kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (05/26/91)
Hi Dave: Thanks for sending me that interesting book report. One comment I would like to make. You quoted Ezek 28:15 which says Lucifer was "perfect in your ways". It does not say Lucifer was perfect which was your conclusion. Perfect, if I understand the word, carries with it the notion that there is nothing (*nothing*) wrong. No weakness that can be exploited. Webster's says "being entirely without fault or defect". I agree that Jesus was tempted, and he felt what temptation was like. But I don't believe he could have sinned. To conclude Jesus could have sinned (such a conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that God can violate His nature which is inherently, perfectly holy. To conclude Jesus could have sinned (again, that conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that he was born of a "corruptable seed". He was not. He was born of an incorruptable seed. Jesus did not inherit original sin because it was the Holy Spirit that implanted the seed. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (05/27/91)
In <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >I agree that Jesus was tempted, and he felt what temptation was like. But >I don't believe he could have sinned. Certainly he _could_ have, he just didn't. > To conclude Jesus could have sinned >(such a conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that God can violate ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >His nature which is inherently, perfectly holy. That depends on how you read it. Keep in mind that, while not born under original sin, Jesus was still a human being with a free will. His decision to carry out the Father's will was a free decision: Jesus had a choice. To say that he _couldn't_ have sinned implies, to me anyway, that he had no choice in the matter. Such a conclusion would make his ministry and death meaningless. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "could," but I think a more precise way of stating the situation is that Jesus could have sinned, but choose not to. Ray lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu [Right. This may largely have to do with what is meant by "could". Can God do evil? The usual answer is yes, in the sense that he is free to, but no, in the sense that it would contradict his goodness. --clh]
dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) (05/27/91)
In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu>, bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: [a few lines deleted] > I agree that Jesus was tempted, and he felt what temptation was like. But > I don't believe he could have sinned. To conclude Jesus could have sinned > (such a conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that God can violate > His nature which is inherently, perfectly holy. To conclude Jesus could > have sinned (again, that conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude > that he was born of a "corruptable seed". He was not. He was born of > an incorruptable seed. Jesus did not inherit original sin because it was > the Holy Spirit that implanted the seed. This is a question which I have certainly puzzled over on many occasions: I've always puzzled over the temptation narrative with the question "What was Satan thinking? He KNEW who Jesus was, so why is he bothering?" It seems to me that Jesus as fully human _could_ have sinned but Jesus as fully God _would_ not. This to me seems the most likely way to harmonize the two natures. Thoughts? -dh Don Hosek dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu Quixote Digital Typography 714-625-0147
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (05/28/91)
Kenneth Kutz lists a number of reasons why he believes it was impossible for Jesus to sin. Even granting that Jesus did not inherit original sin, such a position leads to a number of troublesome conclusions. 1) If Jesus were unable to sin, He would be the only human for whom this was impossible. Even Adam and Eve, created sinless at the beginning, had the capacity to sin. If Jesus were unable to sin, it would further mean that He had no free will. (If you believe nobody has free will disregard this point). Nevertheless, this would have made Christ's life on earth significantly different from our own. 2) A view of Christ as unable to sin suggests that the sole difference between Christ's holy life and our unholy life is the way we were born. He was holy because He was born that way, we're not because we weren't. In such a view the power of God who kept Christ and us from falling is reduced to nothing, and Christian overcoming seems impossible for us. 3) If Christ were unable to sin, then the whole exercise of His life and death was predetermined and therefore meaningless, since it involved no risk of failure. Giving a gift you know in advance you are going to get back is no gift at all. I must admit the idea that God cannot deny His own nature by sinning is a good idea and a strong argument in favor of the position that Christ could not sin. We know from scripture, for instance, that God cannot lie. But that position as stated fails to address the above concerns. I would be interested in hearing someone try to explain. Steve Timm [As usual, I'd like to point out that you have to be very careful about how you use terms like "cannot" and "unable". The normal meaning refers to physical ability or external constraint. In this sense it is clear that Jesus could sin -- I don't know of anyone who says he didn't have the capability of doing so. I think what is being claimed is something about his character, i.e. that his religious and moral character was such that one in a position to know him sufficiently well could have been sure that he was not going to sin. I don't see that this places any limits on his freedom. You're not very clear what you propose as an alternative. However I'm going to take a hint from your item 2, which suggests that what you object to is that the power of God is not being mentioned. Indeed I do see that danger. There is a possible problem with the concept of a Christ who is so perfect that he can't sin. The problem occurs if this perfection is seen as a static, a priori perfection -- as if the Deist watchmaker God created the perfect human, wound him up, and retired to his office to watch. But surely that isn't what people mean when they talk about Christ being unable to sin. Jesus is very clear that everything he has is a gift from God, and that he lives in continuous dependence on his Father. Thus any perfection he has is a reflection of his Father, present with Jesus throughout his life. But there is an equal danger if we refuse to see this perfection as being reflected in Jesus' character. While his perfection comes from his Father, surely it is reflected in Jesus' own character. Yes, his character continued to develop throughout his life, in dependence on God's grace. But if we don't see his actions as reflecting his character, then it seems to me we end up with a concept of Jesus being possessed by God and used without his will. So I would say that Jesus' sinlessness results from a character whose perfection reflects his Father's perfection. But this reflection is a result of God's presence with Jesus throughout his life, in a special way appropriate to his being the Christ. --clh]
ecuzq@warwick.ac.uk (Bruce Tseng) (05/30/91)
In article <May.26.23.21.06.1991.24717@athos.rutgers.edu> dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes: >It seems to me that Jesus as fully human >_could_ have sinned but Jesus as fully God _would_ not. Somebody asked the following question: Why didn't God create us with free will AND with enough power to resist all the temptation? Like Jesus, I believe that He could have sinned but everytime He resisted the temptation to sin. So why didn't God create us like that? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Tseng: ecuzq@uk.ac.warwick.cu | "If you don't want Department of Economics, | to be criticized, University of Warwick, | do nothing, say Coventry CV4 7AL, UK | nothing, be nothing! ------------------------------------------------------------------
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (05/30/91)
In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >I agree that Jesus was tempted, and he felt what temptation was like. But >I don't believe he could have sinned. To conclude Jesus could have sinned >(such a conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that God can violate >His nature which is inherently, perfectly holy. Just a practical note... if Jesus could not have sined (was not capable of sin), then to what degree COULD he have been tempted. Temptation relies on the "tempties" ability to give in to the temptation. If I have no legs, for instance, how could I be tempted to run across a field? I could not run, hence I could not be tempted to run. You seem to contratict yourself here somewhat... Jeff Lindborg
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/30/91)
In article <May.27.17.56.57.1991.9636@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes:
+
+1) If Jesus were unable to sin, He would be the only human for whom this
+was impossible. Even Adam and Eve, created sinless at the beginning,
There are 'related' questions such as 'If God is omnipotent then can
He create a stone so large He can't move?'. One answer is "Yes, but
chooses not to". I don't find that answer satisfying.
