Christ-posse Non Peccare -able Not To Sin Or Non Posse Peccare - Not A

[Ray]

Did I help or further muddy this?

You didn't do anything but try to teach other people what you know and/or believe about God and Man. :)

[Dr T]

Hey all,

THanks Ray. I really see your sincere desire to share what you feel that you know about God. I appreciate your dedication and willingness to lay out all of your thoughts.

PC,

That is where all of my interest arose. 100% God and 100% man and the law of noncontradiction. This premise tells us that we cant be two things at the same time and in the same way. It violates logic. For example something can't be P and ~P at the same time and in the same way. This is not talking about me being 100% man and 100% son. A better example is omniscience yet not knowing something. Omnipotent yet not able to do something. Omnipresent yet not being in all places.

Ben,

The question of the rock and God is an absurdity. From that I conclude that "God can do all things that are logically possible to do." When it gets into logical contradictions, I spent a lot of time and a lot more thinking needs to be done about this. This is at the root of the could Jesus, being God, actually sin? Can God be not God? Can God sin? Etc. Just food for thought.

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

PC,

That is where all of my interest arose. 100% God and 100% man and the law of noncontradiction. This premise tells us that we cant be two things at the same time and in the same way. It violates logic. For example something can't be P and ~P at the same time and in the same way. This is not talking about me being 100% man and 100% son. A better example is omniscience yet not knowing something. Omnipotent yet not able to do something. Omnipresent yet not being in all places.

I think I may have stumbled upon the answer! Yes, Jesus was "fully God" and "fully man" simultaneously. BUT, He did give up his power as God, and made himself "a little lower than the angels." The writer of Philippians uses this reality as a demonstration of our need to be humble, and at times go beneath ourselves. So, it may well have been that when the woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus and power went out from him, that he truly did not know who had touched him. Jesus said he did not know the day or hour he would return--only the Father knows that. So, if Jesus gave up so much of his power, it's likely he was indeed able to sin.

[Dr T]

THanks PC,

Giving up His power is known as Kenosis. This type of thinking is called by some, heresy. If He did give up some divine attributes, did He cease to be God? Would we call another being that is not all knowing and all powerful divine?

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

...it may well have been that when the woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus and power went out from him, that he truly did not know who had touched him.

I think that's going a little far. Jesus knows the beginning from the end. To say he didn't know who touched him is to me silly. No offense PC, I'm just sayin' it like I see it. :)

[prisonchaplain]

THanks PC,

Giving up His power is known as Kenosis. This type of thinking is called by some, heresy. If He did give up some divine attributes, did He cease to be God? Would we call another being that is not all knowing and all powerful divine?

Dr. T

First, I'd better site my heretical verses. B)

(Philippians 2:5-8) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. {fashion: or habit} (KJV)

Key point here: Jesus did indeed bring himself down: made himself of no reputation, likeness of men, fashion as a man, form of a servant, humbled.

So, was he still God.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

(John 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)

I could site John 8:58, where Jesus claims to be the I AM (Jehovah God), and nearly gets killed because the Jews believe he's blasphemed. Or the episode in which he tells the man with the withered hand that his sins are forgiven, rather than simply that he's healed. The Jews say only God can forgive, and Jesus says--I said what I said so you'd know what I can do. Hebrew 1:6, 8 has Jesus being worshipped by angels, and then the Father addressing him as God.

So, imho, yes, Jesus remained God, despite the limitations he placed upon himself. He might be able to turn off his power and authority, but not his essence--not who He was/is.

[Dr T]

Hello AK,

Although I realize that you were posting that to PC, I hope you excuse my butting in. Looking closely at that passage, there is no indication that it was a rhetorical question when He asked, "Who touched me." In other instances I can agree that it can be deduce that it was rhetorical, but here, I do not see it. We can take what we know of Jesus and try to apply it to this verse but the first two rules of good exegesis is "pay attention to the text" and "pay attention to the context." Doing that, there is no possibility that we can take that He really did know. Just an observation.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

I think that's going a little far. Jesus knows the beginning from the end. To say he didn't know who touched him is to me silly. No offense PC, I'm just sayin' it like I see it. :)

Jesus did not know the day or hour of his return. Again, he humbled himself. I do not believe for a moment that at 18-months old, for example, Jesus was talking fluently. He didn't know how. My guess is he had to learn to be potty trained. Fully God and fully human. He wasn't God playing at being human. He was truly in the flesh.

Could Jesus' question have been rhetorical? Of course. But, it didn't have to be. It wouldn't mess with my theology one whit if he did not know.

[Dr T]

Hey PC,

Thanks for your thoughts. I've done some research on the critics of Kenotic Theology (same logic as the Arians) and they often cite that although the “Word became flesh,” the emptying in the Phil. vs. you cited is better read as an outward humbling of His divinity. He continued to hold the divine nature while not externally showing that to be the case. He came as a servant and we see His abasement in that He grew in stature, was tempted like we all are, subjected to the laws of humanity (birth, growth, death, hunger, suffering, internal torment, etc) . Praise the Lord and thanks be to God!

You are correct, He accepted praise, He called himself God, etc. Also, when you say that He forgave sins, in that instance, He said, "Your sins are forgiven." He did not necessarily say, "I have forgiven your sins." Perhaps He was speaking for the Father. Sir, I am not trying to shoot down your thoughts or dismiss your hard work, I am very familiar with scripture and it's showing that Jesus was both God and man.

My main question is “how do we” and “is it even possible to logically reconcile the concept without falling into heresy and staying true to scripture.” I know that the Christian church would say that Jesus was God, created everything, is the savior who came down to earth to live a sinless life, be crucified, die and be buried, defeat death through the resurrection, now sits at the right hand of the Father, etc. I also see that He did not know things, he was not omnipresent, etc. while in His human form. If I hold that Jesus was fully God I would expect Him to possess all the attributes of God (Omni-everything basically) yet we know that humans do not posses such attributes. Do we just throw logic out the window and say, "My beliefs are ultimately illogical" or is there a way to logically reconcile these beliefs? Kierkegaard* is the one that said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized." I guess, if I eventually come to that conclusion then I'm in good company.

Thanks,

Dr. T

* Sören Kierkegaard. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. David F. Swenson and Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1941). p. 480; Philosophical Fragments, trans. David F. Swenson and Howard V. Hong (Princeton University Press, 1936, 1962), pp. 46-47; S. U. Zuidema, Kierkegaard (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1960).

[Ray]

Very good, Tommy. I’m glad to see we are in more agreement than I thought. And now I will just add my witness, to state just what I mean. :)

The scriptures referring to our Lord being “made a little lower than the angels”, found in Hebrews 2:9 should be understood within the context of verse 7, stating our Lord was born as a Man, and also with the understanding that all of Man, or Mankind, are “made a little lower than the angels” in our form of glory, not that Man originated or is from some other species than God and Angels are.

Or in other words, in form of glory, there is Man and Angel and God, but all of us, and all of them, are literally children of God, whether Man or Angel or God was ever born as a Son to a Father.

And Philipians 2:6 also does not mean that our Lord did not continue to be God, although he was only in the form of Man (which differs in glory from God).

And for anyone who doesn’t agree with me and Tommy, I hope you’ll continue to learn. :)

[Ray]

Kierkegaard* is the one that said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized."

* Sören Kierkegaard. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. David F. Swenson and Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1941). p. 480; Philosophical Fragments, trans. David F. Swenson and Howard V. Hong (Princeton University Press, 1936, 1962), pp. 46-47; S. U. Zuidema, Kierkegaard (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1960).

Phepfffh. (that's me vibrating my lips). Whoever can believe that thought seriously needs some professional help.

Doc,

Faith is simply another word for assurance. Are you now telling me you can't have some reasoning while also feeling sure that your reasoning is true? Or that you can't have some reasoning while having God assure you it's true?

Think, Man!!! It ain't that hard to figure out.

But I guess we can believe whatever we want.

[prisonchaplain]

My main question is “how do we” and “is it even possible to logically reconcile the concept without falling into heresy and staying true to scripture.” I know that the Christian church would say that Jesus was God, created everything, is the savior who came down to earth to live a sinless life, be crucified, die and be buried, defeat death through the resurrection, now sits at the right hand of the Father, etc. I also see that He did not know things, he was not omnipresent, etc. while in His human form. If I hold that Jesus was fully God I would expect Him to possess all the attributes of God (Omni-everything basically) yet we know that humans do not posses such attributes. Do we just throw logic out the window and say, "My beliefs are ultimately illogical" or is there a way to logically reconcile these beliefs? Kierkegaard* is the one that said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized." I guess, if I eventually come to that conclusion then I'm in good company.

