Does Mark 13:32 Preclude the Omniscience of the Holy Spirit?

While many are familiar with polemics which appeal to Mark 13:32 to dispute the omniscience of Jesus[1], fewer have encountered polemics in which it is similarly argued that the same verse even necessitates that the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. While one could object that 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 seems to imply otherwise, one can also note that the text can be read as being within a limited scope or domain of discourse. That is to say, the phrase οὐδεὶς οἶδεν (nobody knows) can be used in a limited sense.

Consider, for example, how Mark uses οὐδεὶς in Mark 5:3-4, when it states that no one could hold down or subdue the man under discussion. It would seem obvious that the text means that in a limited sense (i.e. it is referring to humans among him). But beyond that, it is interesting to note how the construction is employed in Dinarchus’ Against Demosthenes[2]:

36585207_10156518786818566_8563125474857844736_n[1]

The author at one point criticizes the Athenians, observing that, with the trial of a common person, τῶν κρινομένων, ὅταν ἁλῶσιν, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν οὐδὲ ζητεῖ πυθέσθαι (whenever he is convicted no one knows or even cares to inquire about the sentence). The line does not mean literally no one knows about the conviction (as obviously both the convicted person and the judge who handed down the conviction know); rather, the phrase οὐδεὶς οἶδεν is being employed within a limited domain of discourse or set.

Once it is understood that οὐδεὶς can be employed in with a limited scope, then Mark 13:32, which doesn’t even mention the Holy Spirit, need not necessarily include the Holy Spirit. In other words, the lack of knowledge could be limited to humans (or, more broadly, persons possessing human natures) and angels.

__

NOTES

(1) This blog entry focuses on the less well known polemic against the Holy Spirit. As for how Mark 13:32 pertains to Jesus, the verse can actually can be understood and approached in a variety of ways. For example, in the fourth century, St. Basil interpreted “ουδε ο υιος ει μη ο πατηρ” as meaning “nor the Son were it not for the Father” (in other words, in Basil’s view, it was not a denial of the Son’s knowledge, but rather a statement that not even the Son would know were it not for His union with the Father). I know that is not congruous with the modern reading of the text found in popular translations, but it does not strike me as a violation of the Greek conditional “ει μη”. That aside, I, personally, am happy to alternatively take a dyophysite approach, in which it is assumed that the apparent limitation pertains to a limitation on His human nature. The idea would be that when He took on a secondary human nature, a secondary range of mentation and knowledge –a secondary “mind”– was also taken on, and in the relevant verse, He was speaking from the limited human range of mentation. I understand if that initially seems counter-intuitive, but we actually now know from neurobiological studies that it is possible for a single person to possess multiple ranges of knowledge, for one such range to possess information which another such range lacks, and for such a person to sincerely express ignorance of a subject when speaking from the range which lacks such information, while possessing that information in another range.

(2) See John Ormiston Burtt, Minor Attic Orators, Volume II: Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, Hyperides, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 190.



Categories: Bible, Christianity

50 replies

  1. Interesting article Denis. I’ll reply tomorrow inshallah.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for the article Denis. I too have used the argument with Christians that the HS is also ignorant of the timing of the End because only the Father possess this knowledge.

    But a more nuanced scholarly approach would be to question whether Mark could have had the HS in mind at all. Historians of Christianity conclude that only by the 4th century was the doctrine of three co-equal persons of the Godhead taught. The deity of the HS was a relatively late doctrinal development.

    So I would suggest it is anachronistic to even consider the question for a text probably written in AD 70.

    Orthodox Christology insists that Jesus was one undivided person, though fully divine and human. This is counterintuitive as the idea that the Eternal can be contained within the finite makes little sense.

    ‘But can God really dwell with men on the earth? Behold, the heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built!’ 1 Kings 8:27

    In my view Mark’s Christology does not anticipate the later doctrine of the incarnation of God. For Mark Jesus is ‘the Son of God’ (not Yahweh) who is both prophet and messiah. His ignorance of the date of the End is therefore not surprising, as this information is reserved to God alone.

