Did fallible human testimony ensure that Jesus would have false beliefs?

Another reason to think Jesus had false beliefs

The debate on whether Jesus had false beliefs usually centers on evidence from scripture. (Hence, my previous token post on the topic.) Here I'm going to shift the ground and offer another reason to think that Jesus probably had some false beliefs. My argument builds on the amply demonstrated fact that human testimony is fallible and that we often reasonably accept the false testimony of others.

Here's an example. My daughter's grade one teacher told her that Canada is the largest country on earth by landmass. My daughter believed her because she has been taught that her teacher is an authority and should be believed. As a result, my daughter acquired a false (though rational and justified) belief. (It is false because Russia is by far the largest country by landmass. It is rational and justified because her teacher was a generally trustworthy authority figure and the teacher's statement was plausibly true [at least for a first-grader].)

Isn't it likely that somewhere along the line Jesus had a figure of authority - his mom, neighbor, or rabbi - who told him something false which he rationally came to believe? If this is true then through no fault of his own Jesus came to have a false belief. Nonculpable though it may be, it is still irreconcilable with omniscience.

Attempting a rebuttal

Here's a possible response. Perhaps every time that Jesus would have heard (and so believed) a false testimony God prevented him from hearing it. For instance, just as the rabbi clears his throat to explain that the world was created several thousand years ago (instead of 4.6 billion years ago accepted at present) a sparrow chirps loudly near Jesus' ear so that he cannot hear this testimony. And so it goes through his life. Similar fortuitous occurences always prevent Jesus from hearing and so believing false testimony.

The response, though fanciful, is doubly flawed. To begin with, it is doubtful that a person living in first century Palestine could function as a relevant teacher to the culture while having been guarded from all the false beliefs held by the denizens of the age.

Second, divine omniscience also has a counterfactual component. That is, it is not simply that God believes no falsehoods but also that he would not believe them in any circumstance. Likewise, one would think that if Jesus were divine then he too would have believed no falsehoods no matter how persuasive the testimony or the authority.

So here's the conflict in a nutshell: Jesus' rationality as a resident of first-century Palestine seems to oblige him to take on a broad range of false beliefs. And so we see two problems with Jesus being omniscient (and so divine): he did not believe some true propositions (indeed, an infinite number of them) and he did believe some false propositions.