Thanks,

Dr. T

There are more than a few dilemmas like this. God being three persons, one God. LDS say it's three very distinct persons (essentially distinct), yet one God. Oneness Pentecostals say, nah...one God, one person, three manifestations. We classic trinitarians are in the middle of these positions--three persons, but ontologically (or essentially) one.

A key to avoiding the creation of a false dichotamy is not to harden categories too much. This is a western approach to logic, and it creates theological problems when grafted on to the Bible, an Eastern writing. So often we say "It's got to be A or B" and the Bible's answer is, "Yes. Both."

Jesus never stopped being who he was--God--but he willingly subjected himself to human conditions, forgoing his power. Some have even argued that when he performed miracles or did know things, it was in the same manner Christians would do so today--by the power of the Spirit, through faith and prayer.

Bottom-line: Don't forgo logic, simply soften it. Allow for some flexibility in the human constructs we use to describe our God.

And for anyone who doesn’t agree with me and Tommy, I hope you’ll continue to learn. :)

I sometimes wonder if Ray was in the military--maybe Psy-Ops. This technique is known as "divide and conquer."

[Dr T]

Did Jesus turn His divine attributes on and off? Miracles for example, did He walk on water using omnipotence or was it a through the humanity side? If we say divine nature then what is there to stop us from saying that He just turned it off and on? If He did that, His ability to not sin does not seem all that amazing. Just some thoughts...

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Kierkegaard* is the one that said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized."

Phepfffh. (that's me vibrating my lips). Whoever can believe that thought seriously needs some professional help.

Let me play Kierkegaard's advocate (not ready to call him a devil). If faith and reason could be absolutely harmonized, then the "faith" would not be faith, it would be supporting evidence.

[Dr T]

Good line PC. By the way, do you ever sleep?

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Did Jesus turn His divine attributes on and off? Miracles for example, did He walk on water using omnipotence or was it a through the humanity side? If we say divine nature then what is there to stop us from saying that He just turned it off and on? If He did that, His ability to not sin does not seem all that amazing. Just some thoughts...

Dr. T

It's been suggested that the supernatural manifestations of Jesus' ministry are of the same nature Christians might do today--through prayer, fasting, faith. Jesus once said we would do all that he had done and even more. So, he did not turn on his God-powers from time to time, but rather relied on the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

[Ray]

I sometimes wonder if Ray was in the military--maybe Psy-Ops. This technique is known as "divide and conquer."

Heh, I was just stating "our" beliefs, Tommy. I'm not trying to "conquer" anybody... other than Satan and his forces, of course.

But I do think it helps to share our ideas, and get to know our "adversaries".

:)

<div class='quotemain'>

Kierkegaard* is the one that said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized."

Phepfffh. (that's me vibrating my lips). Whoever can believe that thought seriously needs some professional help.

Let me play Kierkegaard's advocate (not ready to call him a devil). If faith and reason could be absolutely harmonized, then the "faith" would not be faith, it would be supporting evidence.

First, let's just state the obvious by stating that faith (or assurance) can be harmonized with our reasoning, as we use our reasoning to explain or share our beliefs while "feeling sure" that our reasoning is true.

Now, does that mean our faith or assurance that our reasoning is true is no longer faith when we know what is true? Heh, I don't think so.

And I am just as sure of my reasoning as I share my reasoning as I know that my reasoning is true.

[Dr T]

Hi Ray,

I'm really enjoying you right now. I’m curious if you are certain that you and PC have a similar take on that? From where do you get that conclusion?

To answer your question sir, I was not saying that faith and logic can never be harmonized. I was merely commenting on the (westernized form of thought) apparent necessity for an illogical conclusion (violation of noncontradiction) and accepting our reading of Jesus being two things at the same time yet still believing it as true/logical/reasoned. It seems to me, He was one person not two. When we say He was God and not God, all knowing yet didn't know something, etc. this is a logical violation. If we try and solve this by saying that He merely compartmentalized His divine attributes and did not use them, then we are essentially saying the same thing. Even if He chose to not know something for a split second, He ceased to be all knowing. That is all I was trying to say about faith and reason there not being harmonized. I think that we are obligated to putting logic aside and accept this on faith (in this instance) if we are going to accept this belief. Here they do not harmonize so what do we do?

