An all knowing God...(but only propositionally)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I recently asked an Evangelical Christian this question regarding the Trinity:

So, you believe that the Trinity has all knowledge 'propositionally', but not all knowledge 'experientially'? Such as experienceing birth, mortality, sin, and death?

To which the person responded: Yes

I suppose all Trinitarians would agree with this: That the Trinity has always had all propositional knowledge, but little-to-no experiential knowledge with things such as creation, atonement, temptation, sin, death, mortality, etc.

Is this right?

[John T]

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The person did not remember this Scripture above

[Bat-Man]

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The person did not remember this Scripture above
Can you see how saying our Savior was without sin could be understood to mean that he doesn't know what it is like to actually experience sin, though ?

How could our Savior know what it is like to sin if he has never experienced sin, personally ?

There is a way and I know what it is, but I'd like to see if you know, as well.

... and while you're at it, I'd also like you to tell me how God would know, from his own personal experiences:

What is it like to be created from the perspective of the created ?

... rather than from the perspective of the one doing the creating ?

What is it like to be atoned FOR, rather than being the one doing the atoning ?

Temptation... that's an easy one. He was tempted, but he never sinned.

Death... also easy. He actually died, and then he rose from the dead.

Mortality... also an easy one. He died, therefore he was mortal.

The question is:

Has God actually experienced everything that we have experienced or will experience, personally (aka subjectively), or does his knowledge of some things come in some way other than from his own subjective experiences ?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The person did not remember this Scripture above

Yes, Jesus DID experience these things. I agree. But what about before Jesus came? Isn't it true that there was no experiential knowledge of mortality, temptation, discernment, sin, and death, etc. residing with the Trinity?

[TimLScheffer]

Fig... you ask the question,

"Can God make a Rock so Big he Can't lift it"

My God Fig... can not Sin...

But your God Fig... was once a Man... and thus once a sinner... Just like us.

The Mormon God was once a man... on the planet of another god... and the Mormon God earned Godhood and got his own creation... and had Spirit Children... like the brothers Jesus and Satan... and now he is playing out a new season... So, Fig... The Mormon God has experience all these things experiencially...

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Fig... you ask the question,

"Can God make a Rock so Big he Can't lift it"

My God Fig... can not Sin...

But your God Fig... was once a Man... and thus once a sinner... Just like us.

The Mormon God was once a man... on the planet of another god... and the Mormon God earned Godhood and got his own creation... and had Spirit Children... like the brothers Jesus and Satan... and now he is playing out a new season... So, Fig... The Mormon God has experience all these things experiencially...

A Swing and a Miss.

Tim, please don't respond to this thread any more, as you have shown that you are unable to address the question.

[Bat-Man]

A Swing and a Miss.

Tim, please don't respond to this thread any more, as you have shown that you are unable to address the question.
I agree. Let's just answer the question as Tim would answer it, for Tim, from the personal perspective of Tim.

You, Fig, asked a question which I will rephrase:

Is it true that God our Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit had no personal experience or knowledge of what it is like to be mortal, or to be tempted, or to discern between good and evil, or what it feels like to commit sin, and die, etc, before the person we now know as Jesus Christ was born as a mortal on this planet we call Earth ?

Or, as another rephrase of that question:

Is the true that the only way God our Father in heaven knows what it is like to be mortal, or to be tempted, or to discern between good and evil, or what it feels like to sin, and die, etc, is by God our Father somehow gaining that knowledge through Jesus Christ rather than through his own personal (aka subjective) experiences ?

I believe Tim would answer that question with a Yes, Fig.

... if Tim ever felt inclined to answer that question, personally.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I agree. Let's just answer the question as Tim would answer it, for Tim, from the personal perspective of Tim.

You, Fig, asked a question which I will rephrase:

Is it true that God our Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit had no personal experience or knowledge of what it is like to be mortal, or to be tempted, or to discern between good and evil, or what it feels like to commit sin, and die, etc, before the person we now know as Jesus Christ was born as a mortal on this planet we call Earth ?

Or, as another rephrase of that question:

Is the true that the only way God our Father in heaven knows what it is like to be mortal, or to be tempted, or to discern between good and evil, or what it feels like to sin, and die, etc, is by God our Father somehow gaining that knowledge through Jesus Christ rather than through his own personal (aka subjective) experiences ?

I believe Tim would answer that question with a Yes, Fig.

... if Tim ever felt inclined to answer that question, personally.

Interesting answer from Tim. Should I quote him as saying that? He puts quotes in our mouths that we did not actually utter.

[Father_JD]

I suppose all Trinitarians would agree with this: That the Trinity has always had all propositional knowledge, but little-to-no experiential knowledge with things such as creation, atonement, temptation, sin, death, mortality, etc.

Creation: experiential knowledge by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Atonement: experiential knowledge by the Son.
Temptation: experiential knowledge by the Son.
Sin: NO experiential knowledge period.
Death: experiential knowledge by the Son.
Mortality: experiential knowledge by the Son.

It must be pointed out that as an OMNISCIENT and OMNIPOTENT DEITY, God understands the above in ways you can't even begin to imagine. You imply that God must somehow be deficient NOT being the author of sin.:eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Creation: experiential knowledge by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Atonement: experiential knowledge by the Son.
Temptation: experiential knowledge by the Son.
Sin: NO experiential knowledge period.
Death: experiential knowledge by the Son.
Mortality: experiential knowledge by the Son.

It must be pointed out that as an OMNISCIENT and OMNIPOTENT DEITY, God understands the above in ways you can't even begin to imagine. You imply that God must somehow be deficient NOT being the author of sin.:eek:

For each of these things you mentioned, there was a 'BEFORE'.

So, are you making the case that God is actually progressing in experience?

[Father_JD]

For each of these things you mentioned, there was a 'BEFORE'.

So, are you making the case that God is actually progressing in experience?

Not at all. God doesn't have to SIN to understand or experience "sin" as if He's somehow "deficient" in either knowledge or experience as you'd make Him to be.

Your "god" is TOO SMALL, Fig. :eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Not at all. God doesn't have to SIN to understand or experience "sin" as if He's somehow "deficient" in either knowledge or experience as you'd make Him to be.

Your "god" is TOO SMALL, Fig. :eek:

So accordingly, God had no experience with creation, until He created. No experience with life, until he created it, no experience with temptation until he was tempted 2000 years ago, no experience with fatigue until he experienced it 2000 years ago, etc?

[Mark Beesley]

What are the scriptural references to support a doctrine that God is:
1. Omniscient;
2. Omnipotent; and
2. Omnipresent?

[Father_JD]

So accordingly, God had no experience with creation, until He created. No experience with life, until he created it, no experience with temptation until he was tempted 2000 years ago, no experience with fatigue until he experienced it 2000 years ago, etc?


Your questions are exceedingly curious albeit somewhat interesting, Fig.

I'll let God answer for Himself, Fig if you don't mind:


Isa 55:8 ¶ For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


God TRANSCENDS (a word that is virtually lost on LDS, I concede) any possible understanding of "experience", Fig.

Now the Mormon deity could NOT know these things UNTIL he personally "experienced" them...the eternally-progressing deity in which you believe in, but I do NOT. ;)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Your questions are exceedingly curious albeit somewhat interesting, Fig.

I'll let God answer for Himself, Fig if you don't mind:


Isa 55:8 ¶ For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


God TRANSCENDS (a word that is virtually lost on LDS, I concede) any possible understanding of "experience", Fig.

How convenient to chuck it all into the "catch-all" bag of mysteries.

I am grateful that God has revealed many things, which things must forever remain mysteries to those who stop their ears.

[Father_JD]

LOL. I just let God speak for Himself, Fig.

It's ALWAYS you guys who must resort to "special pleading" when a Biblical text can NOT contextually support your contentions.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

LOL. I just let God speak for Himself, Fig.

You do? You actually LET God speak?

As long as God doesn't say anything more than what's already on the printed page, that is.

[Father_JD]

LOL. And you IGNORE what God HAS SAID which is before you in the pages of the Bible.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

LOL. And you IGNORE what God HAS SAID which is before you in the pages of the Bible.

Kind of like the Jews accusing the Christians of ignoring what God HAS SAID which is before you in the pages of the Hebrew Bible.

Both accusations born from ignorance.

[Father_JD]

Kind of like the Jews accusing the Christians of ignoring what God HAS SAID which is before you in the pages of the Hebrew Bible.

False ****ogy since BOTH Testaments are GOD'S WORD.



Both accusations born from ignorance.

No, it's your having to invoke extra-biblical "revelation" to defend your positions. You can NOT defend them CONTEXTUALLY from the Bible and ONLY THE BIBLE, Fig.

When are you gonna acknowledge what all Christians on this board know?? :eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

False ****ogy since BOTH Testaments are GOD'S WORD.[/qutoe]

Is that what the Jews believe today?

[QUOTE=Father_JD;23026]
No, it's your having to invoke extra-biblical "revelation" to defend your positions. You can NOT defend them CONTEXTUALLY from the Bible and ONLY THE BIBLE, Fig.

When are you gonna acknowledge what all Christians on this board know?? :eek:

Well duh. The LDS Doctrines didn't emerge from centuries of argument hashing over the Bible. Everything we believe regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ has it's origins in "revelation".

[Father_JD]

False ****ogy since BOTH Testaments are GOD'S WORD.


Is that what the Jews believe today?

Of course not...but do YOU understand WHY the Jews for the most part rejected Jesus as "Messiah"? Do you KNOW what the Bible says regarding this??




Well duh. The LDS Doctrines didn't emerge from centuries of argument hashing over the Bible. Everything we believe regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ has it's origins in "revelation".

What you think or feel is "revelation". Because Mormon doctrine CONFLICTS with the Bible, that's how one can OBJECTIVELY discern that your "revelation" did NOT come from God. :eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

JD: False ****ogy since BOTH Testaments are GOD'S WORD.

Fig: Is that what the Jews believe today? [That the N.T. is also God's word]?



Of course not...but do YOU understand WHY the Jews for the most part rejected Jesus as "Messiah"? Do you KNOW what the Bible says regarding this??

I was taught that the Jews expected a military-type deliverer. Jesus didn't fit that expectation. So they're still looking for him.

But the fact remains, that the Jews have their reasons and their apologetics, and their arguments that discount and discredit the N.T., and make it look like it is in conflict with the Jewish Bible. Just like you do for the message of the Restored Gospel.

[Father_JD]

Sounds nice on paper, Fig...but ultimately still a FALSE ****OGY.

Why? Because I studied at a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem. Unlike YOU, I actually KNOW their arguments and you don't have the faintest idea.

No comparison, dude. No comparison.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Sounds nice on paper, Fig...but ultimately still a FALSE ****OGY.

Why? Because I studied at a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem. Unlike YOU, I actually KNOW their arguments and you don't have the faintest idea.

No comparison, dude. No comparison.

OK, WHY (according to the Rabbinical School) did (and do) the Jews reject Christ? And the reason that you give cannot have anything to do with what I said regarding Jesus not fitting the mold of what the Jews expected, based on their interpretation of the Old Testament. It has to be an entirely different reason.

And then, after you have stated the entirely different reason why the Jews reject Christ as their Savior, then you must explain why their not accepting the N.T. is vastly different than why you don't accept the BoM.

[Bat-Man]

OK, WHY (according to the Rabbinical School) did (and do) the Jews reject Christ? And the reason that you give cannot have anything to do with what I said regarding Jesus not fitting the mold of what the Jews expected, based on their interpretation of the Old Testament. It has to be an entirely different reason.

And then, after you have stated the entirely different reason why the Jews reject Christ as their Savior, then you must explain why their not accepting the N.T. is vastly different than why you don't accept the BoM.
You were and still are right, brother Fig.

Getting Father_JD to admit that or show you that he agrees with you is an entirely different matter, however, and I have already seen the "tell" of Father_JD.

[dfoJC]

Hi Fig, I can offer you one reason why Israel has rejected Jesus Christ as The Messiah. But before I offer you this explanation, you need to know that many, many of Gods covenant people are coming to Christ in unprecedented numbers.

Now then, from my perspective, the number one reason why "Israel" (I am not sure if you are referring to the Orthodox Hebrews, or just regular every day not practicing Hebrews or all of the above) is because of "tradition." They simply continue to believe what Caiphas and the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ spread about, that is, that Christ had not risen from the dead but that His body had been stolen.

We all need to know that there is however, something else that needs to be addressed in regards to Israel.

Perhaps you are familiar with this verse found in Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:........

So it is my understanding that all Israel will be saved, all will come to the Messiah, and I believe we will see it.

Thats my take on this one. Take care,

with kind regards,
dfoJC

[Father_JD]

You were expecting a human explanation, Fig. The REAL reason the Jews for the most part haven't accepted Jesus as Messiah is because of...

SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS.

Please try reading the Bible for a change.

[Bat-Man]

You were expecting a human explanation, Fig. The REAL reason the Jews for the most part haven't accepted Jesus as Messiah is because of...

SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS.
Bzzzt.

Sorry, but that is not the reason the Jews, according to the Rabbinical School, did and do reject Jesus as the Christ.

You may have attended that school, but you likely flunked out if you think that's the reason they give for why they rejected and now continue to reject Jesus from Nazareth as the Messiah.

[Father_JD]

Bzzzt.

Sorry, but that is not the reason the Jews, according to the Rabbinical School, did and do reject Jesus as the Christ.

You may have attended that school, but you likely flunked out if you think that's the reason they give for why they rejected and now continue to reject Jesus from Nazareth as the Messiah.

Well, duh, BM. I was giving the real, biblical reason as to "why". Are you convinced that I believe that would be THEIR answer??

[Bat-Man]

Well, duh, BM. I was giving the real, biblical reason as to "why". Are you convinced that I believe that would be THEIR answer??
Their reason is what Mark was asking you to provide, Father_JD.

Maybe reading his questions to you, again, in context, will help you see that.

[Mark Beesley]

Sounds nice on paper, Fig...but ultimately still a FALSE ****OGY.

Why? Because I studied at a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem. Unlike YOU, I actually KNOW their arguments and you don't have the faintest idea.


What is the name of the school?
When did you study there?
For how long?
Please describe the admissions process.
What certificates did you receive?
Where is it located in Jerusalem?
How old were you?
What courses did you complete?
Where did you live?
Where did you study Hebrew prior to entering the rabbinical school?
For how long?

[aaronshaf]

Christ in his deity didn't need to experience being pregnant and getting a hysterectomy to sympathize, empathize, and kindly deal with my wife three years ago. But as a human, it was helpful that Christ in his humanity experienced suffering, because the human nature needs general experiential knowledge to better sympathize. Christ in deity, however, doesn't. This really comes down to our belief in the two natures of Jesus Christ. Humanity isn't omniscient, but deity is. Christ has two natures, one finite, the other infinite. I've never known a Christian teacher to say that Christ's human nature itself is omniscient.

Mormons only take this "experiential knowledge" theme so far. For example, has your Heavenly Father experienced being pregnant? Of course not.

Has the Mormon Jesus Christ experienced being a sinner? Almost all Mormons would say no.

It's enough for me that I have a sinless savior who experienced the perfect experience of the fullness of humanity.


I suppose all Trinitarians would agree with this: That the Trinity has always had all propositional knowledge, but little-to-no experiential knowledge with things such as creation, atonement, temptation, sin, death, mortality, etc.

Fig-bearing Thistle, do you believe any member of your Godhead has "experiential knowledge" of sin?

For Trinitarians, the experiential knowledge of the humanity of Christ did not add to the fullness of the knowledge of the Deity of Christ. Christ's incarnational knowledge was a condescension, not a progression, of Christ's deity.

[Father_JD]

Their reason is what Mark was asking you to provide, Father_JD.

Maybe reading his questions to you, again, in context, will help you see that.

LOL. Seems I've hit a nerve regarding Mormon NON-contextual reading. :p

[Father_JD]

What is the name of the school?
When did you study there?
For how long?
Please describe the admissions process.
What certificates did you receive?
Where is it located in Jerusalem?
How old were you?
What courses did you complete?
Where did you live?
Where did you study Hebrew prior to entering the rabbinical school?
For how long?


LOL. You don't believe me? :eek:

Do you think I made this up...sorta like Joseph Smith's pretending he could "translate" Egyptian???

[Mark Beesley]

LOL. You don't believe me? :eek:
Since you are fond of touting your credentials, prudence dictates that they be verified.

Would you allow an expert to testify in court without first laying the foundation for his expertise?

[Father_JD]

Since you are fond of touting your credentials, prudence dictates that they be verified.

Would you allow an expert to testify in court without first laying the foundation for his expertise?

So are you gonna write Yeshivat Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem to verify I studied there in 1975, and 1976-1977?? :rolleyes:

You'll have to know my full name, and that's something I won't divulge on the internet for security purposes. ;)

[Mark Beesley]

So are you gonna write Yeshivat Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem to verify I studied there in 1975, and 1976-1977?? :rolleyes:

You'll have to know my full name, and that's something I won't divulge on the internet for security purposes. ;)
I have not asked for any personally identifying information. However, your reluctance to provide the specifics about your claimed education leads me to question your ***erted credentials.

[Billyray]

I have not asked for any personally identifying information. However, your reluctance to provide the specifics about your claimed education leads me to question your ***erted credentials.
Mark

I have read a few of your posts and I don't really believe that you are Mormon. Can you give us your mission (including dates--mission president--cities--comps) your newname, bishop, current ward, current postion within the ward. This will help me validate your claim of being LDS. Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Christ in his deity didn't need to experience being pregnant and getting a hysterectomy to sympathize, empathize, and kindly deal with my wife three years ago. But as a human, it was helpful that Christ in his humanity experienced suffering, because the human nature needs general experiential knowledge to better sympathize. Christ in deity, however, doesn't. This really comes down to our belief in the two natures of Jesus Christ. Humanity isn't omniscient, but deity is. Christ has two natures, one finite, the other infinite. I've never known a Christian teacher to say that Christ's human nature itself is omniscient.

So, you are admitting that diety needs no experience. Only humanity.

That's what I kinda thought.



Fig-bearing Thistle, do you believe any member of your Godhead has "experiential knowledge" of sin?

Mosiah 3: 7
7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.


Matt. 4: 2 (1-2).
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Matt. 26: 39 (38-39).
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and aprayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup p*** from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Luke 22: 44.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Isa. 53: 4 (4-5).
4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Heb. 2: 18.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb. 4: 15.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Alma 7: 12
12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

D&C 88: 6
6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

I believe God knows how to succor his own people in their temptations. Don't you? And Paul seems to make a connection between Christ's experience, and his ability to succor his people.

Do you think that capability did not exist with God prior to Jesus' birth?

[aaronshaf]

Simple:

Hebrews appeals to the human high priest, etc., not implying that the deity of Christ was not already able to have sympathy.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Simple:

Hebrews appeals to the human high priest, etc., not implying that the deity of Christ was not already able to have sympathy.

So the human Christ needs experience, but the deity of Christ does not?

Are these two Christs unable to p*** information between themselves?

[aaronshaf]

Are these two Christs unable to p*** information between themselves?

http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/communicatio-idiomatum-communication-properties

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/communicatio-idiomatum-communication-properties

So if the doctrine of 'communicatio idiomatum' teaches that there IS communication between the two Christs, then according to the "communicatio idiomatum" article you just referred me to, why didn't Christ simply call upon his own divine nature to give him all knowledge so could then know how to succor his people in their temptations? Why did he have to gain any knowledge of fatigue, hunger, temptation, etc, by actual 'experience' instead of the easier way of 'communicatio idiomatum'

[aaronshaf]

communicatio idiomatum doesn't mean Jesus can become a super-human.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

communicatio idiomatum doesn't mean Jesus can become a super-human.

Is this official doctrine?

[Father_JD]

I have not asked for any personally identifying information. However, your reluctance to provide the specifics about your claimed education leads me to question your ***erted credentials.

I just did. What didn't you understand? :rolleyes:

[alanmolstad]

I recently asked an Evangelical Christian this question regarding the Trinity:

So, you believe that the Trinity has all knowledge 'propositionally', but not all knowledge 'experientially'? Such as experienceing birth, mortality, sin, and death?

To which the person responded: Yes

I suppose all Trinitarians would agree with this: That the Trinity has always had all propositional knowledge, but little-to-no experiential knowledge with things such as creation, atonement, temptation, sin, death, mortality, etc.

Is this right?

The problem with your question Fig is that you forget that God is timeless.
God does not change...he does not evolve...God does not learn anything thing new, ...

Thus all that God knows in whatever form is something that God always knew forever...

On the other hand, we humans have a past and a future...we learn, we are changed by time and events.

Thus from our limited human point of view we see Jesus born and think, "Ahh thats new"

But that is only because we live inside the grasp the time and space..

God is not limited by such...

[alanmolstad]

I recently asked an Evangelical Christian this question regarding the Trinity:

So, you believe that the Trinity has all knowledge 'propositionally', but not all knowledge 'experientially'? Such as experienceing birth, mortality, sin, and death?

To which the person responded: Yes God does not know what it is like to do evil....
.

I suppose all Trinitarians would agree with this: That the Trinity has always had all propositional knowledge, but little-to-no experiential knowledge with things such as creation, atonement, temptation, sin, death, mortality, etc.

Is this right?
God has all knowledge...we cant think of any topic that God does not know about.

But we also know that God has never done evil....

[alanmolstad]

The problem with your question Fig is that you forget that God is timeless.
God does not change...he does not evolve...God does not learn anything thing new, ...

Thus all that God knows in whatever form is something that God always knew forever...

On the other hand, we humans have a past and a future...we learn, we are changed by time and events.

Thus from our limited human point of view we see Jesus born and think, "Ahh thats new"

But that is only because we live inside the grasp the time and space..

God is not limited by such...

I was reading this topic today and as I went along I found myself ready to post an answer to Fig's original idea, but then I ran into one of my posts on this topic that is still how I would answer him today, almost 10 years later!


God is timeless, God does not learn anything new.....therefore anything that God knows now is something that God always knew...