D
davidv
Guest
Do you suppose that He asks, not for His own benefit, but for Adams benefit?
- Status
C
Cara_Serrano
Guest
No, God can choose not to exercise His omnipotence.
po18guy
Well-known member
His human nature cried out. just as His human nature was tempted and fasted. But, since He is 100% God and 100% man, this all speaks to the love God placed in the incarnation.
Christ’s peace.
V
Valke2
Guest
That is indeed the widely accepted interpetation and one set forth by both rabbis and christian scholars. But it is an interpetation that ignores the plain language of Genesis. Throughout this book and much of Exodus, God is portrayed as asking questions, or confined to a particular place. There really is not a lot of om(name removed by moderator)otence or omnipresence set forth in the Bible. Even less so in the Christian Gospels.
I think that we read these texts with the assumption that God as portrayed is omnipotent and omnipresent, but the actual text tells another story.
As an example, Does God already know how Abraham will react to His test? If so, what is the point of putting him through it? And while we can interpet the story in a way which would explain the test and preserve the idea of omnipotence, the plain text itself again tells another story.
M
MaHeRsHaLaL
Guest
Jesus took upon himself the sins of all mankind. This made him guilty of those sins. At his baptism we see the holy spirit alighting upon him and his ministry began.
I believe when on the cross the Father withdrew the abiding presence of the holy spirit and turned away from the Son in order to complete the work of atonement. Remember Jesus suffered and paid the full price for all of our sins. This means he suffered the same consequences we would ie: separation from the Father and the loss of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I have heard people say he was simply quoting scripture, but there would need to be a reason for him to quote it and I cannot see one beyond a literal and immediate personal application.
I believe when on the cross the Father withdrew the abiding presence of the holy spirit and turned away from the Son in order to complete the work of atonement. Remember Jesus suffered and paid the full price for all of our sins. This means he suffered the same consequences we would ie: separation from the Father and the loss of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I have heard people say he was simply quoting scripture, but there would need to be a reason for him to quote it and I cannot see one beyond a literal and immediate personal application.
M
MaHeRsHaLaL
Guest
If he was Mary’s son and also “…the Christ, the son of the living God.” would that not make him 50% man (from Mary) and 50% god (from the Father)??
Would he not inherit the capacity to die from his mortal mother and yet the power to withstand death from his immortal sire? Hence his statement “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Valke!
Though you did not use the exact words… that is exactly how you are read.
…I think you have your logic wrong… if you were on a Jewish Forum it would be correct to annihilate the New Testament since Judaism rejects Jesus Christ as their King, their Lord, and their Savior.
If I were to respond to you in kind–I would be doing Yahweh a disfavor as I would attempt to remove you from existence (along with the Mosaic Law).
When I asked you to remove from your mind the obstructions it was a fair expression because it is the Old Testament that Prophesizes about Jesus. It is Yahweh Himself that reveals to Moses that Israel will reject Him and “those that were called My people will no longer be calle My people; and those that were called not My people will be called My people…” (paraphrased)
The God of the Amen (Isaiah 65:16) is the Only Savior (Apocalypse 3:14).
Again, with your logic all you have do is claim that “it was copied from the Old Testament…” So to level the playing field I would have to search for ways to discredict the Old Testament… how would eradicating the Holy Scriptures benefit anyone’s search for Yahweh?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Valke!
…Jacob bested Yahweh and Yahweh cheated… that definitely does not sound like an Omnipotent Being… but that is only part of Scriptures not the whole of the full revelation.
In other passages we find people fearing that they see the face of God; asking Moses to intercede between them and God for fear of death and there are so many other revelations about His Omnipotence (just as in Creation). So either we accept the Holy Scriptures as a whole or we reject them… we cannot have it both ways!
Maran atha!
Angel
V
Valke2
Guest
I don’t see evidence of omnipotence in those examples. Only evidence of people fearing God’s power. However, it is about as close to omnipotence as God gets, other than the Creation story. By using metaphor and allegory and assuming the that much of the verse reflects our limited understanding of God – all assumptions necessary to interpret the text as bestowing omnipotence on God (and I do believe God is omnipotent) – I can conclude that God is omnipotent despite the apparent plain meaning of the text.
These assumptions, however, cannot be applied toward the Gospels, which clearly demonstrate that Jesus was not omnipotent. It would require a much greater imagination than mine to conclude otherwise.
As to your prior post, this is an apologitics board, which means you are defending Catholicism. If you are here to defend it you should be prepared – and welcome – those who are here to question and criticize it.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Valke!
…you seem to be contradicting yourself: on one hand you express that Scriptures do not demonstrate that Yahweh God is Omnipotent; yet, on the other you state that regarless of the simplistic text you find God to be Omnipotent…
Did you forget to complete the contraction ('t)?
Unless you prescribe to the notion that every single human being can exercise enough “will power” to bring into existence anything that is desired, how do you account for Yahweh God not being Omnipotent and yet Creating everything that exists, both visible and not visible? …a marvelous run of good fortune, perhaps?
…so when you read the Gospels and you find those passages of the Holy Scriptures that tell you that Jesus:
cast out evil spirits,
cured the sick, blind, crippled,
created food out of nothing,
walked on water,
controlled nature,
silenced demons,
commanded Satan,
brought people back to life,
defied the laws of physics…
…are you saying that all human beings can do the same or better?
I apologize if I seem overly sensitive… I just do not think that when people begin an argument (exchange of ideas) at an impasse there will be much gain for either party.
Maran atha!
Angel
po18guy
Well-known member
This is part of the mystery of God. Christ is fully man and fully God. 50/50 is human thinking. The Lord is so far beyond us that we would have no way of knowing this unless it had been Divinely revealed to our spiritual ancestors. One day, we will know, but not on this earth.
Christ’s peace.
E
epostle
Guest
It’s hard for the mind to get around a BIG OMNIPOTENT GOD humbling Himself to share in our humanity. Peter had to be told directly by God who Jesus was, and didn’t have a clue why Jesus had to go to Jerusalem and die. Whether or not these phases of intellectual incapacitation has been passed on to future episcopates, is another debate! 
Of New Testament extant manuscripts, the earliest go all the way back to around A.D. 130, though most are probably extant to the 3rd and 4th centuries. In any regard, this is remarkable. There is no other writing of antiquity where the copies are so close to the originals. Even standards that we think nothing about, like Plato, the extant copies of Plato are 1200 years after Plato’s death. For the New Testament it is mere decades giving the New Testament an unheard of historical and documentary veracity.
From a purely historical perspective, only a fool would suggest the Gospels are pure fiction. But it is not the intention of the Gospel writers to give us historical ACCOUNTS, they painted historical PORTRIATS. By reading them too literally you run into problems.
The ancient Jews had a special ritual meal called the Todah (Hebrew: thanks). The Todah sacrificed an animal, but it was greater than other animal sacrifices because it added the suffering of one’s own life.
Our Father in heaven was slowly preparing His covenant children for the move from animal sacrifices to the Final Sacrifice.
(Ps 40:6,8) “Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required. … I delight to do Thy will, O my God; Thy law is within my heart.”
Again, David wrote,
(Ps 51:17) *“The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.”
*And again,
(Ps 69:30) *“I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs.” *
Isaiah spoke the words of God,
(Is 1:11) *“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams.” *
God called instead for a baptism:
(Is 1:16) “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from My eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good.”
The ancient rabbis believed that when the Messiah would come all sacrifices except the Todah would cease, but the Todah would continue for all eternity. In 70 AD the Temple fell to earth and all of the bloody animal sacrifices stopped.
Only the Todah remains, the eucharistia, the Final Sacrifice at which the last words spoken are Todah l’Adonai, “Thanks be to God.”
The Jewish Heritage of the Catholic Church
ourgardenofcarmel.org/marty.html
Of New Testament extant manuscripts, the earliest go all the way back to around A.D. 130, though most are probably extant to the 3rd and 4th centuries. In any regard, this is remarkable. There is no other writing of antiquity where the copies are so close to the originals. Even standards that we think nothing about, like Plato, the extant copies of Plato are 1200 years after Plato’s death. For the New Testament it is mere decades giving the New Testament an unheard of historical and documentary veracity.
From a purely historical perspective, only a fool would suggest the Gospels are pure fiction. But it is not the intention of the Gospel writers to give us historical ACCOUNTS, they painted historical PORTRIATS. By reading them too literally you run into problems.
The ancient Jews had a special ritual meal called the Todah (Hebrew: thanks). The Todah sacrificed an animal, but it was greater than other animal sacrifices because it added the suffering of one’s own life.
Our Father in heaven was slowly preparing His covenant children for the move from animal sacrifices to the Final Sacrifice.
(Ps 40:6,8) “Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required. … I delight to do Thy will, O my God; Thy law is within my heart.”
Again, David wrote,
(Ps 51:17) *“The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.”
