Shalom! My name is Adam Pastor

Welcome to ADONI MESSIAH which means
"My Lord Messiah" -
a fitting epithet to who Jesus (or Yeshua) is!

Here, I attempt to present the Apostolic Truths according to the Scriptures, that there is
One GOD, the Father, namely, YAHWEH,
and One Lord, GOD's only begotten Son,
Yeshua the Messiah.

And that one day YAHWEH will send His Son back to Earth to inaugurate the Everlasting Kingdom of GOD


Thursday, January 31, 2013

Is Jesus God Because ... by Servetus the Evangelical

Is Jesus God Because ...
by Servetus the Evangelical

Is Jesus God Because of His Virgin Birth?

One of the most important elements of church doctrine has been Jesus’ virgin birth.
(The miracle was conception, not birth, so it should be called "the virginal conception.")
Jesus’ virginal conception is only mentioned in two New Testament (NT) gospels (Matthew 1.18-25; Luke 1.26-38; 2.1-21). Together, they relate that Mary miraculously conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, and she remained a virgin until Jesus was born.

Many Christians have believed that Jesus was God because of the miraculous nature
of his conception. This view has been defended by some Christian scholars. For example,
leading Evangelical theologian Alister McGrath asserts, "The way Jesus was conceived
confirms ... that Jesus is indeed both God and man." And Roman Catholic theologian
Gerald O’Collins explains, "Traditionally the major value of his virginal conception has
been to express Jesus’ divine origin. The fact that he was born of a woman pointed to his
humanity. The fact that he was born of a virgin pointed to his divinity."
If Jesus’ virginal conception signifies that he was God or divine, it is surprising that neither Matthew nor Luke expressly state this in their birth narratives.
And if Jesus was God, he must have preexisted. Yet no less of an authority on this subject than preeminent Roman Catholic NT exegete Raymond E. Brown concludes concerning these birth narratives, "Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence" of Jesus. Such silence strongly suggests that they did not believe that Jesus preexisted or that he was God.
An angel prophesied to Mary about Jesus’ birth, saying he "shall be called the Son of
God" (Luke 1.35, cf. v. 32), not due to an ontological preexistence but a supernatural
conception. Both this miracle and title merely signaled that Jesus would have a special
relationship with God. Luke implies that Jesus’ conception being accomplished by God’s
Spirit is a basis for identifying him as the Son of God. Reginald H. Fuller explains that
Jesus is called "the Son of the Most High (God)" in this birth-pronouncement "because of
the salvation he is to accomplish in history, not because of his inherent nature."
Logically, the virginal conception cannot indicate that Jesus is God only because it was a
miracle. Miracles can only indicate a supernatural source. God did a miracle by causing a
virginal conception and birth; but that does not indicate that the miracle itself is God.
Consider the first man, Adam. Accepting the two biblical accounts of his creation as
literal (Genesis 2-3), Adam became a human being due to God’s direct creation, as Jesus
did. Yet no one would claim that Adam’s supernatural origin indicates that he was God.
In the Old Testament, Isaiah 7.14 has been a pivotal text in the debate about Jesus’
virginal conception. This verse is about the prophet Isaiah prophesying to King Ahaz, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." The Hebrew word here translated "virgin" is alma. ... Matthew, in his birth narrative, quotes Isaiah 7.14 and explains Immanuel. It reads,

The word Immanuel represents the joining of two Hebrew words: immanu and el.
Since el is the shortened Hebrew form for "God" (elohim), some Christians have asserted

that ascribing the title Immanuel to Jesus effectively identifies him as God.
On the contrary, calling Jesus "Immanuel" means only that God is present with his
people through Jesus as his agent. It means what someone exclaimed when Jesus raised
the widow’s dead son to life, that "God has visited His people" (Luke 7.16). And the
Apostle Peter once preached that Jesus "went about doing good and healing" people because "God was with Him" (Acts 10.38). Jewish NT scholar Geza Vermes explains,

"Jews would have known that the name Emmanuel (‘God is with us’) signified not the incarnation of God in human form, but a promise of divine help to the Jewish people."
Most scholars who have written extensively that Jesus is God concede that Matthew 1.23 does not. Murray Harris explains, "Matthew is not saying, ‘Someone who is "God" is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’"

Calling Jesus "Immanuel" is similar to the names of some OT saints. For example, Israel, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Michael, Ezekiel, and Joel contain el, meaning "God;" yet parents who so named their son did not deem it a declaration that their child was God. In conclusion, Jesus’ virginal conception does not necessitate that he was more than a man.

