Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 53

John 13:3, "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands," etc. See also ibid. 16:15, "All things that the Father hath are mine"; and Matthew 28:18, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This assumption of Supreme dominion is in total opposition to the often-quoted passage of Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father only." A like inconsistency in ascribing to Jesus at one time the possession, and at another a deficiency, of Supreme dominion, is perceptible in Matthew 20:23 where Jesus owns that it is not within his power to allot to the meritorious certain distinctions in future life. We have before quoted from Matthew 8:20, that Jesus confessed he had no place on which to rest his head, and was poorer than the fox in the field and the bird of the heavens. In John 14:28, he states, "The Father is greater than I." Such repeated discrepancies must deprive the New Testament of all title of a genuine and an inspired work. 

All four gospels are compilations of different stories in the life of Jesus. In each one, the different stories follow one another like pearls on a string, until we get to the Passion narrative, where there is one continuous story beginning at the last Passover meal. John 13 is where Jesus assumes the lowliest of a servant's duties by washing each of his disciples' feet. The passage in question is as follows:
The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God. One might object here that this passage distinguishes Jesus from God and therefore imply that Jesus is not God. I would direct any such person to the first 18 verses of John.

The passage that Troki quotes in Mark speaks about future destruction; first of the temple, and then of the eventual return of Jesus.

At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

 It is this day or hour that Jesus does not know, nor does anyone know but the Father. Preterists will argue that all the events in this chapter already occurred at the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the year 70, but notice that Mark says that people will see the Son of Man at that time. Remember what the angel said in Acts.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11)

Did people visibly see Jesus descend? No? Then at least some of the events have not yet occurred.

Back to Troki's objections. He states that the New Testament books contradict one another by stating that in one passage, the Father gave full ownership and dominion over all things to Jesus, and in another passage, not only does Jesus not know when he will take over, he doesn't have a place to lay his head.

The objections can be dissolved quite easily through the same reasoning that the rabbis use in the Talmud. The idea of having or owning something has different applications. It can mean that someone has the legal right to it, and it can also mean that the person has the thing in his or her possession.

Imagine an ancient kingdom which is taken over by an empire, which drives the king of the nation into hiding. One generation later, the empire crumbles, and the kingdom regains its independence. The deposed king's firstborn son enters the kingdom, but is quickly robbed and then has nothing on his person. In this scenario, the king's son has nothing, and yet in another sense he owns the whole kingdom. He both has nothing and has everything at the same time, but not in the same sense.