Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

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

  1. #26
    Bat-Man
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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.

  2. #27
    dfoJC
    Guest

    Default

    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

  3. #28
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  4. #29
    Bat-Man
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    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.

  5. #30
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat-Man View Post
    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??

  6. #31
    Bat-Man
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    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.

  7. #32
    Mark Beesley
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    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?

  8. #33
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by aaronshaf; 07-16-2009 at 10:58 PM.

  9. #34
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat-Man View Post
    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.

  10. #35
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Beesley View Post
    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?

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

  11. #36
    Mark Beesley
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    LOL. You don't believe me?
    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?

  12. #37
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Beesley View Post
    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??

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

  13. #38
    Mark Beesley
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Father_JD View Post
    So are you gonna write Yeshivat Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem to verify I studied there in 1975, and 1976-1977??

    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.

  14. #39
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Beesley View Post
    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.

  15. #40
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Fig-bearing Thistle; 07-20-2009 at 03:17 PM.

  16. #41
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Simple:

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

  17. #42
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    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?

  18. #43
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

    Are these two Christs unable to p*** information between themselves?
    http://www.carm.org/christianity/chr...ion-properties

  19. #44
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    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'

  20. #45
    aaronshaf
    Guest

    Default

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

  21. #46
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaronshaf View Post
    communicatio idiomatum doesn't mean Jesus can become a super-human.
    Is this official doctrine?

  22. #47
    Father_JD
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Beesley View Post
    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?

  23. #48
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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...

  24. #49
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    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....

  25. #50
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •