Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[°Leprechaun]

Who would take Aesop's fables literally? What to take literally is self evident --- the moral of the story and not the story itself. Why would it be any different in the Bible?

[Greatest I am]

Who would take Aesop's fables literally? What to take literally is self evident --- the moral of the story and not the story itself. Why would it be any different in the Bible?

That's the right thinking. It gets trumped by tribalism though.

Take Eden. The Jews who wrote it and have first right to interpretation say the moral of the story is man's elevation.
 
Christians forget that and call it a fall and their tribal power wins as far as the less intelligent Christians are concerned.

Gnostic Christians see it the Jewish and correct way.

Regards
DL

[°Leprechaun]

As you know, not everything in the Bible is bad, and there are passages which in fact are logical.
Yet those who insist on believing it as some kind of infallible authority (to be taken, for the most part literally) thereby do it damage.
Test everything, don't believe every word, come let us reason, love the light rather than the darkness,
are logical parts of the Bible... Matthew 7, I Corinthians speaks of agape or charity etc. etc.
The orthodox view seems to put surrendering to authority over thinking rationally. Believe what is rational reject what is not. An enlightened mind knows that one must decide for oneself what is really true based on what is reasonable and what is good and ethical over what is not.

[°Leprechaun]

Although there is good and truth in the Bible, there is so much else that can enrich an enlightened mind. Limiting oneself to the Bible as the only source of truth limits the mind to live in Plato's cave having an incomplete view of reality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not make3 faith claims. I just analyse the myth and go from there.

You, as you admit, do make faith claims.

I also made no false claim as you stated.

"You began this thread with a question and a statement based on the assumption that a single entity (God) could not have manifestations (Jesus) which limited the properties of the whole (knowledge)."

An assumption is not a claim so deal with the issues instead of the definition of words and filling your posts with garbage.

If all three head in the Godhead are not sharing aqll information then there is a hierarchy of knowledge and thus it can be said that two of the heads are stupid compared to the third.

One head is also more important that the other 2 as we can be forgiven for cursing two of the heads but not the third.

Regards
DL
 

If you'd like to replace my use of assumption with your word claim, I don't think it changes my meaning. If you object to my use of the words as synonymous in this context then change them to make them the same.

Whether it be an assumption or a claim, you began with a statement to the effect that all aspects of an entity must all be all-knowing because one is or they are not equal to the one. This is contrary to our understanding of the physics of this universe. To state otherwise is either false or an expression of faith in something that is not true about this universe. It doesn't matter if you are discussing myth or reality, the statement is not backed by any facts.

Isn't the existence of a deity also a claim that can not be backed by facts?

Correct. What I am defending is the proposition that if there is a God, then a Trinitarian God is not inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. I base that defense in the facts we do know about the behavior of matter and energy and the our knowledge about the relationship between statistical physics and information.

Whether a Trinitarian God is true or even plausible is not as important as the theology behind it. If someone commits murder, is that ok? The dogma behind the Trinity is that Jesus took the penalty for my sins, therefore I can sin all that I want, and there would be no responsibility or accountability. That, I think, is the crux of it all.

While the doctrines of Trinitarianism and Substitutionary Atonement are both part of mainstream Christianity, they are orthogonal beliefs, neither of which depends on the other. So can't logically use an argument about one to say anything about the other when considered in isolation only about the combination. However,  to get back to the original question, I fail to see any relevance of Substitutionary Atonement to the proposition that Jesus would need to be omniscient to be a persona of the Godhead.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*
The trinity is false because three is three times one. Simple math. If three equals one, then three equals nine and pigs will fly. If a=3 and b=1, then to say that a=b is to say that b=3 and three times b is nine, so since b=1 and b=3 then three times b=nine and 1 times 1 equals 3 times 3 which equals 9.
So if the divine is 3 persons then the divine is 9 people et cetera et cetera et cetera.
To say god is 3 is to say that there are three gods, speaking literally. That is a no brainer.
What difference does it make if you say that you believe in one god or three gods?
Where's the problem. Why would it matter? None of it matters. None of it can be proven because the spiritual is not natural, unless the natural is an illusion. If life is but a dream, then we already could be spiritual, but who really knows?
* actually an infinite number of oceans. The best way to conceptualize infinity, perhaps, is to say that infinity equals zero. Multiply x by zero and you still have zero, so if x=infinity then infinity equals zero. If you divide 1 by 2 and continue to divide the result by 2 you will never get to zero. If you look at pi you will never reach the end of pi, that is how I look at infinity. Did the deity create pi or did pi create the deity? Did the chicken come before the egg or is it an infinite loop and therefore we will never know which came first?