Dr. T

Ray,

Our posts crossed in the mail I guess. From what you are saying of your assurance even this would work for you: "2+2=5 and I know what a four sided triangle looks like." Those things do not follow Ray. It sounds like you are saying that if you pray enough and get a feeling then those statements are true. You felt an assurance. No matter how much assurance you feel about 2+2 being 5 or there is such a thing as a 4 sided triangle, there are no such things. What about a round square? Please set me straight if I'm off there.

Thanks

[Ray]

Dr. T.: I’m curious if you are certain that you and PC have a similar take on that (the idea that Jesus was both God and Man) ? From where do you get that conclusion?

From some posts he wrote just before that post I wrote, when I stated what I saw as agreement.

Dr. T.: It seems to me, He (Jesus) was one person not two.

When I say He was God, I am not saying He was the same person some other people (and sometimes I) refer to as “God”, when referring to our Father in heaven. I am saying He was God because He:

#1: was and still is a son of God, firstborn in the spirit and the only begotten in the flesh by our Father in heaven, and a son is always of the same species as that from which his father was.

#2: was and still is Jehovah, the one and only God who communicated with Man from the beginning after the fall of Adam and Eve, and who still communicates as God with Man on Earth to reveal the will of our Father in heaven.

#3: possessed all the perfection of our Father in heaven, even though in form He was only as Man, and He is still as perfect as God ever was, and as all Gods can ever be.

Dr. T.: When we say He was God and not God, all knowing yet didn't know something, etc. this is a logical violation.

Yes, it is, and I never did say that. We all know our Lord, or we all can know, that as Man, “he grew from grace to grace” and “in favor with God and Man”. Yet, as God, He still knew everything He knew before He was born on Earth, which was everything about everything, even though He couldn’t remember all of that... just as we can’t remember everything we once knew when we lived in heaven before we were born on Earth.

Dr. T.: If we try and solve this by saying that He merely compartmentalized His divine attributes and did not use them, then we are essentially saying the same thing. Even if He chose to not know something for a split second, He ceased to be all knowing.

Have you ever known anyone who has lost their memory, like from amnesia, and then seen them recover their memory? And how before they totally regain everything they once knew they seem “quick” to pick it up again? That’s pretty much the same thing that can happen to all of us here. The things that we knew can come back quickly if we are in tune with our Father in heaven.

And btw, I’m not going to prove that point to you, and there is nothing I can do to make you believe it, but at least you have that thought to think about now while asking our Father if it is really the truth.

Dr. T.: I think that we are obligated to putting logic aside and accept this on faith (in this instance) if we are going to accept this belief. Here they do not harmonize so what do we do?

Keep reading and thinking and studying and praying while asking our Father to give us His assurance of the truth, while knowing that some things we don’t know right now will make more sense, and help us see true harmony, when we know and can see everything... or at least all we need to know to know something.

Now doesn't that make sense to you?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Let me put this in proper perspective. LDS and non-LDS are arguing this issue from two theological viewpoints so different that there will be no consensus about any of it other than that Christ could have sinned but didn't. As for the rest, being made "lower than the angels," kenosis, etc... meeting of the minds is unlikely because meeting of beliefs is unlikely.

Here's why this is so. LDS believe godhood is a matter of priesthood authority/keys/power...in other words, it's an office or status, not a species. Jesus is God because of his priesthood authority (assuredly higher than any angel's authority). Another LDS belief ties in with this one so let's keep our eye on the ball. LDS believe we existed as spirits prior to our mortal existence (Jesus too), and that when we were born on earth we passed through a "veil of forgetfulness," whereby our memory of our premortal existence was rendered inaccessible.

So Jesus is God due to his priesthood keys/authority. And LDS believe that when he was born on earth, he too--just like any of us--experienced this "veil of forgetfulness," whereby he had to learn "who he was," as he grew from a boy. Now, note this well, the "veil of forgetfulness" didn't strip Jesus of his priesthood authority...in essence, his godhood. He forgot who he was when he was born, and had to re-learn everything he once knew, but he didn't have to be "re-ordained" with priesthood keys/authority he held before this life.

So Jesus made himself a little lower than the angels in his corruptible, mortal body, and in his being utterly dependent on mortal parents for his safety at a very young age (compliments of King Herod). But he still had his priesthood authority, his godhood, and through revelation from God his Father re-aqcuired his omniscience.

