as Jesus was always doing the will of His Father, He gave grace to the humble…
While we’re speaking, let me apologize for my initial response to you last night (humble pie) as it was out of line and really not edifying or humble. Im sorry.
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:04pm
Additionally since the woman was in clear violation of mosaic law, I think Jesus was required to speak up and address that issue. It appears He choose to be gracious and merciful and allow the woman to confess her sin and me made clean of it by her confession and saving faith in Jesus Christ.
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:00pm
How was she in violation of Mosaic law?
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:10pm
She was ceremonially unclean because of her bleeding. Yet she was out in public and touching people who were clean and even touched the Rabbi. So not only was she unclean, she was defiling those around her and not telling them what she was doing to them, and then she intentionally defiled Jesus in selfishness. Not that I can blame her! But…
We often forget the implications when we read accounts like this. Think about the times Jesus touched a leper or a dead body…
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:08pm
Buddy,
Don’t worry about rhetoric. It’s all good.
But I am aware of figures of speech in the Bible. I don’t see any indication within the narrative that Jesus is using a figure of speech. Just like I don’t see any reason to see his lack of knowledge of the time of his return as a figure of speech.
For instance, Jesus is being rhetorical when he asks the ruler, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Now obviously it is absurd to posit that Jesus is not good. So then it follows that he is God.
With respect to “who touched me?” it was an honest question, borne out by the fact that he kept looking around and asking “who touched me?”
It doesn’t bear any indication of figure of speech.
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:19pm
“Don’t worry about rhetoric. It’s all good./ ”
I appreciate the humble response, however I wansnt speaking from a heart of intentional edification so I was in the wrong and couple that with knowing we will be judged for every word spoken…
Explain to me why, putting aside all preconceived notions about Jesus Christ and just reading the text for a first time read, why Jesus’ question about “Why call me good” is rhetorical and “Who touched me” is not ?
I personally see Jesus’ continuing to ask and look around as Him being just that much more gracious! He’s basically making it clear that He is going to let this slide and so He almost forces her hand in coming to him in repentance. Its really awesome!
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:52pm
Chris, we’re not talking about Jesus during his ministry. We’re talking about Jesus in his childhood.
When Jesus was taught ancient Hebrew cosmology as a child, including the three-storied universe, what do you think he believed?
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:09pm
I don’t know who other than His Father taught Jesus, or what He was taught. Im not going to ascribe to Him false beliefs which there is no indication that He had !!
What I do know is that when He was a child and He was in the temple with the Rabbis and they were amazed or astonished with both His understanding and His answers.This seems to indicate that He knew more than a typical 12 year-old child.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:18pm
Chris, are you claiming that God the Father taught Jesus 1+1=2 and that you shouldn’t put your hand in a fire? Did God the Father teach Jesus carpentry too?
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:24pm
Randal, for the third time, I have no knowledge of what His Father did or did not teach Him other that what Jesus specifically speaks. I wouldn’t even say with any certainty that He was taught carpentry and was a carpenter. When the Bible is silent, so am I. And it would behoove you to do the same.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:28pm
Chris, the New Testament doesn’t mention whether Jesus ate a meal between the age of 12 and the age of 30. According to your position it is inappropriate to say that he would have eaten a meal in this 18 year time span because the Bible is silent about it. Is that really your position?
Assuming that that is your position, you can still state the point in a conditional:
“If Jesus was taught carpentry he was taught by God.”
Is that also your position?
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:38pm
Randal,
I have to ask an honest question. What is your purpose here? Is it for the edification of the Body of Christ? I ask because it does not appear to be so. If it were you would not knowingly misrepresent my position. You can twist and contort all you want, but that’s what you are doing.
My suggestion is that you unplug from the internet and go spend saturday being a father to your children instead of doing anything but building up.
Let me ask you a question. Can a human live without eating from age 12 to 30? Is it possible?
In regards to Jesus being taught carpentry, it’s really irrelevant. If you cut a piece of wood and nail it to another, there is no true/false value to it as there is with theology. Go ahead and parse that statement however you like.
Jesus could be “taught” something by a human teacher about His Father or the world around Him, but that does not mean He believed it, does it? Therefore He could be taught erroneous beliefs without believing or holding them.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:47pm
“I have to ask an honest question. What is your purpose here? Is it for the edification of the Body of Christ?”
The direct target is to challenge the persistent tendency toward docetism that is as much the bane of conservative Christian christologies as ebonism is the bane of liberal Christian christologies.
“Let me ask you a question. Can a human live without eating from age 12 to 30? Is it possible?”
Is that your way of admitting that your criterion was false and that you can draw conclusions about what Jesus did apart from what is directly recorded in scripture?
“In regards to Jesus being taught carpentry, it’s really irrelevant. If you cut a piece of wood and nail it to another, there is no true/false value to it as there is with theology.”
An apprenticeship in carpentry includes both a knowledge of ability and a knowledge of propositions. Are you saying now that in fact Jesus did learn propositions from human teachers?
“Jesus could be “taught” something by a human teacher about His Father or the world around Him, but that does not mean He believed it, does it?”
That’s a confusion. For person A to teach person B something means that person B gains some knowledge from person A. If person B does not gain any knowledge then person A did not in fact teach person B anything.
Chris I understand that you don’t like getting critiqued and that’s why you’re getting bristly and impuging my motives. But your position is ad hoc and inconsistent and now is rapidly shifting under cross-examination.
chris says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 5:05am
Randal,
Person A can teach person B what person A believes. Yes, I agree with you.
But person B could take away 2 different things from A’s lesson.
1. Person B also believes what A believes.
2. Person B understands what A believes, but does not agree. So in this instance Person B has a “knowledge” of what A believes, but does not himself believe it.
Ive already given examples of how this works, for example when I turn on my TV or read an article staging that all life evolved from a slime. I understand what they are trying to teach, and so I now have a “knowledge” of their teachings, but I do not agree with that particular teaching because it is false and therefore I do not hold that false belief.
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:43pm
And again not for the first time, Jesus is not quoted as saying that 1+1=2 of that you shouldn’t put your hand in the fire, so why would you say that that is what I am claiming? You far too intelligent to be unintentionally misrepresenting me. If you’ll re-read my comments you see that I say that Jesus speaks what His Father has taught Him. I do not recall Jesus speaking either of the phrases you are trying to pin to me.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:50pm
Chris, you’re not understanding the problem. That problem comes when you take a passage referring to the authority of Jesus’ religious teaching and attempt to generalize it to all the beliefs Jesus held. That is a classic case of eisegesis and leads to absurd consequences.
chris says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 5:07am
Randal all I have to go off of is what He said. I can’t speculate about what He may or may have believed about other subjects.
Ive already demonstrated how its very easily possible to have someone teach you their false belief, but at the same time reject it as truth and therefore not hold that particular false belief.
Tom Larsen says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:17am
I’d tend to agree with Chris on this matter. I guess whether you think that Jesus could have held incorrect beliefs depends on how you understand the Incarnation.
The phenomenon of blind-sight is pretty interesting: basically, people with blind-sight act as if they could see, despite not consciously seeing. And perhaps Jesus had a kind of blind-guidance, so that His beliefs and teachings were always true despite His not necessarily being consciously aware of it at the time.
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:48am
Oh where do I begin:
Keeping in mind that you are not immune from explaining “what it means to be human”, here are a few other thoughts to engage:
Why isn’t Australia, and Mexico included in the Table of Nations? Or was the point telling ISRAEL where they came from? Or do I just have low view of the inerrancy of Genesis 10?
