"Due to His essential deity it is true that even when He
was a tiny baby Christ upheld the universe while Mary upheld Him. Are we
suggesting that as a 6 month old, Jesus could have debated with the scribes in
the temple? Clearly not. In submitting to the Father’s will and becoming fully
human Christ accepted the limitations of a developing human brain which as He
grew into manhood opened up daily to give full expression to His eternal
essential omniscience" – Hebron Hall website, Bicester
This is a gobbledegook statement. If there is essential omniscience,
there must be non-essential omniscience .this would have to be defined as
partial full knowledge. How can one be
omniscient without knowing it- and therefore drawing upon it?
If not possessed of full omniscience at birth, when did Jesus
realise He was omniscient? If the Lord’s brain was undeveloped in infancy His omnipotence was also impeded.
The Bicester assembly bible Class has been taught that
the deity of Christ was ineffective. The infant Jesus could not have been God
manifest in the flesh. Or do the Bicester folk believe God was manifest in the flesh without any manifestation?
The article appears to be a plagiarised representation of
Nelson Pike’s work. He was a Philosopher. This stuff is found on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philsophy website.
The Bicester Assembly is teaching that Christ could not
access His omniscience because as a child His brain was not up to it.
There are those in the Bicester Assembly who drool over Man's Wisdom, aka Philospphy.
The result is heresy promoted.