|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 16:24:47 GMT
Here's an interesting passage in Matthew:
So when Jesus says he could call on the Father to send angels to save him, does that mean he literally could have done so and events would have played out differently (and Scripture not be fulfilled)? Or is he merely saying he theoretically has the power to do so but he could not actually do it as that is not how the future is set out?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 28, 2017 16:51:16 GMT
The latter, but He still could have avoided it if He had wanted to, I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 18:32:06 GMT
Here's an interesting passage in Matthew:
So when Jesus says he could call on the Father to send angels to save him, does that mean he literally could have done so and events would have played out differently (and Scripture not be fulfilled)? Or is he merely saying he theoretically has the power to do so but he could not actually do it as that is not how the future is set out?
Yes, he could have literally done that
Jesus was second in command so he could do anything he wished.
Prophecy would have played out differently which means the outcome could have played out differently or he could have killed them all and allowed to be arrested still and be killed.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 19:00:09 GMT
Here's an interesting passage in Matthew:
So when Jesus says he could call on the Father to send angels to save him, does that mean he literally could have done so and events would have played out differently (and Scripture not be fulfilled)? Or is he merely saying he theoretically has the power to do so but he could not actually do it as that is not how the future is set out?
I would go with the first, Jesus is clearly saying he is capable of doing it, but then questions how would the scriptures be fulfilled. At the end of the day he is saying he would prefer to fulfill the scripture. To be fair I am not seeing the difference in your two stances, he could have done it and events would have played out differently, but he decided not to so because the fulfillment of scripture was more important to him. I guess you could say that he was therefore always locked into not doing it as he was designed (for lack of a better word ) to fulfill scripture and so would never have done it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 19:11:52 GMT
Here's an interesting passage in Matthew:
So when Jesus says he could call on the Father to send angels to save him, does that mean he literally could have done so and events would have played out differently (and Scripture not be fulfilled)? Or is he merely saying he theoretically has the power to do so but he could not actually do it as that is not how the future is set out?
I would go with the first, Jesus is clearly saying he is capable of doing it, but then questions how would the scriptures be fulfilled. At the end of the day he is saying he would prefer to fulfill the scripture. To be fair I am not seeing the difference in your two stances, he could have done it and events would have played out differently, but he decided not to so because the fulfillment of scripture was more important to him. I guess you could say that he was therefore always locked into not doing it as he was designed (for lack of a better word ) to fulfill scripture and so would never have done it. Stance 1: Jesus could choose to get help from God the Father. If he did, events would have turned out differently (the future is not set) Stance 2: Although Jesus has the ability to get help from God the Father, he can't actually utilise it as that is not how things are ordained (the future is set) Another way to look at is in Stance 2, Jesus could ask for help but he never would do so. Therefore for all intents and purposes, he can't ask for help. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 19:16:45 GMT
I would go with the first, Jesus is clearly saying he is capable of doing it, but then questions how would the scriptures be fulfilled. At the end of the day he is saying he would prefer to fulfill the scripture. To be fair I am not seeing the difference in your two stances, he could have done it and events would have played out differently, but he decided not to so because the fulfillment of scripture was more important to him. I guess you could say that he was therefore always locked into not doing it as he was designed (for lack of a better word ) to fulfill scripture and so would never have done it. Stance 1: Jesus could choose to get help from God the Father. If he did, events would have turned out differently (the future is not set) Stance 2: Although Jesus has the ability to get help from God the Father, he can't actually utilise it as that is not how things are ordained (the future is set) Another way to look at is in Stance 2, Jesus could ask for help but he never would do so. Therefore for all intents and purposes, he can't ask for help. OK so in that case I kind of err into stance 2, Jesus could do it, but to be who he really is and stay true to himself, he will not. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 20:10:28 GMT
The latter, but He still could have avoided it if He had wanted to, I would say. OK so in that case I kind of err into stance 2, Jesus could do it, but to be who he really is and stay true to himself, he will not. So you two seem to broadly agree that the future was set for Jesus because despite his powers he would not want to use them. Do you think since Jesus could be said to have free will in that case as he has no control over his wants? And whether you do or don't think he has free will, do you think he merits praise for doing what he wanted to do? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 20:12:37 GMT
I would go with the first, Jesus is clearly saying he is capable of doing it, but then questions how would the scriptures be fulfilled. At the end of the day he is saying he would prefer to fulfill the scripture. To be fair I am not seeing the difference in your two stances, he could have done it and events would have played out differently, but he decided not to so because the fulfillment of scripture was more important to him. I guess you could say that he was therefore always locked into not doing it as he was designed (for lack of a better word ) to fulfill scripture and so would never have done it. Stance 1: Jesus could choose to get help from God the Father. If he did, events would have turned out differently (the future is not set) Stance 2: Although Jesus has the ability to get help from God the Father, he can't actually utilise it as that is not how things are ordained (the future is set) Another way to look at is in Stance 2, Jesus could ask for help but he never would do so. Therefore for all intents and purposes, he can't ask for help. It's stance 1, however, Jesus himself is so confident of God's plans he wanted to ensure prophecy was fulfilled.
In short, Jesus never gave up his free will just because he wanted to do things as God wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 20:13:05 GMT
Here's an interesting passage in Matthew:
So when Jesus says he could call on the Father to send angels to save him, does that mean he literally could have done so and events would have played out differently (and Scripture not be fulfilled)? Or is he merely saying he theoretically has the power to do so but he could not actually do it as that is not how the future is set out?
Yes, he could have literally done that
Jesus was second in command so he could do anything he wished.
Prophecy would have played out differently which means the outcome could have played out differently or he could have killed them all and allowed to be arrested still and be killed.
So do you think this level of freedom was only enjoyed by Jesus, God the Father and presumably the Holy Spirit? Could Peter for instance have done other than deny Jesus 3 times? And if so does that mean it's possible for Jesus to be wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 20:19:04 GMT
The latter, but He still could have avoided it if He had wanted to, I would say. OK so in that case I kind of err into stance 2, Jesus could do it, but to be who he really is and stay true to himself, he will not. So you two seem to broadly agree that the future was set for Jesus because despite his powers he would not want to use them. Do you think since Jesus could be said to have free will in that case as he has no control over his wants? And whether you do or don't think he has free will, do you think he merits praise for doing what he wanted to do? I am not convinced that Jesus had no control over his 'wants' (not 100% sure what that means), but rather that he stuck to his moral guns if you like. I guess we are traveling down the road of second guessing whether it was a choice or pre-ordained, at this point I think we seem to be saying that Jesus decided not to call on his powers, and as I think it was a moral choice I would give Jesus praise for sticking to his morals. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 20:46:49 GMT
So you two seem to broadly agree that the future was set for Jesus because despite his powers he would not want to use them. Do you think since Jesus could be said to have free will in that case as he has no control over his wants? And whether you do or don't think he has free will, do you think he merits praise for doing what he wanted to do? I am not convinced that Jesus had no control over his 'wants' (not 100% sure what that means), but rather that he stuck to his moral guns if you like. I guess we are traveling down the road of second guessing whether it was a choice or pre-ordained, at this point I think we seem to be saying that Jesus decided not to call on his powers, and as I think it was a moral choice I would give Jesus praise for sticking to his morals. But since it was never possible for him not to stick to his morals, does he still merit praise? Also, is it impressive for someone to follow their natural inclination (in this case, to adhere to Scripture)? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 20:51:05 GMT
I am not convinced that Jesus had no control over his 'wants' (not 100% sure what that means), but rather that he stuck to his moral guns if you like. I guess we are traveling down the road of second guessing whether it was a choice or pre-ordained, at this point I think we seem to be saying that Jesus decided not to call on his powers, and as I think it was a moral choice I would give Jesus praise for sticking to his morals. But since it was never possible for him not to stick to his morals, does he still merit praise? Also, is it impressive for someone to follow their natural inclination (in this case, to adhere to Scripture)? Why was it not possible for him to not stick to his morals?? This is the point I was making in second guessing, I think that Jesus could have walked away at any time but chose not to because of the strength of his conviction. I guess we are going down the path of free will, I presume that you believe we have free will, what makes you think that Jesus was not blessed with the same choice? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 21:01:59 GMT
Yes, he could have literally done that
Jesus was second in command so he could do anything he wished.
Prophecy would have played out differently which means the outcome could have played out differently or he could have killed them all and allowed to be arrested still and be killed.
So do you think this level of freedom was only enjoyed by Jesus, God the Father and presumably the Holy Spirit? Could Peter for instance have done other than deny Jesus 3 times? And if so does that mean it's possible for Jesus to be wrong? Every human has the same level of free will although not the same level of knowledge which is where Jesus comes out ahead. Jesus knew where he fit in the grand plan and had known for centuries so he had plenty of prep time to stay perfect ensure his sacrifice was capable of redeeming mankind.
Free will does not have to have a connection to prophecy since it can be assumed that God will always know more even factoring in the choices we make.
Peter willingly chose to deny Jesus 3 times out of fear of the people. Jesus knowing that would happen does not change Peter being to fearful to admit being a disciple. He wasn't compelled to reject Jesus except based on his own concerns.
It is totally possible for Jesus to be wrong but highly unlikely given the amount of knowledge he had. There could not be much to tempt him in giving up what he had or what he would have in heaven.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 21:04:43 GMT
But since it was never possible for him not to stick to his morals, does he still merit praise? Also, is it impressive for someone to follow their natural inclination (in this case, to adhere to Scripture)? Why was it not possible for him to not stick to his morals?? This is the point I was making in second guessing, I think that Jesus could have walked away at any time but chose not to because of the strength of his conviction. I guess we are going down the path of free will, I presume that you believe we have free will, what makes you think that Jesus was not blessed with the same choice? Actually I don't believe in free will, in that I don't think we could have chosen to do other than what we did choose. But I figure if anyone could be said to have free will, Jesus presumably does. My question is really how does that match with him having to fulfil Scripture. Is there a possible world where Jesus said "I'm not doing this", summoned a host of angels and legged it? And if so does that make Scripture fallible? And what of Jesus' own predictions? If Peter had free will, could he have not denied Jesus 3 times, rendering Jesus' prophecy wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 21:06:47 GMT
So do you think this level of freedom was only enjoyed by Jesus, God the Father and presumably the Holy Spirit? Could Peter for instance have done other than deny Jesus 3 times? And if so does that mean it's possible for Jesus to be wrong? Every human has the same level of free will although not the same level of knowledge which is where Jesus comes out ahead. Jesus knew where he fit in the grand plan and had known for centuries so he had plenty of prep time to stay perfect ensure his sacrifice was capable of redeeming mankind.
Free will does not have to have a connection to prophecy since it can be assumed that God will always know more even factoring in the choices we make.
Peter willingly chose to deny Jesus 3 times out of fear of the people. Jesus knowing that would happen does not change Peter being to fearful to admit being a disciple. He wasn't compelled to reject Jesus except based on his own concerns.
It is totally possible for Jesus to be wrong but highly unlikely given the amount of knowledge he had. There could not be much to tempt him in giving up what he had or what he would have in heaven.
That's an unusual stance within theology (that Jesus could be wrong) but I think it makes sense. Do you think God the Father could also get things wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 21:06:52 GMT
I am not convinced that Jesus had no control over his 'wants' (not 100% sure what that means), but rather that he stuck to his moral guns if you like. I guess we are traveling down the road of second guessing whether it was a choice or pre-ordained, at this point I think we seem to be saying that Jesus decided not to call on his powers, and as I think it was a moral choice I would give Jesus praise for sticking to his morals. But since it was never possible for him not to stick to his morals, does he still merit praise? Also, is it impressive for someone to follow their natural inclination (in this case, to adhere to Scripture)? It was definitely possible for him to reject his morals, it's just there would never be a reason to.
Otherwise, Satan wouldn't have wasted time trying to tempt him, Jesus would not have rebuked Peter for telling him to take it easy, & he would not have been crying in the Garden of Gethsemane the night of his arrest.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 28, 2017 21:12:12 GMT
Every human has the same level of free will although not the same level of knowledge which is where Jesus comes out ahead. Jesus knew where he fit in the grand plan and had known for centuries so he had plenty of prep time to stay perfect ensure his sacrifice was capable of redeeming mankind.
Free will does not have to have a connection to prophecy since it can be assumed that God will always know more even factoring in the choices we make.
Peter willingly chose to deny Jesus 3 times out of fear of the people. Jesus knowing that would happen does not change Peter being to fearful to admit being a disciple. He wasn't compelled to reject Jesus except based on his own concerns.
It is totally possible for Jesus to be wrong but highly unlikely given the amount of knowledge he had. There could not be much to tempt him in giving up what he had or what he would have in heaven.
That's an unusual stance within theology (that Jesus could be wrong) but I think it makes sense. Do you think God the Father could also get things wrong? It depends on how technical we get.
I say "No" simply because as the standard maker, God has no reason to do anything wrong.
He does have limitations in terms of what he can do but because he has the ability to know anything he wishes, he's a perfect judge of a situation. He doesn't need to assume anything because he can know anything.
Technically, people could argue that he could be wrong just when he changes his mind or feels regret, but those aren't really proofs of wrongdoing as much as they are proofs of his not being static and not basing things on predestination.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 21:15:08 GMT
That's an unusual stance within theology (that Jesus could be wrong) but I think it makes sense. Do you think God the Father could also get things wrong? It depends on how technical we get.
I say "No" simply because as the standard maker, God has no reason to do anything wrong.
He does have limitations in terms of what he can do but because he has the ability to know anything he wishes, he's a perfect judge of a situation. He doesn't need to assume anything because he can know anything.
Technically, people could argue that he could be wrong just when he changes his mind or feels regret, but those aren't really proofs of wrongdoing as much as they are proofs of his not being static and not basing things on predestination.
By "wrong" I meant more that he expects someone to do something and they instead end up doing something else. Do you think that's possible? Or are God's predictions always accurate? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 21:37:59 GMT
Why was it not possible for him to not stick to his morals?? This is the point I was making in second guessing, I think that Jesus could have walked away at any time but chose not to because of the strength of his conviction. I guess we are going down the path of free will, I presume that you believe we have free will, what makes you think that Jesus was not blessed with the same choice? Actually I don't believe in free will, in that I don't think we could have chosen to do other than what we did choose. But I figure if anyone could be said to have free will, Jesus presumably does. My question is really how does that match with him having to fulfil Scripture. Is there a possible world where Jesus said "I'm not doing this", summoned a host of angels and legged it? And if so does that make Scripture fallible? And what of Jesus' own predictions? If Peter had free will, could he have not denied Jesus 3 times, rendering Jesus' prophecy wrong? Yes I would argue that there is a world where that is possible. If (and lets assume he did, if he did not then my stance changes considerably) Jesus had free will he could have changed the path of the story (I wont say history) at any time, and I guess that old adage that in an infinite universe there is a world where Jesus just changed his mind halfway and got married, is true. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 21:45:50 GMT
Actually I don't believe in free will, in that I don't think we could have chosen to do other than what we did choose. But I figure if anyone could be said to have free will, Jesus presumably does. My question is really how does that match with him having to fulfil Scripture. Is there a possible world where Jesus said "I'm not doing this", summoned a host of angels and legged it? And if so does that make Scripture fallible? And what of Jesus' own predictions? If Peter had free will, could he have not denied Jesus 3 times, rendering Jesus' prophecy wrong? Yes I would argue that there is a world where that is possible. If (and lets assume he did, if he did not then my stance changes considerably) Jesus had free will he could have changed the path of the story (I wont say history) at any time, and I guess that old adage that in an infinite universe there is a world where Jesus just changed his mind halfway and got married, is true. Ah ok, but what then do you make of prophecy? Is it fallible? |
|
