Moderator: Moderators
ttruscott wrote:
Sure, I do know that technically it is a choice when we choose but in this case the kind of choice resembles a GUESS more than anything else.
We can accept that Jesus was made a man but he was born in an unnatural way, with no human father; he was designed for a purpose; he walked on water, which real humans cannot do so he was unique. That this creation could pick and choose what he wanted seems to defy the central idea that he was made as a sacrificial victim. It is true that some people sacrifice themselves for others but in the case of Christ, God sacrificed HIM for others. He was like a wind-up toy, endowed with curious abilities to attract folk.
)briandc wrote:
However, perhaps more importantly than whether it was free or not, was his attitude about his will: to not do his own will.
He obviously thought He was dying in the garden where HE said this, which was NOT the plan. His statement was His way of saying He was copacetic if the plan had changed though He was still expecting the cross.brianbbs67 wrote: However if this cup cannot pass, Your will not mine.
Why would he think he was dieing in the garden? On the contrary , he knew he was living there , for a while. There was still time for things to change.ttruscott wrote:He obviously thought He was dying in the garden where HE said this, which was NOT the plan. His statement was His way of saying He was copacetic if the plan had changed though He was still expecting the cross.brianbbs67 wrote: However if this cup cannot pass, Your will not mine.
Sometimes I think that, if formal religions (institutions) didn't exist, we would be closer to God. In the sense that each person would have to do his/her searching in texts, praying, meditation, etc., and the fruits of what they DID would speak for themselves. It's too easy to just frequent a church group and think that you're automatically "spiritual."marco wrote:briandc wrote:
However, perhaps more importantly than whether it was free or not, was his attitude about his will: to not do his own will.
I am not sure that total compliance with another will is the best of all positions to take. I believe Abraham was wrong in setting out to murder his son, regardless of who told him to.
Jesus had no choice in the matter of his walk to Golgotha. We are perhaps supposed to believe that if he wanted to end his execution, he could have. That he appealed for heaven's help suggests he was afraid, but his belief in his mission allowed him to say: "It's God who wills this."
If someone is told that blowing people to pieces is the will of God, and this is acted on, the person who subjugates his own will to that of others is wrong. The answer: "People KNOW God's will," - is patently false. People guess the will of the particular god they serve and arrogantly believe other beliefs are false.
Christ acted as an automaton, believing he was on a death mission, willing to be killed for what he believed. This is chillingly familiar today.
Brian, Jesus definitely had free will. Otherwise his obedience to the Father would have been meaningless. Why would he be honored for remaining faithful if he didn't have a choice?brianbbs67 wrote:
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?