Or what about “who touched my clothes?” in Mark 5:30, and then him continuing to look in Mark 5:32?
Or was Jesus just telling a fib, because he really did know who touched him and…. ah… sin.
It will go on like this, oh yes it will.
I’m no Ebionite, just like I don’t think you are a Docetist.
I just confess that Jesus was God AND Man. The Council of Ephesus in 431 dealt with this one well enough.
Randal is not being a blasphemer by showing that the mustard seed is not the world’s smallest seed, and I am not blaspheming that Jesus emptied himself of many of his divine powers…
See the kenosis hymn of Phillipians 2:6-11.
Oh.. and if Jesus, God in nature, didn’t empty himself, why did he need angels to attend him after the temptation in the desert. And why does he rebuke Peter while mentioning that “his FATHER will send a host of angels at his command”.
If you dare say that Jesus himself would send the angels of himself, you sir are a modalist.
We need to think this stuff through.
With blessings, love, and a bit of rhetoric at times (forgive me please)
Pete
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:27pm
Are you saying that you agree with Chris’ interpretation of the passage he quoted? Do you think the things the Son speaks that the Father taught him are meant to encompass every utterance he ever made in his entire life? As I said to Chris, if you don’t accept that interpretation then Chris’s point collapses.
I ended this article with a concrete example. Jews in the first century believed in a firmament that held up an ocean above the earth. Jesus would have been taught this as a child. Would he have come to believe it?
Your “blind-sight” proposal is interesting on a superficial level, but it breaks down when pushed. In the case of blind sight there is an object being perceived. But what is the perceptual analogue when Jesus’ mom teaches him that there is an ocean above the earth? What does Jesus perceive that leads him to reject that testimonial claim? It sounds like your blindsight proposal collapses into something like ESP, a completely novel and unique doxastic process that Jesus alone possessed. And that begins to look dangerously docetic. I already pointed out that there is nothing sinful about error. So why couldn’t Jesus have acquired an errant belief in his childhood?
Morrison says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 10:44am
Randall, the word is Loftus trashed you in your new joint book effort.
Did you throw the fight?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 11:10am
Randal,
I don’t see how “Jesus held false beliefs” is any less provocative than “the fallible Jesus?” At least the latter has a question mark.
There are few words more often associated with Jesus, nor more central to His identity and mission, than “truth.” Note especially John 1:14-17; 8:31-32; 14:6; and 18:37. Therefore, to say that “Jesus held false beliefs” is jarring in that context. Jesus was not a science teacher, but He was certainly a belief teacher. Thus, your statement, as formulated, at the very least appears to challenge Scripture. It provokes a response from those who hold Scripture dear and who assume you do as well.
By contrast, to say that Jesus was ignorant of a great many things should create no problem whatsoever. To be sailing on an ocean of ignorance in a very small boat is practically a definition of the human experience (which, by the way, makes faith so crucial to successful navigation). Jesus could not have been truly human without having to cope with ignorance. But we can be confident that Jesus knew how to distinguish between his knowledge and His ignorance. We can also be confident that in what He knew, He was able to distinguish that knowledge which came from a trust in people and that which came from a trust in God. After all, Luke has Him at age 12 asking questions of the elders…yet knowing He was in His Father’s house.
I think we do well to imitate Jesus in this regard. That is, we should distinguish in our knowledge that which we know based on input from humanity (which is fallible) and that which we know based on input from God (He who cannot tell a lie). Jesus held His God-given beliefs with the tightest of grips. Whatever false information was passed to Him by His community, He grasped lightly…if at all.
I acknowledge that you didn’t intend to be provocative, but I hope you recognize by now that the imprecision of your terms (“held false beliefs”) did in fact provoke.
In any case, none of us should worry that when we read Jesus’ words in the Scripture that they are infected in any way with “false beliefs.” We may not understand His words. We may even misunderstand them. Nonetheless, His words are true and there is nothing false about them.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:34pm
Mike, you keep wanting to pole-vault from Jesus’ education as a child to his teaching as an adult. But that is just obfuscating the pertinent issue. There is no tension between the claim that Jesus attained certain errant beliefs about science and history in his Palestinian upbringing and the claim that Jesus only spoke truth in his teaching about God and our relationship to God.
With that in mind, please address the concrete example with which I ended the article. If Jesus was like other kids he would have been taught Hebrew science which included the teaching of an ocean in the sky above that was being held up by a hard firmament. Assuming that Jesus received the same education as others (and isn’t that part of what it meant for him to be made “like them, fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17)) then wouldn’t he have come to hold the same belief as others?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:19pm
Randal,
You are the one wanting to pole-vault from the certain knowledge of what Jesus taught to the unknown experiences of His childhood.
I have no problem saying Jesus of Nazareth was ignorant of who would sail the ocean blue in 1492 or of what an amoeba would look like under a microscope. But when you want to say He “attained certain errant beliefs about science and history,” you’re going too far. And unnecessarily so.
As for your possible scenario, that Jesus was “taught Hebrew science” is laughably anachronistic. And the words you put in Mary’s mouth seem so as well. If you want to make the case that Jesus’ held false or errant beliefs, then at least construct a scenario doesn’t make us think “Yes, that’s probably how it worked,” when Fred Flintstone is using his feet to generate the traction necessary to get his stonemobile going.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:20pm
“As for your possible scenario, that Jesus was “taught Hebrew science” is laughably anachronistic.”
Really? Which science do you think he was taught?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:37pm
I can’t imagine that science as we know it was taught at all.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:50pm
Mike of course “science as we know it” was not taught in the ancient world. Neither was “history as we know it”. But to conclude from that fact that the ancients had no science at all is as naive as thinking they had no history.
For our discussion this is the crucial part: the ancients had a worldview that they believed provided a reasonably accurate picture of the world. For the Hebrews that worldview was a three-storied universe in which sheol was below the earth and heaven above. Between heaven and earth was a firmament, a hard dome, that held up an ocean above the earth. Surely you are aware of this?
In the same way that children today are taught about the solar system and the Milky Way children in the ancient world were taught the three storied universe. So how do you propose Jesus reacted when he received these lessons?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:35pm
Randal, I think you lump history and science inappropriately. When we read the Old Testament it quickly becomes apparent that the ancient Hebrews pretty much did practice history as we know it. Sure, there are differences (such as dating conventions and identification of sources), but the essentials of recording who did what to whom are all there from the beginning and throughout. In fact, there are certain books of the Bible we call books of “history.” Thus, one could easily imagine some similarities between a history class today and Israelite history as taught by the rabbis. That is not true when it comes to science. There are no OT books we can pull together and call the Bible’s books of “science.” Thus, we cannot see similarities between a science class today and what we see in the Scriptures.
I also believe you have described the ancient Hebrew cosmology inaccurately. By the way, my source is the Bible – I have not studied other ANE literature. Thus I am commenting on ancient Hebrew cosmology, not ancient cosmology in general. Yes, there were three tiers but in two dimensions. The “seen” dimension and the “unseen” dimension. (“Seen” corresponds to “practical” in my answer to Pete elsewhere). Thus the ocean was below in the seen dimension, but Sheol was below in the unseen dimension. Clouds were above in the seen dimension but God and angels were above in the unseen dimension. I believe Hebrew children were taught this three-tiered, two-dimensional universe. A “scientific” view of it would be anachronistic. It neither addresses nor disallows our solar system and the Milky Way.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 8:46pm
“When we read the Old Testament it quickly becomes apparent that the ancient Hebrews pretty much did practice history as we know it.”
