DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0470
126
final appeal
am really sorry to observe that the Editor should havea'
given such an evasive answer to so important a point ; heHa
however, was obliged to do so, knowing that Pf inn
definite article. In his attempt to remove' the incon- -i
sistency between his maintaining the idea of the deity \
of Jesus and applying to him verses 15 and 16 in Isaiah i\
vii., by which he is declared subject to total ignorance, ,',
the Reverend Editor attributes (p. 534) such ignorances
to the human nature of Jesus, forgetting what he, in n
common with other orthodox Christians, offers as an n
explanation of such passages as declare all power in n
heaven and earth to have been given to Jesus by the 3
Father of the universe, which is, that all power was^
given him in his human capacity, while in his divine 3
capacity he enjoys independent omnipotence. Is not 3
the power of distinguishing good from evil included in n
all power given to Jesus, according to the Editor, in his s
human capacity ? How then, can the Editor be justified Ij
in maintaining the idea that, in his human nature, he 3
though possessed of all power in heaven and earth, was ^
unable, before the age of maturity, to distinguish the 3
good from the evil, as found in verses 15 and 16? I beg \
also the attention of the Editor to Luke ii. 46—50, ,(
shewing that Jesus was possessed of knowledge of his c
divine commission even in his early youth, and also to r
the Editor's own declaration, ( page 536, ) " The spirit i
of the Lord was to rest upon him as the spirit of wisdom 1
and understanding." Nothing but early prejudice can 1
persuade a man to belive that one being at one time ~
should be both subject to total ignorance and possessed 1
of omniscience—two diametrically opposite qualities.
Hebrew, before a noun, as in Arabic, is invariably as
final appeal
am really sorry to observe that the Editor should havea'
given such an evasive answer to so important a point ; heHa
however, was obliged to do so, knowing that Pf inn
definite article. In his attempt to remove' the incon- -i
sistency between his maintaining the idea of the deity \
of Jesus and applying to him verses 15 and 16 in Isaiah i\
vii., by which he is declared subject to total ignorance, ,',
the Reverend Editor attributes (p. 534) such ignorances
to the human nature of Jesus, forgetting what he, in n
common with other orthodox Christians, offers as an n
explanation of such passages as declare all power in n
heaven and earth to have been given to Jesus by the 3
Father of the universe, which is, that all power was^
given him in his human capacity, while in his divine 3
capacity he enjoys independent omnipotence. Is not 3
the power of distinguishing good from evil included in n
all power given to Jesus, according to the Editor, in his s
human capacity ? How then, can the Editor be justified Ij
in maintaining the idea that, in his human nature, he 3
though possessed of all power in heaven and earth, was ^
unable, before the age of maturity, to distinguish the 3
good from the evil, as found in verses 15 and 16? I beg \
also the attention of the Editor to Luke ii. 46—50, ,(
shewing that Jesus was possessed of knowledge of his c
divine commission even in his early youth, and also to r
the Editor's own declaration, ( page 536, ) " The spirit i
of the Lord was to rest upon him as the spirit of wisdom 1
and understanding." Nothing but early prejudice can 1
persuade a man to belive that one being at one time ~
should be both subject to total ignorance and possessed 1
of omniscience—two diametrically opposite qualities.
Hebrew, before a noun, as in Arabic, is invariably as