*And again,
(Ps 69:30) *“I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs.” *
Isaiah spoke the words of God,
(Is 1:11) *“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams.” *
God called instead for a baptism:
(Is 1:16) “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from My eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good.”
The ancient rabbis believed that when the Messiah would come all sacrifices except the Todah would cease, but the Todah would continue for all eternity. In 70 AD the Temple fell to earth and all of the bloody animal sacrifices stopped.
Only the Todah remains, the eucharistia, the Final Sacrifice at which the last words spoken are Todah l’Adonai, “Thanks be to God.”
The Jewish Heritage of the Catholic Church
ourgardenofcarmel.org/marty.html
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, epostle!It’s hard for the mind to get around a BIG OMNIPOTENT GOD humbling Himself to share in our humanity. Peter had to be told directly by God who Jesus was, and didn’t have a clue why Jesus had to go to Jerusalem and die. Whether or not these phases of intellectual incapacitation has been passed on to future episcopates, is another debate!
Of New Testament extant manuscripts, the earliest go all the way back to around A.D. 130, though most are probably extant to the 3rd and 4th centuries. In any regard, this is remarkable. There is no other writing of antiquity where the copies are so close to the originals. Even standards that we think nothing about, like Plato, the extant copies of Plato are 1200 years after Plato’s death. For the New Testament it is mere decades giving the New Testament an unheard of historical and documentary veracity.
From a purely historical perspective, only a fool would suggest the Gospels are pure fiction. But it is not the intention of the Gospel writers to give us historical ACCOUNTS, they painted historical PORTRIATS. By reading them too literally you run into problems.
The ancient Jews had a special ritual meal called the Todah (Hebrew: thanks). The Todah sacrificed an animal, but it was greater than other animal sacrifices because it added the suffering of one’s own life.
Our Father in heaven was slowly preparing His covenant children for the move from animal sacrifices to the Final Sacrifice.
(Ps 40:6,8) “Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required. … I delight to do Thy will, O my God; Thy law is within my heart.”
Again, David wrote,
(Ps 51:17) *“The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.”
*And again,
(Ps 69:30) *“I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hoofs.” *
Isaiah spoke the words of God,
(Is 1:11) *“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams.” *
God called instead for a baptism:
(Is 1:16) “Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from My eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good.”
The ancient rabbis believed that when the Messiah would come all sacrifices except the Todah would cease, but the Todah would continue for all eternity. In 70 AD the Temple fell to earth and all of the bloody animal sacrifices stopped.
Only the Todah remains, the eucharistia, the Final Sacrifice at which the last words spoken are Todah l’Adonai, “Thanks be to God.”
The Jewish Heritage of the Catholic Church
ourgardenofcarmel.org/marty.html
Excellent post! It is very informative and comprehensive.
I’ve been looking (not really looking… dabbling) for a source on Yahweh God’s Names… you’ve used the term Adonai… would the link posted have a list of some (if not all) of God’s Names (El, El Roi…)?
Maran atha!
Angel
E
epostle
Guest
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, epostle!
Thanks for the link… just read through it…
I had a Bible (which vanished without a trace–yeah two tv shows)
which contained a fairly comprehensive list of the Names of Yahweh God (including the footnotes with their respective meanings); ever since… I’ve been hoping to find an all-inclusive list with the various Names of God and their meaning (El Saddai; Yahweh Sabbaot; Adonai…)
The link at wikipedia offers an extensive list but it does not contain those that are familiar to me (as the ones above)–I did not go beyond the first couple of pages… so perhaps one of the many links might lead to them; meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you have a more direct source, that you could refer to me, which would include those very specific ones…
Maran atha!
Angel
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
I’m a bit late into this thread, but I’d like to give my thoughts…
God is everywhere - almost. He is not where there is sin. And there is sin in our hearts. I think the first Eucharist brought him into our hearts which is why His suffering started - by being handed to the authorities for harsh questioning - shortly after the first Eucharist.
So, that’s why Jesus felt abandoned; He was in our hearts which is full of sin.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts with no Catholic credibility.
:twocents:
God is everywhere - almost. He is not where there is sin. And there is sin in our hearts. I think the first Eucharist brought him into our hearts which is why His suffering started - by being handed to the authorities for harsh questioning - shortly after the first Eucharist.
So, that’s why Jesus felt abandoned; He was in our hearts which is full of sin.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts with no Catholic credibility.
:twocents:
V
Valke2
Guest
E
epostle
Guest
Your argument is Jesus cannot be omnipotent because He is human. I think you are shaping your own concept of omnipotence which doesn’t fit the mystery of the Incarnation, a concept unthinkable to Jews and Muslems. Is God distant and cold, Valke2?
