Did Jesus have the ability to say "No" to the Father?

[Roseeurekacross]

You are not Catholic, therefore you do not believe in Jesus. So you do not believe that any of it was possible. And that is part of your journey

 

[semper_catholicus]

Oh cool. Thanks for the info.

 

[STT]

That is not true. In fact that is a heresy. T is a dogma of the faith the Jesus Christ had two wills, one Divine and one Human.

There is a tension between Divine and human will since in one you cannot sin but in another you can.

 

[STT]

Not so much gave up His will but made His personal human will subject to the will of God.

So His human will was not free.

I am not arguing that He did something wrong or even ever would have done something wrong. I am only saying He could have, and that fact of a free will decision was absolutely necessary for His sacrifice to be valid.

You are correct. But His decision was not a sacrifice if His human will was subjected to His divine will.

 

[STT]

What is that?

 

[STT]

We cannot believe contrary things. Having divine will means that He could not sin. Having human will means that He could sin.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We cannot believe contrary things. Having divine will means that He could not sin. Having human will means that He could sin.

see the thing is Jesus is the Word Incarnate. Jesus is the second member of the Trinity. Jesus is God.

and as the Incarnation, Jesus was born of a woman, was a jew, had family, ate, drank, laughed, cried, loved , lost, was scorned and made friends. Jesus had radical ideas for a first century palestinian Jew. He was murdered as a zealot, a political insurgent. He challenged the status quo.

As the Incarnation , Jesus has a fully human nature. He was born, was a baby, grew up, learnt to walk talk, eat solid food, run, play, learn. As a man Jesus took up responsibility worked, then started His public ministry. After Jesus was executed, He rose from the dead, God Raised Him up, the first to be resurrected. Jesus has a fully Divine nature too. Glorified as the Son of God, Lord of Lords, Light of the world,

Of course we can believe this, it happened, its God, our Creator, Incarnated as a fully human man. Being fully human , Jesus could have said nah, not doing it, going to do my own thing. But Jesus was obedient to Abba, His Father in Heaven.

You are correct. But His decision was not a sacrifice if His human will was subjected to His divine will.

Jesus gave up His life, sacrificed His life as the innocent suffering servant. So we , you included, could have salvation, redemption, forgiveness and mercy. We see a very human Jesus in the Garden the night He is arrested. A human Jesus who is sweating blood, knowing whats about to happen to Him.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What is that?

Learn a little of early church history, how the catholic church developed its doctrine. We had councils. The leaders and minds of the Church got together at these councils and worked out what this all meant, the Incarnation, the Man Jesus, the Resurrected Jesus. They worked out Christology.

Start with the early church heresies, especially Arius and his heresy, and the Council of Nicea, in AD325, go from there

To say Jesus was not fully human with a fully human nature, in all things except sin, and Jesus is fully divine, with a fully Divine nature, is a heresy.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Not if you assume a perfect human will, as Christ did.

To maintain that He didn’t have two wills or that they weren’t united is a heresy.

 

[WileyC1949]

Actually it is connected to this thread because IF the evolutionary theory is correct in any form (including divine guidance) then the historical nature of the A&E story has to be questioned, and along with it the doctrines based on the story as being historical. As I said I do not see how evolution could be accurate as it presently stands probably for the same reasons as you. If it did occur it had to be directed by a mega-intelligence, and there actually IS scientific evidence of that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103513000791

The Icarus article only postulates that the mega-intelligence was another species within the universe and the overlook that the intelligence could be from outside of the universe or divine.

The science point to (does not prove) that the A&E story more likely than not is scientifically incorrect. The deeper meaning of the story which I referred to is enhanced if it is not taken literally.

Likewise if Jesus and the ability to sin, as several Church doctrines do state, even if He would never do so it also bring into question the same doctrines.

As I said to Fr. David it is a can of worms that I really didn’t want to get into on this thread, but the can has been opened. What I would love to see is an unquestionable logical explanation of how these doctrines could preserved as-is while at the same time embracing the modern scientific theories as factual in some way.

 

[STT]

see the thing is Jesus is the Word Incarnate. Jesus is the second member of the Trinity. Jesus is God.

and as the Incarnation, Jesus was born of a woman, was a jew, had family, ate, drank, laughed, cried, loved , lost, was scorned and made friends. Jesus had radical ideas for a first century palestinian Jew. He was murdered as a zealot, a political insurgent. He challenged the status quo.

As the Incarnation , Jesus has a fully human nature. He was born, was a baby, grew up, learnt to walk talk, eat solid food, run, play, learn. As a man Jesus took up responsibility worked, then started His public ministry. After Jesus was executed, He rose from the dead, God Raised Him up, the first to be resurrected. Jesus has a fully Divine nature too. Glorified as the Son of God, Lord of Lords, Light of the world,

Of course we can believe this, it happened, its God, our Creator, Incarnated as a fully human man. Being fully human , Jesus could have said nah, not doing it, going to do my own thing. But Jesus was obedient to Abba, His Father in Heaven.

You are not making a real argument. You have ability to sin in one hand and disability to sin in another hand. That is contradictory since you cannot have two contrary thing at the same time.

Moreover, if he learnt things including the concept of sin then he could sin without being aware of that.

