Jesus as a creation

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If Jesus was incapable of having his own desires, then he would not have free will and the devil might as well have tempted a rock or tree instead. If we have free will, how could Jesus not have it?

Bad desires are cultivated....Jesus never chose to cultivate any. And he's not the only one. Millions of angels remained faithful to God and have never cultivated any wrong desires or pursued them.

But that isn't the question, Pegg. The question is...is there a possible world at which Jesus would have been gave in to temptation by commiting one of the acts he was being enticed to commit. That is the question. Yes or no?

If i follow your logic, I would have to say then that all the angels are also God.

But that can't be the case because we know that angels CAN sin...right? Wasn't the devil an angel, and didn't he and a group of angels rebel against God? So angels can sin..and apparently there was a trial period in heaven and those that decided to do wrong did wrong and followed Satan, and those that decided to remain faithful to God remained with God. Kind of like human.

well he wasnt a 'normal' man because his father was God. Jesus did not have a human father, he is not an offspring of Adam.

So does Jesus not having a human Father makes him morally perfect? I am speaking in terms of a human that comes to earth and live a morally perfect life, not committing one single sin. Who besides Jesus has done this and can do this?

He is an angelic being who was sent to earth to perform a sacred duty for his God.

And?

This is why Jesus did not inherit the sinful tendencies that we have. Our DNA is affected by Adams rebelliousness... Jesus dna was clean of sin therefore he had a perfect mind and heart. That doesnt mean he could not have sinned.

Um, Pegg, if it doesn't mean that he could not have sinned, then why are you telling me about him not inheriting sinful tendencies like we have? If he could have sinned, did his sinless DNA actually matter?? If he could still sin DESPITE not having sinful tendencies like we have, then I guess him not inheritting Adams rebelliouness wouldn't matter now, would it?

Even Adam was created with a perfect mind and heart, but Adam chose a different course....just like Satan. He also was created with a perfect mind and heart but he cultivated a wrong desire and it led him to rebel.

Adam was not created perfect, he was created GOOD (Gen 1:31). No where is the word "perfect" used for any of his creation.

I might also ask you a question here.... If a sinful man can choose to do the right thing while in this state of sin, then doesnt it stand to reason that a perfect man can choose to do wrong?

I don't think so, Pegg. To be morally perfect is to NOT do wrong at all, and I maintain that even if it is possible for someone to do wrong, that person is not perfect. Here I think you are equivocating the word "perfect" (shout out to bryce lol).

Let me give you an analogy....lets say you have a very good free throw shooter, and over the course of the season, he shoots perfect from the line, he shoots 500-500. His percentage is perfect, but is the man himself perfect? No, because every time he shoots a foul shot, there is a chance of him missing. But if the man himself was perfect, there would BE no chance of him missing a single shot. That is what perfection is...if you miss, you were not perfect in the first place. So when you ask "can a perfect man choose to do wrong", the answer is no, because if the man was perfect (in terms of benevolence), he would NOT choose to do wrong.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The response still does not answer the question. You are providing your opinion on the matter but not supporting it with the information I requested. Opinions are nice but as you know they are a dime a dozen. I need a scriptural reference to validate your opinion. Once again, we will try it one more time, if you evade the question and don't give me an OT reference then you leave me no choice but to assume you have none, which consequently refutes your point. For the last time:

"Where in the OT is the scriptural reference stating morality is a prerequisite for being sacrificed?"

And when you claimed I didn't answer the question the first time, I said;

the second thing it addressed was the question (or so I thought)...and if that didnt answer the question then I will need you to repharase the question or elaborate on what you mean by it.

And so far you've neither rephrased the question or elaborated on what you meant by it. I can't give you an answer until I you give me clarity on the question that you asked.

 

[james2ko]

And when you claimed I didn't answer the question the first time, I said;And so far you've neither rephrased the question or elaborated on what you meant by it. I can't give you an answer until I you give me clarity on the question that you asked.

I'll try and make it as simple as possible. To my implication of Christ being a created being you replied:

"How can we have forgiveness of our sins by way of a mere creation? Makes no sense"​

To which I replied:

"Similar to God forgiving OT Israel's sins by sacrificing created creatures [animals]"​

You replied:

"Yeah and those animals can't sin because they are not moral agents,"​

I'll ask an easier question. Your bolded statement implicates moral agency must be present before a creature is eligible for sacrifice. If that is the case, why were the animals sacrificed to forgive sins?

