The temptation in the desert: Could Jesus have sinned?

[PRmerger]

why would there be a difference in moral sandards of perfection between the devine and the human?

We’re not talking about moral “standards” zro.

We’re talking ontological here.

And the ontological difference between the human person and the divine Person is INFINITE.

In any case, if this is true, than Jesus could not have been both a morally perfect human being and a morally perfect God, as is the typical claim.

Why not?

 

[StevenS]

If Jesus was God, and God can not sin, then either both Jesus and God do not have free will, or else it is possible for someone to exist who has free will and by his nature does not sin. If the latter is true, then the natural follow-up question is, “why didn’t God make all of us with this nature?”

God chose to make us capable of choosing His love, or rejecting it. Becuse He is love, He afforded us this option. Love without the ability to accept or reject it isn’t what we understand of love. Our nature includes choice. Perhaps elsewhere in His universe He did create beings that have souls and are simply obedient. I sometimes wonder if people with severe mental limitations aren’t in that category, made with free-will, but incapable of sin.

 

[zro_x]

We’re not talking about moral “standards” zro.

We’re talking ontological here.

And the ontological difference between the human person and the divine Person is INFINITE.

So what? the logic still applies to an infinite being just as much as to a finite being. The best good is possible only after denying the sin you are attracted to, to do the right thing.

Why not?

To be a morally perfect human, he would have had to been attracted to sin and yet still choose to turn away. To be a morally perfect God, he would have had to be unattracted to sin. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[zro_x]

God chose to make us capable of choosing His love, or rejecting it. Becuse He is love, He afforded us this option. Love without the ability to accept or reject it isn’t what we understand of love. Our nature includes choice.

(bolding mine)

But if God by his nature can’t sin, then God does not have this ability.

 

[PRmerger]

So what? the logic still applies to an infinite being just as much as to a finite being. The best good is possible only after denying the sin you are attracted to, to do the right thing.

For the human person, yes.

To be a morally perfect human, he would have had to been attracted to sin and yet still choose to turn away

Or to see sin for all its horror, and in that not be attracted to it at all.

For example, here is a part of me that is morally perfect. At this moment I have absolutely no attraction to the sin of murder. I am morally perfect in this one particular area.

Now extrapolate that to Mary.

To be a morally perfect God, he would have had to be unattracted to sin.

Right.

Sin is what attracts us to sin.

Can’t have it both ways.

Huh?

 

[PRmerger]

(bolding mine)

But if God by his nature can’t sin, then God does not have this ability.

Unless this Being is PURE LOVE itself. The Personification of it, and, as such, God cannot do anything but LOVE.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then the same basic question arises. “Why didn’t God create all of us with that level of knowledge?” A possible answer is that God wants us to search for and find him. That makes sense, but the consequences of that belief system is that we have a quality greater than that of Jesus. We are able to search for God without his devine wisdom guiding us along the path, and Jesus’s human nature wasn’t, or else Jesus had some special quality that no one else has and which could easily be given to us.

That wisdom can only be gained by perfect communion with God. That is what the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ accomplished. God isn’t testing us for the sake of testing us. The only way really to partake of God’s divine nature is for God to share in our own human nature. That is why Jesus became man.

 

[PRmerger]

To be a morally perfect human, he would have had to been attracted to sin and yet still choose to turn away. To be a morally perfect God, he would have had to be unattracted to sin. Can’t have it both ways.

You know, zro, I thought about you at Mass today, as we were proclaiming the Sanctus.

It occurred to me, as we were exulting over the Holiness of our God, that perhaps your inability to grasp what has been proffered to you, over so many pages of this thread and others, has to do with your concept of the Numinous. You sound young–forgive my assumption–and in that assumption, I can see how you would have an impoverished understanding of the Numinous, given the way the Church failed to catechize our young folks over the 70’s to the 90’s.

