Why can't God sin?

[Drich]

I don't really see how you come to that conclusion. Could you please explain how you reached it?

I meant in an analogous sense. If God is all powerful, then he can will anything. If good is what is in accordance to his will, and if he could will anything, then what is good could be anything.

Yes! That is why you can have a God that demands the deaths of every man woman and child in a given region and then have the same God demand that you turn the other cheek when you have been struck.

Also, is what God wills good?

It is completely a matter of perspective, if you want what God want for you. (Eternal life as a member of creation, and an heir to apart of what He has created for us) then yes. If not, and you wish to live in a righteousness apart from God, then no. Which is your right given to you by God, just do not look for Him to support your decession with your own corner stake of creation and eternity.

[Esquilax]

Adam and Eve weren't ashamed of their nakedness until after they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

That's the part that gets me: the moment that the two of them became cognizant of good and evil enough to know which was which they covered themselves, acting in accordance with god's desires regarding propriety and, presumably, lustful thoughts. Their very first act as fully equipped moral beings capable of making informed choices was to obey a law that god was only thinking about at the time (given that he couldn't have laid it down yet when Adam and Eve had no concept of these things) and to do the most good by him...

And he still kicked them out of the garden.

[Cinjin]

During the fast, would it have been a sin for Jesus to give into those temptations?

What are you gettin at bro? None of that nonsense ever happened, and you already know what it's all going to boil down to ...

Some christard saying the same ole same ole: "Jesus can't sin, so even if he gave into those temptations, then it wouldn't be a sin."


The stupids aren't going to offer you anything new.

[Drich]

During the fast, would it have been a sin for Jesus to give into those temptations?

Was Jesus fully God?
The writer of Hebrews 2 :9 didn't think so. (At least not durning that 40 days and the following trials.)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

Read the whole section 5-18 to give yourself the proper context.

According to the Hebrews 2 text durning that period Jesus "was made lower than the angels" meaning he was made to endure those trials just like any other man.

---

Adam and Eve weren't ashamed of their nakedness until after they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Are you saying Nakedness is/was a sin? Do you have Book Chapter and verse to support this conclusion?

It was then that they became consciously aware of their nudity and assumed an insecurity about that.

If you haven't conceeded the point yet, know that Nudity in of itself is not a sin.. It is the Lust that accomplanies nudity that is sinful/evil. I suppect that Adam was trying to cover the physical manifestation of said lust on himself and the trigger of that lust on Eve. So as not to raise any 'red flags' as it were.

Prior to eating from the tree, they could not have possessed a consciousness of good an evil,

Indeed they did not, but they did know of death. God told them if they ate from that tree they would surly die.

when god told them to eat of the tree that bore the fruit of knowledge would make them like unto god in having that awareness.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV
Read the chapter again, God did not tell them to eat of the tree.

Giving them orders not to eat of the fruit required they be cognizant of the parallels between obedience and disobedience, in order to elect to obey and comply with god's ordinance to abstain from the tree of knowledge and it's fruit. In order to give those commands god had to know they did not know what good or evil was in order to make an informed choice to obey or disobey him.

All that was needed for Adam and Eve to not eat of the fruit is to know of death. The absents of the knoweledge of Good and Evil does not mean one is without the ablity to choose to obey God or not.

And then in the midst of that the cherubim that guarded paradise from satan, whom god let to be lord of the earth and who acts only by god's will, were removed from their guard post so that the satan gained entry into paradise when god is omnipresent?

Wow what 'bible' are you reading from?

And if god is omnipresent, after the eating of the fruit when Adam and Eve hid from god's presence, why is it that he had to call out and ask where they were? How could humans hide from god when he's omnipresent and omniscient?

Are you a parent? Or do you remember being a child especially when you did something wrong and hid someplace kinda obvious(Like behind the dog or something) and your parents called out to you anyway? Why do we do that as parents when we can see our kid trying to hide behind a dog?
(If your not a parent) It's to give them an oppertunity to take responsiablity for what they have done.

And how could omni-benevolence

Acouple things. Where does the bible describe God as Omni benevolent as the doctrine of omni benevolence describes it?

relieve the cherubim from their posts in the exact same moment that then allowed his antithesis to enter into paradise

Again where are you getting this? My bibles only speak of the placement of Cherubim soldiers AFTER the Fall of Man. There is nothing that says they were there at any point in time before then.

and tempt the first humans to eat of the tree that could only have served as a temptation in the first place because god put it there?

If God did not want Man to have the option then He would not have ever planted the Tree of Knoweledge in the middle of the Garden. The Tree Repersented Choice. The ablity to be in the Expressed will of God or to be outside the Expressed Will of God.(Sin)

When omniscience would have known exactly what was to transpire because a sovereign deity predestined eternity.

...and? What makes you think God did not want us to have the ablity to Choose where we wish to spend eternity? that line of thought has to come from the idea that God is Omni Benevolent (Which BTW is not a biblically based concept.) If fact the oppsite is true. God does not love everyone, there are even those of us He has said He outright Hated.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-12703.html(God does not love you the way you think He should)

http://atheistforums.org/thread-12305.html (The 'omni-aspects' of God.)

If you wish to discuss any of these point cut and paste to a new thread.

---

During the fast, would it have been a sin for Jesus to give into those temptations?

What are you gettin at bro? None of that nonsense ever happened, and you already know what it's all going to boil down to ...

Some christard saying the same ole same ole: "Jesus can't sin, so even if he gave into those temptations, then it wouldn't be a sin."


The stupids aren't going to offer you anything new.

I just said that if Jesus fell into temptation durning His trial it would be a sin. Because again in Heb 2 it specifically says that Christ durning that period was made "Lower than the angels" Which was a term that describes man In Psalms 8. So again, Christ for the trials (at least) was completely man.

[Nobody]

During the fast, would it have been a sin for Jesus to give into those temptations?

Was Jesus fully God?

It depends on which scriptures you read. John 14:28, has Jesus claiming god his father is greater than he. So that would indicate Jesus is saying he is not god the father.

While John 10:30 has Jesus saying he and the father are one.
You might like this link -

The writer of Hebrews 2 :9 didn't think so. (At least not durning that 40 days and the following trials.)http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

Read the whole section 5-18 to give yourself the proper context.

According to the Hebrews 2 text durning that period Jesus "was made lower than the angels" meaning he was made to endure those trials just like any other man.
[/quote] [/quote]Made lower than the angels, aka/emissaries between god and man, can indicate Jesus became human and was not fully divine being the son of man, born of woman into the flesh.

The writer of Hebrews is purportedly the apostle Paul. Who was formerly known as "Saul of Tarsus". He was a Pharisee who was charged as Saul with pursuing, prosecuting and presiding over the execution of early Christians.

He became a self proclaimed disciple of Jesus and met with conflict and denial from the other true disciples/apostles of Jesus who actually knew him in the flesh. This is until Luke, who would come to work for Paul as his scribe when he assumed the Apostle title, and Peter, both concurred Paul's insights into the will of the Christ post ascension must indicate he was truly in communication with the ascended spirit of Christ who now allegedly spoke to and through him.

However, a careful read of the new testament scriptures, all originally written in Greek and 2/3rds of which were attributed solely to the letters of Paul, lead one to realize much of what Paul claimed as the will or teaching of Jesus, after his ascension back into heaven, contradicts what Jesus said while on earth.
Furthermore, the reason many claim Paul lied and was actually either consciously or unconsciously in league with the adversary of Christ's mission, (the devil), and therefore is the antichrist scripture forewarns against, was that prior to Jesus ascension he informed his apostles that many would come in his name after he returned to the father. They would say he sent them, speak in his name, and perform miracles, but they were false and wolves in sheeps clothing. ( Matthew 7:15-16 & Matthew 24:24)
This certainly describes Paul, who claimed his conversion occurred while on the road to Damascus in route to persecute more Christians, when he and the two male companions that were with him saw a brilliant light appear on the road before them. And then a thunderous voice spoke and asked Saul ; why dost thou persecute me? To which Saul answered, Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. (Acts 9:4-5)

In a different scriptural account the two companions who were with Saul did not hear this voice speaking to Saul. But they did see the brilliant light and hear the thunder.

Again, biblical contradictions are common in scripture.

However, what further supports those who deny Paul as a true disciple besides all that was the scripture written by John during his incarceration on the isle of Patmos and his writing in the book of Revelation wherein three different times Jesus speaks of the false prophets.

And especially, as many relate this particular passage to Jesus speaking of Saul/Paul; (Revelation2:2)
To the Church in Ephesus

2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.
40 different authors contributed to what became the closed canon that is today's Protestant bible. The autographs that were used to initiate the process are no longer available. So what we have today is the result of not only numerous councils electing both the old and new testaments to come into being, but those 'books' are copies, of copies, of copies, and translations of copies ranging in languages from Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek.

The scrolls, letters, etc... that were used were in no particular order. Which is why one can not read the bible as they would a regular book and keep the scripts consistent from one book to the next or even as more often than not, one chapter to the next.

It also explains the discrepancies and contradictions, because it was a matter of language barriers being an issue and education also among the scribes translating and rewriting scriptures.
And remember also that the new testament books were all written as much 40 to 50 years after Jesus.

Christianity began as an oral tradition and did not enter print until decades after Jesus died.

Early Christians were called; The people of the book. Because they gleaned their understanding of life and their god by reading about him.
Early Christianity, more aptly to be called "Paulianity" after the author Paul being the primary source for 2/3rds of the NT scripture, was known as the religion of the slaves.

