Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[Greatest I am]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

A number of times Jesus says he does not know what the Father knows. That and if Jesus was God, who did he pray to as a God does not pray to himself.

For those two reasons and more, especially his poor moral tenets, Jesus cannot be God. I see his worst moral tenets as being his no divorce policy and substitutionary punishment policy. This link speaks to other moral deficiencies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ&t=2s

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63df163c543143ab6a9351fc7bab99e8efcefa9e6edb49cd4aa0e4b26a49850c.jpg

[RI]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

[Greatest I am]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Regards
DL

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Regards
DL

Actually, it's a whole lotta words.

[Greatest I am]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Regards
DL

Actually, it's a whole lotta words.

That end in gibberish instead of English.

Regards
DL

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Actually, it's a whole lotta words.

That end in gibberish instead of English.

I'm fairly certain Latin word endings aren't gibberish, tho I imagine some translations of «Quicunque vult» into English are rather bad. It does suffer from being less a statement of faith than a statement of what isn't heresy as the author (who almost certain was not Athanasius but was a devoted follower of his theology) was concerned with nailing down one particular form of Trinitarianism as orthodoxy to a degree than neither the Apostles' Creed nor the Nicene Creed does. I'm agnostic on the issue of Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism as I've never seen a practical difference between the two but I do appreciate that this creed ignores Mariology almost completely beyond asserting that Christ was begotten.

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Interesting discussion on the Trinity. Unitarianism rejects it as not rational. Unitarians are all about reason. Universalists on the other hand were about love. The union of the two traditions suggest that reason and love, viewed from a higher level of consciousness are one and the same thing.

(note: uus have moved beyond the doctrines and are now something quite different although the gist is the same, but speaking literally Unitarians Universalists (with exceptions) are neither Unitarians nor Universalists, in the same way that a peanut is neither a pea nor a nut and to understand this is not necessarily to be under or to stand.. but then again english is an interesting language as are all languages...

but to get back to the point, the traditional Unitarian idea was that the Trinity equaled a belief in three gods rather than one,, a statement which trinitarians reject and traditional christianity is the only religion that divides god in this way, so who is to say that other religions (not thereby true) are not better? So why the Christian idea that there way is the only way?)

[Mopsus]

If an idea is too complex for you to understand, it isn't the idea that's dumb. Christianity's paradoxes are what make it more likely to be true.

[°Leprechaun]

If an idea is too complex for you to understand, it isn't the idea that's dumb. Christianity's paradoxes are what make it more likely to be true.

If that is the criterion for truth then Zen must be the one true religion, since Zen is all about Koans (a similar concept to the paradox concept).

So, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Isn't life itself a paradox full of contradictions?

[°Leprechaun]

The search for meaning in life is perhaps a puppy dog chasing its tail. Would it not be better to see the meaning in life as the mystery of life and leave it at that?

[Mopsus]

If an idea is too complex for you to understand, it isn't the idea that's dumb. Christianity's paradoxes are what make it more likely to be true.

If that is the criterion for truth then Zen must be the one true religion, since Zen is all about Koans (a similar concept to the paradox concept).

I think Zen Buddhists would deny that there's "one true religion".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If an idea is too complex for you to understand, it isn't the idea that's dumb. Christianity's paradoxes are what make it more likely to be true.

If that is the criterion for truth then Zen must be the one true religion, since Zen is all about Koans (a similar concept to the paradox concept).

I think Zen Buddhists would deny that there's "one true religion".

However, they might well say that all religions are one.

[136or142]

Does anybody know of a website that shows what God actually said as opposed to what people think God said. For example, (and I could be wrong on these things myself) I don't believe God ever claims to be perfect, what God actually says is that "I am a jealous God...who is slow to anger."  Similarly, I don't recall reading in the Bible that God claims to be 'all knowing.'

[DC Al Fine]

Psalms 139, 147 and Proverbs 15:3 come to mind.

[136or142]

Psalms 139, 147 and Proverbs 15:3 come to mind.

Even in those cases, those are things various individuals say in the Bible to God or about God, and are not actual quotes from God.

[Greatest I am]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Actually, it's a whole lotta words.

That end in gibberish instead of English.

I'm fairly certain Latin word endings aren't gibberish, tho I imagine some translations of «Quicunque vult» into English are rather bad. It does suffer from being less a statement of faith than a statement of what isn't heresy as the author (who almost certain was not Athanasius but was a devoted follower of his theology) was concerned with nailing down one particular form of Trinitarianism as orthodoxy to a degree than neither the Apostles' Creed nor the Nicene Creed does. I'm agnostic on the issue of Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism as I've never seen a practical difference between the two but I do appreciate that this creed ignores Mariology almost completely beyond asserting that Christ was begotten.