The concept of being in a sacred space, where we are in the Presence of the Holy of Holies, has been lost. In church we chat, have concerts, doodle and canoodle, without ever acknowledging the Numinous Presence there in the Tabernacle.

Go to church and sit before the Blessed Sacrament for an hour and contemplate all you have been told here on the CAFs. Then, come back and see what questions you still have.

And while I understand your questioning–you really do want to grasp this!–I think you may be unable to apprehend this truth until you are able to contemplate the Holiness that is that which is our God. As compared to the holiness that is ascribed to the human person.

 

[StevenS]

Quoting you… “But if God by his nature can’t sin, then God does not have this ability.”

That is correct, Zro. God does not have this ability. If He did, He would no longer be able to be identified as Holy.

Merry Christmas!

Steve

 

[Ion]

Jesus was fully human, meaning he is as much human as you and me. This includes a human will. But he also is fully God. ** His human will is in perfect submission to His divine will.** The only way he could have sinned is if He was not fully God. But we all know that is not the case.

That was the target of the temptation, to separate the human will from the divine will.

 

[Ion]

The human will was in submission to the divine will by the virtue of the covenant made by God with the people of Israel.(see the answers to temptations).

 

[zro_x]

Or to see sin for all its horror, and in that not be attracted to it at all.

For example, here is a part of me that is morally perfect. At this moment I have absolutely no attraction to the sin of murder. I am morally perfect in this one particular area.

Now extrapolate that to Mary.

Wait… now you are saying that this sort of natural repulsion of sin also applies to Mary? I’m confused. You’ve said that Adam and Eve were attracted to sin. Here, you say that Mary was not. I thought that Adam and Eve had the same qualities and naturally sinless nature as Mary.

Huh?

Either God created Jesus’s human nature (and Mary’s) to be repelled by sin, unlike Adam and Eve’s, or else he created them to be attracted to sin and hoped that they would overcome it. These are two different, conflicting views on what it means to be a morally perfect human being. Both can not be true at once.

If a morally perfect human being is one who is repulsed from the first moment by sin, then Jesus (and perhaps Mary?) were the only ones in history who fit into this category. According to what you said earlier:

We did not find sin repulsive. We found it attractive.

Not even Adam and Eve fit into this category! so then the question becomes: Why didn’t God create Adam and Eve morally perfect?

If a morally perfect human being is one who is attracted to sin, and then rejects it, Then Jesus, being perfectly God and repulsed by sin, could not have been a morally perfect human, someone who is attracted to sin yet overcomes it.

 

[zro_x]

That wisdom can only be gained by perfect communion with God. That is what the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ accomplished. God isn’t testing us for the sake of testing us. The only way really to partake of God’s divine nature is for God to share in our own human nature. That is why Jesus became man.

Yes, we are now able to do come into communion with God. But Jesus’s human nature was in perfect communion with God since his birth! Why don’t we have that level of communion? We have to work at it and develop it.

 

[zro_x]

You know, zro, I thought about you at Mass today, as we were proclaiming the Sanctus.

It occurred to me, as we were exulting over the Holiness of our God, that perhaps your inability to grasp what has been proffered to you, over so many pages of this thread and others, has to do with your concept of the Numinous. You sound young–forgive my assumption–and in that assumption, I can see how you would have an impoverished understanding of the Numinous, given the way the Church failed to catechize our young folks over the 70’s to the 90’s.

The concept of being in a sacred space, where we are in the Presence of the Holy of Holies, has been lost. In church we chat, have concerts, doodle and canoodle, without ever acknowledging the Numinous Presence there in the Tabernacle.

Go to church and sit before the Blessed Sacrament for an hour and contemplate all you have been told here on the CAFs. Then, come back and see what questions you still have.

And while I understand your questioning–you really do want to grasp this!–I think you may be unable to apprehend this truth until you are able to contemplate the Holiness that is that which is our God. As compared to the holiness that is ascribed to the human person.

