Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[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.

[°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.

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.

I am finite because I am trapped inside a body. I can transcend that in my mind/brain, so I agree with you 50%. Perhaps non human animals can't transcend their bodies, but I don't know since I can see their minds in action.

[anvi]

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;

Maybe as a completely knowable figure, yes.  But the few "I am" formulations of John's Gospel where Jesus declares his identity with God have no equivalents in the Gospels which came before it.  I take that to be fairly significant. For someone, especially a king of Israel or Israel itself to be declared a "son of God" had conspicuous precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so the early Gospel writers calling Jesus the "son of God," especially accompanied by the added messianic and "Son of Man" attributions, is not that unusual.  But John's very late first-century identification of Jesus with God looks to me pretty novel, and not traceable to any earlier traditions of what Jesus said about himself.

[muon2]

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.

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

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;

Maybe as a completely knowable figure, yes.  But the few "I am" formulations of John's Gospel where Jesus declares his identity with God have no equivalents in the Gospels which came before it.  I take that to be fairly significant. For someone, especially a king of Israel or Israel itself to be declared a "son of God" had conspicuous precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so the early Gospel writers calling Jesus the "son of God," especially accompanied by the added messianic and "Son of Man" attributions, is not that unusual.  But John's very late first-century identification of Jesus with God looks to me pretty novel, and not traceable to any earlier traditions of what Jesus said about himself.

Sure, but the "Synoptic theology early, Johannine theology late" formulation has its detractors even among historical-critical scholars (in fact, I've talked to members of a minority of historical-critical scholars who prefer a significantly earlier date for John's Gospel than do most confessional theologians). I also think that the idea that earlier necessarily equals more accurate is leaned on too heavily in historical-critical work when it comes to parsing out differences between the theology of texts that were written at mostly maybe forty or fifty years apart.

(Personally, I do tend to favor the currently mainstream Mark/Q->Matthew/Luke/Acts->John order for Gospel priority, but I also tend to favor the traditional Christian attributions of Gospel authorship, even though, yeah, they indicate that John wrote his Gospel at a very advanced age.)

This is actually a good example of the fetish for counter-intuitive conclusions that DC was asking for examples of--a lot of today's historical-critical "minority reports" on Gospel priority seem motivated by the desire to SHOCK older generations of historical-critical scholars, which in turn were in some cases motivated by the desire to Own The Fundies back in the bad old days of the Fundamentalist/Modernist split.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

[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

[Mopsus]

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.

It’s a testament to the dominance of the latter perception of Zen in the West that I don’t even think of it as a proselytizing religion. What’s “popular” Zen Buddhism like, if that’s a subject you care to go into?

[°Leprechaun]

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

[°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.

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.

[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

[muon2]

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.

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

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.

It’s a testament to the dominance of the latter perception of Zen in the West that I don’t even think of it as a proselytizing religion. What’s “popular” Zen Buddhism like, if that’s a subject you care to go into?

I'm unfortunately not as familiar with it as I am with other "popular" Buddhisms such as Pure Land, but I do know that, as with other religious bodies in the Sinosphere, a huge proportion of what goes on in Zen temples is oriented more towards guiding people through life milestones than towards individual spiritual practice for its own sake. I've actually read materials explicitly warning Western practitioners interested in studying Zen at Japanese temples that they'll have to wade through a lot of instruction on the minutiae of parish administration and (especially) funeral ceremonies in addition to (or sometimes even to the exclusion of) instruction on the meditative practices. A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki, a Japanese-Canadian Zen priest, is an interesting novel featuring characters who are invested in both the social-cultural-religious and the philosophical-meditative aspects of Zen.

[DeSantis4Prez]

Of course

[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

[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

[muon2]

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

When you say correct, are you agreeing that your statement relies on a fallacy?