BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well as I have shown, clearly you do not know everything about god. You really don't know how much I know about God and you really don't know whether I know everything about God. You are simply making bald assertions and stating your opinion. Admit it, you really aren't sure I don't know everything about God.

---

You haven't shown anything....I, and everybody else here, will freely admit that we do not know everything about God.

But you can certainly clarify your position. Are you claiming to know everything about God? It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

---

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Admit you don't know whether I know everything about God

---

What an odd attempt at a gotcha, but I'll play along. I know that you don't know everything about God.

Your turn.

---

Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light.

---

Well now this thread just took a whole new turn. If we all agree that you think God told you this, would that placate things here?

---

How you know know that I think God told me anything?

---

Sorry, I probably misread. I thought you said you spoke with God and He told you he read the War Scroll.

---

Make baseless allegations much? Next time think before you speak please.

---

I shouldn't have taken the bolded part you wrote literally.

---

You read what I wrote didn't you?

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well as I have shown, clearly you do not know everything about god. You really don't know how much I know about God and you really don't know whether I know everything about God. You are simply making bald assertions and stating your opinion. Admit it, you really aren't sure I don't know everything about God.

---

You haven't shown anything....I, and everybody else here, will freely admit that we do not know everything about God.

But you can certainly clarify your position. Are you claiming to know everything about God? It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

---

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Admit you don't know whether I know everything about God

---

What an odd attempt at a gotcha, but I'll play along. I know that you don't know everything about God.

Your turn.

---

Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light.

---

Well now this thread just took a whole new turn. If we all agree that you think God told you this, would that placate things here?

---

How you know know that I think God told me anything?

---

Sorry, I probably misread. I thought you said you spoke with God and He told you he read the War Scroll.

---

Make baseless allegations much? Next time think before you speak please.

---

I shouldn't have taken the bolded part you wrote literally.

---

You read what I wrote didn't you?

---

Did you not write the following : "Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light."?

This is hilarious, I was going to ignore list the OP but this is much much better.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well as I have shown, clearly you do not know everything about god. You really don't know how much I know about God and you really don't know whether I know everything about God. You are simply making bald assertions and stating your opinion. Admit it, you really aren't sure I don't know everything about God.

---

You haven't shown anything....I, and everybody else here, will freely admit that we do not know everything about God.

But you can certainly clarify your position. Are you claiming to know everything about God? It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

---

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Admit you don't know whether I know everything about God

---

What an odd attempt at a gotcha, but I'll play along. I know that you don't know everything about God.

Your turn.

---

Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light.

---

Well now this thread just took a whole new turn. If we all agree that you think God told you this, would that placate things here?

---

How you know know that I think God told me anything?

---

Sorry, I probably misread. I thought you said you spoke with God and He told you he read the War Scroll.

---

Make baseless allegations much? Next time think before you speak please.

---

I shouldn't have taken the bolded part you wrote literally.

---

You read what I wrote didn't you?

---

Did you not write the following : "Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light."?

---

How do you know what it means? Did you read it?

NCNJ1217 said:

---

This is hilarious, I was going to ignore list the OP but this is much much better.

---

How do you know it's hilarious? You read it?

codker92 said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

This is hilarious, I was going to ignore list the OP but this is much much better.

---

How do you know it's hilarious? You read it?

---

I can observe the hilarity across the seas of space and time.

NCNJ1217 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

This is hilarious, I was going to ignore list the OP but this is much much better.

---

How do you know it's hilarious? You read it?

---

I can observe the hilarity across the seas of space and time.

---

Wow so you are telling me God did not tell you it was funny? You came to that conclusion on an observation. What a novel concept.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well as I have shown, clearly you do not know everything about god. You really don't know how much I know about God and you really don't know whether I know everything about God. You are simply making bald assertions and stating your opinion. Admit it, you really aren't sure I don't know everything about God.

---

You haven't shown anything....I, and everybody else here, will freely admit that we do not know everything about God.

But you can certainly clarify your position. Are you claiming to know everything about God? It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

---

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Admit you don't know whether I know everything about God

---

What an odd attempt at a gotcha, but I'll play along. I know that you don't know everything about God.

Your turn.

---

Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light.

---

Well now this thread just took a whole new turn. If we all agree that you think God told you this, would that placate things here?

---

How you know know that I think God told me anything?

---

Sorry, I probably misread. I thought you said you spoke with God and He told you he read the War Scroll.

---

Make baseless allegations much? Next time think before you speak please.

---

I shouldn't have taken the bolded part you wrote literally.

---

You read what I wrote didn't you?

---

Did you not write the following : "Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light."?

---

How do you know what it means? Did you read it?

---

Maybe restate it in Aramaic . It might be easier for me

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Well as I have shown, clearly you do not know everything about god. You really don't know how much I know about God and you really don't know whether I know everything about God. You are simply making bald assertions and stating your opinion. Admit it, you really aren't sure I don't know everything about God.

---

You haven't shown anything....I, and everybody else here, will freely admit that we do not know everything about God.

But you can certainly clarify your position. Are you claiming to know everything about God? It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

---

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Admit you don't know whether I know everything about God

---

What an odd attempt at a gotcha, but I'll play along. I know that you don't know everything about God.

Your turn.

---

Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light.

---

Well now this thread just took a whole new turn. If we all agree that you think God told you this, would that placate things here?

---

How you know know that I think God told me anything?

---

Sorry, I probably misread. I thought you said you spoke with God and He told you he read the War Scroll.

---

Make baseless allegations much? Next time think before you speak please.

---

I shouldn't have taken the bolded part you wrote literally.

---

You read what I wrote didn't you?

---

Did you not write the following : "Prove it. Prove I don't know everything about God. You are a hypocrite. You think that I should care what your opinion is? I don't give two rips about your worthless opinion. Truth is, I spoke with God and He told me he read the War Scroll and He preached it to the Sons of Light."?

---

How do you know what it means? Did you read it?

---

Maybe restate it in Aramaic . It might be easier for me

---

Oh silly me, here I thought God just beamed it into your head so you would know what to say.

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

---

Because Jesus is fully human and, at the same time, fully God, which makes the entire thread moot


Edit: you'd have to reject the above idea of the Trinity to take the stance you're taking

---

Sound like a conclusion to me. Have anything to support what you are saying other than your opinion? There are many many many passages about Jesus doing the will of Yahweh. The will of Yahweh is found in his law, which cites the King of Israel's duty to read scripture. In Daniel, the Son of Man aka Jesus is given thrones, including the throne of Israel, partially to fulfill God's promise to David.

---

What conclusion would you like us to draw?

The best we can tell, you are purposefully being vague to avoid revealing your real position.

---

Real position about what? A theological concept?

---

We don't know. That's the point. What theological concepts are you claiming?

---

Ever think that maybe God is bigger than theology?

---

You avoided answering my question again.

And yes, the theological concept of God acknowledges that we only have access to what God has revealed to us. There is an unknown amount of information about God that we do not have access to in this life, but we hope in the next life we will truly be able to understand God.

None of that changes anything about Jesus role within the Trinity and His nature.

---

That sounds like your opinion.

---

An opinion would be if someone made the claim that Jesus only knew the scriptures through reading them.

Progressive revelation about God and His desires for us is an undisputable fact of the Bible.

For example, we know more today than any Jew in the OT because Jesus walked this earth. However, to presume that we know everything about God because of that is certainly not a claim that any reasonable person would make because there's no evidence for that claim.

---

I don't buy your theory. Jesus didn't have any more inspiration about scripture than other OT characters. I already stated my facts. You have none. You don't have evidence. Jesus didn't know everything.

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

---

Because Jesus is fully human and, at the same time, fully God, which makes the entire thread moot


Edit: you'd have to reject the above idea of the Trinity to take the stance you're taking

---

Sound like a conclusion to me. Have anything to support what you are saying other than your opinion? There are many many many passages about Jesus doing the will of Yahweh. The will of Yahweh is found in his law, which cites the King of Israel's duty to read scripture. In Daniel, the Son of Man aka Jesus is given thrones, including the throne of Israel, partially to fulfill God's promise to David.