Please stop. You've already made it abundantly clear you don't grasp how infinity works in mathematics. Granted, it is not an intuitive concept, but your current lack of comprehension of it means you should avoid making analogies between mathematical infinity and theological infinity until you do. Incidentally, zero times infinity is undefined in mathematics.

[°Leprechaun]

In "Going Home" Thich Nhat Hanh compares the finite to a drop of water and the infinite to the whole ocean.*
The trinity is false because three is three times one. Simple math. If three equals one, then three equals nine and pigs will fly. If a=3 and b=1, then to say that a=b is to say that b=3 and three times b is nine, so since b=1 and b=3 then three times b=nine and 1 times 1 equals 3 times 3 which equals 9.
So if the divine is 3 persons then the divine is 9 people et cetera et cetera et cetera.
To say god is 3 is to say that there are three gods, speaking literally. That is a no brainer.
What difference does it make if you say that you believe in one god or three gods?
Where's the problem. Why would it matter? None of it matters. None of it can be proven because the spiritual is not natural, unless the natural is an illusion. If life is but a dream, then we already could be spiritual, but who really knows?
* actually an infinite number of oceans. The best way to conceptualize infinity, perhaps, is to say that infinity equals zero. Multiply x by zero and you still have zero, so if x=infinity then infinity equals zero. If you divide 1 by 2 and continue to divide the result by 2 you will never get to zero. If you look at pi you will never reach the end of pi, that is how I look at infinity. Did the deity create pi or did pi create the deity? Did the chicken come before the egg or is it an infinite loop and therefore we will never know which came first?

Please stop. You've already made it abundantly clear you don't grasp how infinity works in mathematics. Granted, it is not an intuitive concept, but your current lack of comprehension of it means you should avoid making analogies between mathematical infinity and theological infinity until you do. Incidentally, zero times infinity is undefined in mathematics.

I understand infinity in mathematics 100% and also that there are an infinite number of infinities. The reason is that infinity is really a simple concept to explain as I've already indicated.
You can add one to any number no matter how large that number is. That means that anyone who can count can understand infinity. Zero times any number equals zero*, that's self evident, it's an elementary concept. You don't know what  I do or do not know, and to suggest otherwise is pretentious. Furthermore, seeing the divine as anything other than a unified infinity is to re-define as is found in the Bible "you shall have no other gods" (the first commandment).

*as for zero being analogous to infinity --that is 100% clear to me "There is no god and he is always with (the title of a book) and is illustrated by Zeno's dichotomy paradox Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. "Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on."

You said that infinity is a tricky thing, so you are contradicting yourself when you say that I don't understand it. Just because I fully understand what you said doesn't mean that I agree with conclusions. The point is that you have failed to prove that the infinity of the divine can be seen as purely mathematical and you conflate the divine with a mathematical concept which I see as erroneous. That doesn't mean I don't understand your concept of multiple infinities which is an extremely simple concept.

[°Leprechaun]

Infinity can be reduced to "ones" and "zeros" which means that everything can be expressed in binary terms. This is a simple concept, but one can also see it as more complex and thinking outside the box is to affirm that although everything can be represented using the binary system of one's and zero, that is a representation of something more complex.
I also understand the Taoist concept that words alone are not  the truth, since words are a crude way of expressing abstract concepts.

