Jump to content
Glenn101

The Temptations of Christ

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

As far as I know from the Christian beliefs, Christ was unable to sin because of His divine nature. As God The Father is holy and unable to sin, so was Jesus Christ. Therefore, it was impossible for Him to give into the temptations.

So we have capabilities that God and Christ lack?  That means their power isn't all inclusive and we have some power they don't.

Wrong.  God and Christ have natures that don't make them to want to sin but they have agency and the power to act so they are capable, not willing.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, pogi said:

As every FLDS household has hanging on their wall:

Image result for jesus mary and martha painting

Curious how you know this is in FLDS homes?

I  like Greg Olsen's.ed862723a3eea13a2d4848ef3763dd6c--mary-a

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

As far as I know from the Christian beliefs, Christ was unable to sin because of His divine nature. As God The Father is holy and unable to sin, so was Jesus Christ. Therefore, it was impossible for Him to give into the temptations.

Yes, that does seem to be the mainstream Christian belief. The scriptures that we have do not say such explicitly thus leaving open the interpretation of such scriptures that I quoted, If a person was incapable of sinning doesn't stand to reason that such an one also is incapable od being tempted?

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So we have capabilities that God and Christ lack?  That means their power isn't all inclusive and we have some power they don't.

Wrong.  God and Christ have natures that don't make them to want to sin but they have agency and the power to act so they are capable, not willing.

Technically, sin isn't a capability. It's a lack of capability to obey God's objective morality. If God is the standard of objective morality and to sin means to not adhere to said standard, then Him not adhering to His own nature would be a paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/22/2018 at 12:01 AM, strappinglad said:

Who was it that said," you can't stop the birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair ." ?

My mission president.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/22/2018 at 7:10 AM, Lucian Hodoboc said:

As far as I know from the Christian beliefs, Christ was unable to sin because of His divine nature. As God The Father is holy and unable to sin, so was Jesus Christ. Therefore, it was impossible for Him to give into the temptations.

Well, I don't know about "Christian" beliefs, but if Christ was unable to sin, then keeping himself free from sin was a cake walk and nothing to remark upon.  And dealing with the pain of the Atonement would have been nothing at all, too, right?  The thing is, everything that is written in the Bible about his suffering seems to suggest that it was a hard thing to do.  If he could not have chosen to avoid it, that it was going to happen no matter what he wanted, then his suffering was not remarkable at all.

For Christ's sacrifice to actually BE a sacrifice requires that he had a choice.  And if he had a choice about whether or not to suffer, then how could he have had a choice about whether or not to sin?  Because he wasn't a robot who mindlessly went through the motions.  It was all real to him, and at any time he could have chosen to do otherwise.  If he couldn't, why would Lucifer attempt to tempt him?  Lucifer would have known it was impossible for Christ to sin, and so why would have tried tempting him?  Lucifer must have know that it was possible for Christ to fall -- or he wouldn't have tempted him.

I suggest that Christ's ability to sin, in the face of his refusal to do so, counts more towards his divinity than being unable to sin. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/23/2018 at 5:50 AM, Lucian Hodoboc said:

Technically, sin isn't a capability. It's a lack of capability to obey God's objective morality. If God is the standard of objective morality and to sin means to not adhere to said standard, then Him not adhering to His own nature would be a paradox.

I do not agree with that definition of sin. The dictionary definition is a transgression of divine law, especially willful transgression. The scriptures imply also that it must be a knowing willful transgression, (Romans 4:15).

As for sin being against God's own nature, we would of necessity have to have a consensus on the makeup of the Godhead, i.e. the Trinity vs. three separate, distinct beings united in purpose.

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If God created the divine law according to something else other than His own nature, then what is that something else? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

If God created the divine law according to something else other than His own nature, then what is that something else? 🤔

What gives you idea that the divine law is according to something other than God's own nature?

Wouldn't a perfect being already have the perfect law?

Here's a question: do God's laws for us apply equally to Him?  Or does he work according to laws that apply only to Himself?  Or is God lawless, or, in other words, cannot an omnipotent and omniscient being do whatever it is He wants to, no matter what it is?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What gives you idea that the divine law is according to something other than God's own nature?

It's not my idea. It's what the member above my post implied. 😐 This forum software makes quoting multiple posts (quotes within quotes) ridiculously difficult, so the conversations tend to become confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

If God created the divine law according to something else other than His own nature, then what is that something else? 🤔

Are you positive that God created Divine law or that He understands it perfectly, follows it, and passes it along?

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

This is what makes the atonement so incredible, Jesus got to know and experience everything we could ever experience. That includes all temptation. And His father had the same experiences.