---

What conclusion would you like us to draw?

The best we can tell, you are purposefully being vague to avoid revealing your real position.

---

Real position about what? A theological concept?

---

We don't know. That's the point. What theological concepts are you claiming?

---

Ever think that maybe God is bigger than theology?

---

You avoided answering my question again.

And yes, the theological concept of God acknowledges that we only have access to what God has revealed to us. There is an unknown amount of information about God that we do not have access to in this life, but we hope in the next life we will truly be able to understand God.

None of that changes anything about Jesus role within the Trinity and His nature.

---

That sounds like your opinion.

---

An opinion would be if someone made the claim that Jesus only knew the scriptures through reading them.

Progressive revelation about God and His desires for us is an undisputable fact of the Bible.

For example, we know more today than any Jew in the OT because Jesus walked this earth. However, to presume that we know everything about God because of that is certainly not a claim that any reasonable person would make because there's no evidence for that claim.

---

I don't buy your theory. Jesus didn't have any more inspiration about scripture than other OT characters. I already stated my facts. You have none. You don't have evidence. Jesus didn't know everything.

---

So you definitely are denying Jesus as "The Word became flesh". And you deny "for in Him (Jesus), all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form….." Col:2-9

I do not deny these and find these to be the ultimate source of inspiration for the sermon on the mount.

---

Ok not sure if you read the sermon on the mount but he doesn't mention any of what you said.

That passage you quote was written well after Jesus died

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

---

Because Jesus is fully human and, at the same time, fully God, which makes the entire thread moot


Edit: you'd have to reject the above idea of the Trinity to take the stance you're taking

---

Sound like a conclusion to me. Have anything to support what you are saying other than your opinion? There are many many many passages about Jesus doing the will of Yahweh. The will of Yahweh is found in his law, which cites the King of Israel's duty to read scripture. In Daniel, the Son of Man aka Jesus is given thrones, including the throne of Israel, partially to fulfill God's promise to David.

---

What conclusion would you like us to draw?

The best we can tell, you are purposefully being vague to avoid revealing your real position.

---

Real position about what? A theological concept?

---

We don't know. That's the point. What theological concepts are you claiming?

---

Ever think that maybe God is bigger than theology?

---

You avoided answering my question again.

And yes, the theological concept of God acknowledges that we only have access to what God has revealed to us. There is an unknown amount of information about God that we do not have access to in this life, but we hope in the next life we will truly be able to understand God.

None of that changes anything about Jesus role within the Trinity and His nature.

---

That sounds like your opinion.

---

An opinion would be if someone made the claim that Jesus only knew the scriptures through reading them.

Progressive revelation about God and His desires for us is an undisputable fact of the Bible.

For example, we know more today than any Jew in the OT because Jesus walked this earth. However, to presume that we know everything about God because of that is certainly not a claim that any reasonable person would make because there's no evidence for that claim.

---

I don't buy your theory. Jesus didn't have any more inspiration about scripture than other OT characters. I already stated my facts. You have none. You don't have evidence. Jesus didn't know everything.

---

So you definitely are denying Jesus as "The Word became flesh". And you deny "for in Him (Jesus), all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form….." Col:2-9

I do not deny these and find these to be the ultimate source of inspiration for the sermon on the mount.

---

Ok not sure if you read the sermon on the mount but he doesn't mention any of what you said.

That passage you quote was written well after Jesus died

---

I say this with love and mean absolutely, no offense, but I now understand why some poster above suggested that you may be on the spectrum. I am not sure an intelligent conversation on this topic can be had with you anymore.

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Where is the Scripture that says Jesus studied Scripture?

The only place I know of Scripture even saying he read Scripture is when he reads Isaiah aloud in the synagogue.

And if Jesus is God, why would he need any info or Scripture beamed into his head.

---

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

---

Jesus is commanded by who? Your posts sometimes seem almost anti-trinitarian

---

What about the post is anti-trinitarian?

---

Because Jesus is fully human and, at the same time, fully God, which makes the entire thread moot


Edit: you'd have to reject the above idea of the Trinity to take the stance you're taking

---

Sound like a conclusion to me. Have anything to support what you are saying other than your opinion? There are many many many passages about Jesus doing the will of Yahweh. The will of Yahweh is found in his law, which cites the King of Israel's duty to read scripture. In Daniel, the Son of Man aka Jesus is given thrones, including the throne of Israel, partially to fulfill God's promise to David.

---

What conclusion would you like us to draw?

The best we can tell, you are purposefully being vague to avoid revealing your real position.

---

Real position about what? A theological concept?

---

We don't know. That's the point. What theological concepts are you claiming?

---

Ever think that maybe God is bigger than theology?

---

You avoided answering my question again.

And yes, the theological concept of God acknowledges that we only have access to what God has revealed to us. There is an unknown amount of information about God that we do not have access to in this life, but we hope in the next life we will truly be able to understand God.

None of that changes anything about Jesus role within the Trinity and His nature.

---

That sounds like your opinion.

---

An opinion would be if someone made the claim that Jesus only knew the scriptures through reading them.

Progressive revelation about God and His desires for us is an undisputable fact of the Bible.

For example, we know more today than any Jew in the OT because Jesus walked this earth. However, to presume that we know everything about God because of that is certainly not a claim that any reasonable person would make because there's no evidence for that claim.

---

I don't buy your theory. Jesus didn't have any more inspiration about scripture than other OT characters. I already stated my facts. You have none. You don't have evidence. Jesus didn't know everything.

---

So you definitely are denying Jesus as "The Word became flesh". And you deny "for in Him (Jesus), all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form….." Col:2-9

I do not deny these and find these to be the ultimate source of inspiration for the sermon on the mount.

---

Ok not sure if you read the sermon on the mount but he doesn't mention any of what you said.

That passage you quote was written well after Jesus died

---

I say this with love and mean absolutely, no offense, but I now understand why some poster above suggested that you may be on the spectrum. I am not sure an intelligent conversation on this topic can be had with you anymore.

---

I understand exactly what you are saying and it's a really dumb argument. Jesus didn't know when he was coming back and he didn't know who touched his cloak in the crowd. Why, he isn't omnipotent ok? Do you understand? Or am I being too complex for you? And good luck finding any passage in the OT saying the Word is omnipotent. The word is not omnipotent in the OT and the Word doesn't have a *******ed radio in its head talking to the father. It's not terminator.

Next you are going to try to tell me he knew everything while he was a baby. Insanity.

Do you think God is omniscient ( the word I think you meant to use above)?

Catag94 said:

---

Do you think God is omniscient ( the word I think you meant to use above)?

---

The term omniscient is encapsulated within the term omnipotent…

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Do you think God is omniscient ( the word I think you meant to use above)?

---

The term omniscient is encapsulated within the term omnipotent…

---

You didn't answer my question.

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Do you think God is omniscient ( the word I think you meant to use above)?

---

The term omniscient is encapsulated within the term omnipotent…

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

No I don't think god is omniscient.

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Do you think God is omniscient ( the word I think you meant to use above)?

---

The term omniscient is encapsulated within the term omnipotent…

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

No I don't think god is omniscient.

---

Well then! Enjoy the remainder of tour Sabbath.

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Scripture and church tradition.

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

Why did you guys revive this thread?, he already claimed lowercase g god isnt omniscient. Thread over (as it should have been on post 1 if OP wasn't being obtuse)

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

Rather than "I will forget" most translations of Isaiah 43:25 say "I will not remember". Since the definition of remember is "recall" or "think of", Isaiah is better understood as "I will not think of again" rather than "I will no longer know". So doesn't actually dispute God being all knowing.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

Rather than "I will forget" most translations of Isaiah 43:25 say "I will not remember". Since the definition of remember is "recall" or "think of", Isaiah is better understood as "I will not think of again" rather than "I will no longer know". So doesn't actually dispute God being all knowing.

---

I respectfully disagree because of Isaiah 38:17.