The key issue is that LDS view the term God to be a title or office, while non-LDS seem to view it as a species tag, or description of nature or essence. In this respect, the arguments about whether Jesus "gave up his godhood" are meaningless if the common terms being used really aren't common at all. Since most non-LDS on this board don't believe in a premortal existence, or a "veil of forgetfulness," or that godhood is the result of having a fulness of priesthood authority...well, you can see the theological quagmire that presents itself.

I'm not saying to stop discussing it, just that from an observer's point of view each "side" of the argument is talking about two different things. I hope this explanation of LDS views will at least clarify the nature of the discussion, as heretofore it seemed that no one was keeping in mind the striking differences in theology that dictate how the issue be approached/evaluated.

Imagine a Mac user arguing with a Windows user about how to manage data...Windows users mostly use NTFS partition formatting, while Mac users mostly use "extended journaling" formatting (though I prefer non-journaled Mac formatting). And we all know that Mac's are superior to Win-doze boxes anyday! Forgive the telestial analogy. And no, I'm not saying LDS are like the Mac OS...stable, secure, far superior to Windows in appearance and functionality...oops, did I say that out loud? The irony is, I installed Windows on my iMac w/Intel Core Duo...who woulda' thunk?

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

I understand that you are not calling Jesus the Father. You say you are calling him God because:

#1. He was the son of God (and a son is always the same species of that of the father). Given this premise, does it follow that you are god?

#3. What do you mean by possessing “all the perfection of our Father in heaven?” and “He is still as perfect as God ever was, and as all Gods can ever be?”

Your concept of Jesus “forgot” is fascinating. Forgetting seems to me to be a liability that contradicts “perfection” (in every way).

Again, Ray, a pleasure. Thank you,

Dr. T

Hi AK,

Sounds like you want the best of both worlds! Hey brother, I have learned the dramatic difference. I can read that Ray is talking from a different perspective. I am just curious how this concept is processed from an LDS perspective. I've been wondering about you. Have things been ok. You are pretty quiet over the last couple of days. I hope things are OK with you.

Dr. T

[Dr T]

Hey AK,

Sorry missed this question. Where/how did Jesus recieve the "laying on of hands" required for the priesthood and subsequent rites of passage?

Thanks

[Ray]

There is some truth in what you said, ApostleKnight, but you're still "off" on at least one key point, because God is a species, and is the only species from whom Man was created in the beginning... with male and female genders.

Or do you consider Man to be the species from whom Gods can be formed, by obtaining Man's highest office, after obtaining what we call the priesthood and then obeying Man's greatest laws?

And try thinking and praying before you answer that question to keep you from getting more "off".

[Dr T]

Hey good hearted Ray,

What do you make of Gen 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If we are all literall offspring, what of the "being formed of the dust of the ground" and requireing God to "breath into his nostrils the breath of life."

Thanks

[Ray]

Hello Ray,

I understand that you are not calling Jesus the Father. You say you are calling him God because:

#1. He was the son of God (and a son is always the same species of that of the father). Given this premise, does it follow that you are god?

Yes. You and everyone else is a god, in embryo, with the potential to become perfect. And by obeying our Father we'll attain all He has, in all of His glory and power.

#3. What do you mean by possessing “all the perfection of our Father in heaven?” and “He is still as perfect as God ever was, and as all Gods can ever be?”

I mean possessing all of the traits that make God God, in all of His glory and power.

Your concept of Jesus “forgot” is fascinating. Forgetting seems to me to be a liability that contradicts “perfection” (in every way).

If I asked you something about something you once knew, would you think you're less perfect than you think you are right now if you couldn't remember, although you know you knew that once?

For instance, what did you say and do on the day you were born, after coming from your Mother's womb?

I know you truly possess all that knowledge but can you remember that now?

Why think you're less perfect by not remembering right now of all you've done and said in the past?

You are what you have done and said, regardless of if you remember.

Again, Ray, a pleasure. Thank you,

No. Thank God. I wouldn't even be here without Him. :)

Hey good hearted Ray,

What do you make of Gen 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If we are all literall offspring, what of the "being formed of the dust of the ground" and requiring God to "breath into his nostrils the breath of life."

Thanks

Our physical bodies, through Adam, were created from the dust (or elements) of the Earth. And when they were formed God put our spirits into them, thus giving them "breath of life".

I'll bet you could have thought of that if you had thought some more. It's easy or simple to know and understand, once we have an assurance from God. :)