Christian doctrine and the art of explaining away contradictions by inventing new word salads

[godelian]

Hey, ChatGPT, Was Jesus omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent?

ChatGPT

Great question—it gets into some deep theological territory. In Christian theology, especially traditional orthodox teachings, Jesus is understood as both fully God and fully man. This means that divine attributes like omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnipresence (present everywhere) are affirmed in His divine nature, but how they interacted with His human nature is a bit more nuanced.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. Omniscience (All-Knowing)

As God, Jesus is omniscient (e.g., John 16:30, Colossians 2:3).

As a human, He appeared to have limitations in knowledge (e.g., Mark 13:32, where Jesus says He doesn't know the day or hour of His return).

Theologians explain this using the concept of kenosis (Philippians 2:6–7), where Jesus "emptied Himself" by taking on human limitations voluntarily.

2. Omnipotence (All-Powerful)

Jesus performs miracles, controls nature, heals, forgives sins—signs of divine power.

Yet He also experiences fatigue, hunger, suffering, and death.

Again, this is seen as Him voluntarily limiting His divine power during His earthly ministry.

3. Omnipresence (Present Everywhere)

During His earthly life, Jesus had a physical, localized body, so He wasn’t omnipresent in a human sense.

But in His divine nature, and especially after His resurrection, He is believed to be omnipresent (e.g., Matthew 28:20, "I am with you always").

In Summary:

Divine Nature: Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.
Human Nature: Voluntarily limited in these aspects.

This is part of the hypostatic union—the mystery of Jesus being both fully God and fully man.

Jesus wasn't omniscient nor omnipotent nor omnipresent, but there is definitely always a word salad available to explain the problem away.

Long live the endless accumulation of bullshit!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Right up until the moment when the gravitational pull of deconstruction overcame the heat and light of reconstruction, no word salad was ever necessary. As a fundamentalist[,] God was pragmatic in response to our cultural evolution, as a vanilla, neo-orthodox CoE to then emergent Christian, it was all about our evolving understanding of Love as the ground of being.

[Skepdick]

Jesus wasn't omniscient nor omnipotent nor omnipresent, but there is definitely always a word salad available to explain the problem away.

What "problem"?

In order to declare something a "problem" you require omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence....
An imperative. That is known to be true everywhere and always.

Outside of a programming context where you have total control over the system - I can't imagine how you plan on making your imperatives obligatory.

You are operating from a performative contradiction. As always.

[Alexiev]

I like word salads, but I prefer alphabet soup.

[godelian]

Jesus wasn't omniscient nor omnipotent nor omnipresent, but there is definitely always a word salad available to explain the problem away.

What "problem"?

The fake divinity of Jesus. He was just a man. He was not God.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Needs a comma doesn't it? There, that's better.

[Walker]

I like word salads, but I prefer alphabet soup.

Do messages arrange themselves on the surface of your soup?