Jesus on the Cross

[Lonnie]

On the Cross, Jesus said, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do'. If God is the father, and Jesus and God are one, who was he talking to?.

[Clanad]

Contd.

Even His foreknowledge of the resurrection could not soothe this separation.
Many conservative scholars believe that Jesus' very Spirit died in Hades, since Scripture teaches "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself might have first place in everything."
Colossians 1:15-18. This could get off the thread somewhat, but since you asked, II Corinthians 5:17 says the new believer is a new creation. That new creation has to be a new spirit within the believer, since it is certainly not the body that's new. The Greek for this passage infers an entirely new, not related to anything past, creation. Since Ha Massiach carried every sin ever comiited or ever would be, His very Spirit was tainted. The teaching (I reserve judgement on it) is reasonable, in accordance with Scriptures, that a new spirit and a new body came forth from the tomb early on that morning...
The Judas issue is another Davinci Code folderol, when all the facts are ascertained... in my opinion...

I apologize for the length of these posts. It is a difficult subject to explain in pithy sentences. Again, thanks for your interest...

[jno]

the length of your posts is entirely appropriate and welcome Clanad

[Lonnie]

Thanks everyone for your answers, espcially to Clanad and jno for an interesting and informative discussion.

[El D]

I'm not really sure I buy it Clanad -

A few points;

1. Since god is omnipotent, he knows everything
2. Since god is omnipotent, he created man full well knowing that he would fall
3. He must have wanted man to fall
4. Being omnipotent, why is any sacrifice required? This dude can do anything, but you're telling me the only way for him to save the people he knowingly created that way is to sacrifice himself? And he is perfect? What is the great beings obsession with sacrifice and blood? come on . . . that's just nonsense.
5. Why did he create sin if he as going to have to carry it all himself? A perfect being with ultimate foreknowledge of the event - I'd say that was a ball up.
6. If god has always been 3, and they are all 3 of them perfect, why are 3 separate entities required? i.e. if they are all perfect, why do they perform different functions? Why is god the senior perfect being?

[brionon]

El D. Good one, mate.

[Clanad]

Well, El D... I see you haven't totally abandoned your propensity for the use of logical fallacy. You make the same fallacious assumptions as in the past when we've discussed items such as this; "...He must have wanted man to fall..." Your leap of logic defies explanation, in my opinion. God's knowing what man would do and still allow man to do it certainly is God like, isn't it? If God so loved the world, as Scripture states, then He intended the ultimate fix for the error He knew man would enter into. However, to have created man with no choice to sin would have meant the same as expecting a robot to truly love you even acknowledging the fact you created the robot...and God did not create sin... sin came into the world by man's choice, fully allowed by God.
The problem is, as I've stated before, is... you expect God to do and act the way you want Him to. I've a flash for you... there is a God, and you're not Him... but El D... He does love you beyond any comprehension...

[El D]

Well that post takes the biscuit as regards logic - let me explain my reasoning. It always amuses me that those who purport to believe and worship a truly omnipotent, omniscient, ultimately benevolent diety without are the ones who really do not comprehend the ramifications of what that entails. We are discussing the alpha and omega, the beginning of everything, the big cheese - a being who can create worlds with a thought. The only reason it brought anything into existence is because it wanted it to happen that way - there is no other explanation. Do you see? Everything that happens is desired by the omnipotent being, otherwise it simply wouldn't happen. If he wanted to create man with free will and still have them avoid the fall, it could do it. Or are contradictions that don't work to confuse the flock avoided when it doesn't suit the church?

In the same way this being could create a world free of sin if only it desired it. In the same way this being could create a world free of pain and suffering if only it desired it. God logically desired sin to enter the world - he created man as a flawed being knowing he would be tempted, he created lucifer knowing he would fall and tempt, he created the world knowing that jesus would supposedly have to die. After all, he could have created man as himself yes? A perfect being having the option to sin but being incapable of it. But no, instead he creates a being who is not only capable of it, but will knowingly perform it - what?

There are two choices remaining to a rational being considering the evidence before us - either god is a flawed being who desired all the evil we see in the world around us, or he does not exist. You see, your problem, and that of those like you, is that you are so blinded by the words you read, you never apply logic to the bigger picture.

[El D]

This being is OMNIPOTENT - and I have a flash for you too; if I was god, the world would be a better place, because I would not desire blood sacrifice or macarbre moral dilemmas, nor would I desire worship. Do you think if you were god the world would be better Clanad?

[Clanad]

Excuse me a moment, have to rub my nose since I feel an analogy coming on... My father was an old cowboy here in the western U.S., and a man of few words. Mom wanted to raise turkeys for some reason and asked Dad and me to build a fence. We had built literally miles of barb wire stock fence, but no experience in building turkey fences. We had just started the fence and it looked pretty good actually, when Tuff Gunderson, a nosy, loudmouth neighbor stopped by to inspect the project. Tuff ripped it verbally from one end to the other. It was pure junk. Dad didn't say much and let Tuff rant. When he had left, I asked Dad why he hadn't confronted Tuff. His reply was "If he had any experience building turkey fences I'd listen to him. As it is he's just a loud mouth and doesn't bear the effort"... Call me dense, but it's an apt analogy here, no? How's your turkey fence building skill, El D?

