Did Jesus empty himself of all his knowledge when he came to Earth?

by garyneal 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  garyneal

  I learned in church this past Sunday that Jesus must have emptied himself of all of His knowledge when He came to Earth. This is based on Luke 2:51, 52 where it states “Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” This, along with the Sunday school teacher stating that according to Jewish tradition a child is considered an adult at the age of 13 back then (though I have not confirmed this with any actual Jew) and by the age of 12 (the age of Jesus at the time) every Jew has to learn all of the Hebrew laws and customs.

  This made me think of some things that I had not considered before. I was just curious about any other thoughts on this scripture and what you may think they mean. Some of the things that got me thinking were some of the things I heard before such as:

  Jesus emptying Himself of His Deity when He came down to Earth as is taught by most churches.

  Jesus growing in enlightenment as is taught by the Gnostics.

  While not directly related, I can imagine a witness taking away from this that Jesus emptying Himself of His knowledge only to gain it back at baptism when He became the Christ.
• 

  designs

  When you go through the Vortex strange things happen to your memory...
• 

  jay88

  Is the "Book of Luke" a first hand account of JC?
• 

  garyneal

  LOL, thanks guys. Anyone else?
• 

  designs

  Someone here probably has a file on an old Watchtower article that considered this, I remember something about the Society teaching that at his baptism he was given knowledge of his pre-human life. Re-Boot the memory.
• 

  slimboyfat

  When theologians talk about the 'emptying' or kenosis of Christ they usually have Phil 2:5-11 in mind.

  Trinitarians argue that Jesus was limited in knowledge while on earth as to his humanity, but retained full omniscience as to his divinity, and that nevertheless this dichotomy did not endanger his personhood.

  Arians famously used Luke 2:51, 52 to argue that Jesus was not omniscient. Trinitarians responded that Arians were merely using scriptures that refer to Jesus' humanity to undermine his divinity. Modern believers whose theology resembles that of the Arians might respond that the Bible itself makes no such Chaledonian distinction between Jesus' humanity and divinity.
• 

  AnneB

  IMO, changing form (from spirit to human) had nothing to do with "emptying" or "knowledge"; it would be qualities that mattered (fruitage of the spirit in WT terms). That wouldn't have changed when the form changed. As a human Jesus would necessarily need to acquire earthly knowledge and wisdom, hence the statement in Luke 2. Sure, Jesus would grow in enlightment; if he started out with good qualities (fruitage of the spirit) and then learned the human version of the God story, he'd comprehend how to apply what he was taught.

  As far as age, my understanding is that children were considered old enough to be accountable to God on their own merits at age 13, not that they are considered adults at that age. It seems that 30 is when adult status is attained. WT has made reference to the latter; there's a study article from the mid-'80's to that effect, something about children wanting to leave home at the legal age instead of considering scripturally (traditionally, really) that ancient Jews didn't reach adulthood until 30.
• 

  sir82

  There's nothing in the book of Luke itself that intimates that Jesus was a part of a trinity.

  Thus, for Luke, there was no dilemma or paradox in writing that Jesus "grew in wisdom".

  It's only when you try to force the widely disparate viewpoints of the NT writers into a cohesive whole that you start running into problems that can only be resolved by logical pretzels like

  Jesus was limited in knowledge while on earth as to his humanity, but retained full omniscience as to his divinity, and

  that nevertheless this dichotomy did not endanger his personhood.
• 

  designs

  Theological terminology makes you sound way CoooL and helps in getting dates.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I am Anglican. It is hard to pin any priest down on doctrinal details. We always discussed that to be fully human, Jesus could not be conscious of any pre-existence. What sacrifice is it knowing that you are God? The Incarnation raises all sorts of themes - God made man (not a puppy), human suffering is severe (God suffers as one of us and for us).

  I have never met an Anglican priest with a detailed Trinitarian explanation. I press the subject b/c of my JW formulation. The JWs are so doctrinaire. Anyone who reads Tudor history knows how silly doctrine was back when the C of E was formed. They refused to engage me more than to say the Trinity is an imperfect human explanation for how we experience different aspects of God.

  My legal education might make it worse but even before law school I was consumed with knowing details, formal statements, historic documents. It is nice if you are a church historian but my quest never served me well in real life. I consume all these academic books and decades after leaving the Witnesses, exclaim triumphantly at any refutation of Witness theology. For a while, I had to make long distance phone calls to family members to read Scripture, relate history or language. It was very heady. Now I view it as pathological.