• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus as a creation

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
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?

Yes. And thats exactly how it was for Satan and Adam and Eve.

They were created without sin, they existed without sin until they chose to actually sin.


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.

Yes, exactly.

Jesus is a free moral agent just as the rest of the angelic hosts are and Satan was and Adam and Eve were. God has given free will to all his intelligent creations. Free will means any of them can choose to sin or they can choose to remain faithful and loyal to God and his righteousness.

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?

If Jesus was an offspring of Adam, he would be like us....born with sin. So it would matter. God would not use a sinful person to save other sinful people because, as Ezekiel says: 18:4 "...The soul that is sinning—it itself will die"
A sinful person is condemned to die.
So no sinful person can atone for the sins of another as Psalm 49:7-9 says: "...None of them can ever redeem a brother
Or give to God a ransom for him, 8 (The ransom* price for their life* is so precious
That it is always beyond their reach)
;...they can only atone for their own sins through death.

The messiah had to be sinfree for atonement to be afforded to sinners. But that doesnt mean the Messiah didnt have freewill.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
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:


very true.

And the scriptures even tell us that animal sacrifices could not atone for the sins of man
Hebrews 10:1 For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. 2*Otherwise, would the [sacrifices] not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3*To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, 4*for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
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?

Sorry to but in.....but I am intrigued by your argument.

The words that Ezekiel was instructed to speak to the King of Tyre, apply to satan as well as to all other perfect intelligent creatures who deliberately sin against God.

" 'This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You were the model of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in E′den, the garden of God. You were adorned with every precious stone —Ruby, topaz, and jasper; chrys′o·lite, onyx, and jade; sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; And their settings and mountings were made of gold. They were prepared on the day you were created. 14 I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub. You were on the holy mountain of God, and you walked about among fiery stones. 15 You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16 Because of your abundant trade, You became filled with violence, and you began to sin.....17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. (Ezekiel 28:11-17)

All intelligent creatures have choices....it's how we are made in God's image and likeness.

Free will is free, but there are stated consequences attached to our choices.

Perfect beings do not make "mistakes". They make deliberate choices. You don't seem to appreciate the difference. :shrug:

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.
Humans sin because we have a propensity to do the wrong thing stuck in our DNA for the present. Imperfection dominates our thinking and spills over into our actions. The blood sacrifices in Israel were to atone for the sins they committed and for which they were genuinely sorry. (Heb 9:22)

Making a deliberate choice to sin in full knowledge of the consequences is not the same as having faulty genetics that lead us in the wrong direction. (Acts 7:14-25)

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?

There is always a possibility for beings with free will to sin. We have examples in the Bible as Pegg has demonstrated, of those who chose to disobey Jehovah and those who chose to remain faithful. The consequences for both choices are clearly stated. We choose our own destiny.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
very true.

And the scriptures even tell us that animal sacrifices could not atone for the sins of man Hebrews 10:1 For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. 2*Otherwise, would the [sacrifices] not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3*To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, 4*for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.


They could but only temporary:

Lev 16:27-30 The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. And they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their offal. 28 Then he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. 29 "This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. 30 For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

The context of Heb 10 seems to indicate the animal sacrifices were a temporary substitute for the temporary forgiveness of sins but did not clean their conscience, which is why they had to be repeated until Christ's one sacrifice would atone for our sins permanently. Thus making us perfect forever (Heb 10:14).
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
They could but only temporary:

Lev 16:27-30 The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. And they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their offal. 28 Then he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. 29 "This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. 30 For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

The context of Heb 10 seems to indicate the animal sacrifices were a temporary substitute for the temporary forgiveness of sins but did not clean their conscience, which is why they had to be repeated until Christ's one sacrifice would atone for our sins permanently. Thus making us perfect forever (Heb 10:14).


yes, agreed. They could receive atonement for the sins committed up until that day....but then the people, because they still had sin and continued to sin, they had to come back again to obtain atonement. And this was the cycle year after year because they still had sin within them and thus continued to commit sins.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
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
How is it a fallacy is it is true? If animals could sin, then they would NOT have been used by God as a method of forgiveness any more than Jezebel's death could be used as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind...and I asked you whether or not this (Jezebel's death) COULD be the case, which you failed to answer as of yet. So far from a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" fallacy, the very fact that obviously God would not use a person that is capable of sin as an ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind speaks for itself.

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:

What? Animals are not moral agents...God didn't give animals a "law" to abide by. Animals don't murder. Animals don't commit adultry. Animals don't steal. They are not moral agents, and since they aren't, God used them as sacrificial "devices" for man, who are sinners.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Sorry to but in.....but I am intrigued by your argument.

The words that Ezekiel was instructed to speak to the King of Tyre, apply to satan as well as to all other perfect intelligent creatures who deliberately sin against God.

" 'This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You were the model of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in E′den, the garden of God. You were adorned with every precious stone —Ruby, topaz, and jasper; chrys′o·lite, onyx, and jade; sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; And their settings and mountings were made of gold. They were prepared on the day you were created. 14 I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub. You were on the holy mountain of God, and you walked about among fiery stones. 15 You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16 Because of your abundant trade, You became filled with violence, and you began to sin.....17 Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. (Ezekiel 28:11-17)

Well first off, I am not quite convinced that this is referring to Satan. I admit that it could, but there is not enough evidence in the context to convince me conclusively that this is referring to Satan. However, looking at the context, it is clear that the word "perfect" is just a figure of speech for "very good". I have two reasons for concluding this....the first reason is looking at the words being used, "you were the model of perfection"....now, isn't the Father also the model of perfection? So is "Satan" on the same level of God if the same thing could be said about both. Second, how can imperfection come from perfection? If Satan or any other person being can start off as perfect...but end up imperfect, that lead me to believe that this person was never perfect in the first place, because to be perfect is not to become imperfect.

Now as a Jehovah's Witness, I am trying to get your view on God...so I will ask you the following questions...

1. Is God omnibenevolent? (morally perfect in his ways)

2. If an omnibenevolent God commits a sin, does that mean that he was never omnibenevolent?

3. Do you believe that if God to sins, he would mean that he is no longer God?

4. Is it possible for God to sin?

Please answer these questions.

All intelligent creatures have choices....it's how we are made in God's image and likeness.

Free will is free, but there are stated consequences attached to our choices.

Perfect beings do not make "mistakes". They make deliberate choices. You don't seem to appreciate the difference. :shrug:

I agree with the free will part, but it is not my view that morally perfect beings can exercise their free will by making the wrong decisions.

Making a deliberate choice to sin in full knowledge of the consequences is not the same as having faulty genetics that lead us in the wrong direction. (Acts 7:14-25)

I am a bit confused here...so do we sin because we make deliberate choices to sin or do we sin because we have faulty genetics that lead us in the wrong direction?

There is always a possibility for beings with free will to sin.

Um, Jay, no one is denying this. My point is, we know that Jesus never sinned, and what kind of being could come on earth and live a perfectly sinless life on earth...who but God himself could come on earth and accomplish this?

And Pegg already admitted that on her view, there is a possible world at which Jesus would have sinned, and my point is if you have the ability to sin, then you are not morally perfect by nature, regardless how long you go without sin, it is only a matter of time before you sin, which means that mean and her completely disagree about the benevolence of Jesus.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Yes. And thats exactly how it was for Satan and Adam and Eve.

They were created without sin, they existed without sin until they chose to actually sin.

Right! But they weren't created as morally perfect beings...the possibility of their sin was always there, it was just a matter of time before they actually sinned. This makes them morally imperfect because the possibility was always there...but to be morally perfect means there is no possibility of a person ever committing a sinful act, and this, in my opinion, applies to Jesus.

Yes, exactly.

Jesus is a free moral agent just as the rest of the angelic hosts are and Satan was and Adam and Eve were. God has given free will to all his intelligent creations. Free will means any of them can choose to sin or they can choose to remain faithful and loyal to God and his righteousness.

Ok, so you are saying that any of the rest of the angels could have been used as the sacrifice for the sins of mankind? If it wasn't Jesus, it could have been one of the other angels?

If Jesus was an offspring of Adam, he would be like us....born with sin. So it would matter. God would not use a sinful person to save other sinful people because, as Ezekiel says: 18:4 "...The soul that is sinning—it itself will die"
A sinful person is condemned to die.
So no sinful person can atone for the sins of another as Psalm 49:7-9 says: "...None of them can ever redeem a brother
Or give to God a ransom for him, 8 (The ransom* price for their life* is so precious
That it is always beyond their reach);...they can only atone for their own sins through death.

So what does it mean to be born with sin? I am trying to distinguish between being born with sin (descendents of Adam), and to not be born with sin but still have the capability of sinning with free will (Jesus). Regardless, the possibility of sin is still there so what is the difference?

The messiah had to be sinfree for atonement to be afforded to sinners. But that doesnt mean the Messiah didnt have freewill.

Right, and on your view any of the rest of the angels could have been used as the atonement, so there was really nothing special about Jesus, right? And Jesus having free will and capable of sinning is no different than being born of sin and also capable of sinning...because the possibility of sinning is there regardless, and that is the main point.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Last time I checked, I wasn't a man. :D

Ooops :eek:

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.

Yeah, and much of the false doctrine that you are referring to comes right from the Watchtower itself lol.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
What? Animals are not moral agents...God didn't give animals a "law" to abide by. Animals don't murder. Animals don't commit adultry. Animals don't steal. They are not moral agents, and since they aren't, God used them as sacrificial "devices" for man, who are sinners.

Based on this statement, your answer to my question is no (moral agency is not a prerequisite for being sacrificed). And it contradicts your initial assertion that his creatures must be moral agents in order to be sacrificed.

How is it a fallacy is it is true? If animals could sin, then they would NOT have been used by God as a method of forgiveness any more than Jezebel's deathcould be used as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind...and I asked you whether or not this (Jezebel's death) could be the case, which you failed to answer as of yet. So far from a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" fallacy, the very fact that obviously God would not use a person that is capable of sin as an ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind speaks for itself.

The question posed to you was, "Is moral agency a prerequisite for being sacrificed". The correct and factual answer, according to scripture, is no because animals, who are not moral agents, were indeed sacrificed. The Jezebel analogy is a false one as the source premise is, once again, based on a hypothetical scenario (if animals could sin). This fallacy is easily identified by the use of the speculative terms "should, could, would" which you used a combined five times in the statement above. You can continue to deny it but the evidence is undeniable. It's ok. We all contradict ourselves every once in a while. ;) Nice chatting with you..
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Temple sacrifices dealt with collective sins, such as familial and societal, and not so much with personal sins, which were handled by first trying to correct our wrongs with those we may have harmed, and then also appealing to God for forgiveness. However, the Temple sacrifices were not the only way in which this could be done as communal repentance is also done on Yom Kippur or at any time of the year.

Contrary to the belief of some, it states in Torah/Tanakh that God will forgive our sins as long as we take those steps with sincerity (look up "forgive" and its variations in a concordance for confirmation of this).
 
Last edited:

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Well first off, I am not quite convinced that this is referring to Satan. I admit that it could, but there is not enough evidence in the context to convince me conclusively that this is referring to Satan.

Since there is direct reference to this one's being 'the covering cherub in the garden of Eden', I don't know how you could fail to see who was included in Ezekiel's address. Everything he said pertained to the fall of the devil before the fall of man.

However, looking at the context, it is clear that the word "perfect" is just a figure of speech for "very good". I have two reasons for concluding this....the first reason is looking at the words being used, "you were the model of perfection"....now, isn't the Father also the model of perfection? So is "Satan" on the same level of God if the same thing could be said about both.
"Perfection" means flawless. Nothing God created is flawed. When God declares that something is "good" (as in the first 5 creative "days") do we conclude that when he says that the 6th day was "very good" that it must be better than the previous 5, or do we conclude that because everything God makes is perfect, it must be God's level of satisfaction that is increased with the creation of material beings who are like him; who have his moral attributes? He had such a wonderful future planned for them....if only they would trust and obey him.

Second, how can imperfection come from perfection? If Satan or any other person being can start off as perfect...but end up imperfect, that lead me to believe that this person was never perfect in the first place, because to be perfect is not to become imperfect.

If you come to this conclusion then you fail to appreciate what free moral agency is, both in heaven and on earth.
Can a child be born to be a murderer or thief? Or does there come a time when, as this child grows, circumstances lead him to entertain ideas of becoming a thief or murderer? If he is tempted to take things that do not belong to him and then acts on his covetousness, because there are laws carrying a penalty for this act, he knows it is wrong before he even begins to think about it. Did not God's law warn of such a thing?

Murder is not always pre-meditated, but taking a human life is against the law....it was always against God's law. Any unauthorized taking of human life carries a penalty. No one commits murder without knowing in advance that it is wrong.

In the garden of Eden, there were no "laws"...there was just one command to avoid one specific tree. The consequences for disobeying this one command were dire. This was the only cause of death in existence and it was just one of many trees that were available to Adam and his wife for food. No hardship was imposed upon the pair by that command. It wasn't until the woman was lied to that eating of its fruit was even entertained. James 1:13-15 tells us about the process.

"When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death." (James 1:13-15)

This was a simple test of obedience and respect for someone else's 'property'. The penalty alone should have been enough of a deterrent, but satan entertained a wrong desire and acted on it and in turn led the woman to entertain a wrong desire and act on it....this then led the human race into rebellion with him.

We are the hostages in this situation. It includes us but it is all about the exercise of free moral agency in all of God's intelligent creation, angels and humans.

The fact that we all have free will even now in our sinful state is simply a reflection of the way we were created. When "sin" entered the world, free will became a curse, when it was originally designed to be a blessing.

"Sin" is an archery term that means "to miss the mark"....we all 'miss the mark' because our 'inheritance' causes us to do that. (Rom 5:12)

Now as a Jehovah's Witness, I am trying to get your view on God...so I will ask you the following questions...

1. Is God omnibenevolent? (morally perfect in his ways)
Of course. It is impossible for him to be otherwise.

2. If an omnibenevolent God commits a sin, does that mean that he was never omnibenevolent?
You seem to forget that committing sin is not possible for the Creator. Even though he possesses free will, there is no propensity in the Creator to do wrong.
He cannot lie, he cannot perform an evil act. He is the epitome of love. The Potter can never be placed on equal footing with the clay.

If you remember, it was the "knowledge of good and evil" that God originally placed in his own jurisdiction. Everything in existence has an equal opposite, but the opposite of good was originally withheld from human creation. Jehovah was right in shielding his children from a knowledge of evil....it would not benefit them in any way. We have proven that beyond a shadow of doubt. A life with free will minus the knowledge of evil would have been wonderful, but satan tempted the woman, who in turn tempted the man. It was through the man that sin entered into the world. The woman was deceived, but Adam was not. As a perfect man, he made a wrong choice in full knowledge of what he was doing. (Rom 5:12)

3. Do you believe that if God to sins, he would mean that he is no longer God?
Silly question.

4. Is it possible for God to sin?

You should have asked this question first. It is not possible.

I agree with the free will part, but it is not my view that morally perfect beings can exercise their free will by making the wrong decisions.

Satan was and he did. Adam was and he did. Jesus was and he didn't, proving that free moral agency in perfect beings can be abused.

It is a choice made with full knowledge....do you understand that? Adam did not make a mistake....he made a choice.

I am a bit confused here...so do we sin because we make deliberate choices to sin or do we sin because we have faulty genetics that lead us in the wrong direction?

Both. Do you understand that there are two kinds of sin? We are born in "sin" through an inheritance from Adam. (Ps 51:5) This is a genetic fault that means we have a defect that leads us to make bad choices and commit wrongs. But the actual committing of the wrong is a choice. Just because we have a tendency to do wrong, doesn't mean we can't help it. Jesus' sacrifice releases us from the sin we inherited from Adam, but the wrongs we commit can only be forgiven if we are genuinely repentant. We cannot, at any time, take Jesus' sacrifice for granted, thinking that we can sin all we want because we can't help it, and are automatically forgiven. Not so.

My point is, we know that Jesus never sinned, and what kind of being could come on earth and live a perfectly sinless life on earth...who but God himself could come on earth and accomplish this?
Who? Adam could have. The fact that Jesus was the exact equivalent of Adam (a perfect human specimen) who was also tempted by the devil more than once, proves that there was no excuse for what Adam did. It also proves that Jesus was temptable, otherwise what was the point of the devil's temptations?