    This is only a problem for later Christological dogma. But Mark 13:32 is not the only place in the NT which clashes with later Christian belief.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings Paul

      Permit me to quote excerpts from your post, so that it will be more clear which portions I am responding to.

        Paul wrote:
        «a more nuanced scholarly approach would be to question whether Mark could have had the HS in mind at all. Historians of Christianity conclude that only by the 4th century was the doctrine of three co-equal persons of the Godhead taught. The deity of the HS was a relatively late doctrinal development. So I would suggest it is anachronistic to even consider the question for a text probably written in AD 70.»

      As I alluded to in the article, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 can be understood as referring to the omniscience of the Holy Spirit, and, while I don’t think we can date the New Testament texts with certainty, it might be worth noting that it is generally acceptable in academic circles to see 1 Corinthians as predating Mark (ergo I would say that it is not implausible that a belief in the Holy Spirit’s omniscience predated the writing of Mark).

      [On an interesting side note, I would propose that Wisdom 7:22-23 can be understood as affirming the Holy Spirit also being omnipotent and omnivident. I know almost all our Protestant friends reject Wisdom as inspired Scripture, but even under that view, it could plausibly be understood as recording a pre-NT belief in an omnipotent and omnivident Spirit of God (immediately raising the question, “is this the same Spirit which participates in creation?”).]

        Paul wrote:
        «Orthodox Christology insists that Jesus was one undivided person, though fully divine and human. This is counterintuitive as the idea that the Eternal can be contained within the finite makes little sense.»

      I certainly can appreciate that many find it difficult to understand, but I see nothing counterintuitive about the idea once it is placed within a dyophysite framework. It does not require that the infinite is confined within the finite (though there are some interesting hymns, including an ante-Nicene oration, which play on that motif); rather, I would propose it entails the infinite animating a secondary form which is limited, without corresponding limitations being on that primary infinite “form”.

        Paul wrote:
        «Mark’s Christology does not anticipate the later doctrine of the incarnation of God.»

      Ken has already offered some interesting thoughts on the subject below. For my part, I would say that Mark’s beliefs need not be limited to what is explicit in his text. Recall my former blog entry on development in the Gospels, which was originally hosted on your former blog, as there I proposed that a more limited scope in Mark may have reflected a deliberate embargoing of information, to tailor the text to the level of catechesis of its initial audience.

        Paul wrote:
        «Mark 13:32 is not the only place in the NT which clashes with later Christian belief.»

      I would certainly say there are many texts which various critics of Christianity feel are at odds with classical Christian doctrine. The subject can indeed be a vast one.

      Liked by 2 people

      • For Muslims God is the uncreated eternal Being, man a mere contingent creation. These two are so utterly ontologically distinct that to talk of the ‘incarnate God’ in a human body with a human mind is metaphysically inconceivable. The two cannot combine. As the Jewish scripture says:

        ‘But can God really dwell with men on the earth? Behold, the heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have built!’ 1 Kings 8:27

        The synoptic gospels present Jesus praying to and praising the God Whom he worshiped (naming him AaLah or AaLoh – the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ vocalisations). Jesus surrendered to his Lord, and his words, whether or not they are authentically preserved, indicate perfect slavehood to El/Elohim (Hebrew), AaLaH (Aramaic), Allaha (Syriac), Allah, the true name of the One God of Abraham.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Greetings Paul

        I think we can generally agree on how you described God and man in your opening sentence, but where we disagree is on whether such precludes incarnation. As I noted before, I don’t see incarnation as requiring that the Divine be limited to the physical form, and thus I don’t see what precludes the Divine from animating such a form.