I look in awe to them for they know me and they know my situation because they've been in it.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/28/2018 at 6:09 AM, Stargazer said:

What gives you idea that the divine law is according to something other than God's own nature?

Wouldn't a perfect being already have the perfect law?

Here's a question: do God's laws for us apply equally to Him?  Or does he work according to laws that apply only to Himself?  Or is God lawless, or, in other words, cannot an omnipotent and omniscient being do whatever it is He wants to, no matter what it is?

 

On 11/28/2018 at 6:19 AM, Lucian Hodoboc said:

It's not my idea. It's what the member above my post implied. 😐 This forum software makes quoting multiple posts (quotes within quotes) ridiculously difficult, so the conversations tend to become confusing.

I guess I don't understand what you are saying... I simply hit the "+" sign on each of your posts to list multiple quotes... hence, the two here...  You can edit a post to include a single sentence, or more... whatever you want to include... 

GG

Edited by Garden Girl

Share this post


Link to post

Concerning the „divine law“ or „law of eternal progression“ and if Gods made it.

My take would be they embody it. Christ embodies the divine law through His life, teachings, atonement and resurrection. The law would be nothing those „examples“ (lacking a better English term right now, sorry).

Who will it be, hugging us and welcoming us in the celestial kingdom? I am confident to say, it would be people, divine exalted people, Jesus Christ and His Father.

The questions „what is godhood, where does it come from?“ and „where did the way the gods live come from?“ cannot be discounted totally. Still, from God's perspective He is not following any „law“, His life is the law.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2018 at 2:02 AM, Garden Girl said:

 

I guess I don't understand what you are saying... I simply hit the "+" sign on each of your posts to list multiple quotes... hence, the two here...  You can edit a post to include a single sentence, or more... whatever you want to include... 

GG

No. I mean quotes within quotes. As you can see, when I quoted your post, the quotes you made from my previous post were not included in this quote. I would have to click inside the quote box in this text editor and then return to my post and press the quote button in order for it to be included inside your quote.

Like this:

On 12/2/2018 at 2:02 AM, Garden Girl said:
On 11/28/2018 at 4:19 PM, Lucian Hodoboc said:

It's not my idea. It's what the member above my post implied. 😐 This forum software makes quoting multiple posts (quotes within quotes) ridiculously difficult, so the conversations tend to become confusing.

I guess I don't understand what you are saying... I simply hit the "+" sign on each of your posts to list multiple quotes... hence, the two here...  You can edit a post to include a single sentence, or more... whatever you want to include... 

GG

Understand what I'm trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/21/2018 at 12:37 AM, JLHPROF said:

Christ was a man in mortality.  He had wives, probably children.

Do you have a reference for Christ's polygamy?

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, theplains said:

Do you have a reference for Christ's polygamy?

Thanks,
Jim

You know good and well he's speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you have a reference for Christ's polygamy?

Thanks,
Jim

 

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You know good and well he's speculating.

Speculation?  Maybe.   I prefer hypothesizing based on available evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Speculation?  Maybe.   I prefer hypothesizing based on available evidence.

LOL, so do I.

Wasn't the kind of speculation I meant.  In other words, he's trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2018 at 1:46 PM, Stargazer said:

LOL, so do I.

Wasn't the kind of speculation I meant.  In other words, he's trolling.

JLHPROF's original statement (to which I replied) didn't sound like speculation so it's odd you
would use the word 'trolling' for someone to request a source for a statement. He later changed
his stance to 'hypothesising.'  

Thanks,
Jim

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:28 PM, theplains said:

Do you have a reference for Christ's polygamy?

Thanks,
Jim

To which I wrote to you:

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:32 PM, Stargazer said:

You know good and well he's speculating.

Because it seemed to me that JLHPROF was speculating when he wrote "He had wives, probably children", which is clearly an opinion, not really subject to a CFR.  Admittedly you weren't issuing one, but...

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 1:51 AM, JLHPROF said:

 

Speculation?  Maybe.   I prefer hypothesizing based on available evidence.

A hypothesis is a form of speculation, even when based on available evidence.  

Asking for a reference on Jesus's supposed polygamy seemed to me at the time rather like trolling, or in other words, poking at something or someone to get a rise out of them and not much else.  BUT, upon reflection, I retract the "trolling" suggestion. I'm sure you genuinely would like to know how the heck came to that, ok, I'll call it hypothesis.  And I'll admit it: I think I would like to know how he came to this, too!  

I "get" the being married and the children thing, and it wouldn't surprise me, but polygamy?  Pre-Maccabee Israel clearly practiced polygamy, but I've never heard that it was practiced in post-Maccabee times, and into Roman times.  Seems very unlikely to me.

So, JLHPROF, please explain your hypothesis.  I'm all ears, and probably Jim is, too.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×