To understand something does not mean that it is easy to put that understanding into words.
I have understood different bases for over half a century. So, if I fail to express my understanding in words, that doesn't mean that I do not have a perfect understanding of it. If I have a different understanding of something than someone else, doesn't mean that I don't understand it. nor does it mean that I have to reach the same conclusion.

[°Leprechaun]

https://lorenbullock.com/2012/07/25/the-trinity-john-shelby-spong/

On August 18. 2011, he wrote:

“The Trinity was a conclusion to which the Christian Church came after a long journey through history. It was not a part of early or original Christianity. If you read Paul closely, you will find that he is not a Trinitarian!"

....

“The Trinity is a human definition of God, and since the human mind could never fully embrace the mystery and wonder of God, to literalize a human definition of God borders on the absurd.  For human beings to worship their own creation is the essence of idolatry.  The Trinity is a definition not of God, but of the human experience of the divine and is, therefore, an attempt to make rational sense out of that human experience."

“We experience God as an inward presence, so deep within us that we cannot name the reality we know is there. This is what we mean when we say that God is Spirit, ineffable, life-giving, inward, and real.

[°Leprechaun]

What Spong is clearly saying is that humans have defined God in terms that they can understand and to put it figuratively "man has created God".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, zero times any real (or complex) number is zero, but mathematically infinity isn't a real number. Mathematics has a well-established set of properties that infinity has in order to make use of it in a consistent manner and your intuition is clearly not in agreement with it.

While it's reasonable to argue that analogies between mathematical infinity and theological infinity are not appropriate, it's irrational to do as you continue to do and assert your own truthy view of mathematical infinity is just as valid as that used by actual mathematicians. It's akin to the viewpoint of climate change deniers and anri-vaxxers who insist on the truthiness of their beliefs despite the science showing them to be bunk.

[DC Al Fine]

If orthodox Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why insist on Trinitarianism, which is not biblical?
It is only biblical if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not insist upon, but in fact the opposite is the case, the Bible itself rejects literalism.
So, if you believe the Bible you don't have to take any of it literally which leads to the problem(?) of taking what could be taken metaphorically, metaphorically, and taking literally ethics which lead to being good (which ethics are good and which bad, is a matter of interpretation)

What you are describing isn't an accuate description of Sola Scriptura or conservative Protestant approaches to theology.

[°Leprechaun]

If orthodox Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why insist on Trinitarianism, which is not biblical?
It is only biblical if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not insist upon, but in fact the opposite is the case, the Bible itself rejects literalism.
So, if you believe the Bible you don't have to take any of it literally which leads to the problem(?) of taking what could be taken metaphorically, metaphorically, and taking literally ethics which lead to being good (which ethics are good and which bad, is a matter of interpretation)

What you are describing isn't an accuate description of Sola Scriptura or conservative Protestant approaches to theology.

He says while leaving the description he has in mind in his own mind so that no one can refute it.

You win every debate the same way buddy?
... (I don't need to comment on the rest of it, as this is enough)

Regards
DL

True, that has always been his M.O. here.

[°Leprechaun]

By the way, my statement about odd numbers always adding to odd numbers was erroneous, clearly, I missed that, oops oops oops, but the point stands nonetheless.

What my opponents fail to answer is two points: first the main point THREE does not EQUAL one.
I don't deny that my body is made of parts, I don't know why they can't see that. But the parts of my body are not manifestations of the whole they are parts of the whole, they are not persons.
My arm is not a person. This leads me to the other unanswered question. Why do we refer to God with a singular pronoun and why does the Christian part of the Bible?
Clearly the trinity was not part of the Bible, nor was it part of the early church, although it was debated. The orthodox won and the so called heretics lost, and the latter still prevail today, even though they have been challenged on the point for over two thousand years.

