Methinks you are engaged in a bit of scripture twisting ala 1 Tim 2:4.
From Albert Barnes Commentary:
Mar 13:32 -
Neither the Son - This text has always presented serious difficulties. It has been asked, If Jesus had a divine nature, how could he say that he knew not the day and hour of a future event? In reply, it has been said that the passage was missing, according to Ambrose, in some Greek manuscripts; but it is now found in all, and there can be little doubt that the passage is genuine. Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1Co_2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it?
After all, the passage has no more difficulty than that in Luk_2:52, where it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He had a human nature. He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite. As a man he often spoke, reasoned, inquired, felt, feared, read, learned, ate, drank, and walked. Why are not all these, which imply that he was a “man” - that, “as a man,” he was not infinite - why are not these as difficult as the want of knowledge respecting the particular “time” of a future event, especially when that time must be made known by God, and when he chose that the man Christ Jesus should grow, and think, and speak “as a man?”
Pout, pout, pout. It's amusing to me that the Arminians are still sore over my demolition of their favorite "Timothy" argument (from two different angles, no less -- first demonstrating that the verse does not attend to all men individually, and that such an interpretation is at odda with Revelation; and secondly demonstrating that even if such an illegitimate interpretation was admitted, thise passage -- pertaining to the Son's recipience of all who come to Him -- has nothing to do with the Father's causational Election of those whom actually will come).
From Albert Barnes Commentary: Mar 13:32 - Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1Co_2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it?
The answer is that the word does have that meaning ("to make known"); and that the Father has not revealed the Time of the Second Advent yet. (That was easy enough).
After all, the passage has no more difficulty than that in Luk_2:52, where it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He had a human nature. He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite.
To "increase in wisdom" can be understood in the manner that Clarke's Commentary explains:
But I am not herein arguing that MacKnight's commentary on Mark 13 or Clarke's commentary on Luke 2 must be assumed to be the only possible reading; rather, I am simply pointing out that we cannot positively assert that Jesus Christ did not possess awareness of the time of the Second Advent, given that there is a perfectly valid reading of the Greek as "But that day and hour no man maketh known" which J.S. White has reported in some older English translations.
And since we cannot positively assert that Jesus possessed no awareness of the Time of the Second Advent, we cannot attempt to build a positively-definite doctrine upon such an unproven assumption.