quote:

---

June: I don't know if this fits on this thread, but what was Christ doing up until the time he began his ministry? why wasn't he fully using his time on earth to minister? he had 33(?) years on earth, so why did he only spend 3 of them teaching?

---

PoW: Here's part of an answer. You seemed to equate Jesus ministry with his teaching. Surely that was part of it. But I can make two comments on that to expand things -- one on each end, like bookends. On one side is the fact that Jesus ministry was not JUST as a teacher. Agree. Christ is the God-man. He assumed our fallen humanity as his own. Every day of his life was a suffering and an identification with us, and all of it was part of our salvation. That's huge! More than a teacher: our Redeemer! The bookend on the other side is the fact that the Son, the Word/Logos, has a teaching ministry no limited to his life on earth. The Word gave us the Bible, etc. Need I say more. A Church Father named Maximus the Confessor (5th or 6th cent.?) wrote that the Revelation of the Word is a second incarnation. (The Nativity being the third.) The initial incarnation was, in Maximus, the Creation by the utterance of the Word (Gen. 1 and John 1). THAT is also a form of "teaching" as "The heavens declare the glory of God, etc., etc., etc. (Pick your favorite sunset, lake, cloud-ducky, you-call-it. )

Again, welcome, June!

PotOnWheel

quote:

---

he used just about 3 years teaching. its not that often that God comes to earth in human form, so why didn't he use every single minute proclaiming his message?

June

---

quote:

---

But His BODY is here now!

I suppose you might ask why he said at the time that his ministry was not to the gentiles?

---

quote:

---

Dear azusastreet,

Part of what comes to mind is the way we are so used to handling the idea of "symbol." We assume that symbol and reality have to be two different things. The "lamb slain from..." can easily be both real and symbolic. I've heard a quote, perhaps stemming in part from that verse, but also probably from monastic piety, that "there was a cross in the heart of God from before the foundation of the world". (or something close) That form of basically the same Idea (in my view) doesn't suggest the "mechanical" version that you presented above. Yet it satisfies the verse. (It does not lead us to suggest God putting a cross in his heart several times until he gets it right...) AND it presents the main point.

---

quote:

---

Ever seen the "models" of an atom, with the electron(s) orbiting the nucleus like planets orbiting the sun? Is this a picture of "reality"? The answer is yes and no. Yes, the model corresponds to reality. But no, the model doesn't reflect anything "literal" about reality. It's a way of thinking about a reality that we have trouble picturing literally.

---

doesn't the model of the atom reflect something that is actually there though? doesn't the model point us to something that is ultimately true, but that we can't see? isn't an atom something that we can actually prove exists? maybe i'm reading your example wrong. help me out if i am.

quote:

---

The stories of Adam and Eve are more debatable. Most in church history have have some elements of the story to be non-literal, but there's always been discussion about what is and is not literal.

Nevertheless, almost all in church history have agreed that there really was a historical fall. At some point in the primordial past something went very very wrong with the human race. Whether Adam and Eve (Adam means "man" and Eve was originally called "woman" -- only getting her name "Eve" after the fall) reflect this historical fall literally is not as clear to many. But it IS REAL.

---

so if it's not literal why make up the adam and eve story? help me out! i'm not a dang theological genius like half the people on this board!

June

quote:

---

I see in religion the characteristic of humanity to grab ahold of an idea and with heads hard push and pull that idea to the utmost extremes.

---

quote:

---

Most scholars take it as certain that the genra of Job is an epic poem. This is not to say that it is not "based on" actual history. But it doesn't intend to depict reality as "what you would have heard and seen had you been there." It is not a poem, not a photograph.

---

quote:

---

peace, love, honor, duty, ambition, goodness, humility, success and all those things that keep at bay the innate coldness and lonliness of basic existence, that give us hope for a pleasantly comfortable tomorrow, can be found in the detachment from a centralized power figure (aka God(s)) and in thine own self. The self is a wonderful thing with potential for all accomplishments, infinite love and self-sacrifice for others.

---

quote:

---

Ever seen the "models" of an atom, with the electron(s) orbiting the nucleus like planets orbiting the sun? Is this a picture of "reality"? The answer is yes and no. Yes, the model corresponds to reality. But no, the model doesn't reflect anything "literal" about reality. It's a way of thinking about a reality that we have trouble picturing literally.

---

doesn't the model of the atom reflect something that is actually there though? doesn't the model point us to something that is ultimately true, but that we can't see? isn't an atom something that we can actually prove exists? maybe i'm reading your example wrong. help me out if i am.

quote:

---

The stories of Adam and Eve are more debatable. Most in church history have have some elements of the story to be non-literal, but there's always been discussion about what is and is not literal.