        This takes us to the verse from 1 Kings 8:27 (2 Chronicles 6:18), which you referenced. I would note that the same Hebrew Bible —the same TaN”aKh— seems to clearly have God appearing in human form (e.g. in Genesis 18). I would likewise be skeptical about anything containing God, but I do not rule out the possibility of God animating a secondary form while “extending” or existing beyond that form (i.e. not being limited to that form).

        Regarding your last paragraph, I certainly agree that the Gospels depict Christ as praying to the Father, living as a servant of the Father. These points would be part of the classical Christian faith. However, in neither the New Testament nor the classical Christian faith does such preclude the Son’s divinity. I suppose we can discuss this in more detail, if you’d like.

        Like

  3. Denis,
    Very good article; and the main point about “no one” having a limitation is the same way in which we use “all” and “everyone” in common speech. For example, a teacher / professor at the beginning of class, after the bell rings, says, “is everyone here?” He does not mean “everyone in the whole world”, rather everyone who is part of that class.

    For example, in the fourth century, St. Basil interpreted “ουδε ο υιος ει μη ο πατηρ” as meaning “nor the Son were it not for the Father” (in other words, in Basil’s view, it was not a denial of the Son’s knowledge, but rather a statement that not even the Son would know were it not for His union with the Father). I know that is not congruous with the modern reading of the text found in popular translations, but it does not strike me as a violation of the Greek conditional “ει μη”.

    That is really good information. Where is the quote from in Basil’s writings? Do you have a reference that can be found either at the ccel.org website or the “newadvent” web of the early church fathers under Basil’s writings?

    That aside, I, personally, am happy to alternatively take a dyophysite approach, in which it is assumed that the apparent limitation pertains to a limitation on His human nature.

    Yes, that is what it seems to mean.

    Paul,
    The problem with your view is that Mark has a high view of the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
    See:
    Mark 1:8 – “you will be baptized in/with the Holy Spirit” (there is a connection here with the parallel texts in Matthew and Luke and also the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, where all three persons of the One God are mentioned – “baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”)

    Mark 1:10 – When He came out of the water, immediately He saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove.”

    Mark 1:12 – The Spirit immediately drove Him into the wilderness.

    Mark 3:29 – “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”

    One of the clearest verses in all the NT as to the Deity of the Holy Spirit – this one verse completely destroys your whole argument.

    Mark 12:36
    David declares in the Holy Spirit:
    The LORD said to My Lord (both Yahweh and Adoni) – (the Father and the Son)
    Sit at My right hand until I put all your enemies under your feet.”
    (Quoting Psalm 110:1)

    This verse is also very strong on the Deity of Christ and also mentions all three persons of the Trinity.

    Other earlier writers mention all three persons of the Holy Spirit earlier than Nicea. (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc. Just because they don’t use the word “hypostasis” or “person”, does not mean the idea of One God in three persons is not within the doctrinal idea.

    Just one example from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4:2-4

    “Truly, then, the Scripture declared, which says, “First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, . . .
    “One God” . . .
    . . .
    “I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation. . . ”

    You can easily see “One God” and “three persons”, even without the word “person” or “hypostasis”.

    There are more examples of that; but that should do for now.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Tertullian(writings are from around 190-220 AD), writing much earlier than Nicea (325) also writing in Latin, uses Unitas Trinitas (one in three) and Trinitas Unitas (three in one) and “persona” (where we get the English word “person” from); and writes of the three person triad of Trinity.

    So, this is also proof that the Nicean definition existed earlier. It is all based on Scripture.

    A good book on this is: “The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship”. by Robert Letham.

    Like

  5. I don’t quite find this article quite convincing. Even with the “limited discourse” it seems slightly bizarre to think of a limited contrast for a token of a necessary exclusionary attribute that is related to a divine being.

    Per se this type of text would tell me that only the father has this foreknowledge. I don’t think there is any other text related to the Son, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that would constrain it anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

    • good points Unitarian

      Like

    • “I don’t think there is ANY OTHER TEXT related to the Son, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that would constrain it anyway.”