 

[JayJayDee]

And that difference is noted...but the scripture doesn't make that distinguishment...so it call comes down to interpretations and preconceived notions.

I believe that the scriptures make a clear distinction between the creation and the created. There is nothing in the Bible that gives authority to Christ that was not bestowed upon him by his superior.

He told his apostles upon his departure....“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

Authority was "given" to Jesus by his Father, so unless this was so, he would have no authority at all.

Are you saying that the one created has equal power to the Creator?

Why not?

Onus of proof is on you. Where does it ever say that Christ has equality with God?

If he had equality, why was his own will not put on equal footing with his Father's?

"He knelt down and began to pray, saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” (Luke 22:41, 42)

How could one part of God know things the other didn't?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

If Jesus was equal to his Father then he would have taught from his own originality.
He called the Father "God", not himself.

“My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." (John 7:16, 17)

To easy. Rev 1:6-8, the subject of that whole context is Jesus, including the "Almighty" part. I will predict for you to read that and try to blossom out of it by stating that the subject of those two verses were all Jesus except for the Almighty part. I will wait.

Isn't it strange that ambiguous scriptures can be used to "prove" the trinity, yet there is not one plain statement from either God or his Christ that says straight out "Jesus is God incarnate".

In John 1:1 it states that "the Word was with God" and then in verse 14 it says that the Word became flesh. It doesn't say that God became flesh. In attaching the word "theos" to Jesus in no way makes him the Almighty. In John 1:18 he is described as "the only begotten god". The Almighty cannot be "begotten".

The Revelation is a book written in symbolic language. The opening words of which indicate a chain of command as you indicated.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John"

"Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God [“Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Your prediction is correct because it is true.
Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here . . . There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”

Jesus is never referred to as "Almighty" in any passage of scripture. This title belongs exclusively to the Father (Isa 44:6)

The title occurs again at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.”

Jesus referred to those who are 'joint heirs' with him in his Kingdom as his “brothers,” not his “sons,” so the speaker in this verse must be Jehovah God. (see Matt 25:40; compare Heb 2:10-12)

Right, and that is why we have Phil 2:5-9 to tell us why Christ is under God.

Let's go a bit further shall we?

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:5-11 NASB)

This rendering is not from the NWT and says the opposite of what you claim.

You will also see that it was God who exalted Jesus and gave him the name that is above all others. If Jesus was God, he would already have such a name.
The 'tongues that confess Jesus as Lord' is to "the glory of God the Father".

So Phil 2:5-11 is not supporting your position at all.

 

[JayJayDee]

Based on what happened in that scripture, it is clear that Christ put aside his equality with the Father and is now subordinate to him. That is by position, not by nature. Not only that...but even in the scripture you gave...notice it says "...then the Son himself will be put under God"....also "And Christ will be put under God..."

Christ is said in the revelation to share the throne with his Father, giving them both authority as rulers. No holy spirit is mentioned as sitting on this throne with them.
Jesus has authority from his Father to rule in the kingdom for 1,000 years (Rev 20:6) until all is brought back to square one. Then rulership is handed back exclusively to the Father, as it was in the beginning.

So if the Son has to be put under God, doesn't that mean that he is not under God right now?

No it doesn't. When on earth Jesus always deferred to the will of his God and Father. (John 4:34)
When he returned to heaven, he still referred to Jehovah as "my God" (Rev 3:12) His position in relation to the Father remains the same.

If Jesus was created by God (His Father), and he was subordinate to his Father from the moment of his creation (as you believe), why would he have to be "put under God", if he was aways under God from the very beginning?

If he has to be put under God, then obviously he wasn't there in the first place!!! That is why even in the scripture you gave, it harmonizes perfectedly with Phil 2:5-9 which states that "Christ didn't think equality with God was something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant..."

The Word has had a unique position and status from the beginning. As a created being, he did not possess immortality however. None of God's creatures were created as immortals. God alone was immortal, being "the eternal king". (1 Tim 1:17) Since an immortal being cannot die, Christ could not have been God....because God cannot die. If Jesus did not truly die in the same sense as Adam, then the ransom was not paid and we are all still condemned.

Immortality was granted to Christ and to those who would rule with him in heaven as a reward for faithful service. Humans and angels remain mortal as they were created. It means that their lives can be terminated if needs be. Free moral agents have proven that they can choose a wrong course. The 'Lake of fire' remains for all time in case any human or angel in the future decides to abuse their free will.

Giving his Christ power and authority in his various roles goes along with giving him his various titles in those roles. As king of God's kingdom "all authority in heaven and on earth" was "given" to Jesus. This is the authority that is handed back to the Father on completion of his mission.

Do you understand that there is no power or authority in Christ without God's say so?

You say "he is, was and always will be his Father's faithful and obedient servant", yet in Phil 2:5-9, he had to BECOME a servant...so if he was always a servant as you claim, why would he have to take the form of something he always was!!!! Huh?

He 'emptied himself' willingly to become a human servant of God. Since humans are lower than angels, this was a very humble role for him. He had the status of being second only to God in all things, yet he loved us enough to come to earth and die a horrible death in order to redeem his beloved mankind. (John 3:16)

Well, what is the difference? Jesus was born right? Well, there ya go.

As a human, Jesus was not an "only child". He had siblings.

He was "only-begotten" before he came to earth. (1 John 4:9, 10)

Oh please lol. This is typical Jehovah Witness babble (with all due respect). Once again, the word [other] will only be used if you have a presupposed notion that Jesus "assisted his Father" with creation in the first place.

This is what the rest of scripture attests to.
"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3)

Well, the disciples were baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Trinitarians have scripture reasons for including the Holy Spirit in the threesome. We can discuss those too if you like.

Since the holy spirit is missing in almost all "trinity proof texts" I would like to see scriptural evidence for the third person of the godhead. Please also show me where there is indeed a godhead mentioned in the Bible.

Because the Holy Spirit is not something you "know", but something you "receive" (John 20:22, Acts 1:8). In the proper context, all three are mentioned either separately or jointly.

But never as part of a trinity.

"At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 22 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Luke 10:21, 22)

I see Father , son and holy spirit mentioned here in this passage, but I do not see a trinity here at all. I see no equality of Father and son, nor do I see holy spirit referred to as a person.

Um, Jay. Even in the NWT, Proverbs 8:22 states "Is not wisdom calling out? Is not disconcernment raising its voice?"

If the "wisdom" in this context actually Jesus, why would the contraction "it's" be used to describe a person??? Makes no sense. The Watchtower only did this because they knew the feminine pronoun "her" wouldn't fit so well since they added their own presupposition the the scripture, so they changed it to the contraction "its"...which STILL doesn't do any justice when talking about an actual person...and CERTAINLY doesn't do any justice when talking about Jesus.

It is a description of the one working with the Father in creation. He was included in the "us" in Genesis 1:26.

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor 1:30)

 

[Pegg]

Mark 10:17*And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” 18*Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God


Do you still think 'good' is not related to 'perfect'

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'll try and make it as simple as possible. To my implication of Christ being a created being you replied:

"How can we have forgiveness of our sins by way of a mere creation? Makes no sense"
​

To which I replied:

"Similar to God forgiving OT Israel's sins by sacrificing created creatures [animals]"
​

You replied:

"Yeah and those animals can't sin because they are not moral agents,"
​

I'll ask an easier question. Your bolded statement implicates moral agency must be present before a creature is eligible for sacrifice. If that is the case, why were the animals sacrificed to forgive sins?

Due to the system that God placed forth...we deserve death because of our sin, but by God's grace he implemented a system at which animals would pay the penalty for the sins of man....and since animals are not moral agents and therefore not "sinners"...the sacrifices were sufficient...if that doesn't answer your question...I can't help ya.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I believe that the scriptures make a clear distinction between the creation and the created. There is nothing in the Bible that gives authority to Christ that was not bestowed upon him by his superior.

Phil 2:5-9 addresses this.

He told his apostles upon his departure....“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

Phil 2:5-9

Authority was "given" to Jesus by his Father, so unless this was so, he would have no authority at all.

Phil 2:5-9

Onus of proof is on you. Where does it ever say that Christ has equality with God?

Phil 2:5-9

"He knelt down and began to pray, saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” (Luke 22:41, 42)

Phil 2:5-9

How could one part of God know things the other didn't?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Jesus had two natures; human nature and divine nature. In his human nature he didn't know, but in his divine nature he knew. Second, Jesus does know all things (John 21:17)

If Jesus was equal to his Father then he would have taught from his own originality.
He called the Father "God", not himself.

Phil 2:5-9

“My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." (John 7:16, 17)

Phil 2:5-9

Isn't it strange that ambiguous scriptures can be used to "prove" the trinity, yet there is not one plain statement from either God or his Christ that says straight out "Jesus is God incarnate".

Actually, there is. John 1:1-14 does straight out say that Jesus is God incarnate. The problem is, your bible (NWT), added a word to it to change the context of the scripture, and you know what Im talking about here. Second, in my personal belief, Jesus did not outright claim he was God do to all of the controversy which would have arose. Heck, he was about to be stoned to death for just claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:34), so it would have been even more so for him to go around claiming to be God.

In John 1:1 it states that "the Word was with God" and then in verse 14 it says that the Word became flesh. It doesn't say that God became flesh. In attaching the word "theos" to Jesus in no way makes him the Almighty. In John 1:18 he is described as "the only begotten god". The Almighty cannot be "begotten".

Actually, it does say "the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Then in verse 14, the Word became flesh. Obviously, the Word is Jesus.

The Revelation is a book written in symbolic language. The opening words of which indicate a chain of command as you indicated.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John"

"Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God [“Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Your prediction is correct because it is true.

Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here . . . There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”

Rev 1:7 states "Look, he is coming in the clouds..."

Rev 1:8 "...who is, who was, who is to come"

Keyword: COME

There is no change in the subject matter of the context. The same person who is to "come" in verse 7 is the same person who is to "come in verse 8. Clearly.

Jesus is never referred to as "Almighty" in any passage of scripture. This title belongs exclusively to the Father (Isa 44:6)

Which means nothing in light of the other scriptures.

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:5-11 NASB)

This rendering is not from the NWT and says the opposite of what you claim.

Actually, thanks for posting the scripture. It says Jesus took the form of a bond-servant...so what was he before he took the form of a bond-servant? Why would it say he "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"....why would it say that if he never thought he was equal with God. Makes no sense.

 

[Pegg]

But that isn't the question, Pegg. The question is...is there a possible world at which Jesus would have been gave in to temptation by commiting one of the acts he was being enticed to commit. That is the question. Yes or no?

Yes, of course. That is the answer.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, of course. That is the answer.

Cool...now my next question is...IS it possible for any person besides Jesus to live 30+ years without committing one single sin? Yes or no.

 

[JayJayDee]

Phil 2:5-9 addresses this.

Phil 2:5-11 proves otherwise.

Jesus had two natures; human nature and divine nature. In his human nature he didn't know, but in his divine nature he knew.

Scriptural backing for this assertion please.

Second, Jesus does know all things (John 21:17)

Matthew 24:36 clearly dispels that notion. Jesus knows what his Father reveals to him. He spent all night in prayer to his Father before he chose his apostles. His choice included Judas. Jesus did not know at that time that Judas would be the one to betray him. As soon as Judas' heart was overtaken by satan, then Jesus became aware of who it was. He had the ability to read hearts.

Actually, there is. John 1:1-14 does straight out say that Jesus is God incarnate. The problem is, your bible (NWT), added a word to it to change the context of the scripture, and you know what Im talking about here.

I certainly do. Calling Jesus "theos" is not making him out to be the Almighty.
There are two individuals being spoken about here. Keeping in mind that "theos" was used in connection with false gods as well as Israelite judges, calling someone "theos" simply means acknowledging that they have power.
If you read John 1:1 in an interlinear, you will see that "ho theos" is the reference to Jehovah, (meaning THE God) whilst "theos" is the reference to Jesus as the Word.
Jesus is a godlike being with power...who can deny that?

In John 1:18 he is described as "the only begotten god". Some translations render that "only begotten son" confirming that Jesus is a divine being who was begotten by his Father. If "theos" can be rendered "son" in one verse but "god" in another when translating the same word, then I would say you are looking at pure trinitarian bias in translation.

Second, in my personal belief, Jesus did not outright claim he was God do to all of the controversy which would have arose. Heck, he was about to be stoned to death for just claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:34), so it would have been even more so for him to go around claiming to be God.

Jesus did not outright claim to be God because that would have been blasphemy.
He was accused of it by simply claiming to be "God's son".

Actually, it does say "the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Then in verse 14, the Word became flesh. Obviously, the Word is Jesus.

