Did Christ have free will?

[brianbbs67]

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will. We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed". Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

So, was he locked into the doctrine? Or could he act of his will? I can see examples of both. What do you all see?

[William]

[Replying to post 88 by marco]

Let me take this first. I wasn't saying Jesus was retarded; I was saying that people are born without free will, that free will is NOT given to all people, for whatever reason.

It is not given at all, it is part of being conscious, and any reason for why it isn't able to be used will have to do with other things. It is not that they do not have free will but that they cannot express it because of those other factors.

You mean you don't understand how it ignores the incarnation. You were discussing everyday human beings, most with free will. The OP asks whether Jesus had free will and one way of arguing is to suggest he was born artificially (incarnated in fact) and this would give a reason to suppose he was not like the other humans you mention.

Everyone is incarnated. That is a theological argument. My particular theological position understands that incarnation is par for the course, and there is no thing in the bible that I know of which strictly says otherwise.

But even if your argument that Jesus was different in that way, this itself does not signify that he had no free will.

Can you find any examples that demonstrate he employed free will?

You mean - apart from the one I already gave? Why would it matter how many times one can demonstrate he employed free will, when the one should be sufficient?

Everything he did, and everything you and I do is based upon the ability to employ free will.
Free will can be severely limited depending on the environment, and - as you noted - can appear to be inactive in some people.

Yes, you misunderstand. I am saying that if he was artificially created, as we may suppose from the gospels, then his actions in life may well have, ipso facto, resembled one who has been programmed to act in a particular way. I wasn't entering science fiction, simply looking at the Christ's life and apparent purpose.

Sure, you and everyone else can 'suppose' what they will from the gospels and interpret them however you will.
However, supposing his actions 'may well have, ipso facto, resembled one who has been programmed to act in a particular way.' does't signify that this was actually the case. Certainly it can be seen [as per the story] that Jesus did indeed have that faculty to choose and used that faculty.

No. He was artificially created to carry out a purpose from which he was unable to deviate

While that is a way of interpreting it, it hasn't been shown by you to stand up to scrutiny.

It could just as easily be explained that Jesus was following a script, like an actor, and playing his part accordingly.
Does an actor following a script have no free will?
Yes an actor still has free will They just use their free will in a certain manner, based on the limitations of the situation they are in.

Does an actor sometimes forget his lines, or ad lib? Yes.
Does an actor, following a pre-determined script have no free will, or abandons free will in favor of following a script?
No.

They play a part, a part in which they have already made a choice to play.

Therein is the free will in action.

I think I've made a reasonable case for Christ's absence of free will.

And I think I have shown sufficiently where there are gaps in your interpretations and subsequent reasoning.

[marco]

And I think I have shown sufficiently where there are gaps in your interpretations and subsequent reasoning.

To your own satisfaction I suppose. You are confused about the status of Jesus; you regard him as if he was John Smith, the plumber. Presumably John Smith the plumber did have free will. You ignore Christ's possible purpose. You think the miraculous virgin birth by divine impregnation is par for the course: we are all incarnated, word made flesh. And from this idiosyncratic view, you declare that Christ, by accepting his lot, displayed free will. You ignore the fact that we have, from the gospels, a tale of someone created by God for a divine plan. That alone should suggest free will isn't there. There is no acceptance speech from baby Jesus.

But since you see Jesus as John Smith, the plumber, you cannot concede this point. The question posed is about the extraordinary character, Jesus of the Bible - not about whether you and I and aunt Bessie have free will.

[William]

[Replying to post 92 by marco]

To your own satisfaction I suppose.

Yes. In what way is that different from anyone else?

The question posed is about the extraordinary character, Jesus of the Bible

The question posed is 'Did Christ have free will?'

The answer based upon the story, is that he did.

He is attributed with having said - more than once - that he had his own will.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will. We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed". Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

So, was he locked into the doctrine? Or could he act of his will? I can see examples of both. What do you all see?

Jesus is/was God in the flesh and cannot do anything which does not correspond to goodness.

[marco]

He is attributed with having said - more than once - that he had his own will.

We are not talking about Christ having a will; it is about the freedom of his will. We consistently see that he followed the course outlined for him, even when he did not want to. He knew what the course would be.

So we must agree to differ. I look on the figure of Christ as being crucified from birth, a sword would pierce his mother's heart, for his life was lived for him. I detect no freedom in that existence.

When someone has her husband chosen for her we say she did not exercise free will there. She may have agreed to do it, but if she had not agreed, it would have been done in any case. Christ, if anything, was in a worse situation. He simply stepped on the path already determined.

[William]

[Replying to post 92 by marco]

You are confused about the status of Jesus;

Not at all.

you regard him as if he was John Smith, the plumber.

Not at all.

Presumably John Smith the plumber did have free will.

Who is 'John Smith the plumber' and why have you brought him into the argument?

You ignore Christ's possible purpose.

Not at all.

You think the miraculous virgin birth by divine impregnation is par for the course:

we are all incarnated, word made flesh.

I did not say that being incarnated was the same as 'word made flesh'. Why do you think that is the case?

And from this idiosyncratic view,

There is nothing untoward in this being the case.

you declare that Christ, by accepting his lot, displayed free will.

Yes. If one accepts then one has used free will to do so.

You ignore the fact that we have, from the gospels, a tale of someone created by God for a divine plan.

Well that is debated within Christendom so is not an accepted standard of belief anyway.
Some believe he was GOD the Father in the form of the Son. Others think the two are distinctly separate beings.

But regardless, I don't ignore the possibility that he was created by GOD the Father (and is not GOD the Father) or that there was a divine plan as per the story - and you did not quote me doing so but just declare that this is what I am doing, which is not exactly honest of you.

Indeed I never said any such thing. My focus was on the fact that it doesn't matter in relation to Jesus having free will, that he chose to go along with his Fathers plan. He required free will in order for this to happen...you interpret that as being robotic mindless programming and I do not.

At least I don't lower the standard of debate by declaring things about you which you have not said or even implied.
But it does help me to understand how in doing this to me, you are doing it in regard to the thread subject as well.

Either way, such practice is unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

And because of that, I think we are done here.

[marco]

Yes. If one accepts then one has used free will to do so.

This is obviously wrong. I'm surprised you say this. People can accept under coercion.

At least I don't lower the standard of debate by declaring things about you which you have not said or even implied.

This is a rather unfortunate way to express disagreement with some point.
I am entitled to interpret what you say just as you interpret what I say. If my interpretation is incorrect, correct it. This is normal debating procedure. If I needed to make things up to win a point I would not trouble myself to debate at all. If you don't understand something it is simple enough to seek clarification rather than impute questionable motives.

In any event I pointed out we must agree to differ.

[ttruscott]

Yes. If one accepts then one has used free will to do so.

This is obviously wrong. I'm surprised you say this. People can accept under coercion.

You point this out but have argued against obedience by a free will decision to obey...people can accept under their own will without coercion also.

[brianbbs67]

I think I've made a reasonable case for Christ's absence of free will. Can you find any examples that demonstrate he employed free will?

I am enjoying the debate. But, yes I can find one. John 2. He pleased his mother at her request.

[brianbbs67]

Yes. If one accepts then one has used free will to do so.

This is obviously wrong. I'm surprised you say this. People can accept under coercion.



In any event I pointed out we must agree to differ.

But, if one agrees to something without coercement. It is a choice. We do not know Christ was coerced. I truly doubt that.