      “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not entrust Himself to them, BECAUSE HE KNEW ALL MEN, and did not need anyone to bear witness of man, FOR HE KNEW WHAT WAS IN MAN.” John 2:23-25

      “All things are delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son, except the Father. And no one knows the Father, except the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27 – cf. Luke 10:22

      “Even as the Father knows Me, SO I KNOW THE FATHER. And I lay down My life for the sheep.” John 10:15

      Here, the Father’s and Son’s knowledge of each other is reciprocal, showing that the Son knows the Father to the same extent and to the same degree that the Father knows him. Add to this the Son’s claim that only the Father is capable of knowing him and you end up with Christ claiming to be an incomprehensible and omniscient Being. And:

      “His disciples said to Him, ‘Yes! Now YOU ARE SPEAKING PLAINLY AND WITH NO FIGURE OF SPEECH. Now we know THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING and do not need anyone to question You. By this we believe that You came from God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘DO YOU NOW BELIEVE?'” John 16:29-31

      “He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love Me?’ Peter was grieved because He asked him the third time, “Do you love Me?” He said to Him, ‘Lord, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING. You know that I love You.’ Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.'” John 21:17

      Now compare the foregoing with the following:

      “For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart AND KNOWS EVERYTHING.” 1 John 3:20

      Finally:

      “Who has directed THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD, or as His counselor HAS TAUGHT HIM? With whom did He take counsel, and who INSTRUCTED HIM, AND TAUGHT HIM in the path of justice, AND TAUGHT HIM KNOWLEDGE, AND SHOWED TO HIM THE WAY OF UNDERSTANDING?” Isaiah 40:13-14

      “But as it is written, ‘Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.’ But God has revealed them to us by His Spirit. FOR THE SPIRIT SEARCHES ALL THINGS, YES, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD. For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Likewise, no one knows the things of God, EXCEPT THE SPIRIT OF GOD. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God.” 1 Corinthians 2:9-12

      “that their hearts may be comforted, being knit together in love, and receive all the riches and assurance of full understanding, and knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, IN WHOM ARE HIDDEN ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE.” Colossians 2:2-3

      Compare the above with the following claim by the same Apostle:

      “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable are His ways!” Romans 11:33

      Since the depth of the riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge are beyond comprehension and pass finding out, the only way for the Spirit to search and know the deep things of God and for the all of the treasures of God’s wisdom and knowledge be stored in the Person of Christ, is if both the Son and Spirit are omniscient and incomprehensible Persons.

      Now watch him deny, explain away, attack and/or undermine the authority of all these texts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • welcome to the new BT Sam

        Like

      • “Now watch him deny, explain away, attack and/or undermine the authority of all these texts.”
        Isn’t that what you do 24/7? If something like this was in the Qur’an you would be foaming from the mouth having a wet dream while writing one of your “articles” with another idiot title: “Another blunder in the Qur’an proving once again that Allah can’t keep his Word error free”.
        You go to the Qur’an and claim that Allah literally inherits from His creatures even though anyone with one braincell on active duty knows this is not to be taking literally. Do you go to the rest of the Qur’an FILLED with verses saying that to Him belong all things, everything in the Heavens and the earth is His, etc and apply even one percent of the length you go to to defend your bible and admit your argument of the inheritance is nonsense? No of course not even if your own bible makes the claim that your god will inherit Judah in Zakariah 2:12.

        Mark 13:32 is EXPLICIT and clearly denies that Jesus AND the HS know the Hour. You go to other texts that speak generally to try and explain that away. And btw all your quotes are not even from “Mark”.

        And kinda funny how you quote Matthew 11:27. It starts with “All things are delivered to Me by My Father”. What kinda God gets everything delivered to him?

        Matthew 28:18
        “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
        Is this God???

        Now watch Shamoun deny, explain away, attack and/or undermine the above arguments.