John A.T. Robinson is right, that Jesus "was totally and utterly a man - and had never
been anything other than a man or more than a man," so that he never was God.

 Is Jesus God Because He Did Miracles?

One thing that made Jesus famous was that he did miracles. The New Testament (NTgospels frequently relate that he traveled about in his native land from town to town and village to village healing people. And they provide many detailed reports in which he did so. Multitudes of people, sometimes numbering in the thousands, gathered to hear Jesus utter his pearls of wisdom and perform his mighty feats of healing.

Many traditionalist Christians - those who believe that Jesus is God - have thought
that Jesus’ miracles testify that he was and is God. Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed
Komoszewski assert, "The complete and total command that Christ exhibits over the
natural realm in his miracles reveals his deity." They add, "The gospel writers themselves
interpret Jesus’ miracles as evidence that he is God." But some of these traditionalists
seem to have overlooked that the Old Testament (OT) prophets and Jesus’ apostles did miracles too. If Jesus was God merely because he performed miracles, those prophets and apostles must have been Gods as well, which is absurd.

Non-traditionalist and distinguished Jesus researcher E.P. Sanders explains, "A lot of Christians, and possibly even more non-Christians, think that central to Christianity is the view that Jesus could perform miracles because he was more than a mere human being.... Like other ancient people, Jews believed in miracles but did not think that the ability to perform them proved exalted status.... Historically, it is an error to think that Christians must believe that Jesus was superhuman, and also an error to think that in Jesus’ own day his miracles were taken as proving partial or full divinity."

 Indeed, Jewish religious authorities never doubted that Jesus did miracles; rather, they accused him of doing them in the power of Satan (Matthew 12.22-24/Mark 3.22). Some distinguished traditionalist scholars agree with Sanders. D.A. Carson admits, "the value of miracles as proof of Jesus’ deity is not so conclusive as some conservative expositors have thought." N.T. Wright states it more decisively, that Jesus’ miracles were "certainly not in themselves indications or hints that Jesus was ‘divine.’"

Jesus’ miracles merely attest to God empowering him. The Apostle Peter preached
his first sermon to thousands of Jews gathered at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost,
saying, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by
God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your
midst, just as you yourselves know ..." (Acts 2.22). And Peter later preached to the house
of Cornelius, saying, "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him, with the
Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good, and healing all who
were oppressed by the devil; for God was with him" (10.38).

Here are some of the strongest statements in the Bible indicating that Jesus was not
God but that he was empowered by God. And notice in these two statements how Peter
clearly distinguishes Jesus and God, which signifies that Jesus is not God.

Jesus could not heal indiscriminately, which also indicates he was not God. Instead,
his power to heal depended to some degree on the faith of the beneficiary, which in turn
was undoubtedly determined by whether God would heal or not heal through Jesus.
For instance, one Sabbath day Jesus taught in his hometown synagogue of Nazareth.
Mark says, "He could do no miracle there except that he laid his hands upon a few sick
people and healed them. And he wondered at their unbelief" (Mark 6.5-6).
Sometimes, Jesus healed people and told them, "your faith has made you well"
(Matthew 9.22/Mark 5.34/Luke 8.48; Mark 10.52/Luke 18.42).
If Jesus was God, he could have healed anytime he wanted. But he always depended
on God’s Spirit to heal through him (Acts 2.22; 10.38). So, Jesus’ power to heal was not
intrinsic to himself but derived from God, which indicates he was not God.
James Dunn explains about Jesus’ healings, "Faith was the necessary complement to the exercise of God’s power through him, hence his inability to perform any mighty work in Nazareth ... Faith in the recipient as it were completed the circuit so that the power could flow," that is, the power of God’s Spirit flowing through Jesus to others.
Once, Jesus taught in an overcrowded house. Four friends of a paralytic man carried
him on his bed and let him down through the roof of the house. Luke says, "the power of
the Lord was present for him [Jesus] to perform healing" on this man (Luke 5.17). It was
due to Jesus "seeing their faith" (v. 20), that is, the faith of the man and his friends.
Luke’s account suggests that the power to heal was not always present in Jesus.
Matthew’s account of this incident relates that Jesus’ authority to heal was not
intrinsic to himself, but derived from God (the Father). He says that "when the multitudes
saw this, they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to
men" (Matthew 9.8). So, Matthew says they did not think Jesus was God on account of
this healing, but that God had given Jesus the authority to heal. These people glorified
God because they rightly perceived that he, [i.e. God] ultimately had caused it to happen.
A similar situation arose when Jesus cast a legion of demons out of a man. Jesus then
commanded him, "Return to your house and describe what great things God has done for
you" (Luke 8.39). But Luke says he "went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city
what great things Jesus had done for him." Does this mean Jesus was God? Euthymius
Zigabenus is no doubt right in explaining, "Christ indeed modestly attributed the work to
the Father; but the healed man continued gratefully to attribute it to Christ."

