Trinity diagram

[Trinity]

Hello nrajeff,

Originally Posted by nrajeff

So you believe that God is unable to procreate, and it's His eternal fate that the only children He will ever have must be merely by adoption? I thought you believed that God is omnipotent.

I have the power to kill a mosquito but I would not kill you for this reason. That does not means that God wants to do anything.

Trinity

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hello nrajeff,
I have the power to kill a mosquito but I would not kill you for this reason. That does not means that God wants to do anything. Trinity

--Well, on behalf of myself and all other Internet-capable mosquitoes, I thank you for letting us live when you could so easily kill us....

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--Well, on behalf of myself and all other Internet-capable mosquitoes, I thank you for letting us live when you could so easily kill us....

You missed my point. I do not know if you have missed it voluntary or accidently. God knows. Let me try again. God is omnipotent, and for this reason, he could be much more evil than Satan. However, he is making moral choices. To ***ume that God can do anything without discernment is wrong. We should not presume that God will do anything just because he can do it.

I hope I am more understandable.

Trinity

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Trinity

You missed my point. I do not know if you have missed it voluntary or accidently. God knows. Let me try again. God is omnipotent, and for this reason, he could be much more evil than Satan. However, he is making moral choices. To ***ume that God can do anything without discernment is wrong. We should not presume that God will do anything just because he can do it.

I hope I am more understandable.

Trinity

There are some things that God simply cannot do.

God is incapable of sin, wrong, tresp***, indiscretion, mistake, etc.

God cannot go against his own holiness. God cannot, by nature, be anything other than holy righteous. God doesn't make "moral choices." God is, by definition, completely moral and can be nothing else

complètement impossible

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Russ

There are some things that God simply cannot do.

God is incapable of sin, wrong, tresp***, indiscretion, mistake, etc.

God cannot go against his own holiness. God cannot, by nature, be anything other than holy righteous. God doesn't make "moral choices." God is, by definition, completely moral and can be nothing else

complètement impossible

He created beings capable to do evil ( Lucifer + demons + the humankind + animals + and perhaps other creatures that I have no clue on it). That means he was not tricked by Lucifer. That was a moral choice. That was the choice of God. He knew that evil would have existed throughout his creatures or creation. Now, the issue is more a question of theodicy than of omnipotence or omniscience.

Trinity

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Trinity

He created beings capable to do evil ( Lucifer + demons + the humankind + animals + and perhaps other creatures that I have no clue on it). That means he was not tricked by Lucifer. That was a moral choice. That was the choice of God. He knew that evil would have existed throughout his creatures or creation. Now, the issue is more a question of theodicy than of omnipotence or omniscience.

Trinity

Indeed the problem of evil has intrigued the minds of mankind since the days of Adam. Who's fault is it? It's evil's fault, nothing more.

I posit that God is unable to tricked at all. His choice is only, by nature, to be 100% holy righteous and unable to be swindled by choice, reason or by any other means. I also posit that God's holy nature prevents him from having to make any moral decisions at all due to his inability to conceive of sin in any form.

God, being perfect, omniscient and omnipotent can do no other than tie himself to his holy nature. It's no mere choice. It's just who He is; how things have been, and how things will always be.

[Trinity]

Hi Russ,

Originally Posted by Russ

Indeed the problem of evil has intrigued the minds of mankind since the days of Adam. Who's fault is it? It's evil's fault, nothing more.

I posit that God is unable to tricked at all. His choice is only, by nature, to be 100% holy righteous and unable to be swindled by choice, reason or by any other means. I also posit that God's holy nature prevents him from having to make any moral decisions at all due to his inability to conceive of sin in any form.

God, being perfect, omniscient and omnipotent can do no other than tie himself to his holy nature. It's no mere choice. It's just who He is; how things have been, and how things will always be.

I understand that God is holy, perfect and pure. However, concerning his omnipotence this is a circular reasoning. Can God create a rock he cannot lifted? The answer is yes. He can do anything that he wants. God has willingly created beings that turned to the evil side. He was not ignorant that angels and men would have failed. That was not a guessing. He knew everything before anything has happened. He knew that Lucifer would have rebelled and he knew that the humankind would have been a failure. He chose to let things go that way.

Trinity

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Trinity

Hi Russ,



I understand that God is holy, perfect and pure. However, concerning his omnipotence this is a circular reasoning. Can God create a rock he cannot lifted? The answer is yes. He can do anything that he wants. God has willingly created beings that turned to the evil side. He was not ignorant that angels and men would have failed. That was not a guessing. He knew everything before anything has happened. He knew that Lucifer would have rebelled and he knew that the humankind would have been a failure. He chose to let things go that way.

Trinity

Of course God knows the outcome of all things. That's not the question, mon frere. The question is: Can God do something contrary to his nature?

He cannot.

He does not make moral choices. His nature prevents him from being tempted in the slightest. Does God have to stop and think about which way to go? Does God have to make a decision about morality? Never. He is the author of it.

[Pro-Truth]

Russ brings up a point that is absolutely critical regarding the nature of God. God is literally incapable of sin. God is the very definition of "Holy"; therefore, He is literally incapable of sin.