Yes....but the Word was "with" "the God" (ho theos) and "the Word was a god" (theos) Never does it say that Jesus is "ho theos". There is only the definite article (THE) in Greek. There is no "a" or "an", so it has to be placed where the translators think it is appropriate. Look at how many places we see an "a" or an "an" in the NT scriptures. None of them existed in the Greek text. The definite article makes it clear who is "the God" and who is a powerful god-like person.

Rev 1:7 states "Look, he is coming in the clouds..."

Rev 1:8 "...who is, who was, who is to come"

Keyword: COME

You are cherry picking. Read Rev 1:1-7. We have already established that the revelation came to John from Jesus by an angel, but Jesus received it from God.
From verse 4 it reads.....

"This letter is from John to the seven churches in the province of Asia.Grace and peace to you from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come; from the sevenfold Spirit before his throne; 5 AND from Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the ruler of all the kings of the world.
All glory to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us. 6 He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. All glory and power to him forever and ever! Amen.
7 Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven.
And everyone will see him—
even those who pierced him.
And all the nations of the world
will mourn for him.
Yes! Amen!"

How many personages are being spoken about here? The one seated on the throne is Jehovah God. Jesus Christ is pictured as a separate entity who acknowledges Jehovah as his "God and Father"....Jesus is spoken about from verse 5.

Rev 4:18 says, "And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say,
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.”

The LORD GOD, the ALMIGHTY" is Jehovah. Never is the term "Almighty" attributed to Jesus.

There is no change in the subject matter of the context. The same person who is to "come" in verse 7 is the same person who is to "come in verse 8. Clearly.

No....not so clearly....unless you are seeing what you want to see.

Actually, thanks for posting the scripture. It says Jesus took the form of a bond-servant...so what was he before he took the form of a bond-servant? Why would it say he "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"....why would it say that if he never thought he was equal with God. Makes no sense.

Since he was existing "in God's form" previously, i.e. in a superior spiritual bodily form, the human "bond servant" was lower even than the angels to whom he was superior. (Heb 2:9)

His pre-human existence was only revealed to him at his baptism. Even though he knew he was 'special', he was not made the "Christ" until his anointing with holy spirit.....only then were the heavens opened up to him and supernatural abilities given to him. (Matt 3:16, 17) There is no record of him performing miracles before that time. If he was fully God, as you claim, why was he not able to perform miracles for most of his earthly life? He crammed everything into three and a half short years, leaving a legacy that still divides mankind. (Matt 10:34, 35)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And on the Trinitiarian view, Jesus is the Son of God based on position, not in terms of being produced from a previous state of non-existence.

So Jesus was adopted?

 

[Pegg]

Cool...now my next question is...IS it possible for any person besides Jesus to live 30+ years without committing one single sin? Yes or no.

Yes. There are still millions of faithful angels who have never committed one sin.


No. None of Adams offspring can due to the fact that we have his dna which is tainted.

 

[james2ko]

I'll try and make it as simple as possible. To my implication of Christ being a created being you replied:

"How can we have forgiveness of our sins by way of a mere creation? Makes no sense"​

To which I replied:

"Similar to God forgiving OT Israel's sins by sacrificing created creatures [animals]"​

You replied:

"Yeah and those animals can't sin because they are not moral agents,"​

Due to the system that God placed forth...we deserve death because of our sin, but by God's grace he implemented a system at which animals would pay the penalty for the sins of man....and since animals are not moral agents and therefore not "sinners"...the sacrifices were sufficient if that doesn't answer your question...I can't help ya.

In the exchange above you implied moral agency is a prerequisite for a creature to be sacrificed. Now it's not. That answers my question perfectly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Phil 2:5-11 proves otherwise.

Scriptural backing for this assertion please.
Matthew 24:36 clearly dispels that notion. Jesus knows what his Father reveals to him. He spent all night in prayer to his Father before he chose his apostles. His choice included Judas. Jesus did not know at that time that Judas would be the one to betray him. As soon as Judas' heart was overtaken by satan, then Jesus became aware of who it was. He had the ability to read hearts.

I certainly do. Calling Jesus "theos" is not making him out to be the Almighty.
There are two individuals being spoken about here. Keeping in mind that "theos" was used in connection with false gods as well as Israelite judges, calling someone "theos" simply means acknowledging that they have power.
If you read John 1:1 in an interlinear, you will see that "ho theos" is the reference to Jehovah, (meaning THE God) whilst "theos" is the reference to Jesus as the Word.
Jesus is a godlike being with power...who can deny that?