Because while scripture commanded the slaves to be obedient unto their masters, and to obey authorities as they would god because the authorities acted under the will of god, also promised that once they were dead they would be rewarded and live without want in heaven.

So the religion of the slaves was an apt title, because the early apostles ministered to the enslaved populace for the most part, and promised them salvation from their state if they would only now obey their master in heaven.

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." Joseph Campbell

[Drich]

[quote='Nobody' pid='406494' dateline='1361860010']
It depends on which scriptures you read. John 14:28, has Jesus claiming god his father is greater than he. So that would indicate Jesus is saying he is not god the father.

While John 10:30 has Jesus saying he and the father are one.
You might like this link -
Thes following is the Koine Greek in which the passage is translated:

πατήρ patēr= father
ἐσμέν esmen= Are
εἷς heis= One or of one mind. Not one meaning they share the same body. (Which is the only way this passage and the other could be considered a paradox.)

Any more Red Herrings you want me to clear or can we get back on topic?

[EGross]

This is akin to arguing if Kirk was able to violate the Prime Directive. There is no proof that either exists except in the mind if their fans (go to a Star Trak Convention to find the true believers!). And just as Jesus sinned in the Matthew story, and since it is a bad reflection on his father who committed adultery with a 12 year old Jewish girl to make him in the first place, we can pretty much go along with Christianity that one is just as bad as the other.

Kirk or Picard? it's hard to know which one is deserving of praise!

[Mystical]

Indeed they did not, but they did know of death. God told them if they ate from that tree they would surly die.

Hiya Drich
I remember a particular child I babysat, I told her, "Christy! Don't touch that, it'll burn you!"
She looked me straight in the eye, and touched it. She didn't know what burning meant.
Was it her fault she got burnt for not listening to me? Nope, the fault was mine. I let her get close enough to the burner to get
burnt, and I knew what would happen if she touched it. In god's case, is he not even more (sinfully) responsible for putting the tree there in the first place? And also was there even death before the fall? Most people can't comprehend death now, much less if it was something that had never occurred before..

[Question Mark]

I don't really see how you come to that conclusion. Could you please explain how you reached it?

I meant in an analogous sense. If God is all powerful, then he can will anything. If good is what is in accordance to his will, and if he could will anything, then what is good could be anything.


Also, is what God wills good?

Oh I see. To many christians, the answer to that question is yes. What god says is by definition "good". For instance, love thy neighbour is good because god said it. Do not murder or steal is another. A band of Israellites rampaging over a neighbouring tribe, massacring the men and children and taking the women for themselves is good because god said so. Sacrificing your child in order to win a great battle is good because god said it is.

Typically that's how it works for most christians. God can do no wrong, no matter what he says or does.

[Drich]

Hiya Drich
I remember a particular child I babysat, I told her, "Christy! Don't touch that, it'll burn you!"
She looked me straight in the eye, and touched it. She didn't know what burning meant.

How could you possiably know that Adam and Eve did not know what Death meant? Gen 3 would suggest that Eve knew full well what Death meant. Because She had to be convinced that She would not die before she ate. It wasn't until she had full assureances from Satan that she would not die did she eat. Then when adam saw her after she ate he knew that she was not dead. Or aleast understood that she was not what he thought death was.

Eitherway you want to look at it they knew of Death and they knew the fruit was tied to it.

Was it her fault she got burnt for not listening to me? Nope, the fault was mine. I let her get close enough to the burner to get
burnt, and I knew what would happen if she touched it.

Children push boundries, that is what they do from the time they can walk forward. Burning one's self is apart of that process, that is why we have been given the ablity to heal. Subsequently that is why there has been a plan of salvation before the creation process started. (so we can be healed for burning ourselves when we pushed past the boundries of God)

In god's case, is he not even more (sinfully) responsible for putting the tree there in the first place?

Is God responsiable for giving us the oppertunity for sin/choice YES! For He put the Tree of knoweledge in the Garden. The Tree from the beginning repersentes Choice. Sin is not automatically bad the way you all seem to think it is. Sin=FreeWill. God knows this and is why He put the tree with in the Garden, and it is also why we have been given the oppertunity to be forgiven of our sins. You can not have one without the other. For Sin is Choice. with out choice/sin then there is only the expressed will of God. If there is only God's Expressed will then We must Always obey it.

As it is now, we have God's expressed will and our own. We have also been given a way to redeem ourselves to get back into God's grace if we so Choose. We literally have the best of both worlds, and get to choose how we experience eternity because of this choice we have been given.

And also was there even death before the fall?

The Fossil record would support this assumption, and Adam and Eve's actions would indicate that they fully knew of death. That is why they both had to be convinced that death was not a factor before they ate the fruit.