6 ms·

> Jesus was God in flesh so he purposely limited himself to experience all that we experience, to suffer all that we suffer. There is nothing that He can't empa

> Jesus was God in flesh so he purposely limited himself to experience all that we experience, to suffer all that we suffer. There is nothing that He can't empathize with. This implies that God is incapable of fully knowing the experience of humans without becoming human, hence God is not omniscient; since now his omniscience is contingent on becoming contingent.

chernevik 5y ago
No. God already understood the human experience. He became human to prove to us, beyond all doubt, that He does understand.
- omarfarooq 5y ago
  "Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
  - theonething 5y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? We have his teachings in writing. Do you only believe in knowledge that is personally manifested to you? If so, then you wouldn't believe in any history.
    - omarfarooq 5y ago
      > I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? I'm referring to the miracles attributed to him, which are used as the conclusive evidence that he was God in the flesh. > We have his teachings in writing. How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? You do not even know the historical identities of the authors of the gospels. Nor do you have his teachings in the original language that he spoke.
      - theonething 5y ago
        > How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? "The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript "Most historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[108]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Histo... To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? More readings on this topic: https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-histori... https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-...
        omarfarooq 5y ago
        > To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? Recall that I responded to a GP that said all this is "beyond doubt." You're arguing a strawman with me. (On a personal note, I do believe in many of the miracles attested to Jesus, but that isn't evidence to me that he was God in the flesh.) As for your links, I counter suggest you read the works of Dr. Bart Ehrman.
        theonething 5y ago
        Your assertion was that GP's statement is not beyond all doubt because Jesus only manifested to a small group of people. [1] I don't think your reason for your assertion is valid. Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything. You might have other reasons for doubting His divinity, but I don't think the one you've professed is a good one. [1] "Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
  - chernevik 5y ago
    The doubt is removed for those who believe Jesus was God. How they came to believe this is another matter.
SwiftyBug 5y ago
You don't even need to get that far to reach the conclusion that God is not omniscient. This is Genesis 8-10: 8) Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9) But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”. 10) He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”. Adam and Eve hid behind some trees and God didn't know where they were. It makes no sense for an omniscient being to ask anyone "where are you".
- omarfarooq 5y ago
  While I get your point, that seems to me to be obviously a rhetorical question posed to give Adam and his wife an opportunity to explain what they're up to.
  - gen220 5y ago
    It's not a particularly unarguable idea that the Abrahamic God may not be omniscient (at least, not at all points in time. There is a related idea that God changes over time). The parent to your comment gave one example because it's the first. But there are many. Here's another one, again from an early point in time, that shows regret. Genesis 6:5-9 > And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. > And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Immediately after this, God first decides to end humanity, but later changes his mind again after focusing his attention selectively on Noah. > And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created [...] for it repenteth me that I have made them. > But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. > These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. --- Truthfully, the bible is full of tensions and contradictions. You can't explain them without developing an opinion/interpreting the book holistically. The God of the Old Testament is physical, emotional, and generally more demanding and hands-on with humanity; the language clearly implies that he possesses a locus of attention that he directs where he chooses. He interacts physically with humans, and not-infrequently changes his mind. The God of the New Testament, is more ethereal, transcendent, and more consistent in the emphasis of grace and mercy. That the debate on subjects like these, even among fellow Christians, has literally been ongoing since Christ's death, is probably evidence that all these ideas cannot be reconciled. They are merely there for us to contemplate and interpret.
xupybd 5y ago
I don't think I've seen the word Omniscient used in the Bible.
- omarfarooq 5y ago
  > Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;His understanding is infinite. > For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things (1 John 3:20). > Known to God from eternity are all his works (Acts 15:18). > The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Proverbs 15:3).
  - xupybd 5y ago
    I agree with all of that but none of those verses use the term omniscient. The idea of omniscience leads to paradoxes like the one above. Can you know what it is to be non omniscient and be omniscient. I think God can choose to understand and know what He wants to know. If he chooses to forget sin, He can. Meaning the strict definition of omniscience would not apply. I'm no theologian or philosopher so there is a good chance I'm simply missing something or don't understand these words.
    - omarfarooq 5y ago
      > I agree with all of that but none of those verses use the term omniscient. If the axis of your response is going to be this, then I suggest we only continue speaking about the Bible on the level of Koine Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old. Since you want to be maximally true to the words. As do I.