In sum, Jesus’ miracles never attested that he was God but that he was sent by God,
acted for God, and was empowered by God, so that God was with him.

Is Jesus God Because He Was Worshipped?

Christian worship has been very important to the question of whether Jesus is God.
The New Testament (NT) records certain instances in which Jesus was "worshipped." Christians generally have regarded these as evidence that those practitioners believed that Jesus was God, since only God should be worshipped. But what does "worship" mean?

The word in the Greek NT that usually is translated "worship" is proskuneo. It and its cognates occur sixty-one times in the Greek NT. Most of these occurrences are in the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation. The etymology of proskuneo is that pros means "motion," either "from" or "towards" some object, and kuneo means "to kiss."
Lexical authority Walter Bauer informs that proskuneo was "used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc." He adds that proskuneo can be translated "(fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully."

Therefore, during antiquity the Greek word proskuneo merely signified a physical
act. It indicated the oriental custom of either genuflection, i.e., bowing down by bending
the knee(s), or prostration. Practitioners, however, adopted either of these two postures
toward a superior in order to convey their humble attitude of respect, honor, and perhaps submission in the sense of readiness to defer to the will of that superior. They frequently performed proskuneo towards those possessing imperial authority, especially kings. Such physical acts usually indicated no more than a humble attitude of submission.

In contrast, our English word "worship," whether used as a noun or a verb, does not
designate a physical act. Thus, it does not serve as a suitable translation of proskuneo.
Furthermore, the definition of our word "worship" has a very wide range of meanings.
So, to translate proskuneo in the NT with "worship" can be ambiguous if not misleading.
When the gospel Evangelists report that someone performed proskuneo toward Jesus, Bible translators invariably show their bias by rendering it "worship," suggesting that that person thought of Jesus as either "divine" or "God." But when the Evangelists relate that a person performed proskuneo toward someone other than Jesus, these same translators render it "bowed down," "bend the knee," or "prostrate." So, they translate it "worship" when done to Jesus, but a physical act when done to someone else.

Matthew makes it clear that Jesus’ authority to heal was not intrinsic to his nature but
derived from God (the Father). For example, when Jesus healed the paralytic let down
through the roof, Matthew adds, "when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with
awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matthew 9.8). Thus,
Matthew’s account indicates that these people did not think Jesus was God because of
this healing but that God had given Jesus the authority and ability to heal the man. They
glorified God because they rightly perceived that he ultimately caused it to happen.

The author of Hebrews lists seven Old Testament (OT) quotations in an effort to
prove that Jesus is superior to angels (Hebrews 1.5-13). Many Christians have cited one
of these as an indication that Jesus is God. It is a quotation from Deuteronomy 32.43 in
the Septuagint (Greek OT). It reads, "LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM" (v. 6).
The author of Hebrews likely meant that the angels of heaven honor Jesus in the same
way Paul describes in Philippians 2.10, in which he says of the exalted Jesus, "at the
name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and
under the earth." That is, in the consummated kingdom all will perform genuflection at
the public announcement of Jesus’ name, which does not necessarily indicate he is God.

The book of Revelation presents vivid and striking accounts of angels doing homage
to both God and Jesus in heaven. But in each case they perform pipto followed by
proskuneo, it is not clear if they worshipped Jesus in the sense of his being God. Maurice
Casey insists that in this book Jesus Christ "is not actually hailed as divine even in the
pictures of him being praised in heaven."

Twice John, the author of Revelation, says of the angel who related these prophecies
to him that he fell down at his feet to "worship" (proskuneo) him. But both times the
angel forbade John’s act and said, "worship God," that is, the Father (Revelation 19.20;
22.9). The angel must have regarded these as more than acts of honor. This arouses the
question of whether only God, and not also Jesus, should be worshipped in this sense.

Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian who wrote more on theology than science.
The main precept of his faith was, "whenever it is said in the Scriptures that there is one
God, it means the Father." He cited mostly 1 Corinthians 8.6 for support. It says "there is
but one God, the Father,... and one Lord, Jesus Christ." He explains, "We are forbidden
to worship two Gods, but we are not forbidden to worship one God and one Lord."
Anti-Trinitarian Newton also distinguished degrees of worship. He assigned ultimate
worship to God as Creator and a lesser worship to Jesus ... He argued that worshipping two or more beings equally, as in the doctrine of the Trinity, is an infraction against the First of the Ten Commandments and thus idolatry.

In conclusion, an increasing number of conservative NT scholars now acknowledge
that proskuneo directed toward Jesus in the NT gospels does not necessarily indicate that
those practitioners believed that he was God. Trinitarian D.A. Carson cautions regarding
the Gospel of Matthew, "it is very doubtful if proskyneo by itself or in connection with
pipto [falling down] suggests anything more than obeisance, homage." And J. Lionel
North asserts that there is "nothing" in the NT "that requires us to conclude that Jesus is
regarded as divine because he is worshipped." Wendy North and Loren T. Stuckenbruck
conclude that what should be "gained from the New Testament" is "that ‘worship’ is too
imprecise a word to point necessarily to the conclusion that Jesus is divine."

Is Jesus God Because of His Resurrection?

All four gospels of the New Testament (NT) culminate with an account of Jesus’
bodily resurrection and his disciples’ discovery of his empty tomb. All of these reports
further relate several post-resurrection appearances of Jesus that occurred during the next
forty days, when his disciples literally saw, touched, and talked to him and ate and drank with him (e.g., Matthew 28.9; Luke 24.39-43; Acts 10.40-41; cf. John 20.27; 21.15).
C.H. Dodd asserts, "It is the central belief about which the church itself grew, without which there would have been no church and no gospels." And William Lane Craig, an authority on Jesus’ resurrection, explains, "The origin of Christianity therefore hinges on the belief of the early disciples that God had raised Jesus from the dead."
Many Christians and their best-selling authors claim Jesus’ resurrection indicates he is God. Paul Little says, "Jesus’ supreme credential to authenticate his claim to deity was his resurrection from the dead." Lee Strobel asserts, "The empty tomb,... is the ultimate representation of Jesus’ claim to being God.... the supreme vindication of Jesus’ divine identity." Alister McGrath insists, "The central and decisive Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ is grounded in his resurrection from the dead." 

Those who say these things usually do so arbitrarily, providing no rationale or biblical support. Most contemporary, traditionalist scholars would disagree with this extreme position.
(A traditionalist is a person who believes Jesus is God.)

Leading Jesus researcher N.T. Wright alleges that it is "a frequent misunderstanding" that Jesus’ "resurrection somehow proves Jesus’ divinity." He says of Judaism in the time of Jesus, "resurrection was what was supposed to happen to all the dead, or at least all the righteous dead, and there was no suggestion that this would simultaneously constitute divinization." He adds, "When the New Testament predicts the resurrection of all who belong to Jesus, there is no suggestion that they will thereby become, or be shown to be, divine. Clearly, therefore, resurrection by itself could not be taken to ‘prove’ the ‘divinity’ of Jesus; if it did, it would prove far too much. The over-simple apologetic strategy one sometimes encounters (‘he was raised from the dead, therefore he is the second person of the Trinity’) makes no sense."

The early Jewish Christians preached that Jesus’ empty tomb and post-resurrection
appearances verified that God had vindicated him. They further claimed this as evidence
that he was the Christ, the Son of God, but not that he was God (Acts 2.31, 36; Romans
1.4). These positive maxims were the heart of their message. Wright calls this connection
"the key move in early Christology." James Dunn concludes, "The belief that God raised
Jesus from the dead is, if anything, of even more fundamental importance to Christian
faith than the belief in Jesus as the Son of God."

Dunn makes this statement because most Christians have differed from the early
Christians, as portrayed in the NT, by believing that Jesus’ status as the Son of God
indicates that he was God. They assert that Jesus eternally preexisted as God, being the
ontological Logos-Son of God, and that he became a man. They call man becoming God
"the incarnation," which literally means "enfleshment." But the NT repeatedly identifies
Jesus as the Son of God without suggesting that this status means he was God. So, Dunn
means Jesus’ resurrection is more important than his incarnation.

The book of Acts in the NT reveals that Jesus’ apostles made his resurrection the
chief cornerstone of their faith as well as their evangelistic message. They never preached
that Jesus was God but that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24, 32; 3.15, 26; 4.10; 5.30; 10.40). And despite Jesus saying in John 10.15-18 that God had given him the
authority to lay down his life and take it up again, the early Christians never preached that Jesus actually raised himself from the dead. In fact, Jesus’ resurrection depended upon God the Father, and this dependence further indicates that Jesus was not God. Sometimes, his apostles mentioned that they were eye-witnesses of the risen Jesus (e.g., Luke 1.2; Acts 1.8; 2.32; 3.15; 10.39-41; 1 John 1.1-3). ...

No NT authors ever indicate that Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, or heavenly session
resulted in some kind of divinization or deification of him or a reclaiming or reactivation
of deity or any attributes of deity, as if to confirm the later Church dogma that Jesus was
"Very God of Very God." And there is no biblical evidence suggesting that the essence of
the post-resurrection, heavenly Jesus is any different from that of the pre-resurrection Jesus.

The pre-resurrection Jesus was no more than a man, and the same is true of the post-resurrection, heavenly Jesus. The only difference is that the pre-resurrection Jesus had a physical body that was subject to death, whereas the post-resurrection Jesus has a resurrection, spiritual body that is
glorified, immortal, and eternal.

In conclusion, Jesus’ resurrection indicates his dependence upon God, which always
affirms that he is not God. For, Jesus was not sovereign in rising from the dead. It
happened because the one and only Almighty God accomplished his will through his
obedient Son by means of the Holy Spirit.

Is Jesus God Because He Is Lord?

During antiquity, calling a man "Lord" usually was intended as no more than a politeaddress. On the other hand, kings were often addressed as "Lord" to signify their vested authority. Among Jews, rabbis could be called "Lord" to indicate both.

The early Jewish Christians’ primary creedal statement was that "Jesus is Lord." The
Apostle Peter preached about it in his first sermon on the day of Pentecost following the
Christ event. He proclaimed of Jesus, "let all the house of Israel know for certain that
God has made him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2.36). And the Apostle Paul wrote, "no
one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12.3).

Jesus had approved of his disciples calling him "Lord." Right before partaking of the
Last Supper, Peter called Jesus "Lord" (John 13.9). Jesus soon affirmed this designation
by saying, "You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am" (v. 13). Jesus
seems to have used these two titles interchangeably. Calling Jesus "Lord" therefore meant
that he was the sole teacher of his disciples.
The synoptic gospels reveal that their writers viewed these and other similar terms
interchangeably, and therefore synonymously, when applied to Jesus. For example, when
Jesus and his disciples were crossing Lake Galilee in a boat and a storm threatened to
swamp them, they awoke Jesus by crying out for help. Matthew says they addressed him
as "Lord" ([Ch. 8].25); Mark records it was "Teacher" (4.38); Luke reports they said "Master"
(8.24). And at Jesus’ transfiguration, Matthew says Peter addressed Jesus as "Lord"
(17.4); Mark records it was "Rabbi" (9.5); Luke reports he said "Master" (9.33).

No writer of the New Testament (NT) reflects this brief confession that Jesus is Lord
more than does Paul. In his ten epistles, he applies the word "Lord" to Jesus nearly 230
times, whereas he calls him "the Son (of God)" only 17 times. The Lordship of Jesus
Christ is without a doubt the dominant theme in Pauline Christology.
However, Paul, unlike other NT authors, applies the title "Lord" (Greek kurios)
exclusively to Jesus and thus never to the Father. For him, God is "the Father" and Jesus
is "the Lord." For example, Paul writes that "there is but one God, the Father,... and one
Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8.6).

Paul, as with many other early Christians, sometimes proclaims Jesus’ Lordship in
his evangelistic messages. For instance, when the fear-stricken Philippian jailer asked the
imprisoned apostles Paul and Silas, "‘Sirs [kurios], what must I do to be saved?’ They said,
‘Believe in the Lord  [kurios] Jesus, and you will be saved’" (Acts 16.30-31). And Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10.9).
But what did Paul and these other early Jewish Christians mean by their
proclamation that Jesus is Lord? They meant no more than that Jesus ought to be obeyed
regarding his instruction in righteousness. Only if we obey to some extent Jesus’
teachings as a lifestyle can we truthfully say that he is the Lord of our lives.

James Dunn says of "Lord" in Paul’s letters, "kyrios is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, but if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God."
Paul, in one of his letters, quotes a hymn which some traditionalists have cited as
major support for their belief that Jesus is God. It says of Jesus, "God highly exalted Him,
and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus
EVERY KNEE WILL BOW,... and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2.9-11; cf. Isaiah 45.23). ...

On the contrary, "Lord" is a title, not a name. Neither is "Lord" God’s name, which
is YHWH [YaHWeH]. And "name," here, more likely refers to "Jesus."
In sum, the NT accounts of the early Christians calling Jesus "Lord" indicate no more
than their recognition of his God-given authority to rule and their voluntary submission to
be ruled by him. And Paul, the premiere proponent of Lordship Christology in the NT,
gives no evidence that he equates the words "Lord" and "God."

Is Jesus God If He Did Not Know the Time of His Return?

"Christians" believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God. (That is, the majority view of so-called orthodox Christianity. However, in contrast, christian monotheists believe that solely the Father is GOD!)

And they generally believe that God is omniscient, thus knowing everything, including all about the future. However, Jesus told his apostles that he would be killed, rise from the dead, ascend to heaven and someday return to earth, and he added that he did not know the day of his return. If Jesus was God, how could he not have known when he would return, since the Father knew it?

As a former Trinitarian, I used to believe that Jesus was and is God. But I began to
question it when I read in the Bible that he said he didn’t know the time of his return. It
caused me to undertake a serious quest for Jesus’ identity that led to my present belief,
which is that Jesus was no more than a virgin-born, sinless man. What is this saying?
Shortly before Jesus’ death and resurrection, he taught his apostles about the future,
including the end of the age. He said of his return at that time, "But of that day
and/or hour no one knows, not even the angels of/in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father
alone" (Matthew 24.36; Mark 13.32). This saying has stirred much scholarly debate.
Church fathers were divided about these words of Jesus. ...

Athanasius, church father in the 4th century, ... argued for the maximalist view of Jesus’ foreknowledge, that by being "very God" in every sense he must have known the day of his return. Athanasius treated Jesus’ saying by applying the two-nature method of exegesis to it. That is, Jesus did not know in his human nature, but he did know in his "Godhead," that is, his divine nature.
There have been other opinions. Thomas Aquinas and many other church theologians
proposed that Jesus said these words while pretending ignorance. And Augustine posited
that it was not the Father’s will for Jesus to know at that time. But this view does not
solve the problem of the impugning of Jesus’ supposedly full deity.

In recent centuries, scholars proposed what are called "kenosis theories" to solve this
and other problems. They are that at the moment of Jesus’ incarnation, he laid aside or
decided not to use some of his divine attributes, such as foreknowledge. But in the latter 20th century, these views fell out of favor with scholars due to the criticism that if Jesus laid aside or did not use part of his deity, he must have been less than fully God.
Both the two-nature exegesis and these kenosis theories are neither biblically basednor theologically and anthropologically sound. They make it seem as though Jesus wasdishonest, or perhaps schizophrenic - saying he didn’t know something when he reallydid - and therefore discredit his character.

It should be concluded that Jesus had supernatural knowledge whenever the Father
revealed it to him, and when he did not have it, the Father had not revealed it to him.
In sum, Jesus’ knowledge was limited, the Father has a greater knowledge than the
Son does, and the Father is essentially superior to the Son, so that Jesus is not God.

The above articles were taken from:
Some editing has been done on each article.