What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
Mark 13:32: The Verse That Christians Have No Answer Around
The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 13, verse 32 states this...
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
This verse clearly shows that Jesus is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God.
Christians believe that the Father is different from the Son and different from the Holy Spirit and the Son is different from the Holy Spirit. They are all different from each other. Christians believe that there is one God manifested in three DIFFERENT persons. They are three different persons but have one essence. This is their belief.
Now, Mark 13:32 says that ONLY THE FATHER knows when the hour is.
Christians tend to argue that Jesus gave up his divine powers and therefore did not know because he limited himself to a human being. However, that does not answer the fact that ONLY THE FATHER knows. That also excludes the divine part of Jesus. That also excludes the Holy Spirit who is suppose to know all things (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)
Some Christians might tend to argue that since the Father knows the hour, then that automatically assumes that the Son and Holy Spirit know as well. But notice this, Jesus did not say that ONLY GOD knows, he said that ONLY THE FATHER knows. You can't go and say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same because that goes against the Trinity. Because if you believe that the Son was crucified then that would also mean that the Father and Holy Spirit were also crucified, but Christians do not believe that. So that argument won't work.
Matt Slick of www.. said in his article http://www../diff/Mark13_32.htm that Jesus became omniscient after the resurrection. That his divine capabilities came after the resurrection. But then that would mean that Jesus was completely a man before that. That means that Jesus was not fully god, fully man before the resurrection. That means that when Jesus was crucified, he was completely a man and you have to stop saying that God died for your sins! So that argument does not work.
Sam Shamoun tried answering this paradox here http://./Shamoun/q_jesus_changing.htm but he does not even directly answer the question appropriately. Either way his article has been refuted here https://www.answering-christianity.com/muslim1/rebuttaltosamshamoun8.htm
Sam Shamoun also tried coming up with another explanation in his article here http://www../Shamoun/q_spirit_omniscient.htm. Please read it first and then see my response.
Sam contradicts himself, he says
Thus, Christs statement regarding angels and the Son not knowing demonstrates that Jesus was referring to a specific class of individuals, namely human beings, when he said that no one knows. In other words, Jesus was saying that no human being knows the day he would come to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem for rejecting him, neither the angels, not even himself.
So basically this means that 'no man' knows. No human being knows. But then Sam goes on to say
The Ethiopic version adds here, "nor the son", and so the Cambridge copy of Beza's; which seems to be transcribed from (Mark 13:32) where that phrase stands; and must be understood of Christ as the son of man, and not as the Son of God; for as such, he lay in the bosom of the Father, and
However, this argument does not work. If the Son being referred to as in the verse was referring to the human part of Jesus then Jesus didn't have to repeat himself because he already included himself in the 'no man knows' part. But if he was referring to the Son of God part of him self then that would make more sense because the divine part of Jesus should not be included in the 'no man knows' part. However, that wouldn't work either because then the God part of Jesus would not be omniscient and we all know that God is supposed to be omniscient.
Plus Christians use John 21:17 to try and show that Jesus was omniscient. However, Jesus himself said that he does not know the hour. So why did the apostle say that to him? Now Christians are going to say that Jesus was talking as Son of God at that time. But why this confusion? Why doesn't Jesus explicitly state that the man part of him is not omniscient but the divine part of him is? Plus how can someone be All Knowing and not All Knowing at the same time? Its not logical. Some people might even go to argue that Jesus was a schizophrenic because of the confusing and contradicting behavior we see when his deity is being developed throughout the gospels.
Also notice the deception that Shamoun tries to pull out on the readers. Shamoun tries to use the KJV translation of Mark 13:32 to show that 'no one' really means 'no man' and therefore is not inclusive of everything. However, he then uses the RSV translation for Revelations 19:12 to show the translation as 'no one' and therefore show that it doesn't mean that it is inclusive of everything.
This is outright deception because the KJV translation has Revelations 19:12 saying 'no man' and if Shamoun used that he knew that he could not use it to make the point he was trying to make. Because if Shamoun used the KJV translation then that would clearly show that God was excluded because it only said 'no man' and therefore cannot try to use it as a figure of speech.
Plus the word for the 'no man' is the same in both verses. So why didn't Sam use the same translation?
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1138456828-5567.html and http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1138460153-7043.html
Sam indeed at the end of the article did say that he used all translations from the RSV unless stated otherwise. However, now we know why he did what he did.
Plus Sam is forgetting that the verse says, ONLY the Father. There is no condition on the word 'only'. (see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1138460990-9261.html)
There is no condition on 'only' unless it is put forth.
Sam tries to get rid of this argument by trying to use Matthew 11:27 as an example where obviously the term is not inclusive.
However, Matthew 11:27 shows that people could know the father but not because the word 'except' is not inclusive of everyone but later on in the verse Jesus makes exceptions by saying....
and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him
However, there is no condition of this sort in Mark 13:32. The verse does not say, 'only the Father except those whom he chooses to let them know'.
Sam goes on to state Corinthians 2:10-12 to try and show the omniscience of the Holy Spirit. However, this proves nothing except the fact that Paul's statement contradicts Mark 13:32 in which it states that ONLY the Father knows.
Christians clearly know that this is a problem. Even the early Christians. Notice the footnote in the NIV Bible regarding Matthew 24:36
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.
It seems to me that people over time tried to take off the phrase 'nor the Son' so that it would not lower Jesus' status or his deity.
If anyone has a good rational explanation for Mark 13:32 then please email me at email@example.com
If I don't receive any explanation then we would have to conclude that Jesus is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God.
Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals by Bassam Zawadi.
Islam and the Noble Quran - Questions and Answers.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube