Originally posted by NemesioThe test--- the charge, if you will--- was that any creature would choose against God, given the opportunity. Opportunity given, man chose against God. However, after so doing, man accepted God's salvation plan.
The original test had to afford the opportunity, and it obviously did just that thing.
The rejoining test, with the second Man, was to prove that the creature can obey God and follow His plan. No salvation was necessary for the second Man, as He lived the life completely without sin. Part of the test, however, demanded that the life must be lived by the Man, not by God. This the Lord Jesus Christ did, utilizing the power of the Holy Spirit, available to each and every believer without restraint. Not once did the Deity of Christ take over. Instead, for the 33+ years of human experience, the humanity of Jesus relied on that power from the Holy Spirit.
His Diety was not able to sin (as creator, being above good and evil, sin is not possible). His humanity was able to sin, but He never commited even one sin, not because He was shielded from temptation. In fact, He was tempted in ways that make ours look like probiscus-less mosquitoes. Able to sin, but did not sin.
The sin nature was passed down in God's matchless grace, in order to allow man to be saved. 'Dying, you shall die,' as it was said prior to the fall to Adam, spoke of that spiritual death he experienced immediately upon trespass of God's one mandate in the garden. He did not die physically, until sometime later. Adam cut man off from God, until such time as the salvation plan was complete. All those believers who died from Adam to Christ looked forward to that completion. From Christ onward, we look back on the same.
Without a spirit, man can have no relation with God, as there is no compatibility. Part of God's salvation plan was to allow human history to be perpetuated, in a dichotomous state, in anticipation of the saving work of Jesus Christ, second Person of the Trinity, on the cross.
The first test was conceded to Satan, thus he became ruler of this world. The second test has been won by God, as seen in the life lived by Jesus Christ, in addition to the fact that man has accepted the salvation plan of God.
The sins of the father, as you refer, are not applied as you suggest. The sin nature has been passed down; it's manifestation is different for every person. There are similarities in the 'bents' from one generation to another, but at any time, that generational curse can be broken by any within the relational chain.
Originally posted by DragonFriendIn the following verses Jesus tells us that we will one day be like him. This is the ultimate goal of Christianity as I understand it. My question was why didn’t God make us like Jesus from the start?
[b]My question is, why didn’t God make us like Jesus from the beginning, so that we have the ability to choose, but the desire to always choose to do the right thing?
Don't forget, while Jesus was fully human, He was also fully God. Therefore He understood the full picture of heaven and hell.
Imagine, if you will, that somebody has your child he ...[text shortened]... tion behind the choice to be good. Jesus' was move motivated to be good than we are.
DF[/b]
Matt 10:24-25 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his Lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his Lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household.
Matt 5:48 Be yee therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Originally posted by DragonFriend
Look at it from God's point of view. Some people will be good and they will end up sharing in God's love. Some people will be bad they will end up destroyed. In the end, God will get exactly what He wanted, people to share His love with.
I also have a question concerning this statement that you made. If we are to believe that God loves each one of us dearly, then how could God be getting “exactly what he wants” as you put it if a portion of us are destroyed in hell?
If God loves us dearly, then he wants us to be with him in Heaven. Do you want those that you love to wind up in hell?
Originally posted by DragonFriend
Don't forget, while Jesus was fully human, He was also fully God.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that Jesus was one with God? Jesus never really says that he is God, and he frequently makes the distinction between God and himself. A wave is one with the ocean, but a wave is not the ocean.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you seriously believe this convoluted, nonsensical rubbish? Why would the Almighty Creator of the universe go through such a complicated scheme to accomplish something that's preordained from Day One (or pre-Day One I guess)? Don't you see that the whole thing is something we could expect Man to think up i.e. that's he's the most important thing in the Universe except for his super powerful Big Daddy?
The test--- the charge, if you will--- was that any creature would choose against God, given the opportunity. Opportunity given, man chose against God. However, after so doing, man accepted God's salvation plan.
The original test had to afford the opportunity, and it obviously did just that thing.
