Was it possible for Jesus to sin?

[fer1989ist]

I heard that jesus did not want to go through the suffering, isn't that wanting something that goes against god?

[MrSlippin22]

his father beat him and had him crucified for the sins of his Elect (brothers and sisters) thats why it has nothing to do with us and everything to do with them. Ephesians 1:5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do. John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away

[KaHabbful]

I think the more proper question is: Do you have evidence that says he didn't? Of course you don't, or you wouldn't spend your time trying to convince people he didn't.

[danielkirk1]

Christ never sinned. Amen to our sweet saviour!

[yodaboga]

So, what about Adam? Did he have enough "badness" in him for him to choose sin? To my understanding, Adam was originally without sin, but had the ability to choose it. So it was possible for him to sin in both senses of the word that Piper is using.

[M400fan]

@yodaboga There is a great mystery here - Christ had no desire to sin, because He was God and God cannot be tempted, but as MAN, and UNLIKE Adam, He had to choose NOT to sin EVERY TIME! He knew weakness and the pressure of temptation, yet His perfect human will CHOSE to obey God and resist! What a glorious Saviour! Heb 4 and 5 bear careful meditation.

[gilbert4321]

@yodaboga Hey, when the only woman in the world is naked and hands you evil fruit how can you say no?!?

[curtsphobias]

wow, that was a great answer he gave.

[advguild7]

Bifurcation – A false dilemma – The either or fallacy. Falsely assuming that there are only two (exclusive) opinions.

This is FALACYS OF PRESUMPTION we see ihaterobbie using.

Because he bases his understanding on his own opinion, he has no truth. Therefore he is deceived into using logical fallacies on multiple levels.

God is reason. God is truth. Without his word you could not take your next breath.

God is good. To fear God that is wisdom, to shun evil is understanding.

[ihaterobbie123]

Is god good?

Does god define morality?

Well pick one because only one can be true.

To be good one must follow a sense of morality that is good.

God defined morality, god doesn't follow it.

Saying god is good and the ultimate morale authority is like saying the same for ANY tyrant.

bible-0

reason-1

[thatmaninclothes]

@ihaterobbie123

oh

[188metalhead881]

That's why Paul says "The Mystery of Christ". Gorgeous, that's why I love theology!! it's very intelectual, but at the same time, it doesn't have any human logic or reasoning!! Because, God is a complete Mystery Paul says it also.

[188metalhead881]

Wow, it's complicated!

[MatiasEliorDesoto]

Awesome! A three minute message about a complex topic and John Piper worded it in a way someone like me could understand!

[frnzkuester]

@MatiasEliorDesoto Amen

[bsiemon82]

yes, Jesus had to resist temptation every day he wakes up - he was fully man and God. this was part of the man side. i"m not a reformed theologian. We are not all sinful by birth.

[zerosister]

Sin is a religious MINDSET. Its dysfunction which makes us do what's wrong. It is something a person learns from childhood . That is why Jesus Yeshua never found fault with the so-called sinners of the bible. If we never have truth and are misdirected...it is no one's fault. But if you know better...shame on you...you ARE evil and judgment will be yours.

[humanistheart]

The sound for this didn't work on my comp for some reason.

At anyrate, christians think jesus is god and sin in thier tradition is only something god doesn't like at the time so from the christian framework of course jesus could not sin. He did unethical things, but ethics and 'sin' aren't related.

[actionong]

Is light a wave or a particle?

[keggerous]

@actionong its a waving electric and magnetic field that exists as a small packet of information called a quanta

[thiagoslacerda]

This Sunday we'll watch Mark Driscoll's commentaries! Sermon on Luke 4.

[8DX]

Very bad video. I find it wonderful however that today I can finally see through many arguments of theology.. Everything hangs on stipulating a "divine" or "supernatural" element to any situation and therefore allowing the philosopher to basically "make up" whatever he is trying to explain. Saying something is possible(naturally), yet impossible(supernaturally) defies logic. If it was impossible from some supernatural cause then in fact it would be impossible naturally as well. Jesus not human?