If the Biblical Deity really does exist (and this theory is still being fiercely debated, as you all know)... one could further hypothesis that Jesus was like a shadow of this "person". A shadow is not real, but is a manifestation of something that is.

[°Leprechaun]

The fact that Christians have added ideas to the Bible seems to contradict the idea that the Bible alone is sufficient. I agree that a true understanding of reality goes beyond just studying the Scripture of one religion. (In my father's house are many mansions)

The Disciples of Christ, though, have it right, for those who believe that the Bible contains the whole truth,

“Where the scriptures speak, we speak; where the scriptures are silent, we are silent."
Should not every person decide for himself or herself what the truth is?
Should we rely on the experts with their hair splitting and obtuse, abstruse, esoteric and enigmatic ratiocinations? There is nothing wrong with discussing these things, philosophizing on these things etc. etc., and certainly may be beneficial for a deeper understanding of things, but they have been turned into dogmas which are required by human made creeds and have divided Protestant Christianity in thousands of little denominations, when an enlightened Christian would see that this is all harmful.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, zero times any real (or complex) number is zero, but mathematically infinity isn't a real number. Mathematics has a well-established set of properties that infinity has in order to make use of it in a consistent manner and your intuition is clearly not in agreement with it.

While it's reasonable to argue that analogies between mathematical infinity and theological infinity are not appropriate, it's irrational to do as you continue to do and assert your own truthy view of mathematical infinity is just as valid as that used by actual mathematicians. It's akin to the viewpoint of climate change deniers and anri-vaxxers who insist on the truthiness of their beliefs despite the science showing them to be bunk.

What I'm saying is that understanding the mathematical concept of infinity is simple.
One doesn't have to understand all the details, and certainly there are an infinite number of infinite series, that is my point. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand that there are odd numbers and even numbers (as one simple example) and that those two kinds of numbers are not the same, although they are similar in the fact that each series is counting by twos. That is all I need to know to make a rather crude and specious analogy... namely odd numbers and not even numbers and three persons are different. Isn't it a no brainer then, that three persons don't equal one person? I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I don't think that you have made it clear that you understand what I am saying, but as GIA likes to point out, I can't read your mind. If you don't understand my argument, it could be because I haven't done a good enough job of explaining it, but it doesn't equate to saying that I don't know what I am talking about nor does it mean that I don't understand the counter argument (whether I agree with the counter argument or not doesn't change the fact that I understand it)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're arguing that because an arm in not a complete person the arm cannot be a person and therefore by analogy Jesus cannot be God. However, if I take a cup and dip it into a bucket of water then that cup holds water just as the bucket holds water. You only see Jesus as the cup while I see Christ as the water in the cup and   God as water in this analogy.  (Whether the bucket represents the Father or the Godhead I'll leave to those who care about the distinction between Trinitarianism and Classical Unitarianism.)

[°Leprechaun]

Just because I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of something doesn't mean I don't understand the basics (and no it isn't my "intuition" talking). I am talking about simple facts.
Do I need a PHD in quantum physics or in complex math to understand simple addition or a simple concept of infinity? Do I need to understand how pi or e are calculated in order to know that they going on infinitely in a seemingly "random" order?
Knowledge alone without an ability to analyze, and to apply that knowledge doesn't make a person wise. Knowledge alone, while good in itself (like logic, by the way) can be used to harm
as well as to help. (I don't need to a nuclear physicist to know that I hate nuclear weapons)

I don't need to understand how a car works to drive a car, nor to understand what a car is.
I have said a number of times that I understand that there can be more than one mathematical infinity.

[°Leprechaun]

You're arguing that because an arm in not a complete person the arm cannot be a person and therefore by analogy Jesus cannot be God. However, if I take a cup and dip it into a bucket of water then that cup holds water just as the bucket holds water. You only see Jesus as the cup while I see Christ as the water in the cup and   God as water in this analogy.  (Whether the bucket represents the Father or the Godhead I'll leave to those who care about the distinction between Trinitarianism and Classical Unitarianism.)