The rejoining test, with the second Man, was t ...[text shortened]... at any time, that generational curse can be broken by any within the relational chain.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSounds like your God is an idiot, if in His omniscience and omnipotence couldn't
The test--- the charge, if you will--- was that any creature would choose against God, given the opportunity. Opportunity given, man chose against God. However, after so doing, man accepted God's salvation plan.
make a creation smart enough to choose Him over evil, given the obvious consequences.
Why would God make creatures that would choose against Him? What could possibly
be the reason for this, a creation which He calls 'good?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, we know that St John is the product of later theology, but let's pretend it's
[b]Jesus never really says that he is God
John 10:30:
"I and the Father are one."
Among other many verses and passages.[/b]
not. You were writing in another thread that we have to read 'across Scripture.'
How about reading across the same author, the one of the Gospel of St John?
That should be enough to clarify what this fragment of a Scriptural verse means.
Let's start with St John 10:38, too, wherein it says, '...the Father is in me and I
am in the Father?' Obviously, we can't just accept 'I and the Father are one' at
mere face value, given that this verse would make no sense in light of that.
Verse 38 is a clarification of verse 30 -- it's even part of the same discussion with
the unhappy Jews looking to stone Him, and clearly indicates that that St John's
Jesus saw Himself touched divinely by the Holy Spirit, such that a special connection
was made between Him and the Father.
It's not unlike when St Paul says that husband and wife become one flesh. He
obviously didn't mean that literally, but spiritually. So, too, does the author of St
John (who places great emphasis on things spiritual rather than things physical)
mean this, as verse 38 clearly indicates.
St John 8:42 further supports that ('If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me).
In fact, St John's Jesus is always setting the Son and the Father as distinct, with the
Father often synonymous with God (St John 6:32-33, 40, and especially 46). Yet,
St John also indicates that the Father is greater than the Son (14:28 -- ...If you loved
me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater
than I; and especially 20:17, ...I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to
my God and to your God.).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSounds like your God is an idiot, if in His omniscience and omnipotence couldn't
Sounds like your God is an idiot, if in His omniscience and omnipotence couldn't
make a creation smart enough to choose Him over evil, given the obvious consequences.
Why would God make creatures that would choose against Him? What could possibly
be the reason for this, a creation which He calls 'good?'
Nemesio
make a creation smart enough to choose Him over evil, given the obvious consequences.
Do you only critique other views without putting yours up for show -- or could we be expecting your view of a "God" who isn't an idiot in the near future? Your loaded statement presumes that a "smart" God wouldn't give His creation a free will if there were consequences to their choices. Obviously this distinction between idiot/smart is within your myopic view -- none of us have God's bird-eye-view-20/20-see-everything perspective (also called omniscience) to make an educated guess/judgement on what is stupid/smart. Why should there not be consequence to choice? This is the essence of choice - you choose between consequences -- be they short- or long-term.
Why would God make creatures that would choose against Him? What could possibly
be the reason for this, a creation which He calls 'good?'
A robot can say: "I choose you."
Isn't this statement an oxymoron? Does that supposed "choice" hold any meaning?
Originally posted by Halitose
Do you only critique other views without putting yours up for show -- or could we be expecting your view of a "God" who isn't an idiot in the near future?
No, as my next post indicates. I do not believe that either St Paul or the author of St John
thought that Jesus = God, as the texts strongly support. This theology is the product of a
later, 2nd-century Church.
Your loaded statement presumes that a "smart" God wouldn't give His creation a free will if there were consequences to their choices. Obviously this distinction between idiot/smart is within your myopic view -- none of us have God's bird-eye-view-20/20-see-everything perspective (also called omniscience) to make an educated guess/judgement on what is stupid/smart.
So basically what you are saying is that we can't know what God's point of view is, but
we should trust Him even though He didn't have decency to make humankind of sufficient
intestinal fortitude to not follow the one simple command He gave in the Garden.
Can you explain to me the sense of this theological stance, because I don't see it.
I've explained my position on the Creation story before; it is an allegory not meant to
be read literally. My theological stance doesn't entail these sorts of problems.
Why should there not be consequence to choice? This is the essence of choice - you choose between consequences -- be they short- or long-term.
Why should there be a consequence for ME when the first man screws up a simple charge?