Now, God did create those that have chosen to go against Him and His holiness: I am one of them. I am a pathetic sinner completely unworthy of Him in every single way; however, He loves me and Christ has made me justified before God by His blood. Christ's blood completely covers my sinful nature; therefore, justifying me before God.

I am a born again Christian because I am a pathetically weak sinner - not even qualified to be algae stuck on the side of a goldfish fish tank. I'm not a born again Christian because I am worthy to God. I'm worthy because of the blood of Christ - and only because of Him will I live in God's eternal Kingdom forever.

[nrajeff]

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, was Jesus able to give in to those temptations had He wanted to? Was He literally unable to give in to them?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, was Jesus able to give in to those temptations had He wanted to? Was He literally unable to give in to them?

Jesus was completely incapable of giving over to Satan.

Every time, he said, "Get behind me, Satan."

Every time, he said, "It is WRITTEN."

You can't do that.

Neither can I.

That's why Jesus is God. Not "a" god. Not "another" god.

God.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Russ

Jesus was completely incapable of giving over to Satan.

--If Jesus lacked the ability to give in to temptations, then it diminishes the significance of His resisting them. It takes much more self-control and strength of character to have the ability to sin but to refrain from sinning. A Jesus who was unable to sin is a Jesus without free will.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--If Jesus lacked the ability to give in to temptations, then it diminishes the significance of His resisting them. It takes much more self-control and strength of character to have the ability to sin but to refrain from sinning. A Jesus who was unable to sin is a Jesus without free will.

When Jesus was being tempted, we must keep in mind that He was 100% man and 100% God. Jesus literally had two natures.

Jesus was literally unable to sin because He's God.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

When Jesus was being tempted, we must keep in mind that He was 100% man and 100% God. Jesus literally had two natures.

Jesus was literally unable to sin because He's God.

Bingo.

Jesus Christ didn't "progress" his way to Godhood, Jeff, as Mormonism would have us believe. He didn't have to make "choices" along the way to "remain worthy." Sure, he walked on earth and experienced pain and hunger, but he in no way had to think, "Hmmm. Satan's got a pretty good offer there. Should I or shouldn't I? To be or not to be? That is the question."

There was never any question and there was never any doubt.

Jesus is God and he literally has two natures. Man and God. The God man. And that ain't you, bubaloo. And it sure isn't me.

Where you and I are creation and prone to sin, Jesus, being God, is unable to sin.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

When Jesus was being tempted, we must keep in mind that He was 100% man and 100% God. Jesus literally had two natures.

---Bingo.

Jesus was literally unable to sin because He's God.

--Yet He was ABLE to sin, because He is also human. (100% human, in fact) Right?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Bingo.



--Yet He was ABLE to sin, because He is also human. (100% human, in fact) Right?

Nope.

He's God, Jeff.

He was not born with a sin nature, like humans.

His human condition was limited, in that good way.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Russ

His human condition was limited, in that good way.

---Limited human-ness? So to you, Jesus is not 100% human? Plus, you used the past tense "was limited," so now it's unlimited? So now Jesus is able to sin if He wanted to, but previously, when His condition was limited, He wasn't able to?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Russ

Nope.

He's God, Jeff.

He was not born with a sin nature, like humans.

His human condition was limited, in that good way.

I would maintain that Jesus has the ability to choose. But, being the Son of God, he will (and did) always choose righteousness.

How else could he understand what we face in temptation and the weakness of the flesh if he was totally inoculated from feeling what we feel?

Heb. 2: 18.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb. 4: 15.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

I would maintain that Jesus has the ability to choose. But, being the Son of God, he will (and did) always choose righteousness.

How else could he understand what we face in temptation and the weakness of the flesh if he was totally inoculated from feeling what we feel?

Heb. 2: 18.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb. 4: 15.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

As a person, Jesus experienced what we experience. Hunger, loneliness, pain. He could relate. He knew what it was to experience what humans experience. Through all of that, however, there was never any doubt in his mind to simply say no.

The LDS religion is foolish to proclaim that Jesus was a person who became God, rather "a" god" or "another God," by choice of agency. Jesus is God.

No sin was found in him. Nor will there ever be.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Russ

Through all of that, however, there was never any doubt in his mind to simply say no.

How we should understand this p***age if Jesus had no doubts?

Hebrews 5:7
...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,...

That is not reflecting a man without doubts and distress.

Trinity

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Trinity

How we should understand this p***age if Jesus had no doubts?

Hebrews 5:7
...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,...

That is not reflecting a man without doubts and distress.

Trinity

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me

MacG

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by MacG

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me

MacG

Good post. Very interesting comment.

Trinity

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by MacG

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me

MacG

I enjoyed this post. Thankyou. I agree; if Christ had no ability to choose, it would lessen the victory of His sacrifice greatly; and give me no reason to think that He can relate to me or my trials at all.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Russ

The LDS religion is foolish to proclaim that Jesus was a person who became God, rather "a" god" or "another God," by choice of agency.

That's because you don't understand who Jesus is and that He has a Father.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, was Jesus able to give in to those temptations had He wanted to?

Unless the temptation is real, then the victory over temptation is a moot point.