chernevik 5y ago

No. God already understood the human experience. He became human to prove to us, beyond all doubt, that He does understand.

omarfarooq 5y ago
"Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
- theonething 5y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? We have his teachings in writing. Do you only believe in knowledge that is personally manifested to you? If so, then you wouldn't believe in any history.
  - omarfarooq 5y ago
    > I'm not sure I follow your argument. So because he only manifested himself to a relatively small number of people, he can't prove that he understands us? I'm referring to the miracles attributed to him, which are used as the conclusive evidence that he was God in the flesh. > We have his teachings in writing. How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? You do not even know the historical identities of the authors of the gospels. Nor do you have his teachings in the original language that he spoke.
    - theonething 5y ago
      > How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have his teachings? "The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript "Most historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection.[108]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Histo... To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? More readings on this topic: https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-histori... https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-...
      - omarfarooq 5y ago
        > To your point about the miracles attributed to him, again, because he didn't manifest those miracles to everyone ever, they didn't happen? Recall that I responded to a GP that said all this is "beyond doubt." You're arguing a strawman with me. (On a personal note, I do believe in many of the miracles attested to Jesus, but that isn't evidence to me that he was God in the flesh.) As for your links, I counter suggest you read the works of Dr. Bart Ehrman.
        theonething 5y ago
        Your assertion was that GP's statement is not beyond all doubt because Jesus only manifested to a small group of people. [1] I don't think your reason for your assertion is valid. Jesus only manifesting to a relatively (relative to all of humanity) small group of people doesn't invalidate or cast doubt on anything. You might have other reasons for doubting His divinity, but I don't think the one you've professed is a good one. [1] "Beyond all doubt" is doubtful since, taking your assertions for granted, he only manifested himself to an infinitesimally small cross-section of humanity.
- chernevik 5y ago
  The doubt is removed for those who believe Jesus was God. How they came to believe this is another matter.

SwiftyBug 5y ago

You don't even need to get that far to reach the conclusion that God is not omniscient. This is Genesis 8-10: 8) Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9) But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”. 10) He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”. Adam and Eve hid behind some trees and God didn't know where they were. It makes no sense for an omniscient being to ask anyone "where are you".

omarfarooq 5y ago
While I get your point, that seems to me to be obviously a rhetorical question posed to give Adam and his wife an opportunity to explain what they're up to.
- gen220 5y ago
  It's not a particularly unarguable idea that the Abrahamic God may not be omniscient (at least, not at all points in time. There is a related idea that God changes over time). The parent to your comment gave one example because it's the first. But there are many. Here's another one, again from an early point in time, that shows regret. Genesis 6:5-9 > And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. > And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Immediately after this, God first decides to end humanity, but later changes his mind again after focusing his attention selectively on Noah. > And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created [...] for it repenteth me that I have made them. > But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. > These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. --- Truthfully, the bible is full of tensions and contradictions. You can't explain them without developing an opinion/interpreting the book holistically. The God of the Old Testament is physical, emotional, and generally more demanding and hands-on with humanity; the language clearly implies that he possesses a locus of attention that he directs where he chooses. He interacts physically with humans, and not-infrequently changes his mind. The God of the New Testament, is more ethereal, transcendent, and more consistent in the emphasis of grace and mercy. That the debate on subjects like these, even among fellow Christians, has literally been ongoing since Christ's death, is probably evidence that all these ideas cannot be reconciled. They are merely there for us to contemplate and interpret.

xupybd 5y ago

I don't think I've seen the word Omniscient used in the Bible.

omarfarooq 5y ago
> Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;His understanding is infinite. > For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things (1 John 3:20). > Known to God from eternity are all his works (Acts 15:18). > The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Proverbs 15:3).
- xupybd 5y ago
  I agree with all of that but none of those verses use the term omniscient. The idea of omniscience leads to paradoxes like the one above. Can you know what it is to be non omniscient and be omniscient. I think God can choose to understand and know what He wants to know. If he chooses to forget sin, He can. Meaning the strict definition of omniscience would not apply. I'm no theologian or philosopher so there is a good chance I'm simply missing something or don't understand these words.
  - omarfarooq 5y ago
    > I agree with all of that but none of those verses use the term omniscient. If the axis of your response is going to be this, then I suggest we only continue speaking about the Bible on the level of Koine Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old. Since you want to be maximally true to the words. As do I.