Nevertheless, almost all in church history have agreed that there really was a historical fall. At some point in the primordial past something went very very wrong with the human race. Whether Adam and Eve (Adam means "man" and Eve was originally called "woman" -- only getting her name "Eve" after the fall) reflect this historical fall literally is not as clear to many. But it IS REAL.

---

so if it's not literal why make up the adam and eve story? help me out! i'm not a dang theological genius like half the people on this board!

June

quote:

---

John Earp:

First, if it is accepted, as Doc and Reformed theologians generally say, that it was not possible for Jesus Christ to have sinned, the following conclusions seem inescapable (at least to me):

1. Christ's temptations were mere "fluff," and not in any sense real.

As to what would have happened had Christ sinned, it is of course unimaginable--perhaps annihilation for the whole universe, for God to sin and thus incur his own death. But in any case, for Christ's incarnation, suffering, death and resurrection to have any application to the world of men, it would seem that all of these must have been the action of a free moral agent. Phil. 2 seems to clearly state that the Son of God freely choose to become incarnate.

.......

It seems to me that to deny the possibility of Christ sinning is to deny the necessity of the incarnation itself--

---

Al: To the core of the contemporary issue, I think, it the recurring tendency to read this issue in a nominalistic fashion. Like a discussion I read a while back about metaphysics saying that Cartesian thinking places "a dividing line is placed between subject and object, the object being reduced and appearing only in counting experiments. This new conception leads quite readily to nominalism.", separation of Jesus CHOICES from Jesus PERSON reduces the issue (as you put it in your post) to a matter of arithmetic. Numbers. The contemporary bent on the issue, as I've seen it over and over again, is to focus on the number of choices Jesus had. It is presupposed that for Christ's choices (And choices ARE vital to the corollary areas you raised.) to be "free" that he had to have more than one. This is not the case. It is ludicrous. The "freedom" we are speaking of here is "freedom of will." Will is a natural thing. Our human nature, which Christ shared and suffered to save, is "naturally" God-ward. Anything anti-God-ward is "unnatural." Sin is unnatural. So much so that it results in death. ("The day that you eat of it, that day it shall be then true that 'you shall surely die.'") And a little 'leaven' is determinant of the whole lump.

Christ's obedience was natural, of the human nature that He assumed. There is, I've seen, some differences of view taken over the centuries by Eastern Orthodox whether the humanity that Christ took was 'fallen' and hence weakened, or whether it was a non-weakened (as if pre-Adamic) version. The first provides a sick patient ready for healing work to begin. The second provides obvious illustration of love as Christ wills to take on our sufferings. (The incarnation IS a mystery.)


As to your post, John: "...say, that it was not possible for Jesus Christ to have sinned...". The focus of this view could be on either the numbers (possibility) or the person (will) of Christ's life. I'd say that Christ definitely had the opportunity to sin, and my own view is that he also had the motive (temptation). Yet He did not will to sin. And being the Son His humanity was personally his own: it was the Son who's human body suffered.

An issue that needs raised, and clarification, is that ALL humans--so Christ too--have a nature that is by design God-ward. Christ's human-willing to body-and-mind-obey the Father (e.g., in the garden) was not unnatural, but natural. Were is unnatural, THEN (and only then) we would have do discuss whether Christ's humanity was just a robot obeying the Son's nature. The intimations you made, John, point in the right direction for that case. (Which, praise the Lord, is not the case--for our salvation's sake: "For us men and our salvation" as the Nicene Creed says.) Christ's humanity was not a robot. Against that view one of the Eccumenical Councils preached that "what is not assumed is not healed." Christ had, and had to have, two wills. A 'nature' without a 'will' would provide nothing to heal humanity. But Christ Jesus, in his divinity of-course willed in unity with the Father from whom he was begotten. And in his humanity, DESPITE REALLY SUFFERING AND REALLY BEING TEMPTED (by sharing our falleness, or by taking it on--take your pick from the options I mentioned above.) REALLY, REALLY, WILLED HUMANLY to obey, dispite humanly, psychosomatically, wishing for any other way. But faced with the horrible--the sweating blood kind of horrible--Christ still willed humanly, "naturally" as is human to be God-ward, dispite weakness and dispite any temptation (??? I'm really not inclined to picture the devil tempting him at that point--so maybe no temptation, just penultimate burden!)

So, the question actually comes down to, is it possible for a human to sin and still do it in accordance with his/her "natural will"? And the answer according to Genesis 1 & 2 is "No." Its not. But Christ came to save the lost. Christ had the opportunities to sin. And if one wishes to count those as "possibilities" for sin, then they can be counted. But what is not necessary for salvation is that Christ be sinful--will contrary to human nature. That would--this is hypothetical--only introduce one more human psychosoma that needed healing. No savior there.

Posted: 1. Christ's temptations were mere "fluff," and not in any sense real.