In John 1:18 he is described as "the only begotten god". Some translations render that "only begotten son" confirming that Jesus is a divine being who was begotten by his Father. If "theos" can be rendered "son" in one verse but "god" in another when translating the same word, then I would say you are looking at pure trinitarian bias in translation.

Jesus did not outright claim to be God because that would have been blasphemy.
He was accused of it by simply claiming to be "God's son".

Yes....but the Word was "with" "the God" (ho theos) and "the Word was a god" (theos) Never does it say that Jesus is "ho theos". There is only the definite article (THE) in Greek. There is no "a" or "an", so it has to be placed where the translators think it is appropriate. Look at how many places we see an "a" or an "an" in the NT scriptures. None of them existed in the Greek text. The definite article makes it clear who is "the God" and who is a powerful god-like person.

You are cherry picking. Read Rev 1:1-7. We have already established that the revelation came to John from Jesus by an angel, but Jesus received it from God.
From verse 4 it reads.....

"This letter is from John to the seven churches in the province of Asia.Grace and peace to you from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come; from the sevenfold Spirit before his throne; 5 AND from Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the ruler of all the kings of the world.
All glory to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us. 6 He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. All glory and power to him forever and ever! Amen.
7 Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven.
And everyone will see him—
even those who pierced him.
And all the nations of the world
will mourn for him.
Yes! Amen!"

How many personages are being spoken about here? The one seated on the throne is Jehovah God. Jesus Christ is pictured as a separate entity who acknowledges Jehovah as his "God and Father"....Jesus is spoken about from verse 5.

Rev 4:18 says, "And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say,
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.”

The LORD GOD, the ALMIGHTY" is Jehovah. Never is the term "Almighty" attributed to Jesus.

No....not so clearly....unless you are seeing what you want to see.

Since he was existing "in God's form" previously, i.e. in a superior spiritual bodily form, the human "bond servant" was lower even than the angels to whom he was superior. (Heb 2:9)

His pre-human existence was only revealed to him at his baptism. Even though he knew he was 'special', he was not made the "Christ" until his anointing with holy spirit.....only then were the heavens opened up to him and supernatural abilities given to him. (Matt 3:16, 17) There is no record of him performing miracles before that time. If he was fully God, as you claim, why was he not able to perform miracles for most of his earthly life? He crammed everything into three and a half short years, leaving a legacy that still divides mankind. (Matt 10:34, 35)

You can have the last word, my good man

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In the exchange above you implied moral agency is a prerequisite for a creature to be sacrificed. Now it's not. That answers my question perfectly.

If animals could sin, they would not be sacrificed. Since they can't, they weren't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So Jesus was adopted?

Were you adopted?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes. There are still millions of faithful angels who have never committed one sin.

But according to you, they can if they choose to. If they can sin at any time, they are basically "perfect until further notice", right?

No. None of Adams offspring can due to the fact that we have his dna which is tainted.

So your argument is it is possible for Adams offspring to sin, and in fact Adams offspring does sin, because our dna is tainted. But Jesus was not descendent of Adam, so his dna wasn't tainted, yet, he could have still sinned despite his dna not being tainted.

So my question is, if there was still a possibility for Jesus to sin, it really doesn't matter whether his dna was tainted or not, because the possibility remained, correct?

 

[james2ko]

If animals could sin, they would not be sacrificed. Since they can't, they weren't.

Sounds like the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" fallacy (hypothesis contrary to fact).

"This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact". source
​

The fact is animals were sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins, which leads us to logically conclude moral agency is not a prerequisite of being sacrificed. This severs your implied conclusion that only moral creatures are eligible for sacrifice:

Yeah and those animals can't sin because they are not moral agents

 

[JayJayDee]

You can have the last word, my good man

Last time I checked, I wasn't a man.

If one is going to debate scripture, one should have a very good grasp on what scripture actually says in context. So much false doctrine has been promoted for so many centuries that most just accept their beliefs without question. Those who are themselves misled, go on to mislead others. Look what happened to Jesus! Even the son of God had the world turned against him by the persuasive arguments of his opposers.

My experience has taught me to question everything. Like the people of ancient Beroea, I have carefully examined the scriptures to make sure that what I believe is true. (Acts 17:11) Do not underestimate the devil's ability to deceive the world on a grand scale. (1 John 5:19)