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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WileyC1949
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Usagi said:
I agree with you that “Adam” could very well have been a hominid who… (rest of quote remove to make room)…,whoever this “Adam” was, he did something, made some choice, after his coming to awareness, that broke his awesome relationship with God.
Click to expand...
If Adam was in fact a hominid, which could be defined as an animal not quite evolved to the state of humanness, then, as with all other animals, they do not share a “relationship” with God as that would require an intelligence and conscious thought. If this were the case then there was nothing to “break”. Consider this scenario: You place a raw steak on the floor in front of a highly intelligent dog and you tell him “Do not eat that steak!”. The dog knows that you do not want him not to touch it, but five minutes after you leave the room the odds are steak will be gone anyways. Did the dog “sin” by disobeying you, or was he just being a dog? He may have known that you did not want him to eat the steak but he couldn’t have know that doing so was an evil because he had no concept of evil. What exists is real, not what is coming tomorrow, and not principles of morality.
Usagi said:
And his descendants ever since have had to live with that broken relationship until God took the initiative to heal it through the Incarnation. That broken relationship is “the stain of Original Sin.” Not an inherited sin or guilt, but an inherited consequence, a lack of something we could all have had.
Click to expand...
My relationship with God is very different that my mother’s or father’s, who, in their own way, were devout. If I do not inherit my father’s sins or any repercussions of my father’s sins then I am free to establish my own relationship with God. The relationship you describe seems to be more like that our spiritual soul might share with Him before we were conceived. But that relationship would have been based on awe rather than love because God could not create us already loving.

This is why I feel that the purpose of our physical existence is to learn to love, and it is the conscience (the knowledge of good and evil), and out free ability to act on it, which is our guide. Christ’s Incarnation, message, death and Resurrection most certainly give absolute credence to it.
Usagi said:
Mary’s Immaculate Conception means that she did not start with that lack;
Click to expand...
If none of us have the “lack” as I described then I do feel that the concepts of the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin have to be reexamined. They could be true IF Adam and Eve were special specific creations. But if we are products of an evolutionary development then there was no literal “Garden of Eden”, no literal “Adam & Eve”, and no literal “Original Sin”.
Usagi said:
but I don’t think there’s a practical possibility (even though his human will had the theoretical ability) that he would have said “No! My will be done!” and gone on about his life. Jesus also embodied the divine will, and the divine will does not change or oppose itself.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Wesrock said:
And what if the first man with a human soul (as opposed to his blood relations which may not have made that leap) is the figure we call Adam, and original sin is when that first man disobeyed God, and its from this man’s descendants (and maybe even intermixing with the ones who hadn’t made the leap leading to greater genetic diversity) that all men and women with true human souls come from?
Click to expand...
I suppose that certainly could be the case, but it still places the story itself into the category of “figurative”. Science tells us that while genetic markers can be traced to a “Scientific Adam”… the first male to have the genetic markers which are shared by all men today and “Mitochondrial Eve”…the first female to have the genetic markers shared by all women today…both lived in Africa but at time periods hundreds of years apart and in areas hundreds if not more than a thousand miles apart.


 
Wannano said:
That would certainly explain why we act so much like monkeys! I wonder why it is so hard to believe God formed the first man Adam from the dust just like the Bible says.
Click to expand...
That’s just it… He did! Just as science says. Certainly the concept of life from lifelessness has never been proven but both the Bible and science cite the same source. One just calls it “the dust of the Earth” and the other calls it “primordial goo”. Please note that in Genesis 1 the Bible does NOT say that God instantly created plants and animal life. Rather it TWICE states that God charged the EARTH to produce plants and the EARTH to produce animal life. And note that the order of appearance of the various living things corresponds nicely with what science says was the evolutionary development.
 
WileyC1949 said:
Yes, I do believe He had two will, just as we are body and soul. But while the human will of Jesus would have loved to say no, He did always defer His will to the Father’s. But while the result was Jesus accepting the will of the Father His human will was opposed until He accepted without question the Divine will… hence His calmness in meeting those sent to get Him.
Click to expand...
I would say it differently. Just because God incarnated, that doesn’t mean at ANYTIME His human will was in conflict with His Divine will. Jesus is NOT conflicted at any time between wills. He is perfectly obedient. The questions He asks in scripture, are for our benefit not His. He already knows the answer to every question He asks before He asks. Before He spoke in the beginning, and all that is came into existence, He knew the answer to everything from beginning to end… including everything about His passion and death… and in spite of all He did for us He knew few in humanity would take advantage of it as in He said few are saved. Obviously looking ahead in time to the end, that bit of information is particularly important for all humanity to know. Just as obvious, it appears few take Him at His word.
 