In the case of Jesus then, if he is God then can God sin in the
sense becoming separated from God? Hence the 'need' for the concept
of a two-god-in-one, or a three-god-in-one with the Holy Spirit. The
idea of monotheism forces the one-god, the three different entities
require the triad.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduJohn_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) (05/30/91)
In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: > You quoted Ezek 28:15 which says Lucifer was "perfect in your ways". It > does not say Lucifer was perfect which was your conclusion. Perfect, if > I understand the word, carries with it the notion that there is nothing > (*nothing*) wrong. No weakness that can be exploited. Webster's says > "being entirely without fault or defect". A major problem of exegesis is the inherent difficulty of translation. This translation may take the form of Hebrew or Greek to English (or French, etc.) or it may take the form of English to English. When using Webster's (any 20th century version), one is likely to discover that the generally accepted meaning is the primary meaning and in cheaper dictionaries, the only meaning. When able to go beyond the first definition one comes across meanings that aren't as well known or used. My Webster's New Collegiate starts with a different definition 1: Expert, proficient. 2a: is "being entirely without fault" but 2b: is "satisfying all requirements" a has a synonom of FLAWLESS while b is ACCURATE. 3 is "lacking in no essential detail, PURE." We see that even in 20th century usage FLAWLESS is not the only or even prime definition. But if we look backwards towards the time of the first English translations by Wycliffe and under King James, we find that perfect could have meant 3C: SAND or 4: MATURE or it could have meant 6A: CERTAIN or SURE, or 6B: CONTENT or SATISFIED. These definitions are quite outside out 20th century usage but may be closer in content to the Biblical meaning which is actually more in line with Rabbinic usage and even medieval Christian usage. Many of the mystics felt that one could reach perfection because perfection did not mean flawless, not becoming God, but rather living according to God, in contact with God. Definitions that seem to come closer to mature, certain or sure, and content or satisfied. The definition we started here with in Isaiah seems to be closer to "not lacking in essential characteristics" again not flawless but still within the range of meanings of perfect. John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (06/02/91)
In article <May.26.23.21.06.1991.24717@athos.rutgers.edu> dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes: >I've always puzzled over the temptation narrative with >the question "What was Satan thinking? He KNEW who Jesus was, so >why is he bothering?" One possible answer: Perhaps Satan is *not* "the devil." Satan, in the OT, appears to be pretty much God's District Attorney, looking for ways to convict humans for their sinful nature -- not to personally lead them into it. That, at least, is the impression I receive, esp. from Job. There is Satan. Then there is "Lucifer," who fell flaming; there is the Beast of the Apocalypse. Now, does anyone have any sensible proof that any two, let alone all three, of these are the same person? Failing that, let's concede Lucifer and the Beast, but leave Satan (which means "adversary," in the sense of debate) aside. Where else does his name show up as such? I don't have a good index, but I remember two other cases. One is the temptation of Christ: in which Satan is as much as anything else doing God's work. For Jesus to be wholly human he must be tempted; if Satan is the Devil and knows (as all the demons Jesus meets seem to know) who He is, then (as you observe) it would be a waste of time for him to try to tempt Him. If, contrariwise, he's serving God as the prosecutor of humans, then it's his job to prosecute *this* human, else this human is not fully human. The other is when Christ calls Peter Satan. For what? Not for doing anything evil, but for a suggestion Peter made out of love for his Master. Not that the suggestion was right (Peter's love was not perfect, nor was his understanding), but it was done in the spirit of service and love. Would Christ call anything done in that spirit "satanic" if Satan was the devil? Just some thoughts. Ah has spoke! -- Pansy Yokum The Roach [Consider Mark 3:23 and par., which talks about Satan as the prince of demons, and Satan's kingdom in a way that makes it sound like it opposes God's. I believe by NT times Satan was viewed as opposing humans not just because it is his job, but because he is genuinely hostile. "Get behind me Satan" need not be taken as accusing Peter of being Satan or even being possessed by Satan. If you assume that Satan was tempting Jesus, Peter is simply (unintentionally, no doubt) supporting Satan's argument. --clh]
rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) (06/03/91)
In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu>, bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: > > I agree that Jesus was tempted, and he felt what temptation was like. But > I don't believe he could have sinned. To conclude Jesus could have sinned > (such a conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that God can violate > His nature which is inherently, perfectly holy. To conclude Jesus could > have sinned (again, that conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude > that he was born of a "corruptable seed". He was not. He was born of > an incorruptable seed. Jesus did not inherit original sin because it was > the Holy Spirit that implanted the seed. > > > -- > Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu I think we have a real problem here, if Jesus could not have sinned. What are we to make of the Desert Campaign that the devil undertook at the end of the 40 day fast by Jesus ? He tempted Jesus with the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life -- same 3 tricks he used on Adam and Eve (in fact those are the only three he knows besides lying.) Now what you are postulating is that what happened in the Desert was a rigged game and that there were no real choices involved. I choose to believe a more kenotic Christology in that Jesus, the pre-existing Son in the Trinity, emptied Himself of the supernatural empowerments inherent in His position and lived his life as a man. He accomplished everything He did through the power of the Holy Spirit and did it under the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants. He bought us the privilige of living our life in that same power, the HS, thru the wonderful gift of Salvation and all that entails. Bobby - akgua!rjb
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (06/03/91)
Bruce Tseng asks the question "Why didn't God create us with both free will and the power to overcome temptation (as he did with Jesus)" At first glance it does seem that this power which Jesus had gave him an unfair advantage, and it is clear enough that He was made that way, we are not. I submit that we serve a God who is "able to keep us from falling, and present us faultless..." (Jude). God longs to give us the power to overcome. All we have to do is take it. Steve Timm
iwilliam@au.oracle.com (Ian Williams) (06/03/91)
Yes it is true Jesus was tempted.. In fact it is written that he was tempted in all ways so that we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathise with us.. To be tempted is no a sin..... to give into to temptation is the sin.... Job was tempted SORELY, but he did not Sin... Jesus was sinless right throught his life.... -- ----------------------+------------------------+-------------------------------- Ian Williams | Internet: | Usual stuff about my posts Adelaide, Australia | iwilliam@au.oracle.com | not being related to the <>< | | policies of my employer..
gowj@gatech.edu (James Gow) (06/03/91)
In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >Hi Dave: > >I agree that Jesus was tempted, and he felt what temptation was like. But >I don't believe he could have sinned. To conclude Jesus could have sinned >(such a conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude that God can violate >His nature which is inherently, perfectly holy. To conclude Jesus could >have sinned (again, that conclusion is not in Scripture) is to conclude >that he was born of a "corruptable seed". He was not. He was born of >an incorruptable seed. Jesus did not inherit original sin because it was >the Holy Spirit that implanted the seed. If you believe in the inerrancy of scriputure then you believe Jesus did not sin see ref: Hebrews 4:15 "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." 1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." To conclude that Jesus sinned is only ot entertain the errancy of scripture. linc james
dewhitr@mist.cs.orst.edu (deWhitt Robin James) (06/03/91)
In article <May.30.00.11.23.1991.13710@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >In article <May.27.17.56.57.1991.9636@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >+ >+1) If Jesus were unable to sin, He would be the only human for whom this >+was impossible. Even Adam and Eve, created sinless at the beginning, > >There are 'related' questions such as 'If God is omnipotent then can >He create a stone so large He can't move?'. One answer is "Yes, but >chooses not to". I don't find that answer satisfying. > >In the case of Jesus then, if he is God then can God sin in the >sense becoming separated from God? Hence the 'need' for the concept >of a two-god-in-one, or a three-god-in-one with the Holy Spirit. The >idea of monotheism forces the one-god, the three different entities >require the triad. >-- Re: "Separation" of the 3 entities (for lack of a better term) of the Trinity, and the question of whether or not Christ could have sinned (and consequently become "separated from God:") why, on the cross, did Christ say "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 26:46.) Also, explain why Christ prays, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39 and 26:42.) I am quite annoyed with the fact that the many of the people who have debated this issue have been pontificting from their own non-scriptural philosophies, not once looking into scripture for the answer. Check out 2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us," Hebrews 2:14 "Since the children have flesh and blood, he (Christ) too shared in their humanity," 4:15 "...but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are, but was without sin," 2:18, "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted," Romans 8:3 "...God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man...," and, the grandest mystery of all, John 1:14 "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." Clearly, for the sacrifice to be meaningful, Jesus was fully human. The gift is in his sacrifice, meaningful because he did not fall to temptation. His "ability" to sin lies in his humanity, as he was fully human, as seen in Heb. 2:14. Jesus is called "man" in I Timothy 2:5. All other metaphysical questions are irrelevant, and arguments over it are useless (Titus 3:9.) Jesus, the Son of God, became man, resisting all temptation, and became a pure and blameless sacrifice for our own iniquities. Pray for wisdom and understanding, and rely not own your own strength of discernment, but rather that of the Spirit. Ryan Hare (using dewhitr@mist.cs.orst.edu)
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (06/04/91)
In the book of Revelation, we are told that Satan is the Devil, and that he will be cast into the pit. About Peter's rebuke, for one thing, Peter rebuked Jesus. He shouldn't have done that. Jesus told him "thou savorest not the things that be of GOd, but those that be of men." In matthew, this is recorded right after Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. Maybe Peter was feeling a little too important because he felt that he could rebuke the Lord. Link Hudson.
