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?

[ttruscott]

HE did not make any damaged artifacts; HE gave sinners lives which perfectly expressed the self damage they self created by choosing to be evil in HIS sight.

Yes, I like this. We create almost all of our hardships by choice.

The quote attributed to Marco here is in fact mine...

[EBA]

I think you know what the answer is,

I do know what the answer is: it starts with an "H" and ends with "ypocrisy."

why stall unless you know once you answer that you will confirm that your doctrine is on losing side of this debate.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as we correct ourselves.

That’s true.

It only when we continue to believe and worse, teach what is wrong that it's no longer a mistake but a willful sin.

I agree. I would be surprised if you actually believe that though.

I will ask again, if the cherub from Eden is not Satan, then who is the cherub that the King of Tyre was being compared to?

Dodging to answer ends this debate.

By that reasoning this debate should have ended long ago since you never really did answer my question. And since I’ve provided witness after witness testifying that God created Satan-

-I have created the waster to destroy. (Isa 54:16)
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,- ( 1Co 5:5)

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.- (Gen 3:1)
-his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. (Job 26:13)

So down the great dragon was hurled, THE ORIGINAL SERPENT, the one called Devil and Satan,- (Rev 12:9)
-the devil sinneth from the beginning.- (1 Jn 3:8)
-He was a murderer from the beginning,- (John 8:44)

it should have been over then.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, SHALL THE MATTER BE ESTABLISHED. (Deu 19:15)

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses EVERY WORD MAY BE ESTABLISHED. (Mat 18:16)

You on the other hand provide a false witness by citing Eze 28:17 and your opinion which, in turn, is a false witness. That is what crucifies Christ.

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (Deu 17:6)

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; (Mat 26:59)

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,(Mat 19:18)

I would think that as a “Jehovah’s witness� you would understand that law.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2Pe 1:20)

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isa 28:10)

We are not to take one prophecy, or worse yet, one verse and create our own doctrine like you did with Eze 28:17.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing SPIRITUAL things with SPIRITUAL. (1Co 2:13)

And what are those spiritual things?

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS THAT I SPEAK unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (Joh 6:63)

And why are Christ’s words spirit? Because Christ is THE WORD OF GOD.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Joh 1:1)

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:13)

So, with witness upon witnesss testifying that God created Satan, you deny the Word of God, which is Christ.

[EBA]

My hunch is that you will never answer the question and will continue to turn to false accusations as a distraction to make others forget that you refuse to answer the question.

Turns out your hunches are about as accurate as your opinions.

Will you correct yourself or will you continue to believe and teach a misleading doctrine...you say I'm out of context yet it is the context that tells me the scripture is comparing that king to Satan.

Finally an answer, but no the context doesn’t tell us that; manmade doctrines do. But, rather than swallow your pride and admit that the context says nothing about Satan, you have gone on the offense.

And speaking of pride, that’s the reason God has Ezekiel “mocking� this king:

“Son of man, tell the leader of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says:“BECAUSE your heart has become haughty, YOU KEEP
SAYING, ‘I am a god. I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the sea.’ BUT YOU ARE ONLY A MAN, not a god, Though in your heart you feel that you are a god. (Eze 28:2)

Is Satan “only a man?�

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Cor 4:4)

If I am out of context then your answer to my question using only the Bible will prove either I am or I am not. If you can't or refuse to answer than you have proven nothing and forfeited your side of the debate due to the lack of Bible evidence.

How convenient. You rip scripture out of context and apply it to Satan with no comparable scripture, then demand that I answer “using only the Bible� for proof. You do see the hypocrisy right? Good.

You keep seeking after victory in a debate, I’ll seek God’s wisdom.

Your whole doctrine will be vindicated by a Bible based answer or condemned due to a lack of an answer or an unscriptural answer.

It is God’s doctrine, not mine. You have seen the witnesses so your argument is with God.

Here is my answer, though I’m sure it’s not the one you seek. That cherub is you and I and any other person who’s been given Godly things, but then becomes haughty in heart; those that deny the scriptural fact that all is of God thereby declaring their FREE WILL as the director of their own destiny (this attitude comes to mind: “Figuring this out is child's play�).

That cherub is the man of sin spoken of in 2 Thessalonians:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (2Th 2:3-4)

And do we have a second witness? Yes we do, and in of all places, Ezekiel:

YOU KEEP SAYING, ‘I am a god. I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the sea.’ BUT YOU ARE ONLY A MAN, not a god, Though in your heart you feel that you are a god. (Eze 28:2)

Through the king of Tyre, God shows us our old man:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom 6:6)

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (1Co 15:46)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:14)

And by the way, it wasn’t a cherub named Satan in Eden the garden of God; Adam, that original man of sin was though, WEREN'T THEY?