Yes, while giving God a limit to only one half breed chimera son produced by bestiality after Joseph was cuckolded and God became a deadbeat dad.

Regards
DL

[DC Al Fine]

Psalms 139, 147 and Proverbs 15:3 come to mind.

Even in those cases, those are things various individuals say in the Bible to God or about God, and are not actual quotes from God.

Oh I see what you mean.

Why are you privileging direct quotes over the rest of scripture? It seems like splitting hairs given that the entirety of scripture was written down by men. The more relevant question is whether a given text is inspired rather than if specific portions of it are direct God quotes are or not.

[136or142]

Psalms 139, 147 and Proverbs 15:3 come to mind.

Even in those cases, those are things various individuals say in the Bible to God or about God, and are not actual quotes from God.

Oh I see what you mean.

Why are you privileging direct quotes over the rest of scripture? It seems like splitting hairs given that the entirety of scripture was written down by men. The more relevant question is whether a given text is inspired rather than if specific portions of it are direct God quotes are or not.

Fair point, one context at a time, I guess.

[DC Al Fine]

Psalms 139, 147 and Proverbs 15:3 come to mind.

Even in those cases, those are things various individuals say in the Bible to God or about God, and are not actual quotes from God.

Oh I see what you mean.

Why are you privileging direct quotes over the rest of scripture? It seems like splitting hairs given that the entirety of scripture was written down by men. The more relevant question is whether a given text is inspired rather than if specific portions of it are direct God quotes are or not.

Fair point, one context at a time, I guess.

Ok.

If you are still interested, Isaiah 40 is a direct quote and is generally intepreted as God declaring his omniscience in places albeit not as explicitly as in the Psalms or Epistles.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Actually, it's a whole lotta words.

That end in gibberish instead of English.

I'm fairly certain Latin word endings aren't gibberish, tho I imagine some translations of «Quicunque vult» into English are rather bad. It does suffer from being less a statement of faith than a statement of what isn't heresy as the author (who almost certain was not Athanasius but was a devoted follower of his theology) was concerned with nailing down one particular form of Trinitarianism as orthodoxy to a degree than neither the Apostles' Creed nor the Nicene Creed does. I'm agnostic on the issue of Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism as I've never seen a practical difference between the two but I do appreciate that this creed ignores Mariology almost completely beyond asserting that Christ was begotten.

Yes, while giving God a limit to only one half breed chimera son produced by bestiality after Joseph was cuckolded and God became a deadbeat dad.

Either you've never heard of Adoptionism or you're ignoring it because you don't believe it. (You've made clear that you believe that YHWH is a malevolent Demiurge and that belief is incompatible with Adoptionism.)

Incidentally, I'm Adoptionist in my beliefs tho in a manner that neither denies nor requires that Christ be eternal.  (I do see all three personas of the Godhead as existing thruout the linear time of this world, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all three exist thruout all of time outside of time.)

[136or142]

Isaiah 40, NIV
Isaiah 40 New International Version (NIV)
Comfort for God’s People
40 Comfort, comfort my people,
    says your God.
2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
    and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
    that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
    double for all her sins.

3 A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
    the way for the Lord[a];
make straight in the desert
    a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be raised up,
    every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
    the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
    and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

6 A voice says, “Cry out.”
    And I said, “What shall I cry?”

“All people are like grass,
    and all their faithfulness is like the flowers of the field.
7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
    because the breath of the Lord blows on them.
    Surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
    but the word of our God endures forever.”

9 You who bring good news to Zion,
    go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,
    lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
    say to the towns of Judah,
    “Here is your God!”
10 See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
    and he rules with a mighty arm.
See, his reward is with him,
    and his recompense accompanies him.
11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
    He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
    he gently leads those that have young.

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
    or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
    or weighed the mountains on the scales
    and the hills in a balance?
13 Who can fathom the Spirit[d] of the Lord,
    or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
    and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge,
    or showed him the path of understanding?

15 Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;
    they are regarded as dust on the scales;
    he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.
16 Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires,
    nor its animals enough for burnt offerings.
17 Before him all the nations are as nothing;
    they are regarded by him as worthless
    and less than nothing.