Why would God make it such that I have to toil and suffer and guess what His
wishes are through a Bible which is so complicated that even Christians can't agree on
what it says (from the beginning of the Church onwards)?
A robot can say: "I choose you."
Isn't this statement an oxymoron? Does that supposed "choice" hold any meaning?
Are you saying the first man couldn't choose to have obeyed God? I assume you
aren't. If God had made the first man like Jesus -- that is, a man who would not fall to
temptation -- do you feel that there would be 'no choice?'
If not, why do you suppose God didn't start off that way?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNo, as my next post indicates. I do not believe that either St Paul or the author of St John
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Do you only critique other views without putting yours up for show -- or could we be expecting your view of a "God" who isn't an idiot in the near future?
No, as my next post indicates. I do not believe that either St Paul or the author of St John
thought that Jesus = God, as the texts strongly support ...[text shortened]... not, why do you suppose God didn't start off that way?
Nemesio[/b]
thought that Jesus = God, as the texts strongly support. This theology is the product of a
later, 2nd-century Church.
Eh? Jesus is not God?! Was he just some human with supernatural powers? I think we have a different theological concept of "God".
Can you explain to me the sense of this theological stance, because I don't see it.
My stance is that we are in no position to try to understand God in his entirety -- the human mind is just not capable of such thought processes. Ergo, since we cannot claim to completely know the bigger picture, we cannot make definite judgments on the microscopic events that we do actually claim some knowledge of.
Why should there be a consequence for ME when the first man screws up a simple charge?
There are consequences for YOU because You screw up a simple charge -- if you have never disobeyed your conscience, or acted sinfully against your better knowledge -- then you might have a point. The same applies to ME.
Why would God make it such that [b]I have to toil and suffer and guess what His
wishes are through a Bible which is so complicated that even Christians can't agree on
what it says (from the beginning of the Church onwards)?[/b]
Really? Is that God's fault? Do we humans never overcomplicate the issue?
Are you saying the first man [b]couldn't choose to have obeyed God? I assume you
aren't. If God had made the first man like Jesus -- that is, a man who would not fall to
temptation -- do you feel that there would be 'no choice?'
If not, why do you suppose God didn't start off that way?
[/b]
Free will by definition (okay... my definition - do you differ?) entails that God doesn't have control over our moral choices. You are obfuscating the issue here by shifting the blame of our choices to God.
Originally posted by Halitose
Eh? Jesus is not God?! Was he just some human with supernatural powers? I think we have a different theological concept of "God".
What did Jesus do, other than be raised from the dead, that any of a host of other prophets
didn't do? They all did miracles, they all did healings. Yes, the ones attributed to Jesus
are more spectacular, but of the same vein. Jesus's supernatural powers are largely within
the realm of several OT prophets, like Elijah for example (whom St Luke, for example,
clearly adores).
You will notice that no writer of a NT document says that Jesus is God. FreakyKBH
rightly notices that St John comes the closest, but even he makes clear distinctions between
God the Father and His Son, Jesus the Christ.
That Jesus was/is God is a later theological construct, as the Dogma of the Trinity
evolved and was codified.
My stance is that we are in no position to try to understand God in his entirety -- the human mind is just not capable of such thought processes. Ergo, since we cannot claim to completely know the bigger picture, we cannot make definite judgments on the microscopic events that we do actually claim some knowledge of.
So, again, this is this just a 'close your eyes and trust' thing, in spite of the complications
that careful study of the Bible arouses.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that God gave us the capacity for rationale just to suggest
that we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend that problems with a literal reading
of Genesis don't exist.
There are consequences for YOU because You screw up a simple charge -- if you have never disobeyed your conscience, or acted sinfully against your better knowledge -- then you might have a point. The same applies to ME.
Did you start off in Paradise? I didn't. I started off in New York (hardly Paradise) with
parents who had to scrimp and save until my dad fulfilled the American Dream and bought
his own business. Life was pretty sucky relative to Eden. Why didn't I start off
in Eden and get the chance to make it or lose it? I think I would have done better than the
first man and woman. I think a lot of people would have.
Really? Is that God's fault? Do we humans never overcomplicate the issue?
Whether we do (and we do, it's true) is not material. God made a creation that
fell from grace by not following one simple commandment: don't eat the 'apple!'