Look! Bitterness was bitter to me for peace.
And you were the one who lobed my life
form the pit of destruction,
for you have cast all my sins behind your back.

The passage says that God has put the sins of Hezekiah behind his back. God cannot see behind his back, to say otherwise is to make God a crook. God isn't looking back at Israel's sin. He forgets it. He does not and will not remember it. He doesn't know about it. Ergo, he does not know everything.

Micah 7:19 reads:

He will against have compassion on us;
he will trample our iniquities.
And you will hurl all their sins
in the depths of the sea.

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Why did you guys revive this thread?, he already claimed lowercase g god isnt omniscient. Thread over (as it should have been on post 1 if OP wasn't being obtuse)

---

I suppose you would have God be some sort of AI police state Orwellian autocrat? Be careful what you wish for.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

---

Not exactly true. I think the passage reads literally to mean God actually forgets the sins. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage. I would challenge you to find other passages showing something different.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

---

Not exactly true. I think the passage reads literally to mean God actually forgets the sins. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage. I would challenge you to find other passages showing something different.

---

Even if I showed other passages, it sounds like you are committed to reading it through your lens. God is all knowing, so I think trying to confine what that means, including that he can forget things and never recount them again is a debate that is probably best argued by more experienced theologians than myself. I just take for granted that He is more than what we can possibly comprehend.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

---

Not exactly true. I think the passage reads literally to mean God actually forgets the sins. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage. I would challenge you to find other passages showing something different.

---

Even if I showed other passages, it sounds like you are committed to reading it through your lens. God is all knowing, so I think trying to confine what that means, including that he can forget things and never recount them again is a debate that is probably best argued by more experienced theologians than myself. I just take for granted that He is more than what we can possibly comprehend.

---

Yours is the classical agnostic position; that is.. god cannot be known. You don't know god but you think you can prove I don't know him? How can you know I don't know him if you don't even know him yourself? Postmodern much?

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

---

Not exactly true. I think the passage reads literally to mean God actually forgets the sins. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage. I would challenge you to find other passages showing something different.

---

Even if I showed other passages, it sounds like you are committed to reading it through your lens. God is all knowing, so I think trying to confine what that means, including that he can forget things and never recount them again is a debate that is probably best argued by more experienced theologians than myself. I just take for granted that He is more than what we can possibly comprehend.

---

Yours is the classical agnostic position; that is.. god cannot be known. You don't know god but you think you can prove I don't know him? How can you know I don't know him if you don't even know him yourself? Postmodern much?

---

Nice twisting of my words. I absolutely never said we cannot know God. We experience him through the world, through Christ and Holy Spirit,....but we will not fully know him until we are in his presence. In regard to the unambiguousness of scripture...lets try this...tell me what I mean by the following statement: "I never said you stole money". It seems a simple thing to understand. Am I saying "I" never said you stole money? Or I never said "you" stole money? Or I never "said" you stole money? Or I never said you "stole" money? Or, I never said you stole "money"? Sure some parts of the scripture are clear but it is backed up with context and 2000 years of agreement in the Church. Then you have every denomination after Martin Luther who can't agree on what is symbolic, literal, narrative etc. I get that you seem to take offense when you feel your knowledge is being questioned...All I am saying is that it is impossible for us to know/understand everything about God in our current state.

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

---

Not exactly true. I think the passage reads literally to mean God actually forgets the sins. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage. I would challenge you to find other passages showing something different.

---

Even if I showed other passages, it sounds like you are committed to reading it through your lens. God is all knowing, so I think trying to confine what that means, including that he can forget things and never recount them again is a debate that is probably best argued by more experienced theologians than myself. I just take for granted that He is more than what we can possibly comprehend.

---

Yours is the classical agnostic position; that is.. god cannot be known. You don't know god but you think you can prove I don't know him? How can you know I don't know him if you don't even know him yourself? Postmodern much?