18 With whom, then, will you compare God?
    To what image will you liken him?
19 As for an idol, a metalworker casts it,
    and a goldsmith overlays it with gold
    and fashions silver chains for it.
20 A person too poor to present such an offering
    selects wood that will not rot;
they look for a skilled worker
    to set up an idol that will not topple.

21 Do you not know?
    Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
    Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
    and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
    no sooner are they sown,
    no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
    and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.

25 “To whom will you compare me?
    Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
    Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
    and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
    not one of them is missing.

27 Why do you complain, Jacob?
    Why do you say, Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord;
    my cause is disregarded by my God”?
28 Do you not know?
    Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
    the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
    and his understanding no one can fathom.
29 He gives strength to the weary
    and increases the power of the weak.
30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
    and young men stumble and fall;
31 but those who hope in the Lord
    will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
    they will run and not grow weary,
    they will walk and not be faint.

[anvi]

It is highly unlikely that the historical Jesus believed he was God.  So, to me, it's not a problem. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lots of bad takes in this thread. I'll limit myself to responding to three:

1. Zen Buddhism traditionally believed that it was the one true religion just as much as any other proselytic religion does. The transformation of Zen into a philosophical and practical system that is in principle compatible with a number of other religious traditions is a twentieth-century innovation that many Zen Buddhists in East Asia today are unfamiliar with or reject.
2. It's next to impossible to say what is or isn't likely about "the historical Jesus" because Jesus doesn't exist as a full character in any documentary or archeological source other than the various canonical and non-canonical Gospels; historical Jesus scholarship is infamously prone to counter-intuition fetishism and confirmation bias. A historical Jesus scholar once verbally attacked me for pointing out that the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in Mark doesn't necessarily indicate a late date for Marcan authorship even if we presuppose against the supernatural because religious prophets predict doom all the time even if they're not supernaturally inspired, then pivoted to making the same point herself when we got to the next chapter in our class readings.
3. "[H]alf breed chimera son produced by bestiality" indicates a belief that either God is some sort of wild animal or that humans are. I don't think either of these possibilities reflects well on GIA. Also, the Gospels present Joseph as having initially felt that the situation constituted him being cuckolded before being convinced otherwise by Gabriel, and I think Joseph had much more cause to feel affronted on his own behalf than GIA has to feel affronted on Joseph's behalf.

[DC Al Fine]

Lots of bad takes in this thread. I'll limit myself to responding to three:

1. Zen Buddhism traditionally believed that it was the one true religion just as much as any other proselytic religion does. The transformation of Zen into a philosophical and practical system that is in principle compatible with a number of other religious traditions is a twentieth-century innovation that many Zen Buddhists in East Asia today are unfamiliar with or reject.
2. It's next to impossible to say what is or isn't likely about "the historical Jesus" because Jesus doesn't exist as a full character in any documentary or archeological source other than the various canonical and non-canonical Gospels; historical Jesus scholarship is infamously prone to counter-intuition fetishism and confirmation bias. A historical Jesus scholar once verbally attacked me for pointing out that the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in Mark doesn't necessarily indicate a late date for Marcan authorship even if we presuppose against the supernatural because religious prophets predict doom all the time even if they're not supernaturally inspired, then pivoted to making the same point herself when we got to the next chapter in our class readings.
3. "[H]alf breed chimera son produced by bestiality" indicates a belief that either God is some sort of wild animal or that humans are. I don't think either of these possibilities reflects well on GIA. Also, the Gospels present Joseph as having initially felt that the situation constituted him being cuckolded before being convinced otherwise by Gabriel, and I think Joseph had much more cause to feel affronted on his own behalf than GIA has to feel affronted on Joseph's behalf.

Two quick points:

1) I know historical Jesus and Pauline scholarship aren't sciences per se, but they seem to suffer from an incredible lack  of replicability. Using the logic in your Mark example, if we gave Jesus scholars a smattering of early Jehovah's Witnesses literature (which predicted calamity shortly before WWI), they would have to conclude that most of Charles Taze Russell's writings weren't produced until decades after he died... or perhaps they would conclude a Priestly source interpolated them

2) Can you give some examples of counter intuition fetishism?

[°Leprechaun]

I have never understood how Jesus could be "God". Jesus was a finite human being. "God" is infinite.
If Jesus is divine, perhaps we all are.

I think the Muslims have a better understanding of all this, because they see Jesus as a prophet, rather than as a god. Likewise with the Jews. Perhaps Muslims and Jews have more in common with each other than they have with Christians.