That's it. That's all the first man and woman had to do, and yet they were so lame
that they didn't.
Free will by definition (okay... my definition - do you differ?) entails that God doesn't have control over our moral choices. You are obfuscating the issue here by shifting the blame of [b]our choices to God.[/b]
Let's work with this definition. Does God have control of His moral choices? Did Jesus? Do
the people currently in Heaven/Paradise? None of those people sin. If there exists a condition
where entities have free will and will not sin, then God could have created things that
way. If He didn't, then how can you say that it was not incompetent? Because there might
be some aspect of this that we aren't seeing that God sees and will come to fruition at some
point in the future?
I'm just not compelled by this. Why do you find it compelling?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitose
Eh? Jesus is not God?! Was he just some human with supernatural powers? I think we have a different theological concept of "God".
What did Jesus do, other than be raised from the dead, that any of a host of other prophets
didn't do? They all did miracles, they all did healings. Yes, the ones attributed to Jesus
are more spectacular, but of the same vein. Jesus's supernatural powers are largely within
the realm of several OT prophets, like Elijah for example (whom St Luke, for example,
clearly adores).
You will notice that no writer of a NT document says that Jesus is God. FreakyKBH
rightly notices that St John comes the closest, but even he makes clear distinctions between
God the Father and His Son, Jesus the Christ.
That Jesus was/is God is a later theological construct, as the Dogma of the Trinity
evolved and was codified.
My stance is that we are in no position to try to understand God in his entirety -- the human mind is just not capable of such thought processes. Ergo, since we cannot claim to completely know the bigger picture, we cannot make definite judgments on the microscopic events that we do actually claim some knowledge of.
So, again, this is this just a 'close your eyes and trust' thing, in spite of the complications
that careful study of the Bible arouses.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that God gave us the capacity for rationale just to suggest
that we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend that problems with a literal reading
of Genesis don't exist.
There are consequences for YOU because You screw up a simple charge -- if you have never disobeyed your conscience, or acted sinfully against your better knowledge -- then you might have a point. The same applies to ME.
Did you start off in Paradise? I didn't. I started off in New York (hardly Paradise) with
parents who had to scrimp and save until my dad fulfilled the American Dream and bought
his own business. Life was pretty sucky relative to Eden. Why didn't I start off
in Eden and get the chance to make it or lose it? I think I would have done better than the
first man and woman. I think a lot of people would have.
Really? Is that God's fault? Do we humans never overcomplicate the issue?
Whether we do (and we do, it's true) is not material. God made a creation that
fell from grace by not following one simple commandment: don't eat the 'apple!'
That's it. That's all the first man and woman had to do, and yet they were so lame
that they didn't.
Free will by definition (okay... my definition - do you differ?) entails that God doesn't have control over our moral choices. You are obfuscating the issue here by shifting the blame of [b]our choices to God.[/b]
Let's work with this definition. Does God have control of His moral choices? Did Jesus? Do
the people currently in Heaven/Paradise? None of those people sin. If there exists a condition
where entities have free will and will not sin, then God could have created things that
way. If He didn't, then how can you say that it was not incompetent? Because there might
be some aspect of this that we aren't seeing that God sees and will come to fruition at some
point in the future?
I'm just not compelled by this. Why do you find it compelling?
Nemesio
Originally posted by DragonFriendnot to have santamonious people saying were going to burn in hell per cahnce?
Having free will is having the freedom to choose. Since we were created to love God, choosing to love God must be one of the choices. If God removes the ability of humans to do evil, what would our other choice be?
DF
After reading all the posts on this thread, i wish to include this point.
Lets say God made everything. The animals, the heaven, the earth, and us. We take it for granted that animals do not go to hell for things that they do in every day situations- Killing others of thier own species, stealling others prey, throwing eggs out of nests, etc. The question is why do we find such things so abhorent in our own species?
The answer is, that we have been given a moral compass that has been passed down from generation to generation, through religeon (stop me if i'm confusing you).
But this compass is severely flawed, lets give Iran, and Nigeria as examples of this.