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (06/07/91)
In article <May.29.23.58.53.1991.11533@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: > Just a practical note... if Jesus could not have sined (was not capable of > sin), then to what degree COULD he have been tempted. Temptation relies > on the "tempties" ability to give in to the temptation. I humbly disagree with this statement. The bigger question to "could Jesus have sinned?" is "can God violate his very nature"? We all agree that God does not change: HEB 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever What is it that God does not change from? Answer: Holiness It seems to me that the number one objection to the stance "Jesus could not have sinned" is that this would mean there must have been no temptation. I ask the question of the group, can temptation occur when the inevitable result is not to give in to it? I believe the answer is yes. What is it in the defintion of the word tempt that requires that the temptee give in? Here is the definition from Webster's: tempt \'tem(p)t\ \'tem(p)-t*-b*l\ vt [ME tempten, fr. OF tempter, tenter, fr. L temptare, Xtentare to feel, try, tempt; akin to L tendere to stretch - more at THIN 1: to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain : allure into evil : SEDUCE obs 2a: to make trial of : TEST 2b: to try presumptuously : PROVOKE 2c: to risk the dangers of 3: to induce to do something : INCITE, PERSUADE - tempt.able aj His nature (holiness) won out over the "enticement to do wrong". Was Jesus "wired for perfection" as some have put it? The Bible tells us "yes" in Hebrews 13:8 (quoted above). Was he tempted in all ways, just as we are? HEB 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelin g of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Yes He was. The Holy Spirit never tells us Jesus could have sinned. This is a conclusion some men and women have come to because of the word tempt. We must be very careful when we make conclusion that the Bible does not teach, especially when those conclusions are in direct contradiction to God's immutable nature. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
kk00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kathleen P. Kowalski) (06/10/91)
In response to your question about why God didn't create us without the ability to sin, it is my own opinion that he chose not to do that because he wanted us to have a choice. He didn't want us to love him because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. Kay
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (06/11/91)
In article <Jun.9.14.44.57.1991.25105@athos.rutgers.edu> kk00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kathleen P. Kowalski) writes: >In response to your question about why God didn't create us without the >ability to sin, it is my own opinion that he chose not to do that >because he wanted us to have a choice. He didn't want us to love him >because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I >personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. so instead of not giving us a choice to love him, he gives us the ever-popular "love me or else" concept. Oh so much better to be sure. Is love derived of fear of punishment any better than love that is forced? You are still left with a petty, spiteful, God who seems more bent on revenge and hatred than anything else... Jeff Lindborg "He who thinks but does not learn is in trouble. He who learns but does no think is lost." -Confucius
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (06/12/91)
In article <Jun.10.23.32.21.1991.1270@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >so instead of not giving us a choice to love him, he gives us the >ever-popular "love me or else" concept. Oh so much better to be >sure. Is love derived of fear of punishment any better than love >that is forced? >You are still left with a petty, spiteful, God who seems more bent >on revenge and hatred than anything else... You know, I heard that argument from my eight-year-old daughter (though without the pejorative terminology) last week. It springs from an extreme misconception about "Heaven" and "Hell." Given: that God is the source of all goodness (a Christian given): Then "Heaven" == the state of being with or becoming arbitrarily close to God (having as much of good as it is possible for that creature to have); and "Hell" == the state of being utterly without or becoming arbitrarily far from God (having as little of good as it is possible for that creature to have). God, then, out of love for Their creatures, allows them to decide whether to approach Them or turn away from Them. God *will* *not* force Themself (yes, yes, I realize what an awkward construction that is) upon an unwilling creature. God makes every effort to woo, cajole, even sometimes bribe creatures to turn towards Them (which, at least in some interpretations, does not automatically equate to "worship" or "become a Christian"); but if utterly rejected, then They will allow the creature to go their own way. That is Hell; and the worst thing about it is that they think it is the best thing available to them. Forget all the nonsense about brimstone and fires-that-burn-forever-but-don't-consume-or-shed-light. Look into C.S. Lewis's THE GREAT DIVORCE; its first chapter or so is the best (allegorical) description of what Hell is really about ever written. In my opinion, of course. He asks "How does it feel to be such a freak?" And he laughs as he hands you a bone, Yes, something is happening here And you don't know what it is Do you, Mr. Jones? -- Bob Dylan The Roach
