Pure speculation. I could say the same in reverse when people try to rationalize any discrepancy just to prove what they already believe.
If Christ did not know the exact timing, then He is not omniscient and is not God
Christ never says "I am God." He does say that the knowledge of when Israel shall be restored is known but to the Father. He also, elsewhere, hints that the generation shall not pass before His return and that many of those who are living as he speaks shall not taste death before His return. So, in a way He is hinting that it is within a lifetime of some of His disciples, but He doesn't specify the date.
It obviously must be interpreted otherwise, such as from His human nature.
He had no problems knowing other things prophetically in His human nature. The Bible says, He had two natures and two wills, not two minds.
Jesus as man did things like pray to the Father
If you think about it, Jesus as man would also be praying to Himself, being God. You do admit that He knew He is God, or do you think Jesus the Man was unaware of that?
Assuming He knew, then in His human nature, He would rightly worship Himself as well as the Father, and the Holy Spirit. But He doesn't. Neither do the Apostles until the very end (Mat 28:17), and then only some. So, even His Apostles (the 11 remaining) doubted His divinity at the moment of the Great Commission (maybe that's why we don't have the writings of all eleven!).
To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus! Even +John, who explicitly, unlike the rest, calls Him God, doesn't pray to the Resurrected Christ.
For someone who spends as much time as you do criticizing scripture as being mostly allegory (and therefore factually false), you sure also spend a lot of time taking everything literally when you want to prove theological inconsistencies in scripture
At least I read simple sentences literally. I read the story of Jonah living in the belly of a fish for three days allegorically. With Protestants, it seems just the reverse.
is OBVIOUSLY not asking for the Father to transform our essence into His own. He is asking that believers become one in the purity of faith, seeking to do God's work, all having full devotion to God, etc
Then He is not speaking in His human nature, as you claim, since human nature (essence) cannot be "one" with the divine nature of the Father.
And if He is speaking in His divine nature, than His saying that "the Father is greater than I" has unbelievable ramification!
You mean, that's how it reads from Greek as translated by someone you like.
No, that's how the original text was written; no punctuation marks. And the word "morphi" means "form," not "nature," as your NIV version says.
Most Christians, IMO, see Christ as God throughout the scriptures
And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
By your logic, when we establish that the vast majority of Jews and Muslims don't see Christ as God throughout the scriptures means they are right? Popular consensus is not a proof that something is factually true or untrue.
Not only does He imply it all over the place, He says it specifically in several Gospels:
Mark 14:60-62 : 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Matt 26:62-64 : 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Luke 22:66-71 : 66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." 70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." 71 Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."
Yes, same story, but three times, all Gospel. If you say that Christ never claimed to be God, then why do you say He was crucified? He was crucified BECAUSE He claimed to be God.
FK: "It obviously must be interpreted otherwise, such as from His human nature."
He had no problems knowing other things prophetically in His human nature. The Bible says, He had two natures and two wills, not two minds.
Then what is your conclusion? Are the Gospels lying when they say that Jesus prayed to the Father, etc.?
If you think about it, Jesus as man would also be praying to Himself, being God. You do admit that He knew He is God, or do you think Jesus the Man was unaware of that?
Same as above, and His prayers were to the Father, a different Person of the Trinity. His prayers were real communion with the Father, just as they had in the Trinity from before creation.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus! Even +John, who explicitly, unlike the rest, calls Him God, doesn't pray to the Resurrected Christ.
So for you in SOME cases, Biblical silence de facto means that a thing DID happen, such as all the Mariology stuff, but in other cases, Biblical silence means de facto that a thing DID NOT happen, such as prayer to Christ. I suppose I just find it more difficult to draw rock solid conclusions from what ISN'T there. :)
At least I read simple sentences literally. I read the story of Jonah living in the belly of a fish for three days allegorically. With Protestants, it seems just the reverse.
If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?:
Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matt 13:55 : Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
John 10:30 : I and the Father are one ."
These are all simple sentences and you do not take any of them literally (per your arguments to me).
FK: "Most Christians, IMO, see Christ as God throughout the scriptures."
And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum. :) What proof do they offer? What, the writings of dead men from the second century are true, but the writings of dead men from the first century are forgeries? Come on. :) In addition, the requirement for the laity to assent would also be moot. The laity offer no proof.