Mike, I teach courses in history. The ancient near eastern standards of historiography were quite different from contemporary standards. To note but one difference, ancient historians were much less concerned about correct chronology and could shift the order of certain events in the narrative for ideological purposes. In addition ancient historians didn’t have the same emphasis on quotation of sources. They were content with ipsissima vox. Finally, they were also quite comfortable in contradictions between sources. Historians today are not.
“I also believe you have described the ancient Hebrew cosmology inaccurately.”
I didn’t. Take a look at the sources. You might start with Boadt’s Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction, (Paulist Press, 1984) p. 115.
Once you understand the science of the ancient world you can then explain how Jesus would have grown up having no false beliefs about the structure of the world.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:38am
Randal, the differences you cite between modern and ancient historiography are of the sort I mentioned. As a history professor, you would naturally notice more of this sort than I would as a mere student. My qualifications only allow me to recognize the similarity between my history classes and the history of Old Testament while being able to see no similarity between my science classes and what I see in the Old Testament – the OT being the primary text used to educate a 1st-century Jew, especially one descended from David.
As for understanding OT cosmology, I think I’m better off having gone directly to the source than to divert my attention to a secondary source, especially one that frames his thought in JEPD theory.
As for your closing point, I have no responsibility to “explain how Jesus would have grown up having no false beliefs about the structure of the world.” For one thing, the Scriptures do not declare that Jesus held false beliefs. For another, I see nothing in the Scriptures that would cause me to suspect that Jesus might have held false beliefs. And for yet another, I have no reason to believe that Jesus’ human cognitive development and limited knowledge required the acquisition of false beliefs along the way. It is you who have asserted the notion that Jesus held false beliefs, and if the best argument you have is what you have put forth I suggest you just drop the issue and move on to other topics where you can be more compelling and more productive.
randal says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 9:55pm
“As for understanding OT cosmology, I think I’m better off having gone directly to the source than to divert my attention to a secondary source, especially one that frames his thought in JEPD theory.”
I’m not sure why you’re mentioning the documentary hypothesis. JEDP has absolutely nothing to do with reconstructing Hebrew cosmology. Read a good commentary on Genesis 1 where it describes the separation of the waters above from the waters below and the raquia.
“As for your closing point, I have no responsibility to “explain how Jesus would have grown up having no false beliefs about the structure of the world.””
Yes you do because you are making an arbitrary claim that is a psychological impossibility. Ockham’s razor is apposite here. Unless you have some reason to think that Jesus had an absolutely unique cognitive development in the history of the world you ought to assume that his cognitive development included the acquisition of some errant beliefs just like every other single human being in history.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:35am
I mentioned the documentary hypothesis because the book to which you referred me framed its argument in those terms. The page to which you referred me came from “The Priestly Creation Story” section of the sixth chapter, which was followed by “The Yahwist Creation Story.”
I do not need a commentary on Genesis 1 (though I have read some) to tell me that the three-tiered, two-dimensional view of creation is the one portrayed throughout the Old Testament, and embraced by the New Testament.
I am not the one making an arbitrary claim. I am rejecting the arbitrary claim you are making that Jesus held false beliefs.
You keep insisting your claim is true by insisting that accepting false beliefs is a sine qua non of human cognitive development even in sinless people (not that there has ever been more than one of those), yet you have not effectively argued your case – much less proven it.
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:22pm
you don’t think that the Incarnate Jesus was taught Hebrew science?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:40pm
I cannot recall God ever being referenced in any science class I ever had. By contrast, I cannot imagine a 1st-century Hebrew child being taught about creation without God not only being mentioned, but being the central focus of the discussion.
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:46pm
okay…. with God being the central focus, would it not be safe to assume that they were taught a 3-tiered universe vis-a-vis Genesis 1?
Do you believe in a 3-tiered universe, or are Copernicus and his deluded followers tools of the devil?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:08pm
In our age we have a practical cosmology (the same one employed by the ancient Hebrews) and a scientific one as well. According to our practical cosmology we look “up” at the sky, time the sun”rise” and sun”set,” and “dive” into the ocean. Simultaneously, we know, scientifically speaking, that we are the located on the side of a ball so that the sky and ocean are each beside us but in different directions – we have to move laterally to get to either, though hardly anyone ever talks this way. And the sun – whoa, that’s moving and we’re moving, and everything’s moving – still everyone knows that you put a hat on your head and not your feet to protect yourself from the sun.
This distinction between the practical and scientific is also seen when I pound my fist on the table. Science tells me there is actually more space in the table than there is matter. Yet, I still don’t pound my fist too hard on the table lest I hurt myself.
When the ancient Hebrews employed practical cosmology, they didn’t consider it “scientific” because “science” as we know it (experimental method, etc.) wasn’t commonplace for them. Therefore, it’s a form of chronological snobbery, as C.S. Lewis might put it, to suggest that Hebrews considered the three-tier view of the universe that we ourselves (Non-Christian and Christian alike) employ today a “scientific” view of the universe.
Scientific cosmology hasn’t displaced practical cosmology. It just sits alongside it (or maybe above it or below it).
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:15pm
So then the 1st century Hebrews knew of heliocentriity?
If that’s the case, we should have evidence or record of their astronomic superiority….. a full 15 centuries before the rest of the world.
I don’t think its intellectual snobbery to say that they didn’t know about heliocentricity.
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:50pm
Pete,
I don’t see how you got heliocentricity out of anything I wrote, either about modern or ancient thought.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 4:59pm
Jesus was a unique human being. I hope we can all agree on that. I hope also, that we can agree that when we judge the psychology of humans, Jesus’ psychology should be the benchmark, not the other way around. He would have thought with more clarity, as Mike Gantt implies.
But more importantly, In Matthew 11:25 Jesus teaches that God gives knowledge of truth to the cognitively underdeveloped referred to as “babes” (harken back the recognition of the fetus of Jesus by the fetus of John the Baptist, Luke 1:41-44).
Babes (Gk. Népios) means infants who are not quite able to speak, and is used in that sense by Jesus. This use is reinforced by Jesus in Matthew 21:16, where he repeated “Népios” and added “sucklings” (Gk. Th?laz?) meaning nursing infants. In this instance God taught them to sing praises through knowledge of him. This cannot be reduced to mean simply “child-like faith”; there is the clear impartation of knowledge.
So we have biblical evidence of those considered not able to “think” for themselves being taught truths; being infused with knowledge by God. How much more Jesus, the incarnate Son of God?
No, Jesus would not have held wrong beliefs, either as a child or at any time. And like he did for Samuel (1Sam. 3:19), God would not let Jesus speak any falsehood.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:02pm
the Greek for sucklings is thelazo. For some reason certain characters do not transfer.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 5:15pm
“So we have biblical evidence of those considered not able to “think” for themselves being taught truths; being infused with knowledge by God. How much more Jesus, the incarnate Son of God?”
MGT2, you are conflating knowledge of acquaintance with knowledge of propositions. Infants have a knowledge of acquaintance but not a knowledge of propositions. Of course Jesus had an intimate knowledge of acquaintance of God just as an infant can have a knowledge of acquaintance of his mother. But that doesn’t mean Jesus had the truth of specific propositions infused to him when he was a zygote or fetus or neonate. Such a proposal is non-sensical and non-scriptural.
You say “Jesus was a unique human being.” Yes, but he was also made like us (Heb. 2:17). Luke 2:52 describes Jesus as growing in wisdom (sophia) which includes knowledge, intelligence (look it up in a lexicon). In other words the text explicitly states that Jesus moved from greater ignorance to less ignorance.
Can you concede that Jesus grew in wisdom (and thus decreased in ignorance) while claiming that that process never involved Jesus coming to hold a proposition as false which he once believed to be true? Sure you can argue that if you want. But it is a wholly arbitrary claim unless you have some theological or philosophical argument for why the incarnation could include Jesus being ignorant of p but not incorrectly and non-culpably believing p. You’ve provided no such argument and so your position is arbitrary and disturbingly Apollinarian in orientation.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 6:39pm
“But that doesn’t mean Jesus had the truth of specific propositions infused to him when he was a zygote or fetus or neonate. Such a proposal is non-sensical and non-scriptural.”
I agree that a zygote has no mind and cannot know anything, whether it is Jesus, or any other human being. But the scripture shows that at the least, it is possible for a fetus (John the Baptist, Lk 1: 41-441) or a neonate (Matt. 21:16) to be infused with knowledge of the truth. Thus John knew that Jesus is Lord, as did the babes and sucklings. However, there can be no dispute that scripture supports the notion that the cognitively underdeveloped such as infants can possess propositional knowledge (Matt. 11:25; 21:16 and Lk. 1:41-44). That is what we are talking about. If you disagree, can you tell me what those verses of scripture are saying?
“…but he was also made like us (Heb. 2:17).” But what does this mean? Was he born in sin and “shapen in iniquity” like us? Did he have a sinful nature like us? The bible tells us that if we say we have no sins we are liars, because that is our nature as human beings. Paul lamented the fact that when he wants to do the right thing, he ends up doing the wrong thing because of his human nature (Romans 7). Can the same be said of Jesus? Did Jesus have any sins? The point I am making is that we must recognize the limitations of making certain equivalencies, even when using scripture.
“Jesus moved from greater ignorance to less ignorance.” How does that establish for certain that he held false beliefs? Does ignorance equals false beliefs? I agree fully with Mike on this point.
Can’t you see that you are imposing upon scripture what it does not even hint at? Jesus’ disciples said to him, “You know all things…” (Jn. 16:30). The clear tenure of scripture is that Jesus had no false beliefs.
You are asking for some philosophical argument? You have rejected the theological argument based upon scriptures that do not rely on hypotheticals. You are saying that unless I accept that Jesus definitely held false beliefs, I am guilty of the heresy of Apollinarism? But what does the scripture say?
pete says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 7:09pm
“you know all things”… except the time of your return… as such the “all things” have to refer to true teachings about God.
The context was also of Jesus speaking in parables.
You need to show contextually that the disciples were affirming that Jesus was the ultimate encyclopedia britannica.
This was a religious revoution. Not a scientific one.
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 8:54pm
MGT2, there are many problems with your exegesis of the texts in the second paragraph. To note one example, the word nerios in Matthew 11:25 can refer to a child all the way up to puberty. And the context makes it clear that Jesus isn’t talking about pre-linguistic infants.
Your reaction to Hebrews 2:17 is revealing, for by pointing out that Jesus was without sin you clearly are assuming that having a false belief is tantamount to sinning. It isn’t. That’s your problem. You are forced to deny Jesus’ normal psychological development because of a completely erroneous assumption that having a false belief is tantamount to sinning.
What you’re going to have to do is offer a defense of that assumption. Barring such a defense you have no reason to deny that Jesus gained some false beliefs about matters like the structure of the universe.
chris says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 10:48pm
Barring such a defense you have no reason to deny that Jesus gained some false beliefs about matters like the structure of the universe.
No Randall, you are the one who needs to build the argument so we can flush it down the toilet where it belongs.
Let me see if I can create your argument for you, but please do your own if I am wrong.
Jesus’ contemporaries held beliefs/knowledge that are not accurate.
Jesus grew in knowledge.
Therefore Jesus had to also grow in inaccurate beliefs/knowledge.
Or maybe you are saying this:
Jesus’ contemporaries held beliefs/knowledge that are not accurate.
Jesus was taught these beliefs.
Jesus believed these to be true.
Therefore He held incorrect beliefs.
Neither one is accurate.
I am “taught” false beliefs every time I turn on the TV. But I do not believe what is being given to me as knowledge, so I do not hold those beliefs. And the reason I do not accept what I am being a taught as truth is because the word of God is truth and therefore everything contradictory is truth. And if the word of God can help me to keep from holding false incorrect beliefs, surely God the Father can keep His only begotten Son from believing things which are false !
randal says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 9:31pm
“No Randall, you are the one who needs to build the argument so we can flush it down the toilet where it belongs.”
Why the vulgarity and antagonism?
As for your reconstructions of my “argument”, those are rather strange creations on your part. My argument is that Jesus is like us in every way we are yet was without sin so if there is some normative non-culpable universal aspect of human experience then Jesus experienced it. Everyone here agrees (or I assume everyone does) that Jesus the human person was not omniscient, at least not always. (You can argue he regained omniscience at the glorification.) So he was agnostic about some beliefs, just like every other human being in history. Every other human being has likewise been errant in some beliefs. Errancy is not itself culpability. So why wouldn’t you likewise assume that in the same way Jesus was non-culpably ignorant, hungry, and tired, he was also non-culpably wrong about some things?
“I am “taught” false beliefs every time I turn on the TV. But I do not believe what is being given to me as knowledge,”
That’s confused. You are presented with false things. You are only being “taught” false things if you accept what is being presented to you as true.
chris says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:09pm
Randal,
You say
As for your reconstructions of my “argument”, those are rather strange creations on your part.
Ok, I ask again then:
Please give us your argument so that we can evaluate it. You do not like the way I reconstructed it for you, so please do us all a favor a explain yourself. You are the one who is always quick to jump on people and demand they create a formal argument, so it shouldn’t be too much to ask of you to do the same.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:54am
What do you mean “jump on people”? Why are you so haughty Chris?
My argument is already clearly presented. Jesus fully identified with all it is to be human except for sin. That means in his humanity he took on our cognitive limitations including ignorance. To deny that Jesus was ignorant and claim that he was omniscient in his humanity is a docetic or Apollinarian error. I have provided ample argument that the same is true when it comes to him having error about matters like ancient Hebrew science.
chris says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 2:35am
Randal,
Why won’t you just walk your talk? As a Christian, a leader and an educated, you Sir are held to a higher standard.
You have many, many times requested that others construct a formal argument so that you can…deconstruct it.
Now it’s time for you to do the same.
Now you are trying to reset the goalposts. You originally argued that Jesus help false beliefs. So please construct a a formal argument.
But please do not try to change your story now and try to tell us that Jesus was ignorant of some things. We all know He was ignorant about some things! I mean come on!
You are stating that He held false beliefs.
If part of your argument is that being ignorant about something also means holding a false belief, then you can include that in your argument.
Or the better solution is for you to confess, repent and move on to the next subject.
But don’t run from this. Construct the formal argument or confess and repent. Please.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:40pm
“Construct the formal argument or confess and repent.”
That’s the best line I’ve heard in awhile. This is another beaut: “As a Christian, a leader and an educated, you Sir are held to a higher standard.”
So what standard are you as an anonymous commenter held to?
“But please do not try to change your story now and try to tell us that Jesus was ignorant of some things. We all know He was ignorant about some things! I mean come on!”
Change what story? From the beginning the first step has been to bring closet docetists to recognize that Jesus didn’t know every true proposition. The next step is to bring them to recognize he would have held to some false propositions.
Commonweal belief = a belief universally or nearly universally held to be true in a given doxastic community.
x=doxastic agent
(1) If x is from a doxastic community where p is a commonweal belief then you ought to believe that x accepts p unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.
(2) Chris is from a doxastic community where Copernicanism is a commonweal belief.
(3) Therefore, I ought to believe that Chris accepts Copernicanism unless I have a reason to believe otherwise.
(4) I have no reason to believe otherwise.
(5) Therefore, I ought to believe that Chris accepts Copernicanism
Now an argument for Jesus, temporally indexed to AD 12 when he would have been about 18:
(6) Jesus is from a doxastic community where the three-storied universe is a commonweal belief.
(7) Therefore, I ought to believe that Jesus accepts the three-storied universe unless I have a reason to believe otherwise.
(8) I have no reason to believe otherwise.
(9) Therefore, I ought to believe that Jesus accepts the three-storied universe.
*You would have a reason to believe otherwise in AD 40 after Jesus had been glorified and gained all knowledge. You’d also have a reason to believe overwise for any belief the assent to which would involve a moral error. But you have no reason to believe otherwise where p = the truth of the three-storied universe.
chris says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 6:38pm
Randal,
This argument breaks down immediately.
Using your terms:
Commonweal belief = a belief universally or nearly universally held to be true in a given doxastic community.
x=doxastic agent
(1) If x is from a doxastic community where p is a commonweal belief then you ought to believe that x accepts p unless you have a reason to believe otherwise.
X’s beliefs are the sum total of P(s).
X must hold all P(s).
Some of P are false
Therefore X holds false beliefs.
I think you see the problem?
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 7:55pm
The argument I gave is valid with plausible premises. But I do see your problem.
chris says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 6:57pm
Let me give you an example. Your terms:
Commonweal belief = a belief universally or nearly universally held to be true in a given doxastic community.
x=doxastic agent
Matthew 22:23 KJV:
“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him..”
Your term:
p is a commonweal belief
So P = no resurrection of the dead.
Jesus did not hold P, and here is what He said to those who did:
Matthew 22:29 KJV
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
No would it be fair to liken you Randal to a Sadducee? After all you are a religious leader are you not? And do you not teach in a religious school? I don’t think it’s much of a stretch you to liken you to a Sadducee.
Using this example we have shown that Jesus did not hold every false belief of His time. We also do not have a list of everything He believed true. Therefore we cannot conclude that He held false beliefs. The best evidence we have is that there were in fact commonly held false beliefs at His time we have evidence of Him refuting one is this scripture reference.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 7:48pm
For the Jewish first century doxastic community the resurrection wasn’t a commonweal belief unless you define the Sadducess out of that community. So that’s completely irrelevant. What is relevant, and what you seem to be despserate to ignore, is the commonweal belief in the three-storied universe that I presented in the argument.
You asked for an argument. I gave it.
chris says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 7:56pm
You’ll need to substantiate #7.
You said:
“(6) Jesus is from a doxastic community where the three-storied universe is a commonweal belief.
(7) Therefore, I ought to believe that Jesus accepts the three-storied universe unless I have a reason to believe otherwise.
MGT2 says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 10:31pm
Randal,
The context of Matt. 11:25, and the supporting scripture Matt. 21:16 and context makes it clear that Jesus meant very young children and nursing infants; that is inescapable. He was in fact embarrassing his critics.
I do not know if you are simply using a tactic to win a debate, but I am certainly not arguing that false beliefs equals sin. I never have. So you need to think differently about what I am saying.
You seem to think that because our fallen nature predisposes us to a certain psychology, that it must be the same with Jesus. That is why you mistakenly interpret Hebrews 2:17 to mean that being like us means being the same in every minutae of our nature. From that I am justified in concluding that you are saying Jesus had a sinful nature. That means you seem to think that Jesus was a man that later became God. But I won’t put words in your mouth.
The point is, you are thinking incorrectly that Jesus must have demonstrated all the same psychological tendencies as our fallen psychology. Remember, his psychology IS going to be different from ours because he was pre-existent.
In the case of having knowledge of the workings of the universe, especially how it came into being, I find it extraordinary that you would think that Jesus would not know he created it. To get there, you must think that Jesus could not have known about his divinity at
a very early age, but only became aware of it, at what age? Did the pre-existent One lose or set aside his mind in the incarnation only to rediscover or reclaim it when he finally “grew” in knowledge?
I bear no burden to show that Jesus would not have held wrong beliefs; there is more than enough evidence in the scripture that he did not.
You argument is based purely upon unsubstantiated assumptions, and even if some of your points are reasonable, I am sure you recognize that your conclusion is far from sound. It is not necessarily true that Jesus held wrong beliefs.
pete says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:50am
Actually with respect, you do have to bear the burden, as most commentators and anthropologists would affirm that 1st century Hebrews believed in a 3-tier universe.
Are you saying that Jesus knew of heliocentricity?
And it is completely reasonable for him to learn qua divinity who he was (cf.Psalm 40:7 and Heb. 10:7), and learn qua human how to be a carpenter and recite Hebrew cosmology.
Maybe we can see a compromise in Jesus’ understanding of Hebrew cosmology as descriptive of an objective truth.
Again, its like saying its a false belief to know that the “sun will set at 8pm”… because of course it doesn’t really set.
Whether I utter the sunset timetable, or my 3-year old says it, the statement or belief isn’t false for either him or I.
There just happens to be a knowledge gap.
I hope that knowledge gaps at least can be affirmed, qua humanity.
Is your hangup just in labelling 3-tier universe as “false”?
Any affirmation that he already knew this, and passed this “secret” teaching unto his disciples would be gnosticism.
pete says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:56am
I meant affirmation that he knew heliocentricity and passed this only to a select few….. its heretical because the message of Christ was for all, and contradicts the truth of apostolic succession
pete says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 7:43am
At the end of the day, even if Jesus believed in the 3-tiered universe during the incarnation (and he most likely did) it is because he CHOSE to have limited knowledge on that point.
Where he had full knowledge was with respect to the Kingdom of Heaven, his identity, and how eternal salvation is to be wrought for his creation.
I come from the position that it is even more awesome that the eternal wisdom of God, with God from the beginning, chose to dwell with us as one of us in every way except for sin.
In light of who Jesus is, the kenosis of his incarnation is even more mind-boggling when taken in its significance.
He basically made himself nothing, of his own volition, in obedience to the Father.
That is love.
randal says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 9:51pm
MGT2, to read into Matthew 11:25 that prelinguistic infants grasp propositional truths about God is a case of eisegesis, pure and simple. There is absolutely nothing in the context of the pericope (vv. 25-30) to support that claim.
“I do not know if you are simply using a tactic to win a debate….”
Respectfully, you’re the one who raised the specter of sin in this context.
“You seem to think that because our fallen nature predisposes us to a certain psychology, that it must be the same with Jesus.”
No, not fallen nature. Human finitude.
“From that I am justified in concluding that you are saying Jesus had a sinful nature.”
As bad as your exegsis of Matthew 11 is, your exegesis of me is far worse. I just affirmed that Jesus became like us in every way except for sin. You are claiming that Jesus was at one point wholly ignorant (zygote) and later became omniscient (certainly by the glorification). With that I agree. But then you stipulate that Jesus was the sole human in history who never gained any false beliefs about anything in his journey from complete ignorance to complete omniscience. And I’m pointing out that that position is idiocyncratic, arbitrary, and dangerously Apollinarian. When the church rejected Apollinarianism in 381 they were rejecting any attempt to deny the fullness of Jesus’ human psychology. That’s precisely what you’re doing.
“In the case of having knowledge of the workings of the universe, especially how it came into being, I find it extraordinary that you would think that Jesus would not know he created it. To get there, you must think that Jesus could not have known about his divinity at
a very early age, but only became aware of it, at what age? Did the pre-existent One lose or set aside his mind in the incarnation only to rediscover or reclaim it when he finally “grew” in knowledge?”
MGT2, you agreed that as a zygote Jesus knew nothing. So what are you talking about here? Of course he emptied himself of his omniscience to become incarnate.
You should keep in mind that the predominant model of incarnation has affirmed that while Jesus was limited in knowledge qua human he was omnisient qua divinity. You’re losing that balance in your tendency to infuse the divine mind without remainder into his human person.
Aaron says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 7:48pm
Defending Jesus where Jesus doesn’t need defending is what this calls to my mind. Recently I took a class called ‘Origins’ and it was a Young Earth view of the creation account.
Not the the least of things that especially disturbed me about some of the teaching in this particular class was the idea that, since, Adam, creation, beginning, were referenced in some way shape or form in almost every book of the OT & NT, then it must follow that the creation event happened in 6 days almost 6000 years ago. When you play that song backwards, it really leaves Jesus hanging by a thread. No wonder so many of today’s youth get wiped out when their whole house of cards comes tumbling down when they begin to ponder the possibility that Genesis doesn’t suppose a particular time frame.
Could this be the intersection where infallibility of scripture and fallibility of interpretation have a head on collision? I think so. Aside from the carnage that’s left in it’s wake, it’s sad that well meaning Christians miss the entire meaning of the story–mustard seeds or otherwise.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 8:49pm
Aaron, are you saying Jesus doesn’t need defending from the accusation that he held false beliefs?
Are you saying that if Jesus had had the scientific knowledge that we do today that He would not have taken the Genesis account of creation seriously?
Aaron says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:31pm
Mike, I don’t think Jesus’ commentary on the Genesis account has anything to do with science in as far as much as his particular level of concern over the basis on which most creation debates rage. I take Jesus at his word as far as I can understand it and how it has been transmitted from the author. I don’t see much coming from the Gospel writers, or Paul for that matter, regarding the same questions modern culture divides itself over. Was Jesus concerned with //when// as much as he was with //who & why//, when he brings up creation?
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:38pm
Aaron, I don’t suggest that I know precisely how Jesus might or might not weigh in on the current debates you reference. But He does answer the issue of divorce by a reference to Adam and Eve as the defining paradigm for marital and sexual fidelity before God. Also, in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 Paul portrays the resurrected Christ and Adam as analogous progenitors.
Aaron says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:13pm
You bet, why wouldn’t they? They were astute Jews and held a very good understanding of their faith traditions, of which, the Adam & Eve story was a part.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:23am
So you believe, as they did, that Adam and Eve were the first humans God created, and that from them we have all descended?
Aaron says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 2:37am
I believe that Adam & Eve, represent the first of us created in God’s image, if that’s what you mean. But if you are referring to the very first and only two humans to populate the entire earth, no, I find that hard to believe.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 10:40am
I was expecting a less equivocal answer. Your ambiguity raises a lot of questions.
It sounds like you believe that there were other “humans,” not created in God’s image, who populated the earth prior to Adam and Eve. If so, who created them and when? What relationship, if any, did Adam and Eve have with them? Where are the descendants of these other “humans” today? If such descendants exist today, how do we distinguish ourselves from them? If such descendants do not exist today, when and how did that race of “humans” die out? Other than the presence or absence of God’s image, how do or did these “humans” differ from us? How was their creation different from the creation of Adam and Eve? I could go on, but I’ll stop here. (By the way, none of these questions are rhetorical; I’d be interested in your answers.)
Aaron says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 8:27pm
These are quite the serious questions and I’ll predicate my answer on the understanding that 1. I was not around during any type of creation event, 2. You were not around during any creation event, 3. Moses was not around during any creation event. That being said, the Bible as far as the science of biology goes is painfully silent on the matter of 20th & 21st century science and our understanding of the human genome for example.
I understand Gen. 1 & 2 as an allegory. Period. Fortunately, a literal or non-literal reading of Genesis does not dilute the the final purposes for which we are here and can call ourselves Christians. On the other hand, a literal or non-literal reading of Genesis can keep the skeptic from taking a step toward an eternal relationship with God.
I’d rather focus my attention on the creation from the standpoint that we can observe the natural revelation of God rather than trying to sift through details of progenerators.
Mike, what do you make of the second law of thermodynamics and big bang (or creation ex nihilo) cosmology. Are we to abandon what we can see and observe in order to deal with the difficulties of whether or not Noah, his sons and millions of animals, and dinosaurs floated around on global flood waters?
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 2:02pm
Aaron,
I can agree with the logic of your first paragraph – that since none of us was around at the beginning of creation to observe what happened, we shouldn’t act all know-it-all about it. I can also agree, especially given the terseness of biblical creation references, that there’s room for people to have variation in perspective about exactly what God has meant by those references. Where you and others lose me, however, is when you seem to attach more credence to the speculations of scientists about the beginning (for speculations are all they are, no matter how “informed” those speculations might be) than you do the very words of Almighty God on the subject.
Of this I am confident: Jesus would not have deceived us. If it was foolish to believe that in the beginning God created a man named Adam and a woman named Eve, and that from the two of them we have all descended, then He would have told us so.
Brap Gronk says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 6:06pm
“Of this I am confident: Jesus would not have deceived us.”
Do you think his dad planted all that deceptive evidence out there that leads so many people to conclude there was not a literal Adam and Eve?
chris says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 6:29pm
Aaron,
Do you interpret Exodus 20 vs1 and 11 allegorically as well ?
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 11:57pm
Brap Gonk,
I see that you do not yet love Him. Yet one cay you will, and when you do, you will regret utterances like this.
There is no “deceptive evidence.” All creation speaks of a Creator.
Aaron says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:01pm
Sorry Mike, I missed your first question.
“Aaron, are you saying Jesus doesn’t need defending from the accusation that he held false beliefs?”
Not necessarily. Jesus held many beliefs. To which are you referring? If you’re referring to mustard seeds as Randal has written about, then yes, I don’t Jesus needs defending.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:04pm
Aaron,
I don’t think Jesus needs defending on the question of seed sizes either. My defense has to do with Randal’s claim that “Jesus held false beliefs.” I don’t think Randal has made an effective case for that claim, nor do I think he can.
Aaron says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:19pm
I’m kind of new to this whole theological, philosophical playground, so bear with me here…but, if you’re defending the claim that “Jesus held no false beliefs”, then how to you reconcile the false belief of the mustard seed to which you’ve also said you’re not opposing?
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:20am
Aaron, I am not a theologian or philosopher. I’m just a guy who has read the Bible, and sometimes understands parts of it.
When Jesus spoke of the mustard seed, I take it He was speaking of what was commonly considered among His contemporaries as the smallest garden seed (since the parables were of plants and growth) at that time in that region. To portray that as a false belief that creation technically had no smaller seeds is to do violence to His meaning and context…and to really be quite silly.
When my little league baseball coach told us we could swing a bat no less than 28 inches in length, he was correct in the context of our rules at that time in that place. To portray it as if he had a false belief that there could not exist any bat of less than 28 inches is to do violence to his meaning and context…and to really be quite silly.
randal says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 9:58pm
I think Mike Gantt’s position is a good (as in apposite) example of this. In a vain attempt to ensure that Jesus acquired no false beliefs about the natural world he refuses to recognize that the Hebrews held a three-storied view of the universe. Talk about painting oneself into a corner.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:20pm
Randal,
I’m puzzled at why you’re misrepresenting my position. I thought I had made clear to you that I fully embrace the three-tier, two-dimensional Hebrew view of creation as depicted throughout the Old Testament – just as Jesus did. What may have confused you is that I had pointed out the importance of including the two-dimensions (the two dimensions between the seen and the unseen, visible and invisible, flesh and spirit, physical and spiritual, etc.) which you did not address in your mention of the three-tier view. It’s not an inconsequential point.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:57am
Mike, your “two dimensions” is your own invention and is simply not what the ancient Hebrews believed. They believed that there was a hard dome that actually held up the ocean above our heads. That’s false. When you invent a new interpretation of their view you’re saying that the picture Jesus had was wrong. So rather than develop your tortured hypothesis why not just come out and admit that the ancient Hebrew 3 storied universe is false? Sheol is not hidden beneath our feet in some other dimension and heaven isn’t materially above our heads in some other dimension and there’s no ocean above our heads in some other dimension.
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:36pm
Randal, the two-dimensional idea is not original with me. I got it from the Bible. However, I don’t insist that every ancient Jew “got it.” In fact, John 3 tells the story of Jesus’ own puzzlement that one of the ranking rabbinic authorities of His day – Nicodemus, by name – did not get it. And you can’t blame Jesus for being disappointed that Nicodemus didn’t get the distinction between the dimension of flesh and the dimension of spirit because of passages like the one where Elijah prayed for his servant’s eyes to be opened to the dimension of heaven that was not of the flesh so that he could see the chariots of fire that had been provided for their protection.
If you think Jesus held a belief about creation that has been disproven by modern science, you are greatly mistaken. Our Lord was not omniscient in the days of His flesh, but the beliefs He held were all true – and still are, that we might believe them, too. Science may enhance our understanding of God, but it should never be allowed to subtract from it.
Mike Gantt says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 9:52pm
Randal,
One of the things I’ve noticed in your responses is that you don’t seem to make the sort of distinctions that 1st-century Jewish minds made about the acquisition of knowledge. For example, note 2 Tim 3:14-15 in which Paul, in guiding Timothy in the matter of acquiring beliefs, distinguishes between “learning” something and “becoming convinced of” it. In this same passage, Paul also says that distinguishing the source of the information is important as well. Lastly, Paul explicitly distinguishes knowledge that comes via the Scriptures (that is, the word of God) and from any human source.
You, by contrast, seem to view the 1st-century Jewish mind as single receptacle into which all inputs were placed, unless displaced by some subsequent input.
1st-century Jews might not have been able to pass one of our 8th grade biology tests but it seems they were able to think more effectively than we sometimes are.
Tom Larsen says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:06pm
Randal, out of interest, do you think Jesus could have unknowingly communicated false information?
“Johnny, there’s a huge ocean above us—that’s why the sky’s blue! Mummy told me so. What? Oh, there’s a big dome that stops it from falling down on top of us.”
If you think that Jesus could have unknowingly communicated false information, it seems to me that His statements about God, the judgement of Israel, and the kingdom of God will need to be questioned as well as (possibly) His views on human origins.
I do wonder what you think the implications of a “fallible Jesus” actually are.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:49am
“Randal, out of interest, do you think Jesus could have unknowingly communicated false information?”
Sure, why not? For example, he might have told his brother the hammer was behind the woodpile when, unbeknownst to him, his dad had moved the hammer since Jesus last saw it.
What I find strange is when people pole vault from that kind of error to the worry that Jesus was wrong in fundamental matters on his teaching regarding God and salvation. Of course I don’t grant that he made errors there.
Tom Larsen says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 11:35pm
Why not?
Of course
(1) Jesus made some false statements
doesn’t imply
(2) Jesus made some false statements about fundamental matters pertaining to God and salvation,
but I’m not sure what model you would appeal to in order to justify rejecting (2) but not (1).
randal says:
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 12:01am
“but I’m not sure what model you would appeal to in order to justify rejecting (2) but not (1).”
I am not sure what you mean by “model”. Let’s talk about ends. God sent Jesus in the world not to provide us with correct scientific information but to provide us with the words of life. Thus, in accord with that end God ensures that Jesus provides us with the words of life rather than correct scientific information.
Tom Larsen says:
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 12:58am
How do you think God would ensure that Jesus would provide us with accurate “words of life”? Could He not in the same way ensure that all of Jesus’ thoughts and words were accurate?
randal says:
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 1:31am
“How do you think God would ensure that Jesus would provide us with accurate “words of life”?”
This is not a problem for an omniscient and omnipotent being.
“Could He not in the same way ensure that all of Jesus’ thoughts and words were accurate?”
Of course he could have. But why would you think he did? Do you think Jesus didn’t accept the three-storied view of the universe that was universally accepted by his contemporaries? If that’s your view then what do you think he did believe about the physical structure of the universe?
Tom Larsen says:
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 2:29am
Yeah, I actually don’t have a firm opinion on the matter. I do think that Christians need to be very careful when it comes to matters like this, however, for while pile of reasons.
MGT2 says:
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:55pm
Randal,
As far as my exegesis goes, if it is eisegesis as you claim, then I share the company of many respected bible scholars including Robert Mounce and Michael Green.
You are confused about your concept of zygotes, and by extension wrong about what I agree to concerning the zygote of Jesus ( I cannot believe that you would even entertain something so ridiculous to make a point). A zygote has no mind, no functional organs; it is simply a clump of cells yet to multiply and differentiate. To base an argument on what a person’s zygote knows reduces the discussion to the sublimely simple. Yet, if that is what your argument depends upon, I’m sorry.
But you raised a more interesting point when talking about Jesus being a human person. For now you are saying that Jesus had two minds, a human mind and a divine mind. The ore acceptable view is that Jesus had two natures and one divine mind. That is the creedal position.
Let me explain. According to the Council of Chalcedon, we should not think of the incarnation as God turning himself into a human being. That would make him first God, then man and back to God again, which is the logical conclusion of your argument.
It is also important to remember that the Divine Logos was a person with a divine mind and nature before the incarnation. The Council was careful to maintain that it was this same person, the Divine Logos with his divine mind and nature, that clothed himself in human flesh, resulting in the hypostatic union of two natures, human and divine. Thus, he was fully God and fully human.
All he took on was the human body and nature, not a human mind. That would be an impossibility, because to have a human mind at any point would mean either that his mind changed from divine to human and back to divine, or that he had two minds, which I hope no one is suggesting.
So the humiliation of the incarnation properly understood, means that Jesus willingly became obedient to the Father by not exercising his divine prerogatives, but saying and doing only what the Father told him to say and do while learning and experiencing what the Divine Logos could never have as a Supernatural being.
According to the scriptures Jesus was certainly aware of his divinity, perhaps always has, and there is no indication that he was ever less than the Divine Logos, the second person of the Godhead and “God with us”.
The incarnation was planned before the foundation of the world by God who knows the end from the beginning. He knew the distant future, things that are impossible for mere mortals to know. He knew then what the would be like today, tomorrow, even unto the end of the ages. All that he did, was done willingly and with full awareness.
It is absurd to think he would ever hold any wrong beliefs. That is the province of those who lack a deep understanding and appreciation of the nature of God.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:05am
“But you raised a more interesting point when talking about Jesus being a human person. For now you are saying that Jesus had two minds, a human mind and a divine mind. The ore acceptable view is that Jesus had two natures and one divine mind. That is the creedal position.”
It all depends what you mean by “mind”. The Chalcedonian Definition denies that Christ is two persons over-against Nestorianism, but it affirms precisely what I have described. I suggest you try reading Thomas Morris’ discussion in The Logic of God Incarnate to get a handle on what I’m talking about. Or you could read chapter four of my book Faith Lacking Understanding.
Beyond that I think I’ve said enough on this topic for now.
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:41pm
Randal, since you appeal to church councils, can you tell us which one pronounced that “Jesus held false beliefs”?
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 1:43pm
Randal, you said, “Beyond that I think I’ve said enough on this topic for now.
This may count for the wisest statement so far you’ve made on this topic.
CarolJean says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:32am
http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-grain-of-truth
MGT2 says:
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 2:22am
Good job.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 12:59am
Thanks for the link. It misses the point of this discussion however.
The first point concerns not whether Jesus taught that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds but rather that even if he had believed that it was the smallest of all seeds that would be quite irrelevant to the authority of Jesus’ teaching.
The second, broader point is that Jesus held the worldview of a first century Jew which included many false beliefs about the nature of the world and lacked many things we now know to be true like Copernicanism, plate tectonics and the germ theory of diesease. But that’s okay. Taking on the worldview of a particular time in history is part of what it means for Jesus to be God incarnate.
So this isn’t really about a mustard seed.
Aaron says:
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 12:27am
Chris,
“Aaron, Do you interpret Exodus 20 vs1 and 11 allegorically as well ?”
Here’s how I read Ex. 20 verses 1-20. First, I read them in context with the exodus narrative. Exodus 20 begins by making YHWY the decisive agent, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of slavery (v. 2).
We know what the Israelites had been up to; think empire. And we know where they are heading; think building their own local tradition–they’ll be preoccupied with this identity change as the chosen Israel and will be set apart from the nations and also the temptations of the empire (read Deut. 7:6-8, 10:14-15, 14:2)
Exodus 20 will go on to lay out for them the parts of the law that will bring about this new identity and sanctification. As far as the ‘sabbath’ is concerned in v. 11, it’s remarkable that you’ve chosen to reason that this references Gen 1-2 precisely for a maneuver for literalness. I wouldn’t have it that Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zepheniah, Ezekiel et al would be fixated on 1,2,3,4,5,6 days of creation, then on the 7th, rest, for a creation lesson as much as they would a warning against practicing actual sabbath and obedience to the law; putting down work, stop cleaning their homes, waxing their cars, popping their zits or whatever the empire would be having them do.
I think an attempt at a self referencing proof text, as you have here, does the text, the narrative and the message of God far more damage than my attempt at a non-literal Genesis account.
pete says:
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 7:40am
Aaron,
Are you sure that you are new to the field of theological/philosophical discourse?
You are doing a pretty good job.
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 9:19am
Aaron,
You would have Chris believe that God was the decisive agent in Ex 20 but not in Gen 1-2?
Aaron says:
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 5:06pm
Surely not. God is the decisive agent in creation, that’s clear textually and logically.
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 11:23am
At last we’ve heard something you believe in. Mostly you’ve written about what you don’t believe in.
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 3:18am
Just happened to see this post — I was thinking about the original post on the fallibility of Jesus just the other day.
Anyhow, I realized the other day that there really isn’t any reason to insist that Jesus retained his omniscience at the Incarnation. None at all. In fact, it makes his reliance on the Father a great deal more meaningful.
Just a thought.
MGT2 says:
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 6:52pm
Fair enough David. But does it follow in your mind that he definitely, without a doubt, must have believed wrong things?
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 8:37pm
Nope.
randal says:
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 3:55pm
Actually, there is a good reason to think that Jesus in some sense retained his omniscience. The reason is that Jesus was (and is) God (the Son) and traditionally Christian theists have believed that omniscience is one of the modally necessary (i.e. essential) divine attributes such that any being which is not omniscient is not divine.
For this reason the christological tradition has been dominated by two-minds models which allow for the ignorance, human psychological development and error of the human mind of Jesus whilst retaining the essential omniscience of God the Son. The extent to which those models end up looking Nestorian is the extent to which others have gravitated toward a kenotic model as you seem to be doing here. But again, kenoticism requires surrendering a very dear divine attribute.
davidstarlingm says:
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 5:17pm
I don’t really see why omniscience is considered a more essential characteristic of divinity than omnipresence or immaterialness or anything else that Jesus did unequivocally give up at the Incarnation.
Being born without omniscience wouldn’t mean that Jesus held false beliefs during his ministry. The baptism of Christ corresponded with the indwelling of the Spirit; as a perfect example for us, Jesus lived in perfect harmony with the Spirit. So he had on-call omniscience, anyway. I.e. “I don’t know everything, but I have Wikipedia on my phone, so close enough.”
randal says:
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 9:12pm
Omnipresence is not actually an essential attribute. Theologians typically categorize it as a relative attribute because it is supervenes upon God being omniscient and omnipotent and creating something spatially extended.
As for being immaterial, God can be essentially immaterial and contingently be united with a material body. After all, most dualists believe human beings are essentially immaterial beings that are contingently united with a material body.
“Being born without omniscience wouldn’t mean that Jesus held false beliefs during his ministry.”
Of course it wouldn’t MEAN that he had false beliefs during his ministry. But he could have had false beliefs during his ministry so long as they didn’t impinge on the material on which he was teaching.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 12:46am
I don’t know why anyone would want to argue for any of the “omni’s” as being possessed by Christ in the days of His flesh, for to do so would argue against His truly having been in the flesh. No human being can be omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent. “Omni’s” cannot be tempted, and He surely was. As someone has said, the Holy Spirit provided “omni” to Him as and when necessary – just as the Holy Spirit is promised to us (John 14:12). When Christ was restored to glory after His resurrection, His “omni’s” would have returned to Him. This is the glory of the incarnation: that He became one of us, with all the attendant limitations…except sin.
randal says:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1:07am
Do you believe Jesus surrendered his omnibenevolence?
davidstarlingm says:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1:35am
I don’t think God had omnibenevolence to surrender.
God has an infinite desire for justice and an infinite desire for mercy. God the Son didn’t need to surrender either of those in order to become incarnate.
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:00am
Because omnibenevolence is more a technical term used by philosophers and theologians, I don’t feel as comfortable in my understanding of it as I do omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. (In concert with this, I note the the spell-checker in this site does not recognize the word, while it does recognize the other three.) Therefore, it was not in view when I spoke of “the omni’s” (a triumvirate of qualities attributable to God that most laymen would recognize).
If omnibenevolence equates to the absence of sin then Jesus demonstrated it even in the days of His flesh. If it means something else, it’s possible that being a human limits it in some way that made it part of what Christ temporarily surrendered along with the more standard “omni’s.”
davidstarlingm says:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1:30pm
Not to mention the fact that, in these sorts of debates, an “omnibenevolence God” usually equates to “a God who does everything for my personal benefit and comfort in precisely the way I want him to”.
davidstarlingm says:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1:42pm
*omnibenevolent. Stupid autocorrect.
randal says:
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 11:01pm
I don’t know if that is the case but omnibenvolence simply means that God desires all creatures achieve shalom. (In this sense, it is a relative attribute in contrast to perfect goodness which is an absolute attribute.)