Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Rebuttal to Matt Slick's article

If Jesus is God, then why did He not know the
time of His return?

 By Sami Zaatari

 

  

http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_know.htm


One the essential problem for the Christian doctrine of Jesus being God is that the Bible testifies to the fact that Jesus is not all-knowing. Logically, if somebody is not all knowing then that person cannot be God, as well know, an essential attribute of God is to be all-knowing.  

As we said, the Bible tells us that Jesus is not all-knowing:

Matt. 24:35-36 <../kjv/Matt/matt_24.htm> Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah."

This brings up a lot of problems for us, how is Jesus God if he is not all-knowing? Matt Slick tries to solve this problem up by giving many solutions; he first starts off by saying:

Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union <../dictionary/dic_g-h.htm> ; that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person.

 

RESPONSE

The first problem with this response is that Matt Slick cannot prove any of what he just said! There is not a single reference in the Gospels which show Jesus talking about having 2 natures, where he gave up his divine nature and took on a human nature. If these verses do exist, then I would kindly ask the Christians to produce the verses from the Gospels were Jesus claims to have 2 natures.

Matt Slick then brings up another solution:

Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it?

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 <../kjv/John/john_21.htm>  - NASB).

 

Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true.

 

RESPONSE

Several responses are in order. Firstly, the text Matt provides for us is not Jesus speaking, rather it is a disciple speaking. Matt Slick will argue that Jesus did not correct the disciple, however so this response is still not good enough. The reason being is because Jesus does not always have to correct someone when they make a mistake, such logic is absurd! If Jesus had to correct someone for every mistake they uttered then he would still be correcting them to this day! Jesus himself said that he came not to judge the world, but to save it:  

Jhn 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So Jesus was not sent to his people to judge them, rather it was to save them. Therefore this logically means that Jesus does not always have to correct his followers when they utter something wrong, since he does not judge them.

Secondly, if we do take the verse as it is, with the meaning that Matt Slick intends for it then we are left with a contradiction! We have one verse telling us that Jesus is not all knowing, yet we have another one telling us he is, how does that work? How could this disciple claim that Jesus is all knowing when Jesus himself told them he does not know the day of return? So hence we are left with a contradiction, so Matt Slick's solution doesn’t help out.

However so, Matt does try to avoid this contradiction by bringing up another solution:

But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not.
Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection.

 

RESPONSE

Once again Matt is arguing from silence. Matt cannot and will not back his statements up by the words of Jesus, everything Matt has just said is conjecture made up which has NOTHING to do with Jesus.

So in conclusion, Matt has no way around this verse which refutes his entire doctrine, the only way Matt can try and provide an answer  is by making things up which are not to be found by Jesus, and by bringing up verses which leave us with a contradiction throwing his Bible out the window.

 

 

 

 

Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Carm.org's articles section.

Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.