No way. Cartesian thinking, perhaps, might consider the numbers of whether reality is based on numerically potential outcomes. But as that metaphisics article mentioned above pointed out, that is "DIVIDING subject and object." If I understand that phrase it points out that one should not separate the PERSON of Christ from His CHOICES. Choices flow from the person. What was natural for Christ, since he was without sin, is what his choices flow from. Christ WAS tempted. The temptations (By choice to be tempted, or by weakness to be subject to them. This is a lot to keep up with. ) were a real cause of suffering. If there were no suffering, then and only then might one say "fluff." But since he suffered, any posit of fluff is mere trash.


You post a worthy statement: ...for Christ's incarnation, suffering, death and resurrection to have any application to the world of men, it would seem that all of these must have been the action of a free moral agent. Phil. 2 seems to clearly state that the Son of God freely choose to become incarnate.

Good. Yes, Christ Jesus was a free moral agent. his sinlessness made him that. Someone enslaved to sin is NOT a free agent; he is a slave. Christ was free. And more than that--since we were talking about numbers--a victom of mob-violence is not their own agent. They do not control their own outcome. But Christ could have actually come down off that cross. He could have called angels. But, Christ, unlike any other man, chose his own outcome. Freely. That is why Orthodox icons of Christ on the Cross are so different from the Gothic "pieta" images. Christ freely, lovingly, gave himself for us. No one took it from him. That is what you site in Phil. 2.


That's my take, and my contribution.

Incisive post John.

Al

quote:

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
S.B.G.

Fascinating thread! Lots of insightful, intricate, intriguing posts! Here’s my take on the issue, for what it’s worth. Due to time constraints (I’m on my lunch hour) I cannot go into more details to support my theory, but here it is:

I believe Jesus could have sinned.
*When Christ became a man and came to earth, Christ emptied Himself of His own power and took on our humanity. (He made Himself lower than the angels, made Himself nothing) The only “power” we see in Christ on earth is what was given to Him by the Father.
* Mary and Joseph were specifically chosen by God so they could teach Jesus the skills He needed to develop a living walk with God. Once Jesus was able to recognize the Spirit’s voice, he didn’t need to rely on His earthly parents for instruction.
* Through constant prayer and openness, Jesus was so fully in tuned to God, that He heard His Father’s voice, followed His Fathers’ leading and out of love and obedience, made all the right choices. (Greg kind of referenced this in one of his posts—full humanity is the image of God) Furthermore, Christ had read the prophesies which were written about Himself, and they confirmed His decisions every time one was fulfilled.
*When Jesus talks to the Pharisees in John chapter 5, He tells them “The Son can do nothing by Himself except what He sees the Father doing, for the Father loves the Son and shows Him all He does.” In John 8:44 Jesus tells the Pharisees “You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers’ desire.” And verse 47 says “the reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Did God take a risk sending Jesus? Yes. He risked the obedience of Christ. But God is all wise and if Jesus would listen to Him, everything would go as planned.

Could the plan of God have failed? In terms of possibilities, yes. In terms of probabilities, absolutely NOT. Again, God is infinitely wise; He knows the character of Christ, He knows the depth and love that Jesus has for humans. God knows the trust that He and Jesus have for each other, they’ve been together from all eternity! The two are so “one” there was no doubt in God’s mind that Christ would carry out Their will. If it had failed, I believe that would have been the end of humanity on earth. There would never be another Messiah, there would be no salvation for us.

I think prophesies are events that God is going to either allow or make happen. The specifics may or may not be known (such as who will betray Jesus) but they WILL happen. In the case of Jesus, they proved that Jesus was the Christ…even to Jesus Himself.

If I’m all wet, please be gentle, I’m just a neophyte!

S.B.G.

---

Here’s an interesting article that covers a variety of views: http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_ken.htm
Philippians 2:5-11, The Kenosis
by Rodney J. Decker

V. Conclusion: Jesus did not empty himself of anything. During the incarnation he still possessed the morfh/' qeou' [MORFH QEOU] and he was still i[sa qew'/ [ISA QEWi]. The text says absolutely nothing about his attributes. How did he make himself nothing? Note the following participles (that are probably used instrumentally): morfh;n douvlou labwvn, ejn oJmoiwvmati ajnqrwvpwn genovmeno" [MORFHN DOULOU LABWN, EN hOMOIWMATI ANQRWPWN GENOMENOS], "by taking the form of a servant [and] by becoming in the likeness of humanity." In that condition he did not manifest the morfh'/ qeou' [MORFH QEOU] outwardly. That he still possessed it, however, may be seen in the transfiguration. The morfh;n douvlou [MORFH DOULOU] served as a temporary veil cloaking the morfh'/ qeou' [MORFH QEOU].

But there is another answer. Commenting on this question about to whom Christ "pays the price" for man's salvation, St. Gregory the Theologian in the fourth century wrote the following in his second Easter Oration:



quote:

---

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

---