        Like

      • I’m glad your back since you are my favorite Muslim apologist.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Isn’t that what you do 24/7? If something like this was in the Qur’an you would be foaming at the mouth and go write one of your ‘articles’ with a potato title: ‘Another blunder in the Qur’an proving ones again that Allah can’t keep his word error free’.

        Mark 13:32 is explicit en clearly says that the Son does NOT know the Hour (including the HS) but then you go to other verses that indicate they do know everything which most of them don’t even do that. This is not a refutation, it’s called a contradiction. You of all people should know that if you had an ounce of honesty in you cus you would NEVER let something like this go if it were in the Qur’an. NEVER and you know it.
        Btw all the quotes you gave were from non-Mark documents which means you are running on the assumption that they all agree with one another which they clearly don’t. Matthew and Luke clearly don’t agree with Mark countless of times when they change Mark to make Jesus more “godly” if you will.
        To top it off you even quote Matthew 11:27 to try and prove your position but COME ON Sam!!!
        Don’t tell me you don’t see the irony in quoting that verse. It even starts off as: “All things are DELIVERED TO ME by My Father”. How can this be God??? God doesn’t get delivered everything! You just shot yourself in the foot.

        Jesus makes clear cut statements like:
        “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN TO ME.”
        (Matthew 28:18)

        “The Father loves the Son, and has GIVEN ALL THINGS into his hand.”
        (John 3:35)

        “He was GIVEN AUTHORITY, GLORY and SOVEREIGN POWER; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
        (since Christians believe this is a Messianic prophecy Daniel 7:14)

        “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ “But Jesus kept looking around TO SEE WHO HAD DONE IT.”
        (Mark 5:30-32)

        “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF (meaning on his own authority); but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
        (John 16:13)

        etc etc etc …

        So no you’re wrong he wasn’t all knowing and certainly not God.

        And can someone please explain the fig tree issue. I’m still not getting the metaphorical explanation with Israel.

        Like

      • Atlas, instead of wasting our time with arguments that have already been thoroughly addressed over and over again:

        https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/jesus_given_authority.html

        https://www.answeringislam.net/Shamoun/q_authority_given.htm

        https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/christ_heir.htm

        And here is my responses to your misuse of the story of the woman touching Jesus’ garment and its implications on whether Christ is God:

        https://www.answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/jesus_omniscience_luke1.html

        https://www.answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/jesus_omniscience_luke2.html

        Try reconciling your own objections with the fact of the Quran telling us the same thing about your god. For instance, your god receives an inheritance from his own creatures, and will even inherit the earth!

        And certainly We! We it is Who give life, and cause death, and We are THE HEIRS. S. 15:23

        But as for those who are niggardly with the bounty God has given them, let them not suppose it is better for them; nay, it is worse for them; that they were niggardly with they shall have hung about their necks on the Resurrection Day; and to God belongs the inheritance of the heavens and earth; and God is aware of the things you do. S. 3:180 Arberry

        Lo! We, only We, inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned. S. 19:40

        Allah is even called the best of those who inherit!

        And Zachariah, when he cried unto his Lord: My Lord! Leave me not childless, though Thou art the Best of inheritors. S. 21:89

        The obvious questions to ask at this point are, from whom exactly does Allah inherit and what exactly is he inheriting? More importantly, why is Allah inheriting anything at all if he already possesses all things?

        These next texts provide the answer to the first two questions:

        Nay, but We shall record that which he saith and prolong for him a span of torment. And We shall inherit from him that whereof he spake, and he will come unto Us, alone (without his wealth and children). S. 19:79-80

        And how many a community have We destroyed that was thankless for its means of livelihood! And yonder are their dwellings, which have not been inhabited after them save a little. And We, even We, were the inheritors. S. 28:58

        Allah is receiving an inheritance from the people whom he either dispossesses or causes to die! In other words, human beings are giving to Allah what they own thereby proving that Allah doesn’t have or own everything.