Mary was capable of sin, just as Eve was conceived immaculately.

Jesus, too, had the ability to sin. Satan’s temptation in the desert was only effective because Christ had the divine privilege to fulfill each offer. Satan had no power to grant those wishes, but convincing Christ to use his divinity for selfish ends would have been Satan’s ultimate accomplishment.

So, yes, you are correct that God the Son could disobey the Father. His obedience is that of supreme humility, not compulsion.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
WileyC1949 said:
40.png
Wannano:
That would certainly explain why we act so much like monkeys! I wonder why it is so hard to believe God formed the first man Adam from the dust just like the Bible says.
Click to expand...
That’s just it… He did! Just as science says. Certainly the concept of life from lifelessness has never been proven but both the Bible and science cite the same source. One just calls it “the dust of the Earth” and the other calls it “primordial goo”. Please note that in Genesis 1 the Bible does NOT say that God instantly created plants and animal life. Rather it TWICE states that God charged the EARTH to produce plants and the EARTH to produce animal life. And note that the order of appearance of the various living things corresponds nicely with what science says was the evolutionary development.
Click to expand...
" out of dust thou art and unto primordial goo thou shall return?"
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Well, then He gave up His human will. This require a decision.
Click to expand...
Not so much gave up His will but made His personal human will subject to the will of God. 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.
 
No. He could not have sinned, and it was not necessary for him to have the possibility of doing so in order that the Sacrifice of himself be valid.

As someone pointed out earlier, please stop spreading false doctrine.
 
But where is the logical error?

I am stating that in light of the fact that the Church allows the believe in evolution, and in fact a number of the Popes have accepted evolution as a scientific fact then it places the story of Adam & Eve category of a teaching story rather than a historical one. If it is not historical then that fact logically brings into question a number of Church teachings including the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin which I feel should therefore be reexamined and perhaps adjusted.

It would be illogical reasoning to reject the scientific concept of evolution because of the desire to cling historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story, because true science is another source of God’s revelation to man concerning the physical universe. If you hold that God created the universe in which ever way HE chose then it logically follows that He created the science by which it runs. True science then can only tell us HOW God did what He did. One of the priests can correct me if I am wrong but I believe that this was actually the opening argument in Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” and he stated that there can be no conflict between true science and Sacred Tradition.

I think this is especially true one you get away from viewing it historically because of the incredible profoundness of the story which can be seen once it is not viewed that way. Through deductive reasoning you can I believe uncover the entire purpose of life, the reason why pain and suffering exist, and why direct knowledge of God’s existence is denied to us. I think I may have found the answers to those questions deeply underneath the words that are there, but you will not find it treating the story as word-for-word accurate history.
 
Last edited:
WileyC1949 said:
there can be no conflict between true science and Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm
" On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: “Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower” (Proverbs 9:3).
I answer that, Since this science [doctrine] is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divineknowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It may be doctrinal error. But I asked a question earlier which you avoided as to whether or not it is logical error in light of the general acceptance even by various Popes of the scientific concept of evolution. Science has already proved that the Earth is a sphere and not a circle, it does not have four corners, the universe did not come into being in six days nor does the sun travel around the Earth as is stated on implied in the Bible. The Church has accepted all of these even though at one time they were opposed to these concepts. So the Bible DOES contain scientific errors. Certainly the theory of evolution has not been absolutely proven but there is tons of evidence to support it. Are you waiting until it does get absolutely proven to even consider the possibility?
 
It has been a while since I tried to conquer the Summa, and I admit I didn’t get through it. But a more recent document expresses what I said:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. … Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.”
 
Last edited:
How do you do what you’re doing here? How are you quoting from that website? How do you get it to appear in a light grey ‘text box’?
 
You referenced the Summa, I provided the relevant section from the Summa concerning the most divine of sciences, sacred doctrine.
semper_catholicus said:
How do you do what you’re doing here? How are you quoting from that website? How do you get it to appear in a light grey ‘text box’?
Click to expand...
I literally just copied the text and pasted it here, for some reason NewAdvent allows me to bring their formatting over too. 😆 As for the grey box, put a “>” in front of the text you want to be a block. It stops at an empty line, so it won’t include enter spaces. So " > Test" looks like:
Test
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
I said we in our sinful nature aren’t fully human.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top