[plasticbarf]

I like pancakes

[eastwood13]

But...according to the bible,thought is sin.

[beadbinge]

I think what that boils down to is, did Jesus have free will, was he a man. Yes. He didn't sin, but he could have. If it weren't possible for Him to sin, Satan wouldn't have tried to tempt him to do it. lol It may not sound like a deep philosophical answer, but people always want to make things more ifficult than they need to be. :)

[oneilphoto]

...Continued.... I personally choose to believe that there is a God who created everything. I believe that Jesus was and is God's son, was created in His Fathers image, and came to earth and died so that I might live. I do hope, for your sake, that my faith has been wrongly placed.

[oneilphoto]

The idea of empirically proving any of this is rather pointless. There may be theories about evolution, other ways we came to being, or even the existence of God. But the fact is that there is not anyone out there that can empirically disprove the existence of God any more than I can empirically prove that God does exist. The point being, what you believe and what I believe is based on faith! ...........

[oneilphoto]

The point of this video was not to logically discuss the existence of Jesus. The point of this video was to try and possibly understand and wrap or arms around the unexplainable truths of a God that we cannot nor will ever be able to understand. The proof of His existence cannot be found in a formula but in the unexplained wonders of this world. His Glory can be found in our inability to understand the wonders of an infinite being who is able to do and create the unexplained.

[kierkegaardsclown]

quite a paradox

[superdoG12271980]

What about Adam? Adam was created good..was he not?

[Username2322]

Can god make a rock too big for him to lift?

Can Santa find Satan to be a good boy and give him a present?

Can Jesus sin?

Can Superman fly in outerspace?

No one will know, because none of them are real!

[bambuskaktusa]

Santa was a catholic priest who gave presents too the poor..

Superman is a character invented by cartoon writers years ago..

God is someone you dont believe.

Jesus is also a historical person you dont believe.

Think about what you are saying..

[Username2322]

Ah yes, but what are the limits on their superpowers? Everyone has a logical limit, but when we are talking about magic, something that doesn't exist, it's hard to pinpoint the logical limits of those magical properties.

Is Jesus so magical and mythical that he can break the logical limits of his super powers? What about Santa, Superman and God?

[Revinius]

if you made logic... then why would you be constrained by it?

[Username2322]

exactly. if you radiate heat, can you really be cold?

if you made logic, can you be illogical?

if you create light, can you create dark?

they are fun little philosophy games to play, but ultimately they don't have any more relevance than who would in a fight, batman or superman. And that's because, like other super heroes, God isn't real.

[bambuskaktusa]

I still dont understand what you are talking about, you are probably to smart for me.

But i know this, i believe in God as creator of the world, humans as the creation that is rebellious and hate God, Jesus as the savior that opens a way back to God if we want to.

So i doesnt matter how intelligent you are, you will probably not outsmart God when He comes back..

Bye bye...

[Revinius]

i think it is you who plays the game. You are asserting a rhetorical imperative and have provided no one with any evidence to support your case. You just bandy the same meaningless words around like they're some kind of magic bullet for peoples faith, when in reality they are neither well thought out or anything more intelligent that the arguments from the numerous teenagers i have spoken with on the matter.

[Username2322]

absolutely not. I am not the one required to provide evidence. If I claimed that I spoke with Superman, you would demand to meet superman or see some proof of his identify before accepting my statements. The same if I claimed to see dragons, unicorns or fairies. I am not required to show proof when I saw "there is no such thing as dragons", and by the same logic, I am not required to show proof by stating "there is no such thing as god".

Now, where is the factual proof? Nowhere.

[Revinius]

you want empirical evidence right?

[Username2322]

yes, testable, factual evidence for the supernatural.

the same level of evidence you would require to know that your salt shaker on the dinner table contains NaCl salt and not sugar.