Jesus gave up His life, sacrificed His life as the innocent suffering servant. So we , you included, could have salvation, redemption, forgiveness and mercy. We see a very human Jesus in the Garden the night He is arrested. A human Jesus who is sweating blood, knowing whats about to happen to Him.

Is there a sacrifice when you have to do something?

 

[STT]

Learn a little of early church history, how the catholic church developed its doctrine. We had councils. The leaders and minds of the Church got together at these councils and worked out what this all meant, the Incarnation, the Man Jesus, the Resurrected Jesus. They worked out Christology.

Start with the early church heresies, especially Arius and his heresy, and the Council of Nicea, in AD325, go from there

To say Jesus was not fully human with a fully human nature, in all things except sin, and Jesus is fully divine, with a fully Divine nature, is a heresy.

Thanks for explanation. I learnt something.

So, what we know about Jesus is from people understanding?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

You are not making a real argument

The Catholic Church has two things called Doctrine and Dogma. The beauty of these is that the laity need not make arguments about them. We follow and subscribe to them.

Moreover, if he learnt things including the concept of sin then he could sin without being aware of that.

Jesus is always given a capital H in He.

Is there a sacrifice when you have to do something?

Jesus did not have to martyr Himself. What makes you think it was a compulsory act?

So, what we know about Jesus is from people understanding?

Can you rephrase that , or add words to understanding

 

[STT]

The Catholic Church has two things called Doctrine and Dogma. The beauty of these is that the laity need not make arguments about them. We follow and subscribe to them.

Things has to follow logic otherwise they are not real.

Jesus is always given a capital H in He.

I miss that. Sorry. What about my claim?

Jesus did not have to martyr Himself. What makes you think it was a compulsory act?

He subjected Himself to Divine Will. Divine Will is mandatory when it comes to sin, God cannot sin.

Can you rephrase that , or add words to understanding

You accept that Jesus was something different from human being or mere God being. This is explained by understanding of people.

 

[WileyC1949]

then He could sin without being aware of that
__[_/_quote]
No one can sin without being aware of it. Sin requires a conscious decision.

He subjected Himself to Divine Will. Divine Will is mandatory when it comes to sin, God cannot sin.

Correct, He DID subject Himself to the Divine Will. He did that Himself. Therefore even though He, like all men, had the ability to sin He would not do so because He always allowed the Divine Will to guide Him. If He did not have the ability to say “No” there would have no sacrifice on His part because His actions as a man were pre-programmed.

 

[STT]

No one can sin without being aware of it. Sin requires a conscious decision.

Kids can do. We define sin to them and they learn it.

Correct, He DID subject Himself to the Divine Will. He did that Himself. Therefore even though He, like all men, had the ability to sin He would not do so because He always allowed the Divine Will to guide Him. If He did not have the ability to say “No” there would have no sacrifice on His part because His actions as a man were pre-programmed.

There are two points here.
First: He used His human will to decide about being subject to Divine will in order to sacrifice Himself. That is not different from deciding to sacrifice Himself based on human will.

Second: I don’t understand you. You are the one who is claiming that Jesus didn’t make any sacrifice if He was not able to do otherwise.

 

[Hodos]

we are fully human. we are created by God, His human creatures. I am not sure what you mean or where you are getting that we are not fully human?

Did God create us with original sin, or is that something we acquired after the fall?

 

[WileyC1949]

Kids can do. We define sin to them and they learn it.

Still that would be no. Anyone, child or adult, can only sin when they know something is wrong and do it anyways. It is not the action that makes something a sin, it is the intent. I would put it in the same category as if a wolf commits a sin or is he doing evil when he kills a human. He is just being a wolf, he is not doing evil even if something that could be defined as evil is being done.

First: He used His human will to decide about being subject to Divine will in order to sacrifice Himself. That is not different from deciding to sacrifice Himself based on human will.

Second: I don’t understand you. You are the one who is claiming that Jesus didn’t make any sacrifice if He was not able to do otherwise.

First: He used His human will to decide to do all things in accord with the Divine Will. And yes, He did have a clear vision of what the Divine will was. Even when His human will protested and asked for His task to be removed from Him. He was in agony about this and was so troubled about what was to come. But then, according to the story, as soon as He made the decision to follow the Divine will He got us and calmly met His persecutors. It is not a question of would He do the Divine will because He always would. But like the guy I mentioned earlier who always took 3 right hand turns instead of taking a left hand turn, the fact that he always did that did not take away his ability to take a left hand turn.

Second: I stand by that. Just as without making a conscious decision to commit sin no sin has been committed so to without a conscious to do good no good has been done. If somehow a person was somehow brainwashed to always do something which was either right or wrong, and had no choice but to do it, would it be that person who was responsible or whoever brainwashed him? If Jesus had no choice but to suffer and die then He made no sacrifice. But because He decided to always do the will of the Father it was His choice and as a result the sacrifice is valid.

 

[STT]

What is the difference between using His human will to decide about being subjected to Divine will in order to sacrifice Himself and using human will to decide to sacrifice Himself?

 

[WileyC1949]

What is the difference between using His human will to decide about being subjected to Divine will in order to sacrifice Himself and using human will to decide to sacrifice Himself?

Nothing really. The result is the same and they both involve His decision.