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

[Greatest I am]

Do you even Athanasian Creed, bro?

No. It is too stupid for words.

Regards
DL

[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

[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

[Greatest I am]

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

It is not a problem for anyone who knows that substitutionary punishment is evil.

That seems to exempt Christians who plan to ride Jesus as their scapegoat.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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.

I just gave the facts.

If you do not think a cuckolded Joseph would not feel cuckolded, that is your opinion.

If you prefer that Joseph would be happy to have his wife impregnated by a different species, then go ahead.

Hard to thank a deadbeat dad who is not around for that though.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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.

Perhaps.

It depends on which flavor of each religion you favor.

Christians have, what, 3,000 sects and Islam has 60 odd.

Islam is also the foulest ideology that I know of.

Both Christians and Muslims would have been better served if they had kept the morals of the Jewish stories when they usurped them instead of changing and reversing them.

The Jewish view for instance, of Eden, is that it was where man was elevated and not where man  fell.

That makes a lot more sense that what Christians and Muslims have done with Genesis.

Regards
DL 

[Greatest I am]

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

[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. 

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.

Not true???

There is only one whole in a monotheistic religion while you are making your God into 3 incomplete whole, a holes that is by making them dimwitted.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

There is an explanation: Jehovah came down to be a prophet; however, since he was on earth, heaven still had his divine power. He said this at the transfiguration. Angels, and Moses had the divine power until he returned. That was the purpose of his resurrection, to prove the power of divine.

God has to die to prove he cannot die. How droll.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Although I wouldn't call myself a Zen Buddhist they have some good ideas.
Taoism could be described as Zen Buddhism without the "Buddhism".
If you meet the Buddha on the road you can (f.s.o.c.) kill him.

My zen favorite Buddhists are Stephen Batchelor and Brad Warner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Batchelor_(author)

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

There is no "god" and "he" (she?) is always with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aXg-BOCIvo

Many ideologies tell us to try to view issues without being for or against them. Most of us let our biases get in the way.

My Gnostic Christianity follows/resonates with many of the ideologies that put man above God, where we belong, given that we have invented all of them.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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.

Perhaps.

It depends on which flavor of each religion you favor.

Christians have, what, 3,000 sects and Islam has 60 odd.

Islam is also the foulest ideology that I know of.

Both Christians and Muslims would have been better served if they had kept the morals of the Jewish stories when they usurped them instead of changing and reversing them.

The Jewish view for instance, of Eden, is that it was where man was elevated and not where man  fell.

That makes a lot more sense that what Christians and Muslims have done with Genesis.

Regards
DL 

Interesting, I do think that Judaism has a lot to offer, although I don't know if I will ever convert.

I am not sure that one can even convert to Jewry. I have seen Jews argue the issue fruitlessly.

With the plethora of religions, and given that the revealed supernaturally based religions are the cause of most conflicts, perhaps staying away from the revealed religions is a better idea since their moral codes are so vile.

Look at Christianity and Islam. Both idol worship really vile and immoral Gods.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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

[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. 

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.

Not true???

There is only one whole in a monotheistic religion while you are making your God into 3 incomplete whole, a holes that is by making them dimwitted.

Regards
DL

Did I speak of religion? No, I did not. I spoke of the fallacy that multiple aspects of a single entity must each have all the properties of the entity. You invoke that fallacy by saying that each aspect of God must have all the attributes of the whole God.

Correct. I go with the traditional view and not the idiocy that Christianity came up with.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

People don't run away from debating you for the reasons that you think they do, dude.

A great argument. You win this debate.

Argument. Oh wait.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No aspect of the revealed supernaturally based religions should be taken as fact, as they are all based on lies.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?
[/quote]

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

I have yet to see any good arguments for religion, here or anywhere else. There are some good ethical ideas in some religions, but religion, by definition embraces an invisible deity, which has never been proved; what is religion but a crutch? We have autonomy over our own beliefs our own thoughts and our own actions. To surrender to dogma (which is what religion really is, is it not?) People believe because they want to believe, right? I want to believe that I will win the powerball, but that doesn't mean I will. I am not going to surrender to the wishful thinking fallacy, the appeal to emotions fallacy, and certainly not the ad hominem fallacy. These are among the many logical fallacies that some if not many religious people fall for.
To surrender to the idea that we somehow need to believe in order to be "saved" is a fallacy, we don't need to believe in a transcendent reality; believe in yourself, that is the answer.
Religion in the world today is very sectarian and divisive. If you want to take a leap of faith, take a leap of faith and belief in yourself rather than having a codependent relationship with that old time religion. Most Christian sects tend to believe in old time dogmas (faith alone, the crucifixion, the trinity and other fallacies). Spong is right; if religion isn't going to change it will (and should, therefore), die. Nietzsche and other before and after him have made good arguments.
It is difficult to discuss religion with those who are religious, those who make claims with nothing to back up those claims.
I am glad to see that you are not intimated and won't back down Greatest I am. A good offense is a good defense. If religious people don't want their beliefs criticized they can go into their closet and pray. They shouldn't try to force their views on those who are not going to be intimated, or cajoled, or back down from reason, logic, and common sense.