---

Nice twisting of my words. I absolutely never said we cannot know God. We experience him through the world, through Christ and Holy Spirit,....but we will not fully know him until we are in his presence. In regard to the unambiguousness of scripture...lets try this...tell me what I mean by the following statement: "I never said you stole money". It seems a simple thing to understand. Am I saying "I" never said you stole money? Or I never said "you" stole money? Or I never "said" you stole money? Or I never said you "stole" money? Or, I never said you stole "money"? Sure some parts of the scripture are clear but it is backed up with context and 2000 years of agreement in the Church. Then you have every denomination after Martin Luther who can't agree on what is symbolic, literal, narrative etc. I get that you seem to take offense when you feel your knowledge is being questioned...All I am saying is that it is impossible for us to know/understand everything about God in our current state.

---

Right so you who doesn't know everything about God are trying to tell me that I don't know everything about God. How do you know I don't know everything about God if you don't know everything about God? I don't care about your stupid early church argument. The church father's commentary on scripture was more than 700 years after most of it was written. Second Temple literature is within 200-300 years of the OT and it is the context of scripture. Im sorry, but the church fathers simply don't have the same context of scripture as the writers of scripture and they did not have have access to the second temple literature that I have today. Most of what they say is quite frankly flat wrong.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus does know everything.

My Bible reading this morning was John 1. It is very appropriate for this discussion as the first 12 verses tells who Jesus is,

---

What is your basis for God knowing everything?

---

Besides scripture (over 70 verses speak to God's omnipotence, and El Shaddai means as much), Christ's Church teaches it. And what's the alternative...that God does not know everything? Or were you just asking for what provides our evidence that he does? Which ultimately brings us back to the answer..."For the bible tells me so..."

---

All of it. I don't think scripture actually supports God knowing everything, otherwise how could God forget sins? Isaiah 43:25.

---

I can't tell if you're trolling with that last part. It has always been understood to mean forget as if they never happened. Like when you tell some one they need not worrying about something ...."Forget about it". For purpose of our sin, once they are forgiven it is as if they are forgotten. Additionally, we cannot hold God to the same restraints of time and space that we experience, and thus memory. He could both 'forget' and 'retain'.

---

Not exactly true. I think the passage reads literally to mean God actually forgets the sins. There is nothing ambiguous about the passage. I would challenge you to find other passages showing something different.

---

Even if I showed other passages, it sounds like you are committed to reading it through your lens. God is all knowing, so I think trying to confine what that means, including that he can forget things and never recount them again is a debate that is probably best argued by more experienced theologians than myself. I just take for granted that He is more than what we can possibly comprehend.

---

Yours is the classical agnostic position; that is.. god cannot be known. You don't know god but you think you can prove I don't know him? How can you know I don't know him if you don't even know him yourself? Postmodern much?

---

Nice twisting of my words. I absolutely never said we cannot know God. We experience him through the world, through Christ and Holy Spirit,....but we will not fully know him until we are in his presence. In regard to the unambiguousness of scripture...lets try this...tell me what I mean by the following statement: "I never said you stole money". It seems a simple thing to understand. Am I saying "I" never said you stole money? Or I never said "you" stole money? Or I never "said" you stole money? Or I never said you "stole" money? Or, I never said you stole "money"? Sure some parts of the scripture are clear but it is backed up with context and 2000 years of agreement in the Church. Then you have every denomination after Martin Luther who can't agree on what is symbolic, literal, narrative etc. I get that you seem to take offense when you feel your knowledge is being questioned...All I am saying is that it is impossible for us to know/understand everything about God in our current state.

---

Right so you who doesn't know everything about God are trying to tell me that I don't know everything about God. How do you know I don't know everything about God if you don't know everything about God? I don't care about your stupid early church argument. The church father's commentary on scripture was more than 700 years after most of it was written. Second Temple literature is within 200-300 years of the OT and it is the context of scripture. Im sorry, but the church fathers simply don't have the same context of scripture as the writers of scripture and they did not have have access to the second temple literature that I have today. Most of what they say is quite frankly flat wrong.

---

Do you claim to know everything about God and, if so, can you prove it? Or are you just being pedantic about the inability to prove/know another's knowledge or lack thereof?