Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Maybe you're only finite, but I don't consider myself as such.  Even from a completely atheistic POV, I find the idea that we're finite a self-limitation on who we are.  Are we merely a collection of atoms that changes over time as we eat, breathe, and otherwise participate in the physical attributes of life or are we something else? I'm here, writing on this computer, but at the same time I'm present in the memories and thoughts of my wife, my family, my acquaintances, and even my enemies. As horrifying as the thought may be, Donald J. Trump is a part of everyone who participates in this forum, with the possible exception of "Greatest I am".

Infinity is not just a divine attribute, it's an attribute that is shared by all who think and communicate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Maybe you're only finite, but I don't consider myself as such.  Even from a completely atheistic POV, I find the idea that we're finite a self-limitation on who we are.  Are we merely a collection of atoms that changes over time as we eat, breathe, and otherwise participate in the physical attributes of life or are we something else? I'm here, writing on this computer, but at the same time I'm present in the memories and thoughts of my wife, my family, my acquaintances, and even my enemies. As horrifying as the thought may be, Donald J. Trump is a part of everyone who participates in this forum, with the possible exception of "Greatest I am".

Infinity is not just a divine attribute, it's an attribute that is shared by all who think and communicate.

Perhaps, but intelligent people will not think of anything as infinite without facts.

IOW, faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

Pretty much every post you make on this site is personal opinion rather than facts.

Regards,
TF

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Maybe you're only finite, but I don't consider myself as such.  Even from a completely atheistic POV, I find the idea that we're finite a self-limitation on who we are.  Are we merely a collection of atoms that changes over time as we eat, breathe, and otherwise participate in the physical attributes of life or are we something else? I'm here, writing on this computer, but at the same time I'm present in the memories and thoughts of my wife, my family, my acquaintances, and even my enemies. As horrifying as the thought may be, Donald J. Trump is a part of everyone who participates in this forum, with the possible exception of "Greatest I am".

Infinity is not just a divine attribute, it's an attribute that is shared by all who think and communicate.

Perhaps, but intelligent people will not think of anything as infinite without facts.

IOW, faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

Pretty much every post you make on this site is personal opinion rather than facts.

Regards,
TF

Thanks for giving your personal opinion without showing any facts not in this thread.

Are you still beating your wife?

Regards
DL

Yes, she's not very good at Scrabble. On the other hand she regularly beats me when we play Trivial Pursuit.

Regards,
TF

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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. 

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

If "god" by definition is infinite, "he" would have all the properties of the whole. I don't see any error here. Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges.

The number 2 is finite yet is part of the infinite set of finite numbers.

Why then is it so difficult to accept that it would be possible for Jesus to be finite and yet be a part of an infinite God.  Everyday we interact with finite things that are part of infinite things.

It's part of standard Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  One can view Trinitarian theology as one of the earliest applications of set theory and non-reflexive equality developed before we even had the mathematics to properly describe it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do you continue to assert Divinity can't be divided? It's hardly a concept unique to Trinitarianism. It's an integral part of panentheism in all its myriad manifestations. Relations need not be reflexive.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's very simple. If you divide something it is no longer one. If you cut an apple in half it is no longer united as one apple, but becomes two divided into two parts. It is two not one. So when I say "one can't be divided" I am saying if something is divided it is no longer one.

To suggest that god is three is no different than to say that god has a multiple personality disorder.
If the three persons were integrated they become one.

Yet if you divide the set of natural numbers into the sets of natural numbers modulo 0, 1, and 2 you get three distinct sets, each the same size as the original. Infinity is tricky that way. Infinity divided by three is still infinity. Three infinities combined become one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

While the doctrines of Trinitarianism and Substitutionary Atonement are both part of mainstream Christianity, they are orthogonal beliefs, neither of which depends on the other. So can't logically use an argument about one to say anything about the other when considered in isolation only about the combination. However,  to get back to the original question, I fail to see any relevance of Substitutionary Atonement to the proposition that Jesus would need to be omniscient to be a persona of the Godhead.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*
The trinity is false because three is three times one. Simple math. If three equals one, then three equals nine and pigs will fly. If a=3 and b=1, then to say that a=b is to say that b=3 and three times b is nine, so since b=1 and b=3 then three times b=nine and 1 times 1 equals 3 times 3 which equals 9.
So if the divine is 3 persons then the divine is 9 people et cetera et cetera et cetera.
To say god is 3 is to say that there are three gods, speaking literally. That is a no brainer.
What difference does it make if you say that you believe in one god or three gods?
Where's the problem. Why would it matter? None of it matters. None of it can be proven because the spiritual is not natural, unless the natural is an illusion. If life is but a dream, then we already could be spiritual, but who really knows?
* actually an infinite number of oceans. The best way to conceptualize infinity, perhaps, is to say that infinity equals zero. Multiply x by zero and you still have zero, so if x=infinity then infinity equals zero. If you divide 1 by 2 and continue to divide the result by 2 you will never get to zero. If you look at pi you will never reach the end of pi, that is how I look at infinity. Did the deity create pi or did pi create the deity? Did the chicken come before the egg or is it an infinite loop and therefore we will never know which came first?

Please stop. You've already made it abundantly clear you don't grasp how infinity works in mathematics. Granted, it is not an intuitive concept, but your current lack of comprehension of it means you should avoid making analogies between mathematical infinity and theological infinity until you do. Incidentally, zero times infinity is undefined in mathematics.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, zero times any real (or complex) number is zero, but mathematically infinity isn't a real number. Mathematics has a well-established set of properties that infinity has in order to make use of it in a consistent manner and your intuition is clearly not in agreement with it.

While it's reasonable to argue that analogies between mathematical infinity and theological infinity are not appropriate, it's irrational to do as you continue to do and assert your own truthy view of mathematical infinity is just as valid as that used by actual mathematicians. It's akin to the viewpoint of climate change deniers and anri-vaxxers who insist on the truthiness of their beliefs despite the science showing them to be bunk.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're arguing that because an arm in not a complete person the arm cannot be a person and therefore by analogy Jesus cannot be God. However, if I take a cup and dip it into a bucket of water then that cup holds water just as the bucket holds water. You only see Jesus as the cup while I see Christ as the water in the cup and   God as water in this analogy.  (Whether the bucket represents the Father or the Godhead I'll leave to those who care about the distinction between Trinitarianism and Classical Unitarianism.)