Iran has restarted its neuclear program, which we all know through the news, and there is every posibility that lives will be lost over it, yet we do nothing about it. It is more than likely that you the reader is part of a society that has had its own similar program, and have not been persicuted for it as Iran is about to be. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, so to speak.
Nigeria has, as part of its culture, has a proceedure called "vaginal mutilation", in which children are. . . well you get the gist in the name, but lets just say that in poorer communities, it is carried out with a broken bottle in a hut
Yet, there have been no wars started over the mutilation of possibly millions of innocent children.If this proceedure was carried out in our societies, there would be outrage, rightly so.
So the question that now comes to mind is this. . .
Are there any non sinners left? Surely non-action, and hypocracy, are the greatest sins of all, paying lip service to a book written and rewritten over two thousand years does not give you right to preach?
Please discuss.
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b][/i]I know a double post is important to get your point across... 😉
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Eh? Jesus is not God?! Was he just some human with supernatural powers? I think we have a different theological concept of "God".
What did Jesus do, other than be raised from the dead, that any of a host of other prophets
didn't do? They all did miracles, they all did healings. Yes, the ones attributed to J ...[text shortened]... m just not compelled by this. Why do you find it compelling?
Nemesio[/b]
What did Jesus do, other than be raised from the dead, that any of a host of other prophets
didn't do?
He claimed divinity:
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
I'm guessing that you would argue that "the Son of God" has no divine property.
He exhibited omniscient power ('knew their thoughts'😉:
Mat 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Here's another one to wrap your mind around:
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
FreakyKBH rightly notices that St John comes the closest, but even he makes clear distinctions between
God the Father and His Son, Jesus the Christ.
And what would you say does this distinction signify.
So, again, this is this just a 'close your eyes and trust' thing, in spite of the complications
that careful study of the Bible arouses.
I'm afraid that I don't believe that God gave us the capacity for rationale just to suggest
that we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend that problems with a literal reading
of Genesis don't exist.
Eh? You are jumping to conclusions again - and constructing a rather limp strawman. What does "not knowing the bigger picture" have to do with trying to understand what we know? What does a literal reading of Genesis have to do with this anyway - are you quite positive that this is my stance?
Did you start off in Paradise? I didn't. I started off in New York (hardly Paradise) with
parents who had to scrimp and save until my dad fulfilled the American Dream and bought
his own business. Life was pretty sucky relative to Eden.
Was that in the contract - starting off in Paradise? I've been robbed! Seriously though, why do you appeal to some sort of "fair-play" -- conditions must be in your favour to be able to do the right thing? You either choose the right thing or your don't -- that you were somehow forced by your circumstances doesn't mean you had no choice in the matter. Now don't bring up the red herring where someone has been obviously forced against his/her choice, because it is just that.
Why didn't [b]I start off
in Eden and get the chance to make it or lose it? I think I would have done better than the
first man and woman. I think a lot of people would have.[/b]
Hey, you don't IIRC even believe in an Eden, so what does this have to do with our free will? Let's for argument's sake say God programmed the initial parameters into this system and placed us here - that you were born in NY was a result of your parent's free will and them being there as a result of their parents and so you go back ad infinitum. Great. You had no choice on your place of birth -- but neither did Adam (if we are taking a literal account here).
If we were to take a literal interpretation then you are a consequence of Adam's choice - so what? Did God promise to give all of mankind the simple choice in Eden? No. We make the best of what we have -- just like your parents did.
Let's work with this definition. Does God have control of His moral choices?
Yes - in theory.
Did Jesus?
Yes - in theory.
Do the people currently in Heaven/Paradise?
Yes - in theory.
None of those people sin.
Define sin. Although Lucifer did, so that's a bit of a spanner in the works.
If there exists a condition where entities have free will [b]and will not sin, then God could have created things that
way.[/b]
The condition is such because they will not sin by their own free will. They can still sin, only they don’t.
If He didn't, then how can you say that it was not incompetent? Because there might
be some aspect of this that we aren't seeing that God sees and will come to fruition at some
point in the future?
Well surely there's more that conjecture.
I'm just not compelled by this. Why do you find it compelling?
It makes sense - and I'm willing to accept it. I think it does to you too, but you are not willing to accept it as such.