hassell@news.colorado.edu (Christopher Hassell) (06/14/91)
bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: [] In article <May.29.23.58.53.1991.11533@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: [] > In article <May.26.01.19.35.1991.13115@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: [] > Just a practical note... if Jesus could not have sined (was not capable of [] > sin), then to what degree COULD he have been tempted. Temptation relies [] > on the "tempties" ability to give in to the temptation. ....... [] It seems to me that the number one objection to the stance "Jesus could [] not have sinned" is that this would mean there must have been no [] temptation. I ask the question of the group, can temptation occur when [] the inevitable result is not to give in to it? I believe the answer is [] yes. I agree, but wanted to hit on it from a different angle. [] What is it in the defintion of the word tempt that requires that the [] temptee give in? Here is the definition from Webster's: .... Essentially what I think the subject revolves around is that there is a way which the Lord God is and always will be, and there is the unpredictability we have for ourselves. When Jesus came down to earth to become the pure and yet human sacrifice, he mixed those two things... specifically because they CAN be mixed with Him. In essense.. its sorta like the old stupid debate on Pre-destination. From one angle.. there is the foreknowledge-of-how-things-will-be (the view God has), and from another angle, there is the unpredictability-and-chosen-striving. Jesus strove and pushed and worked hard on this earth, even in being tempted. Because the Logical result was already likely (given if someone KNEW what Yahweh was up to in Jesus :-), it still DOESN'T mean anyone affected how he did it or could FORCE him to sin. In essence.. no one knew he would be sinless and they weren't supposed to know, because they were supposed to watch a man BE sinless.... (also their savior) ...... challenge his presupposed ability to! The question, again, is one of what is RIGHT and predictable through knowledge of God, and two of what is human and requires work and choice given for good! [] His nature (holiness) won out over the "enticement to do wrong". Was Jesus [] "wired for perfection" as some have put it? The Bible tells us "yes" in [] Hebrews 13:8 (quoted above). Was he tempted in all ways, just as we are? The wiring is the question. Only Humans worry consistantly about re-doing things with different artificial circumstances. In truth, God HIMSELF had/has only one state possible for the world and for all points in history. Humans specifically muse what could be done if things were varied! Good thing God designed this world and knew its future even given our freedom of will! His restriction of himself is what let us be sinful, so he put His Son on this earth to do everything even with that same freedom of will and yet did so as God expresses Himself when He is free himself to do so. (if God COULD merely express himself freely and totally, we would be non-existant as a patch of dark next to a supernova) [] -- [] Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu [] Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY [] University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz [] Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 -- If you are getting mail from me, my apologies for confusiong you ############## ### C>H> ### boulder.colorado.edu!tramp!hassell #### "Nietzche is dead." - God
hassell@news.colorado.edu (Christopher Hassell) (06/14/91)
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: [] In article <Jun.9.14.44.57.1991.25105@athos.rutgers.edu> kk00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kathleen P. Kowalski) writes: [] >In response to your question about why God didn't create us without the [] >ability to sin, it is my own opinion that he chose not to do that [] >because he wanted us to have a choice. He didn't want us to love him [] >because there was no other choice, but because we wanted to. I [] >personally don't think that love that is forced is worth much. [] so instead of not giving us a choice to love him, he gives us the [] ever-popular "love me or else" concept. Oh so much better to be [] sure. Is love derived of fear of punishment any better than love [] that is forced? Something tells me you are left with a popular view of today's culture: We'd be fine if God came and fixed us. or even better We'd be fine if God just made our