Yes, good, I see what you are saying, and perhaps, it's all a question of semantics.
If Jesus is "the water" then he could be part of God, what I am arguing is that three persons can not be one person, not, as I've stated that a whole can be made up of parts. I don't see God as having a multiple personality disorder; that's the way I look at it. If that is mistaken, you can explain why, but I don't think I need a comprehensive understanding of complex math or science to believe what I believe. If someone sees it differently, then rather than just saying I am mistaken it could be helpful to explain why I am mistaken. I'll repeat, I am not alone in my opinion, as many have argued, more eloquently than I, so it isn't about me anyway. I just happen to agree with those, who over a millennium have made a heterodox argument that contradicts the orthodox one.

[°Leprechaun]

I would like to point out that I don't have a problem as seeing God in three persons, if that is not 100% literal. It is a human interpretation of God, but that doesn't mean it is the way "god" sees "himself", but more how god wants to present himself to humans. Better, how humans want to understand god. (although I am not sure why they can't conceptualize god as one person or as something else)

It might not be contrary to reason to say "I believe in the Trinity, but I don't understand it completely" or to say "I believe in the Trinity and can make a rational plausible argument as to why I believe this". Neither of those statements prove that the god = three persons argument is true, only that they have a rational argument on their side.

[DC Al Fine]

If orthodox Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, why insist on Trinitarianism, which is not biblical?
It is only biblical if you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which the Bible itself does not insist upon, but in fact the opposite is the case, the Bible itself rejects literalism.
So, if you believe the Bible you don't have to take any of it literally which leads to the problem(?) of taking what could be taken metaphorically, metaphorically, and taking literally ethics which lead to being good (which ethics are good and which bad, is a matter of interpretation)

What you are describing isn't an accuate description of Sola Scriptura or conservative Protestant approaches to theology.

He says while leaving the description he has in mind in his own mind so that no one can refute it.

You win every debate the same way buddy?
... (I don't need to comment on the rest of it, as this is enough)

Regards
DL

True, that has always been his M.O. here.

Wait hold on a second here. That wasn't a nitpicky dismissal. You got some key doctrines of conservative Protestantism wrong there. Your description was a caricature of what the great majority of conservative Protestants actually teach.  Was my post a bit lazy? Perhaps, but in the same vein, it's not unreasonable to expect you to have a reasonably accurate understanding of what you're critiquing, before launching into a detailed response.

Now that being said, here is what I would dispute in your post:

1) Sola scriptura holds that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, not the only rule of faith. It is therefore open to appeals to the church fathers, tradition etc, so long as they are not held to be infallible. That is also why the older Protestant denominations have confessions which are used for teaching, appealed to in debate etc.

2) Pretty much every Protestant would insist that the Trinity can be reasoned out from scripture, even if it doesn't explicitly say "God is a triune". Obviously the entire case for the Trinity is way to big to get into in great detail here, but as a simple example, there is a lot of stuff in John's Gospel or Paul's letters that is rather difficult to reconcile with a Judeo-Islamic model of one God in one person.

3) Talking about a literal vs metaphorical Bible doesn't really do Biblical hermeneutics justice given:

a) There are large swathes of the Bible where a literal-metaphorical divide just doesn't work. How would the literal-metaphorical divide work for interpreting Psalm 150 for example?

b) The Bible is an eclectic collection of texts written over centuries. To speak about interpreting the whole collection literally or metaphorically, is a stretch given the range of authors, genres etc.

Given the above I disagree with your assertion that "the Bible itself" as a whole rejects literalism.

[Greatest I am]

I would like to point out that I don't have a problem as seeing God in three persons, if that is not 100% literal. It is a human interpretation of God, but that doesn't mean it is the way "god" sees "himself", but more how god wants to present himself to humans. Better, how humans want to understand god. (although I am not sure why they can't conceptualize god as one person or as something else)

It might not be contrary to reason to say "I believe in the Trinity, but I don't understand it completely" or to say "I believe in the Trinity and can make a rational plausible argument as to why I believe this". Neither of those statements prove that the god = three persons argument is true, only that they have a rational argument on their side.

An argument, yes. Rational, I don't think so.

That is why Constantine had to force the vote his way with threats of death.

Regards
DL

[°Leprechaun]

I would like to point out that I don't have a problem as seeing God in three persons, if that is not 100% literal. It is a human interpretation of God, but that doesn't mean it is the way "god" sees "himself", but more how god wants to present himself to humans. Better, how humans want to understand god. (although I am not sure why they can't conceptualize god as one person or as something else)

It might not be contrary to reason to say "I believe in the Trinity, but I don't understand it completely" or to say "I believe in the Trinity and can make a rational plausible argument as to why I believe this". Neither of those statements prove that the god = three persons argument is true, only that they have a rational argument on their side.

An argument, yes. Rational, I don't think so.

That is why Constantine had to force the vote his way with threats of death.

Regards
DL

Fortunately, in free countries today, freedom from religion is an option. There is a long way to go and atheists.org is fighting to protect freedom in the US, which makes them de facto freedom fighters, in spite of what some may say to the contrary.

[Greatest I am]

I would like to point out that I don't have a problem as seeing God in three persons, if that is not 100% literal. It is a human interpretation of God, but that doesn't mean it is the way "god" sees "himself", but more how god wants to present himself to humans. Better, how humans want to understand god. (although I am not sure why they can't conceptualize god as one person or as something else)

It might not be contrary to reason to say "I believe in the Trinity, but I don't understand it completely" or to say "I believe in the Trinity and can make a rational plausible argument as to why I believe this". Neither of those statements prove that the god = three persons argument is true, only that they have a rational argument on their side.

An argument, yes. Rational, I don't think so.

That is why Constantine had to force the vote his way with threats of death.

Regards
DL

Fortunately, in free countries today, freedom from religion is an option. There is a long way to go and atheists.org is fighting to protect freedom in the US, which makes them de facto freedom fighters, in spite of what some may say to the contrary.

I applaud those who fight for freedom from religions.

If the good people would all step up and live by the Golden Rule, religions would disappear.

For evil to grow and all that.

Regards
DL

[°Leprechaun]

I would like to point out that I don't have a problem as seeing God in three persons, if that is not 100% literal. It is a human interpretation of God, but that doesn't mean it is the way "god" sees "himself", but more how god wants to present himself to humans. Better, how humans want to understand god. (although I am not sure why they can't conceptualize god as one person or as something else)

It might not be contrary to reason to say "I believe in the Trinity, but I don't understand it completely" or to say "I believe in the Trinity and can make a rational plausible argument as to why I believe this". Neither of those statements prove that the god = three persons argument is true, only that they have a rational argument on their side.

An argument, yes. Rational, I don't think so.

That is why Constantine had to force the vote his way with threats of death.

Regards
DL

Fortunately, in free countries today, freedom from religion is an option. There is a long way to go and atheists.org is fighting to protect freedom in the US, which makes them de facto freedom fighters, in spite of what some may say to the contrary.

I applaud those who fight for freedom from religions.

If the good people would all step up and live by the Golden Rule, religions would disappear.

For evil to grow and all that.

Regards
DL

The trouble with the Golden Rule, is that people all too often assume what they want is what others want which obviously is not the case, but I agree with the sentiment nonetheless.
Putting it in context (verse 12):
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Also, those who think that narrow dogma is what verse 13 is about are taking it out of context (or so it would appear)
Overall it's a good chapter, and, I admit, I haven't the entire Bible, although I do know a lot about it. I don't think that I need to read the entire Bible to get the gist of what it's all about, and one doesn't need that kind of comprehensive knowledge because the devil is in the details.