Meaning of 2 Cor 5:21 [moved from Ethics]

[DerelictJunction]

You know, I was in the military during the Cold War when at any time out of the blue the president could have ordered us to launch our nuclear weapons upon the Soviet Union.

What classes of boomers did you ride on?

Now, I don't know what particular ethical philosophy you claim as your own, but every ethical philosophy has its problems. For instance, a Utilitarian cannot truly know if a particular action that seems ethical at the moment won't have the opposite repercussion decades later...but he doesn't let that freeze him into being unable to make a utilitarian decision today.

I fail to see your point.
I am simply pointing out that Jesus' sacrifice is either not based on His sinlessness and 2 Cor 5:21 is incorrect or "sin" for Jesus is not measured by the same parameters as it is for humans and 2 Cor 5:21 is still incorrect at worst or meaningless at best.

You brought up the fact that the actions of Jesus can never be classified as sin because he is God and God determines what is sin and what is not (same point is made in Mark Twain's, The Mysterious Stranger). Your characterization of sin and God leaves us with a God that you cannot really trust because lying is not a sin for Him. According to you, you could serve God faithfully, trusting in Him only for your entire life, and at the judgement, He could back out from the promises made in the Bible and send all His followers to eternal torture anyway. Even after doing that, He would not have done wrong.
These inconsistencies developed from the beliefs of His followers and the Bible, lead me to the conclusion that the God of the Bible does not really exist.

 

[RDKirk]

What classes of boomers did you ride on?

I was in the Strategic Air Command. During one point in my career, we spent four days furiously planning to launch against the USSR because they had reacted to one of our nuclear exercises. They were actually flushing their boomers from port and opening silos...and we did not know whether they would be talked back from the ledge. We were very relieved when we were finally told to stand down. But we had all had the thought before, "What will I really do if 'the balloon goes up?'"

I fail to see your point.
I am simply pointing out that Jesus' sacrifice is either not based on His sinlessness and 2 Cor 5:21 is incorrect or "sin" for Jesus is not measured by the same parameters as it is for humans and 2 Cor 5:21 is still incorrect at worst or meaningless at best. You brought up the fact that the actions of Jesus can never be classified as sin because he is God and God determines what is sin and what is not (same point is made in Mark Twain's, The Mysterious Stranger).

Actually, I never said "Jesus is God," nor does scripture actually say so. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity doctrine really only says that God is comprised by "three Persons of one Substance."

It's technically incorrect to say without some qualification "Jesus is God." Jesus is the Son. He is not the Father nor is He the Holy Spirit, nor are they all the same Person. Some will take Colossians 2:9 as saying "Jesus is God," however in the Greek what that verse says is that Jesus is fully divine...not that He is the full totality of what God consists of.

Jesus had a will of His own, separate from that of the Father ("Not my will, but thine"), which is why He is considered a "Person"--a philosophical moral agent in His own right. But as that moral agent, Jesus the Son unerringly bent His own will in accordance to that of the Father, and that is why He never sinned.

Your characterization of sin and God leaves us with a God that you cannot really trust because lying is not a sin for Him. According to you, you could serve God faithfully, trusting in Him only for your entire life, and at the judgement, He could back out from the promises made in the Bible and send all His followers to eternal torture anyway. Even after doing that, He would not have done wrong.

I'm not worried about such a distant hypothetical postulation. There is no indication that He has. On a day-by-day basis, it has no impact on me.

As I said before, you can't be utterly certain of the ultimate ramifications of your own judgments...but does that keep you from getting out of bed in the morning?

These inconsistencies developed from the beliefs of His followers and the Bible, lead me to the conclusion that the God of the Bible does not really exist.

A postulation that God may be an inconsistent God is not evidence that God does not exist.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I was in the Strategic Air Command. During one point in my career, we spent four days furiously planning to launch against the USSR because they had reacted to one of our nuclear exercises. They were actually flushing their boomers from port and opening silos...and we did not know whether they would be talked back from the ledge. We were very relieved when we were finally told to stand down. But we had all had the thought before, "What will I really do if 'the balloon goes up?'"

I remember that because it happened on my last patrol on the USS Woodrow Wilson. Small world.

Actually, I never said "Jesus is God," nor does scripture actually say so. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity doctrine really only says that God is comprised by "three Persons of one Substance."

It's technically incorrect to say without some qualification "Jesus is God." Jesus is the Son. He is not the Father nor is He the Holy Spirit, nor are they all the same Person. Some will take Colossians 2:9 as saying "Jesus is God," however in the Greek what that verse says is that Jesus is fully divine...not that He is the full totality of what God consists of.

Jesus had a will of His own, separate from that of the Father ("Not my will, but thine"), which is why He is considered a "Person"--a philosophical moral agent in His own right. But as that moral agent, Jesus the Son unerringly bent His own will in accordance to that of the Father, and that is why He never sinned.

Finally, an explanation that has legs. You could say Jesus continually bent his will to the Father and that saves the validity of Paul's statement in 2 Cor, or at least prevents it from being an outright falsehood. However, since some actions of His could be sins unless commanded by God, you can only assume that He did not sin and are really basing that on the proclamation by Paul. I do wonder, however, why God would command Jesus to not honor his mother at the wedding feast.

I'm not worried about such a distant hypothetical postulation. There is no indication that He has. On a day-by-day basis, it has no impact on me.

From my experience there is no indication that He has interacted at all. So, that is kind of like someone living in the USSR during the worst of the Stalinist purges saying that Stalin is a good guy because the glorious leader has never interacted with him.

A postulation that God may be an inconsistent God is not evidence that God does not exist.

True. Not a postulation but rather a conclusion drawn from Bible evidence.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Ethics and Morality to General Theology.

MOD HAT OFF
​