[Revinius]

Ok. Can you provide me with empirical evidence that empirical evidence is the only path to knowing things?

[Username2322]

that is silly and moronic. What is the best way to know your salt shaker contains salt? Chemical analysis? tasting it? giving it to a slug? or praying about it?

Now, show me the same level of evidence that your god exists that you would require to know those white crystals are salt. The problem is, you can't.

[Revinius]

It's not moronic. You are telling me that empirical evidence is the only way to know things. So show that to me empirically. Otherwise, how do you know that?

What i hope you are seeing is that you can't do it; that in reality you rely solely on empirical evidence for knowledge. It's kind of like a girl telling you she loves you and you coming back and saying "i don't believe you love me unless you have sex with me". I hope you don't live that way and i hope you don't try and treat God that way

[Username2322]

no, that is stupid. and you're completely sidestepping the elephant in the room.

And all that I simply ask is that you show some ACTUAL evidence for the existence of all creation. Is it that hard? He is everywhere, created everything, listens to your words, and all I ask is for a sliver of proof, and what is your response? To get the defense and upset that I ask require evidence.

I am a prince from Nigeria, send me money. There is no need for confirmation on my statements, according to you.

[Revinius]

I am not saying there is no evidence. But what you need to recognise is your worldview is internally inconsistent. You demand empirical evidence as the only way to view the world any yet you cannot prove to me that that is so. Show me your worldviews consistency or acknowledge its inconsistency and then let's work off that basis.

As another example of what i pointed out above. Do you believe in love? What about justice? measure me out some justice so you can prove it is real...?

[Username2322]

you wish for me to empirically measure abstract concepts? Do you even understand the difference between between something real, like a rock, or a human named Jesus, and something abstract like love or beauty?

Seriously, you can't be this stupid.

[Revinius]

your proposal was: 'give me empirical evidence for God'. It has been demonstrated that you cannot, because God is not testable ('test not the Lord your God') just like love and justice are not testable. So, what is with this assertion that you want testable evidence when you take things like love and justice for granted? Show me an inch of justice and i'll show you a measurable God.

Jesus cannot be empirically verified either, only historically. If you want to go there i am more than happy to.

[Username2322]

No. love and justice can not be tested because they are abstract concepts. God is a being that directly created every physical thing. Someone who interacts in the daily lives of people and someone who can create something out of nothing.

By stating that this being of absolutely importance and influence can't be measured at all while we have a plethora of tests to determine that salt is NaCl is incredibly telling.

I believe magic aliens created the planet. It is equally valid as your god.

[Revinius]

it's equally valid, but is it equally evident.

I recommend you take a few 1st year philosophy classes to tidy up your basic terminology. You can't test that which is intangible empirically. If God interacts with creation, you need to go to historical evidence (which is not empirical evidence). If you want some 'historical Jesus' references let me know, there is an abundance of evidence.

[Username2322]

what you are basically saying is god is magic. You cant test god, because he's not real. End of story. Oh, and I got plenty of historical evidence that dragons roamed the land until they went extinct by nobel knights saving kidnapped princesses. I'm sure you believe that too. It's just as valid as God.

[Revinius]

no, i am not, but you can't assess what is immaterial by material means. If God has interceded in history however, in the form of a man, as Christians claim, you can assess that historically.

As for dragons etc, please obey literary style. By your logic all of history is invalidated including history of this conversation. Wake up and smell the coffee and give an honest appraisal to the history our civilisation relies on.

[Username2322]

umm, you're the one claiming that men who can bring people back from the dead and fly in the sky should be taken as historical fact but dragons, creatures that appear in many different cultures (Chinese, European) throughout history is such a silly argument you won't even address it? How do you think I feel when you talk about god being born of man to be brutally sacrificed to appease god? And if you can't accept dragons are real, why should I accept Jesus is?