[brianbbs67]

Interesting, I too, don't know who the serpent in the garden was. Doesn't seem to be the High Adversary. But just another misleader. I am glad to see that some one else sees the same as it is right there. "Serpent with legs=dragon" Serpent no legs is a snake. Would explain the stories. The other thing to notice is , Eve and Adam and GOD, knew the serpent and were comfortable with him. Why would Eve converse if she never knew him? Why would she trust a complete stranger? Or Adam allow if he was not familiar? God was not surprised he was there either...food for thought.

[marco]

Good thing the scripture is using a metaphor for our desires and choices. It's not discribing what humans are made of. You are the one having this debate alone. What you think a lump of clay literally is, I truly don't care. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. A lump of clay used to describe a person's desires what I care about.

I admire your ferric convictions. When you send pictures of a bit of clay you invite comments on its composition. The question of Christ's free will is a million miles from that lump of clay, into which you breathe meaning with God-like certainty.

Jesus was apparently created to move inexorably to his own execution, by divine decree. A man who walks the plank does not have freedom.

I take it you are not the type of person that would lay down their life for some one you love. Seeing that you have a choice, would you choose you own life over theirs just so that you can prove you have freedom? Seems quite cynical. Good thing Jesus didn't feel like that.

That is remarkable extrapolation. I am arguing that Jesus was built to walk lemming-like to his execution. That is the received picture of the divine emissary. You choose to think he agreed to be put to death for love of people - but it is unclear in what way his death helped, say Anne Frank in her hour of need. Life continued as life does before and after Christ. My image is of a puppet and I deduce this from the accounts given of him. We could both be wrong; he may never have existed; he may have been a political scapegoat of the Essenes; he may have blundered as to who he was. My love of my fellow men doesn't enter the picture.

[marco]

HE did not make any damaged artifacts; HE gave sinners lives which perfectly expressed the self damage they self created by choosing to be evil in HIS sight.

That is another story and one we either accept or reject. I don't know on what grounds one could accept this view of primal creation. It seems like a private conviction.

Why consider He could not digress when all that is needed is that He would not digress by choice? You claim He could not - what is your proof besides the fact that He did not and said He wouldn't?

He never digressed. So we can make a deduction from that, based on what the stories tell us about Jesus. He was apparently born mystically, with a mission to perform. I believe that the baby in the manger did not have a say in this mission but again we can take a mystical interpretation and say that the baby had the power to say: "Yes." My own simple view is Jesus was created to get himself killed, the decisions being made before the angelic announcement of his birth. I see nothing outrageously forced in this interpretation, one that Christ echoed in all he did.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 194 by marco]

It appears you're stuck on a whole other imaginative tangent that has nothing to do with what the scripture is talking about. Your post is one those 'I'm asking for the time and you telling me how to build a clock' moments. Anyway, thanks for playing!

[ttruscott]

HE did not make any damaged artifacts; HE gave sinners lives which perfectly expressed the self damage they self created by choosing to be evil in HIS sight.

That is another story and one we either accept or reject. I don't know on what grounds one could accept this view of primal creation. It seems like a private conviction.

Grounds?
Is it logical to think that the ONE who hates evil and is dedicated to its destruction, created it? Is it logical that the ONE who is love created evil people HE hates? The grounds is the whole Bible as it reveals GOD and HIS creation. HE is indeed at war with some people so how can that be if HE did not create them as HIS enemies? Obviously they must have self created themselves as HIS enemies by their free will.

Why consider He could not digress when all that is needed is that He would not digress by choice? You claim He could not - what is your proof besides the fact that He did not and said He wouldn't?

He never digressed. So we can make a deduction from that...

...that He chose not to digress.

[marco]

[Replying to post 194 by marco]

It appears you're stuck on a whole other imaginative tangent that has nothing to do with what the scripture is talking about. Your post is one those 'I'm asking for the time and you telling me how to build a clock' moments. Anyway, thanks for playing!

Yes, figurative language can be confusing and metaphors foolishly get mixed. I'm not sure that one can get "stuck on a tangent" unless one were a point in the Cartesian plane; nor do I see that tangents are imaginative. They do what they are meant to do, just like Christ, who had no will to oppose his task.


I am specifically answering the question about Christ's lack of free will. You on the other hand introduced some clay for us to potter with. So your clock comment applies more to you. Go well.

[marco]

Grounds?
Is it logical to think that the ONE who hates evil and is dedicated to its destruction, created it? Is it logical that the ONE who is love created evil people HE hates?

Ted, you invent (or at best try to deduce) a quality and use your invention to justify a theory. That is not a logical base for a sound argument.

He never digressed. So we can make a deduction from that..... He chose not to digress.

Yes - you say tomAYto and I say tomATTo - so we differ in our deductions about Christ. I have no underlying theory to lead or mislead me. Go well.