And Pegg already admitted that on her view, there is a possible world at which Jesus would have sinned, and my point is if you have the ability to sin, then you are not morally perfect by nature, regardless how long you go without sin, it is only a matter of time before you sin, which means that mean and her completely disagree about the benevolence of Jesus.
That is not true. Pegg is absolutely correct. Sin was not an inheritance that Jesus was born with. Just like Adam, he was perfect, but still open to temptation just like all free moral agents. It is a choice. Remember that free will was originally endowed without a knowledge of evil. In that circumstance, it was intended to be a daily blessing. With the introduction of evil into the world, free will became a liability with humans selfishly imposing their free will on others.

It was never meant to be so.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Right! But they weren't created as morally perfect beings...the possibility of their sin was always there, it was just a matter of time before they actually sinned. This makes them morally imperfect because the possibility was always there...but to be morally perfect means there is no possibility of a person ever committing a sinful act, and this, in my opinion, applies to Jesus.

morally perfect means to do the right thing, the moral thing. Are you saying that a sinner cannot choose a morally perfect course?


Ok, so you are saying that any of the rest of the angels could have been used as the sacrifice for the sins of mankind? If it wasn't Jesus, it could have been one of the other angels?

yes of course. God could have created another man from the dust if he wanted to. But he chose to give the very best of what he had...his own son.


So what does it mean to be born with sin? I am trying to distinguish between being born with sin (descendents of Adam), and to not be born with sin but still have the capability of sinning with free will (Jesus). Regardless, the possibility of sin is still there so what is the difference?

to be born with sin means that we have inherited the imperfection passed onto us from our first father Adam. When he sinned, he rejected Gods law and chose to do his own thing. For that he was punished with death. We also experience death because we've been born with a tendency to reject Gods law and do our own thing....that is sin. But also, when he was sentenced to death, God must have changed something in Adam so that he slowly began to die. When he had children, they inherited that slow death mechanism as well.

Just to offer you some scientific evidence for this phenomenon....recently a team of researchers at the Emory University School of Medicine published thier finding about how DNA reprograms itself in future offspring. Their study was published in Nature Neuroscience, it showed that mice trained to avoid a certain smell passed their aversion to that smell onto their childrens children. This is evidence for how Adams rebellious action can affect us. Our DNA is a program of everything about us...including behaviors, attitudes and even actions.
Adams dna was altered by sinning.... and he passed that altered dna onto his offspring which explains perfectly why we are 'prone' to do wrong.

And this also explains why perfection doesnt mean that one cannot do the wrong thing or sin. Perfection means that we are doing the right thing. Not all the angels did the right thing...some chose to rebel too. But they were perfect, meaning they were doing the right thing, until they chose to do the wrong thing.



Right, and on your view any of the rest of the angels could have been used as the atonement, so there was really nothing special about Jesus, right? And Jesus having free will and capable of sinning is no different than being born of sin and also capable of sinning...because the possibility of sinning is there regardless, and that is the main point.

The special thing about Jesus is that he alone was created by jehovah....all the other angels were created 'through' Jesus.

So Jesus is really the only direct creation of Jehovah God. Thats why he is the only being directly called 'Gods Son'

But you are right...Jesus capacity to sin is no different to anyone of the other angels or human kind. He can sin if he chooses to. he can make himself imperfect by doing wrong.
 

Benoni

Well-Known Member
morally perfect means to do the right thing, the moral thing. Are you saying that a sinner cannot choose a morally perfect course?




yes of course. God could have created another man from the dust if he wanted to. But he chose to give the very best of what he had...his own son.




to be born with sin means that we have inherited the imperfection passed onto us from our first father Adam. When he sinned, he rejected Gods law and chose to do his own thing. For that he was punished with death. We also experience death because we've been born with a tendency to reject Gods law and do our own thing....that is sin. But also, when he was sentenced to death, God must have changed something in Adam so that he slowly began to die. When he had children, they inherited that slow death mechanism as well.

Just to offer you some scientific evidence for this phenomenon....recently a team of researchers at the Emory University School of Medicine published thier finding about how DNA reprograms itself in future offspring. Their study was published in Nature Neuroscience, it showed that mice trained to avoid a certain smell passed their aversion to that smell onto their childrens children. This is evidence for how Adams rebellious action can affect us. Our DNA is a program of everything about us...including behaviors, attitudes and even actions.
Adams dna was altered by sinning.... and he passed that altered dna onto his offspring which explains perfectly why we are 'prone' to do wrong.

And this also explains why perfection doesnt mean that one cannot do the wrong thing or sin. Perfection means that we are doing the right thing. Not all the angels did the right thing...some chose to rebel too. But they were perfect, meaning they were doing the right thing, until they chose to do the wrong thing.





The special thing about Jesus is that he alone was created by jehovah....all the other angels were created 'through' Jesus.

So Jesus is really the only direct creation of Jehovah God. Thats why he is the only being directly called 'Gods Son'

But you are right...Jesus capacity to sin is no different to anyone of the other angels or human kind. He can sin if he chooses to. he can make himself imperfect by doing wrong.
WRONG

Man was also a direct desendent of God, for we were made in His image and Likeness. By the way the first name of God in Genesis was Elohim not Jehovah
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
WRONG

Man was also a direct desendent of God, for we were made in His image and Likeness. By the way the first name of God in Genesis was Elohim not Jehovah

Elohim means God. its not a name but a title.
 

Benoni

Well-Known Member
lol, yeah ok.

:)

Yea that is all you got say when there is no real answers

"AND IN NAME." The name speaks of the nature and character of a person. In that our God is so marvelously great, He has many names (some say as many as 200) , each revealing to us another facet of His nature and character, etc. We ascribe unto Him many titles: He is Wonderful, Counselor, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, etc. Then we have all the compound names of Jehovah-- as our Healer, our Banner, our Righteousness, our Provider, our Defender etc. All of these names and titles help us to identify Him to us. But now He states that He will make a people high above all nations "IN NAME." He is ready to share His identity with humanity-- it is utterly awesome and amazing!
A few names of God

Noticed Jehovah is never mentioned alone like you JW butcher it

Jehovah T’ Sidkinu, The LORD OUR Righteousness (Jer. 23:6)
Jehovah M’ Kaddesh, The Lord Who Sanctifies (Lev. 20:7)
Jehovah Shalom, The Lord our peace (Judges 6:24)
Jehovah Shammah, The Lord our ever Present God (Ezek. 48:35)
Jehovah Rapha, The Lord our Healer (Ezek. 15:26)
Jehovah Jireh, The Lord our provider (Gen. 22:14)
Jehovah Nissi, The Lord our Victory (Ex. 17:15)
Jehovah Rohi, The Lord our Shepherd (Ps. 23:1)
Jehovah T’sur, The Lord our Strength (Ps. 19:14)
 

Benoni

Well-Known Member
Notice "Wonderful, Counselor, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Everlasting Father" are titles. He has many other names:

Elohim,
Jehovah T’ Sidkinu, The LORD OUR Righteousness (Jer. 23:6)
Jehovah M’ Kaddesh, The Lord Who Sanctifies (Lev. 20:7)
Jehovah Shalom, The Lord our peace (Judges 6:24)
Jehovah Shammah, The Lord our ever Present God (Ezek. 48:35)
Jehovah Rapha, The Lord our Healer (Ezek. 15:26)
Jehovah Jireh, The Lord our provider (Gen. 22:14)
Jehovah Nissi, The Lord our Victory (Ex. 17:15)
Jehovah Rohi, The Lord our Shepherd (Ps. 23:1)
Jehovah T’sur, The Lord our Strength (Ps. 19:14)

"El", often translated "God", primarily means "might" or "power." David speaks His Name: "It is El that girdeth me with strength." The revelation of the name "Shaddai" is different. It also expresses power, but it is not the power of violence, but of all-bountifulness.
"Shaddai" means "Breasted", a word formed from the Hebrew word "Shad" meaning "the breast", more specifically, "a woman’s breast". Thus "Shaddai"means "The Pourer or Shedder forth" of blessings both natural and spiritual. This third name shows us His nature as One whose self-sacrificing love gives and pours itself out for others.
 
Top