[Revinius]

I didn't say Dragons were not real. The evidence does not suggest it though. Utilise discernment and look at the literary style of 'myth' and compare it to the literary style of 'historical narrative' and you will see what i mean at a basic level.

Let's take a sec and go through why you believe what you believe. What is your basis for rejecting that a man cannot be raised from the dead outright?

[Username2322]

The exact same arguments I would use to reject that Harry Potter, Santa, Jesus, Dragons, Superman, and Zeus are not real. You can either universally come to the conclusion that magic does not exist or you can be like you, tentatively stating that you don't know if fire breathing dragons flew across the Himalayan mountains snatching virgins from Chinese and European civilizations. And that's because you think it's rational to accept absurd fantasies as evidence.

[Revinius]

Ok, you are completely ignoring everything i am saying, thus making this conversation superfluous. You are ignoring the difference between the literary style of myth, which describes the aforementioned dragons etc and lumping it in with the literary style of historical narrative, which describes the actions of one Jesus of Nazareth. These styles are different and when studying ancient documents this has to be taken into account (please do not take your worldview and insert it into history).

[Username2322]

And what I am saying is that dragons are a part of historical culture in Europe and Asia. If you don't like dragons, perhaps you would satisfied with using the Iliad as a reference? There was possibly a city named Troy, battles possibly happened. How do you know Poseidon didn't punish Odysseus or that Achilles wasn't almost invincible? Because the way you know those are false is the same way I know the Bible is false.

[Revinius]

And once again, you confuse the literary style 'epic poem' with the 'historical narrative' of the gospels. The gospels are not myth, for instance Luke makes very clear that he 'sought out all the witnesses to make sure of a true account'. He urges anyone who doubts his account to go ask these witnesses about it! These people were still alive, and attested to what they saw. Not only that, but the apostles, who knew Jesus best, willing went to their death for a resurrection they witnessed.

[Username2322]

Lot's of people died for silly beliefs, do the 9/11 terrorists' beliefs become true because they died for them? No. So why use such a stupid argument.

Did people REALLY believe the Iliad was true? Of course, it was their religion. You consider it myth now because you know it's not true. The EXACT same way I consider the bible myth. Because it's readily apparent from your inability to adequately defend it that there is no tangible, empirical, testable way to prove Jesus had magical properties.

[Revinius]

sure, many people die for what they believe to be true. But noone i know of has ever died for what they know to be false. See, when it comes to choosing your life or some fabricated story, human nature always chooses life. The apostles who claimed to see and touch a physically resurrected Jesus, went to their graves maintaining that claim...

Illiad is myth, and i see no evidence of a Greek treating it as history like that of say, Herodotus. It is a fantastic tale, no more.

[Revinius]

you can't empirically test that you and I are having this conversation. So why should i believe this conversation is taking place? Because the reliable written account says it is. History is a valid form of knowledge, and it's not empirical knowledge.

[Username2322]

I agree, history is a form of knowledge. A form that is not nearly as powerful or conclusive as testable, empirical evidence. Nothing written in the bible would hold up in a court of law because it would be concluded to be hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. And yes, you can prove we are having this conversation, now you're just playing semantics. If you were to say we were having this conversation and the internet is connected by magic, it would be on par with your religious evidence.

[spareaxe]

We'll never know....cause he didn't exist..HELLO!!!

[DoubtingThomas666]

Second that!!!!!!

[praiselordgrace]

Nah, darkness, cold, evil not exist. The light is exist by God. Oh well.

[praiselordgrace]

Nah, Jesus is exist. "If You Believed Moses, You Would Believe Me— For He Wrote of Me. John 5:33-47" ~ John Piper

Otherword, the darkness, cold, evil these are not EXIST. LIGHT IS EXIST. Is it come from light? By God's light. Therefore, Trinity holy God the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, these are in One God has exist...hola :)

[Revinius]

i know of know serious secular historian who denies the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Go look in the oxford classical dictionary (OCD) for some citations.