        In fact, one of the names of your god is Al-Warith, meaning THE HEIR/INHERITOR!

        So per your own argument you just proved that Allah cannot be God (and he can’t be because he isn’t!).

        Therefore, let turn this against you and ask you the following. Since God is supposed to be self-sufficient and self-existent by nature, as well as the creator and owner of all things, how can Allah be God when he shall “GIVEN” an inheritance from his own creation? So before Allah is “GIVEN” this “inheritance”, what was he? He was an obvious nobody!

        To put this in another way, what kind of God was Allah before he was GIVEN an inheritance? If Allah truly were the creator and owner of all things then why would he need someone else to grant him an inheritance, and how is it possible for him to be someone else’s heir?

        This is simply the beginning of your woes. Since all the texts you cited (cf. Matthew 11:27, 28:18; John 3:35; 16:14-15; Daniel 7:13-14) affirm that Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man shares in the worship due to God, as well as in the power, glory, sovereignty, authority and rule of God over the entire creation, and since he owns everything that belongs the Father, which means he owns all creation, this means not only does Jesus own you and all Muslims, but he even owns Muhammad who is beneath his feet.

        And since Quran 17:111 and 25:2 state that Allah doesn’t share his sovereign rule over creation with anyone, this either means your god is a false god since the true God does share his rule with a creature. OR Jesus is no creature but the eternal Son of God who is essentially one with the Father, which is why he shares in God’s worship and sovereignty over all creation.

        So thank you for helping me refute Islam and defend the truth of Christianity.

        Like

      • “Now watch him deny, explain away, attack and/or undermine the authority of all these texts.“

        Well if someone disagrees with you he could deny the evidence(that is really part and parcel of denying authority) , claim it is equivocal(“explain away” ) or claim that the method of reasoning is invalid.

        Actually there are a whole host of hermeneutic potholes that will be become apparent.

        All in all, in your many years of dialectic interaction with Muslims you have come to have a profound “foresight”. They could disagree with your posts using a number of platitudes . A “foresight” that isn’t that well put together if I may say.

        The irony that this “foresight” is related to a section on omniscience.

        More than happy to deal with these standard text. Not just that, I will try to categorize them in the manner that you “predicted”. How about that Sam?

        But now I must have my dinner and a nice cup of tea.

        Liked by 3 people

      • No this forum wouldn’t be fine since, unlike you, I’m always writing and don’t have time to engage a key board warrior who will write posts either misrepresenting or tap dancing around the arguments. Whatever you plan to write you can say in a live exchange between us. Therefore give me the venue and time since I want to leave you with no excuse for running from this golden opportunity of putting me in my place and defend your Unitarianism from the Bible for all to see. So please step up and show us how much of a keyboard warrior you really are.

        Like

      • Shamoun I am very well aware of your response cus you ALWAYS give this response and quite frankly it’s pathetic to say the least.
        Muslims interpret the inheriting as Christians interpret Zakariah 2:12.
        As Bassam Zawadi already spanked you on this in his article:
        “Allah’s inheriting does not imply that He does not have ultimate possession of what He is inheriting, but that He is simply receiving back what He had delegated to His creation by His will and permission.

        As for the case of the Biblical Jesus it is different. For he himself admitted that he is dependent (John 5:30) and that things were not under his control until they were GIVEN to him (Matthew 28:19). This is simply not the case with Allah.”

        So you are comparing apples and oranges.

        You only showed you’re an idiot!
        Your god was given everything and admits this himself and this is not meant metaphorically where is the inheriting that Allah mentions is meant as explained by Bassam Zawadi. Even your own bible uses that language in Za 2:12 where your gof will inherit Judah. So why is your god inheriting from his creation? Because he is NOT because everyone knows it’s meant to be taken metaphorically just like when the Qur’an mentiones this about Allah.

