Let us consider the omnipotence, omnipresense, and omniscience of Jesus.
IMO, the church has always said that Jesus was “fully man” and “fully God”.
However, I am not willing to agree with this.
This is not only a technical issue, but a logical one as well.
Consider that it was “the Word” who came from heaven to be manifested on the earth
in the form of a man (John 1:1,14), and consider that He was to be “called” >>> “Jesus”.
IMO, technically, this is who “Jesus” really was: a very unique human indwelt by the Word.
He was the Word, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Christ, the Messiah.
“Jesus” was born of a virgin, and thus did not inherit man’s sin nature,
so how can He be considered “fully man”?
Next, how can a “fully man” (with his inherited sin nature) be “fully God”?
Also, if a man was “fully God”, He would not need the Father and the Holy Spirit to help Him,
and IMO Jesus constantly needed Them both to help Him carry out His mission.
He received His instructions from the Father, and IMO the Holy Spirit performed the miracles!
Yes, He operated in this manner to demonstrate to us how we are to live our lives,
but could He have done all that He did without the help of the Father and the Holy Spirit?
If He could have, then indeed He was “fully God”.
Another consideration is the following:
If you have one of the Triune Godhead, you have Them all (John 14:16-23, etc.).
But, each One of Them has His own level of authority and function.
E.G. Did Father God ever really perform any miracles, or were they done by the Holy Spirit?
In closing, IMO …
the man who was called “Jesus” was not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
IMO, the church has always said that Jesus was “fully man” and “fully God”.
However, I am not willing to agree with this.
This is not only a technical issue, but a logical one as well.
Consider that it was “the Word” who came from heaven to be manifested on the earth
in the form of a man (John 1:1,14), and consider that He was to be “called” >>> “Jesus”.
IMO, technically, this is who “Jesus” really was: a very unique human indwelt by the Word.
He was the Word, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Christ, the Messiah.
“Jesus” was born of a virgin, and thus did not inherit man’s sin nature,
so how can He be considered “fully man”?
Next, how can a “fully man” (with his inherited sin nature) be “fully God”?
Also, if a man was “fully God”, He would not need the Father and the Holy Spirit to help Him,
and IMO Jesus constantly needed Them both to help Him carry out His mission.
He received His instructions from the Father, and IMO the Holy Spirit performed the miracles!
Yes, He operated in this manner to demonstrate to us how we are to live our lives,
but could He have done all that He did without the help of the Father and the Holy Spirit?
If He could have, then indeed He was “fully God”.
Another consideration is the following:
If you have one of the Triune Godhead, you have Them all (John 14:16-23, etc.).
But, each One of Them has His own level of authority and function.
E.G. Did Father God ever really perform any miracles, or were they done by the Holy Spirit?
In closing, IMO …
the man who was called “Jesus” was not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!