You make an excellent point here. I didn’t go to adoration, but I was reminded of the times that I had experienced the numinous when I had. That memory, combined with your statement about God being pure love, allowed me to see that God truly can be wholly good, have free will, and no possibility of sinning. Since God is the personification of pure love, it makes sense that only God could have these qualities, and creations could not. Still, it doesn’t solve the problems I mentioned in the post before last.

 

[zro_x]

That was the target of the temptation, to separate the human will from the divine will.

interesting idea… and what would be the consequences if Satan had succeded in achieving this?

I won’t be able to respond until after the beginning of the new year. To all on this thread, Merry Christmas!

 

[PRmerger]

Wait… now you are saying that this sort of natural repulsion of sin also applies to Mary? I’m confused.

And not only that, but to you, too! How 'bout that!

Unless you want to tell me that you are attracted to every sin that there is?

So just like I have no compulsion whatsoever to violate the “Do not murder your husband” moral law, I am quite certain that you could name a variety of moral laws that you have no attraction to violating. Perhaps it’s the one that prompts you to desire to overeat? Or to dissemble in the confessional?

If you can’t think of anything, I suggest you take a stroll in the Moral Theology forum. There you’ll find a smattering of “Is [insert random human activity here] a sin” threads. I am bemused at the plethora of allegedly sinful activities to which I have never had any attraction to whatsoever.

It might enlighten you as to how this could be extrapolated to Mary.

 

[Ion]

interesting idea… and what would be the consequences if Satan had succeded in achieving this?

I won’t be able to respond until after the beginning of the new year. To all on this thread, Merry Christmas!

The fact that Satan tempted Jesus doesn’t make the fall possible.
There was no such possibility because Jesus is God.

 

[Ion]

Wait… now you are saying that this sort of natural repulsion of sin also applies to Mary? I’m confused. You’ve said that Adam and Eve were attracted to sin. Here, you say that Mary was not. I thought that Adam and Eve had the same qualities and naturally sinless nature as Mary.

Either God created Jesus’s human nature (and Mary’s) to be repelled by sin, unlike Adam and Eve’s, or else he created them to be attracted to sin and hoped that they would overcome it. These are two different, conflicting views on what it means to be a morally perfect human being. Both can not be true at once.

If a morally perfect human being is one who is repulsed from the first moment by sin, then Jesus (and perhaps Mary?) were the only ones in history who fit into this category. According to what you said earlier:

Not even Adam and Eve fit into this category! so then the question becomes: Why didn’t God create Adam and Eve morally perfect?

If a morally perfect human being is one who is attracted to sin, and then rejects it, Then Jesus, being perfectly God and repulsed by sin, could not have been a morally perfect human, someone who is attracted to sin yet overcomes it.

Jesus knew he is God. In his human mind any temptation was a direct offense toward himself. Maybe you should read a little more about sin.

 

[Ion]

Also, as PRmerger suggested, you should meditate on the Holy Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Communion. I don’t have a very good control of english, I’m new to catholicism, maybe somebody can recommend you writings on this subject; everything you need is there, you should have a similar “repellent” attitude towards sin as Jesus had.

 

[zro_x]

And not only that, but to you, too! How 'bout that!

Unless you want to tell me that you are attracted to every sin that there is?

So just like I have no compulsion whatsoever to violate the “Do not murder your husband” moral law, I am quite certain that you could name a variety of moral laws that you have no attraction to violating. Perhaps it’s the one that prompts you to desire to overeat? Or to dissemble in the confessional?

If you can’t think of anything, I suggest you take a stroll in the Moral Theology forum. There you’ll find a smattering of “Is [insert random human activity here] a sin” threads. I am bemused at the plethora of allegedly sinful activities to which I have never had any attraction to whatsoever.

It might enlighten you as to how this could be extrapolated to Mary.

If that’s how you want to describe moral perfection, fine. But that means that Adam and Eve, who were attracted to sin, were not morally perfect. it also means that Mary was essentially created morally perfect. not by any choice of her own.