[El D]

From your analogy you are calling me a loudmouth who doesn't bear the effort of discussion? Looks like a copy paste to me. Weak response.

PS I think you'll find that my 'turkey fence building' in other words experience in debating the existence of god, is just fine as shown by your inability to answer the points made in my post. Maybe you should have listened to good ol' Tuff Gunderson - you might have learnt a valuable lesson.

[JamesEverton]

I guess I'm essentially an agnostic but I'm interested in the Jesus story.

El D, I don't think that I agree with your reasoning. If God is omnipotent, He is capable of creating humankind and giving them free will. By your logic, ominpotence is constrained by the fact that an omipotent being could not bestow free will on one of its creations. That doesn't sound very omnipotent.

Having given free will to its creation, an omniscient being would know that those creations would use their freedom to turn away from it/Him/Her, that being the nature of freedom. Presumably the Christian argument is that the creation of sin and suffering as a result is was deemed worthwhile by God because we have freedom and because He can love us as independent creatures.

So, in your first post, items 1 and 2 make sense but items 3, 4 and 5 do not logically follow on. That's my understanding, anyway.

[El D]

Au contraire the traditional xstian argument that evil and suffering are unavoidable consequences of free will point to the constraint of omnipotence. All I am saying is that if a being is omnipotent, nothing is beyond it, even the contradictions so beloved by the church. This means that god could have created us with free will yet have made it so that we do not sin as the case with him. Why didn't he? That is the whole thrust of my argument - since god is capable of everything, and since he built everything from the start knowing the consequences, all the consequences we see around are desired by god, because as an omnipotent being there is no limit to what he could have enacted.

[JamesEverton]

El D, you make some interesting points (I'm enjoying mulling them over).

It seems that you are arguing that a God could create people with free will but could also pre-ordain their behaviour. A supreme being could logically only do this if they were also defining the rules of logic as they went along. For an omnipotent being that's not a problem but your argument implies that they would have to do this by virtue of the fact that they could do it (or, if I am omnipotent, if I permit free will for humans I am constraining my own omnipotence which is an impossibility due to my omnipotence).

I'm suggesting that a supreme being could choose to play according to certain rules without ceasing to be omnipotent. God could define free will for humankind to mean that He will choose to release them from his omnipotent will. I guess that He could change His mind if He felt like it but that doesn't mean that He has to. So, knowing that the creation of an independent human race would mean the creation of sin does not mean that He would desire humans to be sinful.

I like chocolate eclairs. They make me fat. I don't have to eat them. I am fat. However, I don't want to be fat.

There is a clear paradox over your concept of omnipotence: an omnipotent being can do anything; anything that occurs happens because they will it; because nothing can happen without them willing it they cannot bestow free will on anything outside of themself; because they cannot bestow free will on anything outside of themself, they're not omnipotent.

That's not to say that the Christian view of God makes any more sense. I don't believe that you can disprove the existence of God through logic any more than you can prove it.

[El D]

I think you have the main thust of my argument but have misinterpreted it in critical areas. The question of omnipotence and free will was one I had not honestly considered, however I do not believe it is an issue for the following reason - god is perfect. This essentially means that he could have given man free will and not constrained them, yet given them the same aspects of perfection which allow beings to exist without sin. Thus for god to exist allows the possibility that beings can exist with free will yet without sin - and this is not illogical in any way at all as the two are utterly distinct.

This further means that yes, god could give man free will and release them from his omnipotent will, but the negative results of this would be desired by him because he had the option of giving them same but with no evil necessarily to follow.

I would rather avoid getting into questions over definition of omnipotence because as you rightly comment we will end up in discussions about heavy rocks which will achieve nothing.

[pugwashjw]

Jesus is NOT God himself. He is God's son. Therefore the teaching of the Trinity is a false teaching. Jesus had a pre-human existence alongside his Father in heaven. Proverbs 8; 22-31 "22 �Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25 Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men".

Jesus WAS talking/praying to his Father.

[Lonnie]

Thanks pugwashjw, I didn't go into it as much as you, but that seems to be pretty conclisive.

[pugwashjw]

Almighty God and Jesus are two separate individuals. The Book of john has many scriptures proving this. First up, Jesus was created by his Father, [Almighty God, who has always existed] Proverbs 8;22-31] This is supported by John 1;10 and 1;14.& 15. Simply Jesus existed BEFORE he was SENT to earth, Then at John 1;18, the bible states that no man has seen God. But thousands saw Jesus. John 3;16 states that God gave his son. If Jesus IS God, he would not give himself. Jesus said at john 4;34 that he is 'doing the will' of HE who SENT him. Why would he say that if he SENT himself. That does not make sense. John 5;19. Jesus said he could do nothing of his OWN initiative. Five scriptures repeat this thought. IF Jesus was God, it WOULD be of his own initiative. But Jesus says otherwise. No, simply Jesus is God's son, not God himself.

[Lonnie]

I;m not going to argue that one pugwash, but I believe one man saw God, Moses, to compensate him because he wasn't going to live to reach the Promised Land, God alloed him to see his back parts.