In a sense, I wish I was forced to back down on my positions. Then I would lose an argument and actually learn something new. Having a mental paradigm shift is one of the greatest pleasures I know of.

I think that that is what this quote refers to.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

This reigning, to me, is talking about our mental positions reigning over other positions.

In a sense, this monarch/me wants to be a peasant again when it comes to arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

Thai is why I have a hard time understanding why some resort to lies to win arguments. They do not recognize the joys of losing an argument and learning something new. They place the win above being correct while I just prefer to be correct.

Regards
DL



 

[Greatest I am]

No aspect of the revealed supernaturally based religions should be taken as fact, as they are all based on lies.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL

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).

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. 

What I know for a fact is that things of this universe can be a single whole entity yet manifest themselves in aspects that do not retain all the properties of the whole. This has been observed from the smallest to largest scales in the universe, and I have given some examples in this thread. Even knowledge in a system at a fine grain scale can be manifestly lost on a macroscopic scale as is well known in statistical mechanics. To suppose that anything of this universe cannot be whole and yet have limited manifestations ignores the data and facts of the universe. Therefore there is no contradiction to say that if God is of this universe, God could have manifestations that lacked all the properties of the whole, including knowledge.

That response would suffice if God were of this universe. So to be complete I should take up the other case that God is not of this universe and is a subject of faith alone. In that case I can look to faith as being the province of beings who are of this universe and are subject to its physics. As such it is reasonable that beings of faith not of this universe may follow the same behavior as beings of this universe. That is, beings of faith could have manifestations that do not exhibit all the properties of the whole. Note that I do not claim they must, only that it is not contradictory to say that they do.

You might say that I have proved nothing in this second case. But if so, then your counterclaim also proves nothing since we lack any direct knowledge of what lies outside our universe. We each are making claims based on our faith in what might or might not be beyond this universe. It is not unreasonable that such faith in what might or might not be beyond our universe includes some properties we observe in our universe. Nonetheless you are entitled to a faith that either there must be nothing beyond our physical universe (a point not generally supported by current physics), or that what is beyond the universe cannot have some of the basic quantum properties of this universe (also not generally supported by current physics).
[/quote]

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
 

[Greatest I am]

An argument or a debate can not by definition have any emotional aspects to it. When emotion is added it morphs into a fight.
An argument or a debate is a contest, like a game of chess. Still there can be ego involved, as there is in a game of chess. The best way to improve at chess is to play someone better than you. That is the best way to learn.
[/quote]

This is true, and what I seek.
Unfortunately, the level of good apologists on both sides seems to be going down.

I used to compliment both sides for their renderings when I first started posting, but of late, I seldom have that opportunity.

It seems that the further into the Gap God is pushed, the fewer religionists get to know how to defend him.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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?

"In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*"

Much idiocy is written about the Trinity.

If that analogy was worthy, then one would have to wonder why, if asked to dive into water, 100% will choose to jump into the ocean than into a drop.

Mind you, some believers might be brain dead enough to choose the drop to dive into.

Let us pray in fact that many theists do. That would reduce the harm they do to the innocent by quite a bit.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Why would a Christian even want to believe in the Trinity?

Short answer.

Theists want to believe due to insecurity. Our tribal instinct is quite strong thanks to fear.

They want a powerful God. Not a good one.

Have you seen this excellent rendering?

https://vimeo.com/7038401

If you want to watch the whole movie, you will learn more with the way the story ends than hours of reading, if you give it even a small amount of though. At least I recall doing a couple of WTFs.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"The Trinity is the idea that Jesus is simultaneously 100% human and 100% a god. The only way this would make sense is if there is no distinction between being a human and being a god, which I doubt many theologians would accept."
Actually a Unitarian Christian can believe that Jesus is both human and divine.
Colossians:
2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

So, does that verse teach that Jesus is God Himself and not one of three persons?

If Jesus can be God, then so can we. That fits perfectly into Gnostic Christianity and not at all in Christianity.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
   
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

If orthodox Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why insist on Trinitarianism, which is not biblical?
It is only biblical if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not insist upon, but in fact the opposite is the case, the Bible itself rejects literalism.
So, if you believe the Bible you don't have to take any of it literally which leads to the problem(?) of taking what could be taken metaphorically, metaphorically, and taking literally ethics which lead to being good (which ethics are good and which bad, is a matter of interpretation)

It is always difficult for one who believes in facts to chat with those who believe in faith.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship. 

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Who would take Aesop's fables literally? What to take literally is self evident --- the moral of the story and not the story itself. Why would it be any different in the Bible?

That's the right thinking. It gets trumped by tribalism though.

Take Eden. The Jews who wrote it and have first right to interpretation say the moral of the story is man's elevation.
 
Christians forget that and call it a fall and their tribal power wins as far as the less intelligent Christians are concerned.

Gnostic Christians see it the Jewish and correct way.

Regards
DL