Announcement

Collapse

JW - Watchtower Society Guidelines

Theists only.

Knock, Knock!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the Jehovah's Witnesses). This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Regligions Department.


Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: [urlhttp://theologyweb.com/campus/help#theologywebfaq/theologywebdecorum]Here[/url]
See more
See less

The Omnipotence and Omniscience of Jesus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by apostoli View Post
    ps: Note the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples did not begin with "Dear God" but "Our Father..."
    But they also addressed the Father as δέσποτα in Acts 4:24 and "Lord" in Acts 4:29.
    And both of these are also applied to the Lord Jesus.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
      I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

      http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg
      A valid comment, but consider how it was that "God" did not know that mankind and certain angels would become degenerative, causing "God", as if in surprise, to irrationally lose his temper and wipe out all living things upon the earth (apart from those he set apart on the Ark).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
        But they also addressed the Father as δέσποτα in Acts 4:24 and "Lord" in Acts 4:29.
        And both of these are also applied to the Lord Jesus.
        But if you are a Trinitarian, then you accept Jesus is not the Father...and all attributes, attributed to Jesus are at the grace of the Father...including his resurrection (Acts 2:32, 4:10, 10:40, 13:30,37; Rom 10:9 " if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved").
        Last edited by apostoli; 02-08-2014, 09:37 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by apostoli View Post
          A valid comment, but consider how it was that "God" did not know that mankind and certain angels would become degenerative, causing "God", as if in surprise, to irrationally lose his temper and wipe out all living things upon the earth (apart from those he set apart on the Ark).
          The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

          You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
            The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

            You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.
            In my view, it is necessary to read what is written and not read into the text our own imaginings. For instance: for whatever reason God chose the scum of the earth to be his biblical heroes eg: Abraham who for the sake of self preservation attempted to prostitute his wife (who was in fact his sister). David who broke most of the ten commandments - a statutory rapist, adulterer, murderer etc who usurped the high priesthood and had himself worshiped as God (1 Chronicles 29:20). In the case of Abraham we read of God's intervention after the event. In the case of David - well ultimately his linage was condemned and his temporal throne ceased to exist.

            Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...
            Last edited by apostoli; 02-09-2014, 04:57 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
              I don't think it implies God didn't know, rather that they thought they were hiding and God was calling them out. Kind of like when your kids get in trouble and try to hide, you may know where they are but you still say, "Ok where are you?" forcing them to come out and face the music. In a sense playing along with them, not that you really don't know.

              http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9567942-md.jpg

              Agree.

              The same thing can be said of Genesis 22:12.
              He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (NASB)

              Please see Steven C. Roy's "How Much Does God Foreknow: A Comprehensive Biblical Study" (page 180)
              Norman Geisler speaks of the difference between cognition and demonstration.
              There is nothing here [in Gen 22] about God's desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chr 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. By passing the test, Abraham demonstrated what God already knew: namely that he feared God. ("Creating God in the Image of Man?", Norman Geisler, page 88).
              Geisler gives an illustration of a math teacher who might say to her class, "Let's see if we can find the square root of 49." Then, after demonstrating to her class what the square root of 49 is, she declares, "Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7." And she could legitimately say this even though she knew the correct answer all along. Geisler comments, "Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, "Now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God." (Ibid.)

              Comment


              • #22
                From "The Finished Mystery" on Revelation 5:6 in application to the Lord Jesus (page 100):
                Having seven horns.- Perfect power. "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." - Matt. 28:18; 1 Sam. 2:1, 10; Deut. 33:17; 1 Ki. 22:11.
                Having seven eyes.- Perfect wisdom. "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." - Col. 2:3; Zech. 3:9; 4:10; Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 2 Chron. 16:9

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                  The text doesn't say God did not know, but that God decided to intervene upon free will, after God already allowed free will.

                  You may see "repented/sorry/regretted" as being caught by surprise. But suppose you stole something and knew it was wrong to start with, then "repented/sorry/regretted" doing it? You aren't surprised by it, you already knew it from the start. So that's not the correct way to treat the text, in my view.
                  Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for your speculations, you are simply relying on innuendo and wishful thinking.

                  The options are simple:

                  1. God created mankind (and all creation) to be defective and knew it would fail, so in the pursuit of vainglory set up a plan to redeem it, or...
                  2. God created mankind (and all creation) in perfection, but given the allowance of free will, God was not able to constrain their excesses (which demonstrates God is not omnipotent) and so destroyed all living things (except for the very defective creatures he preserved on the Ark, who simply perpetuated the problem).
                  3. God created mankind (and all creation) in perfection, but given the full scope of free will had allowed creation free reign with no direct interference in their choices.
                  4 etc etc

                  Read the OT! God is depicted as being hapless...reacting to one problem after another, and without consistency...(well apart from mass extermination of one society or another)...

                  Don't get me wrong. I believe that God exists, but probably not the pagan God most follow. I believe in the Father who sent his only begotten Son to save the world...and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds...and is received by us via the Son...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                    Agree.

                    The same thing can be said of Genesis 22:12.
                    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (NASB)

                    Please see Steven C. Roy's "How Much Does God Foreknow: A Comprehensive Biblical Study" (page 180)
                    Norman Geisler speaks of the difference between cognition and demonstration.
                    There is nothing here [in Gen 22] about God's desire to learn anything. Rather, God wanted to prove something (cf. 2 Chr 32:31). What God knew by cognition, he desired to show by demonstration. By passing the test, Abraham demonstrated what God already knew: namely that he feared God. ("Creating God in the Image of Man?", Norman Geisler, page 88).
                    Geisler gives an illustration of a math teacher who might say to her class, "Let's see if we can find the square root of 49." Then, after demonstrating to her class what the square root of 49 is, she declares, "Now we know that the square root of 49 is 7." And she could legitimately say this even though she knew the correct answer all along. Geisler comments, "Even so, God, who knows all things cognitively from the beginning, could appropriately say after Abraham had proved his faith, "Now I know [demonstratively] that you fear God." (Ibid.)
                    The failure of this argument is that there were no third non-aligned party witnesses to the event. Woopy do, Abram proved himself to God but nobody else!!! A good tale for Bedouins to tell around the camp fire (nb: According to my Muslim neighbors, it was Ishmael who Abram attempted to sacrifice, not Isaac - they have a party each year on their particular feast day).

                    We have this scenario of proof of faith throughout the OT. Either God knows someone's faithfulness or he doesn't!!! Unless such faithfulness is witnessed by a third non-aligned party then your retort fails...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                      Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...

                      Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NASB).
                      a. Keil and Delitzsch: and of His understanding there is no number, i.e. in its depth and fulness it is definable by no number. What a comfort for the Church upon its often labyrinthine and entangled ways! Its Lord is the All-wise as well as its Almighty (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, page 409).


                      Why then does Psalm 147:5 teach the omniscience of God?
                      If you are going to diminish the omniscience of God then why not His omnipotence? Is He the "Almighty"?


                      Wasn't Isaac a witness to the event with what took place with Abraham?

                      Why is the Greek word kardiognwstes properly defined as being "omniscient"?
                      http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ce%29%E2%80%8F
                      Last edited by foudroyant; 02-10-2014, 03:14 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                        Given the facts as depicted in scripture, one is inclined to understand that whilst God is omniscient in retrospect (knows whatever has already occurred), he is either not prescient or chooses not to be prescient. Without prescience, one cannot be fully omniscient...
                        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                        Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for your speculations, you are simply relying on innuendo and wishful thinking.
                        Of course there is scriptural support for God knowing the future, it's called prophecy! Haha.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5, NASB).
                          Simple poetic rhetoric with no substance.

                          All Ps 147:5 demonstrates is that YHWH is infinitely compassionate, not that he is prescient. Compassion is a consequence of a retrospective viewpoint. Read all of Ps 145 and stop mining...

                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          a. Keil and Delitzsch: and of His understanding there is no number, i.e. in its depth and fulness it is definable by no number. What a comfort for the Church upon its often labyrinthine and entangled ways! Its Lord is the All-wise as well as its Almighty (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 3, page 409).
                          More fantastical commentary that has no basis in fact. Ps 147:6 states "The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground", which is a wishful thought that has no substance in history. Ps 147:2 says "The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel" and we all know from both the biblical and historical witness how many times Jerusalem fell, and we know from the NT that the "outcasts of Israel" have been thoroughly outcast...

                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          Why then does Psalm 147:5 teach the omniscience of God?
                          Well it doesn't! Read all of Ps147 and get a clue!!!

                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          If you are going to diminish the omniscience of God then why not His omnipotence? Is He the "Almighty"?
                          Trick question! How is it that God the Father is reliant on his Son to save the world??? How is it that Revelevation tells us that the Son and the Father share a throne, from which the waters of life flow?

                          Whilst I might agree that God is omnipotent (which automatically presumes he/they are omniscient and omnipresent), I would advocate, given human history, he/they have never exercised this faculty...


                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          Wasn't Isaac a witness to the event with what took place with Abraham?
                          Nope! According to scripture he was the traumatised victim. In any case the worlds majority religion, Islam, reckons it was Ishmael who Abraham attempted to offer as a human sacrifice. There is an interesting debate amongst Jewish scholars concerning how prevalent human sacrifice was in early Hebrew culture. There are a couple of pointers in the OT that it was practiced...

                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          Why is the Greek word kardiognwstes properly defined as being "omniscient"?
                          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ce%29%E2%80%8F
                          The Greek word means "heart knower". Which is not a precursor to prescience but a retrospective (knowledge after the fact). If you wish to contend with this observation then realise you are accusing God of fore-knowledge of man's fall ie: man was setup to fail from the start...
                          Last edited by apostoli; 02-11-2014, 06:26 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                            Of course there is scriptural support for God knowing the future, it's called prophecy! Haha.
                            Haha. Well God seems to be very human in his predictive failings. For instance: he didn't foresee the corruption of the Levites, the Judges, the Davidic kingship, the moral, financial and social bankrupcy of Israel as a result of Moses' ordinances etc... Apart from the fall of Jerusalem (several times) which anyone could have predicted, I can't think of any supposed prophecy that has as yet come to fruition, including the coming of Christ which the Jews were totally unprepared...

                            I need to clarify the last comment: In the OT there are indicators but not predicators (predictives). It might be enlightening for you to observe that not once did Jesus directly reveal himself as the Christ to any Jew, including his disciples - looking at A.Peter's declaration they had to come to discovery via revelation. It is also note worthy that Jesus explicity revealed himself as the awaited Messiah to a group of Samaritans - the first mass conversion we find in scripture...
                            Last edited by apostoli; 02-11-2014, 06:45 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              1. Psalm 147:5 - You supplied zero sources while insisting that Keil and Delitzsch got it wrong.
                              2. You "might" agree that God is omnipotent? Just a simple answer of "yes" or "no" will suffice. I hope that isn't too difficult for you.
                              3. Isaac being a traumatized victim does not mean he wasn't aware what was taking place. Islam says it wasn't Isaac? Just another proof that Islam is wrong. Why you would even appeal to Islam concerning this is troubling.
                              4. So the TDNT, NIDNTT and Danker all affirm that "heart-knower" means omniscient but you say it doesn't. Any sources (besides your opinion) to back you up on this?
                              Furthermore, this complete knowing of the hearts of all people not only pertains to the present and the past but also to the future:
                              Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).
                              Last edited by foudroyant; 02-11-2014, 08:44 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                                1. Psalm 147:5 - You supplied zero sources while insisting that Keil and Delitzsch got it wrong.
                                For a start omniscience is not equivalent to prescience. Go read a decent book on theology and get an understanding of what the issues are. At the moment you seem to advocate that God (the Father) created all things for a known failure...
                                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                                2. You "might" agree that God is omnipotent? Just a simple answer of "yes" or "no" will suffice. I hope that isn't too difficult for you.
                                The omnipotency of God is a philosophical conclusion not a demonstratable fact!

                                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                                3. Isaac being a traumatized victim does not mean he wasn't aware what was taking place. Islam says it wasn't Isaac? Just another proof that Islam is wrong. Why you would even appeal to Islam concerning this is troubling.
                                Isaac under Jewish law would not be considered a reliable witness. In fact Jewish scholars argue about whether the event actually took place or was simply a polemic against human sacrifice...

                                The fact I brought Islam belief into the discussion is that they hold that it was Ishmael that Abram attempted to sacrafice - which has more plausibility given Ishmael was the eldest son, thus heir to all that Abram possessed.

                                The argument for Isaac is based on God's promise to Sarah.

                                Simple fact: the Jewish nation fell into steep decline and on face value YHWH's promises to Abram were never fulfilled but YHWH's promise to Abraham concerning Ishmael is self evident to this day "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (such a promise was never fulfilled and remains unfulfilled, except in possibly a spiritual sense)

                                "As for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation (such a fulfilled promise is historically self evident)." (Gen 17:19-20).

                                Now, I'm not a fan of Islam, but I am also not a fan of Sunday school polemics...

                                Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                                4. So the TDNT, NIDNTT and Danker all affirm that "heart-knower" means omniscient but you say it doesn't. Any sources (besides your opinion) to back you up on this?
                                Furthermore, this complete knowing of the hearts of all people not only pertains to the present and the past but also to the future:
                                Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all (Psalm 139:4, NASB).
                                It would be useful for you to understand what you read. If someone knows someone else's heart then they can predict that one's actions. Doesn't make the observer omniscient just a good psychoanalyst...

                                That aside: you in your blindness and deafness (Is 6:10 etc) haven't realised that none of your arguments prove God to be prescient...from a philosophical and poetic perspective I'll grant him omniscience but I haven't as yet encountered a scripture that would grant him prescience...If you don't know the difference, do some study...
                                Last edited by apostoli; 02-11-2014, 12:41 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Working...
                                X