        Can’t wait to hear you childish intimidation of ‘Come to my paltalk I’ll cruuuuuuuuuuuuuuush you’. Pathetic! Get a life!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Greetings Unitarian

      I have enjoyed our past correspondences, and look forward to future correspondences, so I did not want you to think that I was ignoring your comment (which was appreciated). I just wanted to share the brief comment that I feel that my replies to Paul (above) and Atlas (below), along with the comments of Ken and Sam, do present a case for other passages which can constrain the text in such a way.

      Like

      • As always Denis! It will be a pleasure responding to a man that is erudite and courteous as yourself . Forgive my brief response, it was only intended as a prima facie case. In principle, I still think it would be bizarre to read it that way. Of course this can change when presented with other evidences. There is no disagreement there but I obviously have concerns about such texts.

        Will take this further in due course

        Liked by 1 person

      • No this forum wouldn’t be fine since, unlike you, I’m always writing and don’t have time to engage a key board warrior who will write posts either misrepresenting or tap dancing around the arguments. Whatever you plan to write you can say in a live exchange between us. Therefore give me the venue and time since I want to leave you with no excuse for running from this golden opportunity of putting me in my place and defend your Unitarianism from the Bible for all to see. So please step up and show us how much of a keyboard warrior you really are.

        Like

    • Unitarian what is your faith if you don’t mind me asking?

      Liked by 1 person

      • No this forum wouldn’t be fine since, unlike you, I’m always writing and don’t have time to engage a key board warrior who will write posts either misrepresenting or tap dancing around the arguments. Whatever you plan to write you can say in a live exchange between us. Therefore give me the venue and time since I want to leave you with no excuse for running from this golden opportunity of putting me in my place and defend your Unitarianism from the Bible for all to see. So please step up and show us how much of a keyboard warrior you really are. That way we see how far you get with your explanation of 1 Corinthians 2:9-12.

        Like

    • Better yet Unitarian how about debating me on these texts via paltalk where we can record and post it for all to view? If you don’t like paltalk I’ll come in your turf to debate these texts to see how well you do. Name the forum and the date.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sam Shamoun throwing down the gauntlet.

        Like

      • Nah. I think this forum is fine. I need time to “deny”, “undermine” and “weasel” my way out of texts.

        Sorry about that. I was thinking of dealing with each proof text one at a time if that is ok with you. Just makes it easier. It may get difficult sometimes but one can try and say “concentrate” on a “text” at a time ?

        Say 1 Corinthians 2:9-12 ?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Let’s try this again. This forum won’t be fine. And since you won’t weasel your way out of dealing with others the texts then surely this means you can do so in a live verbal exchange that will be recorded. So mane your forum did an oral discussion and debate and I’ll be there.

        Like

      • Fair enough bye.

        Like

      • Unitarian email me at sam.shmn@gmail.com when you’re ready to debate.

        Like

      • No I will not.

        Like

      • Spoken like a true keyboard warrior.

        Like

      • Yes I like to take my time to respond in a more thought out process. Don’t know much about this “warrior” thing though. Do you think all engagement should be debated on Paltalk as well? What about Larry Hurtado and his back and forth with Kirk, Keyboard warrior? What about Mark Goodacre and his online responses to to Alan Garrow, Key board warrior?

        So really I have a moral question to ask you . I assume you will need to make it Categorical in some way to satisfy Kantian consistency. When does one become a “cowardly key board warrior” and when does one become a person who likes to respond in a thoughtful and timed manner?

        Please share your “profound” moral insight. Unfortunately, it may be not that great given the “foresight” that you have already “gifted” us with. .

        Liked by 4 people

      • Don’t flatter yourself you are no Larry Hurtado. And yes scholarsble him DO in fact have talks and discussions with others. Don’t believe me then simply do a search on YouTube. And again don’t flatter yourself. There’s nothing thoughtful of your shameless butchering of Scriptures.