lives easy! [] You are still left with a petty, spiteful, God who seems more bent [] on revenge and hatred than anything else... You have a quick keyboard with those adjectives. Love me or else occurs only in a world with a totally nondescript person, and a bully with no morals in his/her mind. It is the nondescript person you have left too nondescript. Unless someone is blind, they should be able to see the world for what it is now: full of many people who have distinctly "unloving" views and attitudes towards other people, toward themselves sometimes, and even any ideals at all! The understanding of Original Sin is pretty straightforward: Give one rattle to a pair of babies, unless one has an anti-rattle bias, the one who gets it will be "happier" and disinterested in the one who wants it, who is deprived and alone and who usually knows it to the tune of crying. Even at that age, the scarcity of our own compassion, because of ignorance as WELL as greed is what original sin is about. (a rattle is a rattle you know.. even if made by money :-) In children, it has not flourished and blossomed as we know from the potential we see so often in children. They learn quickly that we use it and even require it of new folk, in order to respect them (sin that is). Children are actually quite mystified when they see another child crying, because they want to know what it is that divides the others sadness from them. That is the curse that we ourselves have in original sin itself. Original sin, in this case, implies that you are NOT just another person to whom God says "Love me or be dead!". You are someone who is basically cold and dead already by his more precise and unbiased measure of sin (as all of us are dead in sin) to whom God says "Love me as I love you and do live!". Much is NOT said about what happens to those who do not follow Christ, but it is only from those people that Hell is applied to (a rich man is the specific example) and Jesus himself speaks of how someone has "crossed from death to life" if they follow him. We presume easily that he spoke of more than just the Isrealites. You see, it is NOT a complete fantasy when Christians talk about the "ways of the world". You, again, have introduced God into a world with "detached" humans with no needs and no problems. I pose that you yourself are highly interrelated to God in every thing you do and don't do.. and that detaching yourself as if you are "harassed by this God fellow" is merely a common and passively arrogant view that you don't need God nor his love of YOU. (not even vice versa as I might guess). When I speak personally, please note that it is to anyone who would take issue with the above, and not to the one courageous soul who wrote the first letter. [] Jeff Lindborg [] "He who thinks but does not learn is in trouble. [] He who learns but does not think is lost." [] -Confucius Here's a neat verse: Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 (where else?) "When I applied my mind to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on earth, how neither day nor night One's eyes see sleep; then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out; even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out." Such is the ultimate of thinking and learning both, though much may be known and many many good things are said in Ecc. about wise men. -- If you are getting mail from me, my apologies for confusiong you ############## ### C>H> ### boulder.colorado.edu!tramp!hassell #### "Nietzche is dead." - God
kk00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kathleen P. Kowalski) (06/14/91)
I tend to disagree with your characterization of God as "Petty, spiteful and bent on revenge". In my opinion, he has been more than patient and kind, even though we don't deserve that kindness. It was we who offended God, not he who offended us. Kay
SEANNA@bnr.ca (S.M.) (07/01/91)
I recently explored this question with a group of friends in an
informal bible study. We were agreed that it was impossible for
Jesus, being God, to sin. On the other hand, we felt that if He
*knew* that He would not sin, then it was not a true temptation,
or at least not in the same way we face temptation (contrary to
Heb 4:15).
We had previously discussed the possiblity that Jesus could have
given up powers of deity while still retaining characteristics of
deity (Phil 2), and decided that Jesus was not omniscient, based
on His own admissions of ignorance ("who touched me?" (Mark 5:30);
"no one knows about that day or hour, not even...the Son"
(Matt. 24:36)). We ended up concluding that although it was
impossible for Jesus to sin, He (Jesus as man) did not know that
it was impossible. Therefore, from Jesus' point of view, despite
the fact that the outcome was assured, He really was truly tempted,
not only by Satan in the wilderness, but presumably in other incidents
throughout His life.
--
Seanna Watson Bell-Northern Research,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Opinions, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.
I knew I'd left them somewhere.