We have established that the Gospels have an unparalleled historical veracity, and are reliable eye witness reports. We take that information, together with other writings from that period. We conclude one of two things:
(1) requires an honest examination of the evidence, followed by intellectual ascent of the facts given by a qualified source, leading to a formal act of faith. It is by this very process by which you come to believe anything, and it is anything but blind.
Jesus died on the cross. His body was, obviously, not omnipotent because he was subject to pain, suffering and death. But the story doesn’t end there. No one, in all of human history, has been raised from the dead by their own power, and I don’t think you understand why a BIG OMNIPOTENT GOD would become man and sacrifice himself for us. The chiasm between humans and a BIG OMNIPOTENT GOD is largely a human construct, but the bridge of this chiasm begins with the natural law written on every human heart. The andromorphic expressions (God having human qualities) found in the Bible are merely human expressions of a higher reality, and do not take away from God at all.
*The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, 1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.
In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: **“By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”.***2 This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.
The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this “Gospel”, the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God’s love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.
For this reason, man-living man-represents the primary and fundamental way for the Church. 4
Evangelium vitae
“By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”. This “good news” requires Jesus to be omnipotent, and the Church to be an extension of the Incarnation united by the eucharistia.
Todah l’Adonai:thumbsup:
We have established that the Gospels have an unparalleled historical veracity, and are reliable eye witness reports. We take that information, together with other writings from that period. We conclude one of two things:
- that Jesus is who he says he is—GOD
- Jesus is totally insane, operating with a sophisticated special effects crew
(1) requires an honest examination of the evidence, followed by intellectual ascent of the facts given by a qualified source, leading to a formal act of faith. It is by this very process by which you come to believe anything, and it is anything but blind.
Jesus died on the cross. His body was, obviously, not omnipotent because he was subject to pain, suffering and death. But the story doesn’t end there. No one, in all of human history, has been raised from the dead by their own power, and I don’t think you understand why a BIG OMNIPOTENT GOD would become man and sacrifice himself for us. The chiasm between humans and a BIG OMNIPOTENT GOD is largely a human construct, but the bridge of this chiasm begins with the natural law written on every human heart. The andromorphic expressions (God having human qualities) found in the Bible are merely human expressions of a higher reality, and do not take away from God at all.
*The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, 1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.
In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: **“By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”.***2 This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.
The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this “Gospel”, the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God’s love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.
For this reason, man-living man-represents the primary and fundamental way for the Church. 4
Evangelium vitae
“By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”. This “good news” requires Jesus to be omnipotent, and the Church to be an extension of the Incarnation united by the eucharistia.
Todah l’Adonai:thumbsup:
V
Valke2
Guest
All your evidence for Jesus being omnipotent, set forth in your post, comes from an interpetation of the text that is not apparent from its actual words. The Vatican may have declared Jesus omnipotent, but there is very little, if anything, in a plain reading of the Gospels that describes an omnipotent being. Since you don’t, I assume, adopt a sola scripture theology, this shouldn’t be a problem for you. But to look at the scripture and say “it states taht God/Jesus is omnipotent” requires an understading of something other than the plain meaning of the text.
To play devil’s advocate a little bit, regarding omnipresence, I have often seen people laughing a muslim posts that suggest Jesus made his way to India. Why is this a laughable proposition if Jesus is and was everywhere? I believe there is a disconnect between the historicity of Jesus as conveyed in the Gospels, which plainly requires one to view him an not omnipotent or omnipresent, and the worship of Jesus, which clearly requires one to acknowledge his omnipotence and omnipresence.
To play devil’s advocate a little bit, regarding omnipresence, I have often seen people laughing a muslim posts that suggest Jesus made his way to India. Why is this a laughable proposition if Jesus is and was everywhere? I believe there is a disconnect between the historicity of Jesus as conveyed in the Gospels, which plainly requires one to view him an not omnipotent or omnipresent, and the worship of Jesus, which clearly requires one to acknowledge his omnipotence and omnipresence.
V
Valke2
Guest
Regarding the difficulty in believing a omnipotent God taking interst in human affairs, which is what I believe you allude to when discussing His sacrifice of Himself/Son, I agree it is a very difficult concept to embrace and that both Jews and Christians have this issue. (There are Jewish teachings for example that discuss how when Israel suffers, God suffers; or how when Israel was exiled, God went into exile with them).
- Status