        Like I said, unlike you, I’m always writing and therefore won’t waste time on a neophyte like you who will write 50,000 posts evading and/or distorting the issues, and throwing out smokescreens. What you can write in a post you can verbalized it in a live exchange. Therefore you name the venue and date and I’ll be there. Stop your excuses. Otherwise don’t waste my time with your nonsense.

        Like

      • I am really left speechless ha ha. I haven’t even posted anything yet and I am already “shameless” and butchering”!

        I think that really gives me obvious proof that you are not one to have an amicable discussion with.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I understand where you’re coming from but the logic you use can’t work in this instance. Allow me to give my thoughts:
    When you say that no one knows something except person X (human) then this is clearly restricting it to people. But from a trinitarian point of view Mark 13:32 can’t work because this explicitly INCLUDES the PERSONHOOD OF TRIUNE GOD. You can’t restrict this to just creatures (humans + angles) when the verse itself includes the personhood of the triune god!
    That’s exactly why I find this unconvincing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings Atlas

      I would propose that the set of things being compared to the Father (e.g. human minds and angelic minds vis a vis the Father’s divine mind) is what can be limited in scope, and I see nothing implausible about the proposition. In this comments section, Ken, Sam and I have, in different ways, shared verses which we feel allude to the omniscience of either the Son or the Holy Spirit (I would add that I, personally, consider Wisdom 9:11 relevant as well), and thus reading the corpus harmoniously, taking said passages into account provides more reason to lean towards a limited universe of discourse being employed in the verse in Mark.

      Like

      • “I would propose that the set of things being compared to the Father is what can be limited in scope”
        But herein lies the issue.
        1) When things are compared to X then the category which X belongs to should belong to the scope.
        2) It’s not just the Father mentioned but also the Son. So from a trinitarian perspective the verse compares the human/angelic minds to the Father’s and also the Son’s mind to the Father’s.

        Like

      • Greetings again, Atlas

        I you insist the Father be part of the universe of discourse, that is fine. I would simply note that I still see nothing implausible about it being limited (e.g. to human minds, angelic minds, and the Father’s divine mind).

        As for the Son being included in the discussion, indeed. While that wasn’t the focus of the blog entry, I did briefly comment on possible approaches in the first end note of the entry.

        Like

  7. My response to Sam has been removed I see. I’m sorry but I just can’t pretend I “like” that ‘thing’, especially after its “masquerade”.

    Like

  8. I haven’t removed anything Atlas.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I think the entire premise that Denis has presented can be easily refuted by the end of the verse. The qualifier is that “no one” knows about the hour but the Father. Therefore, there is no logical reason to surmise that the holy spirit was also included in that select group of beings that know when the hour will occur.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. This verse is also interesting:

    “All things are delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son, except the Father. And no one knows the Father, except the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27

    Here again, the phrase “no one” is used but with the important qualifiers “except the father” and “except the son”. Would this imply that the holy spirit does not know the father (as well as the son)? It would seem so. More evidence that the holy spirit is not omniscient…

    Like

  11. Hello,
    I think my brothers said it all. I just want to add that I have a problem with this kind of “argument” that christians always use while it has no basis at all. It’s like when christians started using the game of (being/person) as if the person cannot be addressed as a being itself. It seems that the language has lost its function in christianity. In this case at hand, It’s obvious that neither the statement itself nor its context indicates to what so called “the limited sense”. It’s just not there. If we add the historical background as br. Paul’s comment shows, then nothing remains for christians to argue about literally.

    “And among them are those who twist the Scripture with their tongues, that you may think it from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “It is from God,” when it is not from God. They tell lies and attribute them to God, knowingly.” QT 3:78.

    Liked by 2 people

Trackbacks

  1. A Unitarian Heretic Implicitly Proves that Mark 13:32 Doesn’t Refute the Trinity! – Answering Islam Blog
  2. Mark 13:32 and the “Omniscience” of the Holy Spirit – The Quran and Bible Blog
  3. Mark 13:32 and the “Omniscience” of the Holy Spirit – Blogging Theology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: