Jesus was made flesh so he could suffer with humans. But, of course, the holy trinity means he's got one foot on both camps.
Lies make Baby Jesus cry. He's more sensitive than most of us - but not as susceptible to dehydration.
If Jesus was God - and the Trinity idea says that he was - then if Jesus suffered then a God suffered. All indications appear to be that Jesus suffered. So...
All the old gods - long before Jesus - could, and often did. They smote one another, wrestled with monsters, punished their delinquent members, fell in unrequited love and got their hearts broken; got slapped around by jealous wives, volunteered or were conscripted as sacrifice by and for humans. The idea of Jesus is to be the last god we even need to sacrifice. Don't mean we stopped sacrificing everyone and everything else.
There is no "undo" on sin. No expiry date, no statute of limitation. Crime can be expiated through punishment or restitution in egalitarian human law; in a monarchy, it can be expunged by royal decree (change in the law) or pardon (letting a specific criminal off the prescribed punishment). Sin can only be forgiven by the god who forbade that act in the first place. Pleading, bribery, cajolery, self-abasement and self-castigation are the methods whereby such forgiveness is sought. The sacrifice of a valuable sinless creature - bird, animal, child, young adult, captured enemy or demigod - is one form of divine bribery.
Serious question: What do Old/New Testament believers think about Roman and Greek Gods? Surely the idea of the gods of Roman and Greek mythology are seen as fiction? In fact, isn't the OP an oxymoron? If one grants that Christ is the son of God, that goes hand-in-hand with their being only the one true God. So, how can one ask about "a" God - as opposed to "the" God?
Not to mention Aztec, Inca, Mayan, the several North American divine(ish) families, the Chinese, Japanese, Indian, multitude of African, Indonesian; the pagan gods of Celtic, Nordic and Frankish Europe; the wild nomadic deities of the Russian and Mongolian highlands .... and the ancestors of their own deity: the Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian pantheons. Mostly, they don't know. What they have been given is Hollywood caricatures, not an accurate picture. Why? He's the son of the god of the Israel - a very small noise by global standards. A lot of other gods had children, some full deities, more half-human. Legitimately.
Because the OP grants that Jesus is (some appendage of) God. Therefore the OP adheres to the One True God tenet. So why would the OP then ask about whether "a" God can suffer - as opposed to simply "God"? Why would the OP ask whether fake gods can suffer? (Obviously, the OP is in a position to answer this, but still, the question is put out there.)
I think you're reading in all the Christian assertions. He did not state them. A single capital G does not necessarily posit that Christ is some part of a god, rather than a god in his own right. It does not explicitly preclude other gods, nor consider them fake, and does not deny the possibility that they, too, could have 'appendages' in the incarnate world. The only evident presumption is that Christ is a God.
A God could know everything, but not being in any real danger means the suffering has no real consequence. It's just a small piece of information in a sea of larger facts.
They are implicit - in the mention of God feeling Jesus' suffering. Jesus suffered and died on the cross. The only connection that could possibly have to the topic about God suffering is if Jesus really is, for the sake of the argument, a part of God. The same God that suffers no other gods. They are mutually-exclusive.
They are if you want them to be. That is, if you are familiar with the whole exclusively Christian interpretation of what s god is, and also take that as the given and only possible context. Trouble is, at least for me, in forums, that far too much is inferred that's not actually in the post. I'm not disputing their relationship. How? Not mentioning other gods by name doesn't exclude them from consideration. If I said: "Since Horus was injured and Osiris was murdered, I would have to conclude that a God can suffer." It would be valid, without excluding Jesus, Eros, Mithra or any other deity who might also suffer and die.
It would be valid because, in granting Horus and Osiris, one is also granting a pantheon of gods. Therefore, "a" god can suffer. To grant the God of Jesus, one grants all gods but one are false gods. It would be like my saying can a Jeeves play the piano? There is only one Jeeves. I ask Can Jeeves play the piano. Likewise, can God suffer. I'm not implying its a grammar issue. I'm implying it makes no sense to talk about you, Jeeves, as if there is some general form of Jeeves' I can ask about.
If you accept the Christian context as the only possible one. I don't. They have arrogated the word "god" to their own, and substitute it for his proper name as if the word applied to no others - which is ironic, given that the god in question did not share that view: in what are purported to be his own books, he is frequently quoted referring to other gods. God is a proper noun only in the way that Father is a proper noun - to those who address one special person by that title. In fact, I usually refer to that specific god by the names in his book: some version of Jehovah. That's his name, which refers to nobody else; god is his occupation, which is shared by many. I am aware that his agents/handlers/shareholders have beaten the advocates of many - not all! - other gods into subservience, and have promoted him to monarch of the universe, partly by cannibalizing other supernatural beings, mostly by laying claim to an ever-expanding world in his name, much as they laid claim to other people's lands in the names of their kings. But I do not accept their claim to exclusivity. The analogue would be more like: Since Jeeves Jr. is the lounge regaling patrons with show tunes, I'd have to conclude that a Butler can play the piano.
