^^^ If you think you have proven your case, I'm happy to leave you with that thought.

Bah. Its a discussion. No winners or losers. I simply think its interesting and topical, that's all.

^^^^ Sure! But we cannot go on and on until we reach (oneness of) infinity . There comes a point when we agree or at least agree to disagree agreeably!

More on the personal depiction of the Father in the OT. . .

Moses saw Yahweh's back because Yahweh covered Moses' face with his hand while passing. “I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by, then I will take away my hand and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen,“ (Exodus 33: 22-23.) But Moses had seen Yahweh's face earlier on in (Exodus 33: 11) ….And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend. The Lord came to visit Abraham and ate in his house. Isaiah saw the Lord in his temple. Gideon, Ezekiel, Samson's parents, Daniel, all saw the Lord. Yahweh wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32: 21) and Jacob nearly defeated him until he managed to remove a bone to wrench Jacob's hip.

Culled: Naiwon Osahon, Article on The Nigerian Voice.

@Deep Sight: Can you respond to this?

God has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And there is a verse that clearly shows this in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 9:
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In this singular verse we see described the Incarnation and the names of the Savior
1. Counsellor, (Holy Spirit)
2. The mighty God, The everlasting Father
3. The Prince of Peace (Jesus the Son)
All showing the unity of the Godhead.

Since God is "Personal" and "Sentient" and the Holy Spirit is God, it perforce follows that the Holy Spirit is "Personal" and "Sentient"
An impersonal force does not speak, does it?
Acts 21:
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
1 Tim 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

aletheia:

@Deep Sight: Can you respond to this?

God has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And there is a verse that clearly shows this in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 9:
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In this singular verse we see described the Incarnation and the names of the Savior
1. Counsellor, (Holy Spirit)
2. The mighty God, The everlasting Father
3. The Prince of Peace (Jesus the Son)
All showing the unity of the Godhead.

I already made some remarks on Isaiah above –

NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in several statements -

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

This point is also made clear in a multitude of scripture including Mark 10:18; Jn 17:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Acts 2:22; Luke 22:42.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

Just as an aside it might also interest you to note that the word translated as ''Mighty God" in Isaiah is El Berith. El Berith is also a canaanite diety.

Since God is "Personal" and "Sentient" and the Holy Spirit is God, it perforce follows that the Holy Spirit is "Personal" and "Sentient"
An impersonal force does not speak, does it?

This is just about as apt as stating that since you are personal and sentient, then your muscles, your voice, or an executive order you issue, are all therefore personal and sentient things.

Acts 21:
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
1 Tim 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

The spirit causes revelation and inspiration. That is about all that emerges from this quote.

^But the words in those two verses are:
#1. saith (says)
#2. speaketh (speaks)

How did these become "revelation" and "inspiration" (your words). Since these 2 verses quite clearly demolish your argument; you try to sweep the evidence under the carpet. I am sure there is a judicial term for that (being the lawyer that you are). The problem here is that your peculiar world-view makes you ignore evidence presented to you.

Again I ask you does an impersonal force speak or hear?

Consider this verse:
John 16:13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

There are several words that could have been used in the koine Greek and translated into English as speaketh or saith.
#1. G3004 lego; to "lay" forth, i.e. (figuratively) relate (in words (usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 4483 is properly to break silence merely, and 2980 means an extended or random harangue)); by implication, to mean:--ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say(-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter. see G2036 see G5346 see G4483 see G2980
#2. G2980 laleo; to talk, i.e. utter words:--preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. Compare G3004
#3. G2036 epo; to speak or say (by word or writing):--answer, bid, bring word, call, command, grant, say (on), speak, tell.
#4. G5346 5346 phemi; to show or make known one's thoughts, i.e. speak or say:--affirm, say.
#5. G4483 rheo; to utter, i.e. speak or say:--command, make, say, speak (of).

Now which Greek word was translated as speak in John 16:13? Hint: It also occurs in John 16:18 (where two different words are translated "said or saith",

KJV: John 16:18. They said <G3004> therefore, What is this that he {Jesus} saith <G3004>, A little while? we cannot tell what he {Jesus} saith <G2980>.

At this point you will probably want to lay hold of G3004 which is: to "lay" forth, i.e. (figuratively) relate (in words (usually of systematic or set discourse etc. But you would be wrong, the word used in John 16:13 is G2980 (the same word used of Jesus in 16:18): to talk, i.e. utter words:--preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter.
Even if it was G3004 that was used in 16:13, the use of it twice in 16:18 in regards to Jesus and the Disciples shows that the word does not necessarily mean figurative speech but actually discourse using audible words.

The only ground you have left to retreat on is that an impersonal force does speak, since your supposition all along is that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force rather than a person.

Jesus saith<G2980> and the Holy Spirit saith<G2980>
Jesus saith<G3004> and the Holy Spirit saith<G3004>
QED.

@ aletheia

May I help by giving Deep Sight a parting gift i.e. as I am basically now taking a back seat.

Try this: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit



PS look at the very last thing in the list: the Holy Spirit Himself is the truth! Of whom else can we say that He is the Truth?

Edit: I realise in hindsight that that last one in the list may be challenged on the basis that it is from the disputed Johannine Comma; nevertheless, at least it cannot be argued that that was done by the Church Fathers or by the Catholic/RCC Church; again at the least, it suggests that some of the Bible redactors had a conception of the Holy Spirit as God or indeed of the Trinity.

Further Edit Looking at it again, it is actually not part of the Johannine Comma (verse 7!) which gives even much less room for the challenge of its authenticity; also, the point I made about the logical effect of even saying that the Johannine Comma is a late insert is an attestation of a very early conception of the Trinity still stands.

Further Further Edit More on the Johannine Comma in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.0.html#msg6576034

-

@Nuclearboy, sure God has the right to do whatever He wants. I wouldn't use the word 'right' though. In any case, because God can do anything doesn't mean He will do them. There are things God simply won't do or have to do (like becoming a bird. He could make a bird and have it sing if He cares about my mood that much).

If you believe that it is possible that God has many other manifestations or at least He could choose to manifest Himself in other ways then I am satisfied with you and conclude that the trinity is arbitrary or only a way God chose to interact with us. But in case this is not so, I won't put words in your mouth. Do you think God is exclusively a trinity? Always has been? Always will be?

Another line of thinking I have: If you say that the trinity is as a result of God's manifestations, doesn't that mean there was a time when characters like Jesus didn't exist since there was no us for God to manifest to? If Jesus has always been, then he can be no manifestation but a distinct separate being. So let me ask another question. Do you think Jesus has always been in existence since before time like God?

@Enigma. Do you think the members of the trinity are coequal? Do they have distinct wills even if they always converge? Are they made of the same substance like people of old argued about long ago. My next questions will depend on your answers.

Note: I ask stuff because I want to know and not because I want to push an agenda. I cannot guarantee that I'll be satisfied with the answers I get though and I will only ask more questions or say thanks, but no thanks.

@vescucci

Firstly, please note two things: (a) I have said on this thread that in a sense the less said in "explaining" God, the better; (b) I do not claim to know everything let alone all there is to know about God. Additionally, I have said that I can countenance a suggestion that the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessarily perfect and cannot fully encapsulate God.

OK: again some basic background (indeed repetition): in my view, the Bible teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that God is One.

It seems to follow to me that the One God is equal with Himself, His will agrees with His will, He is of the one substance with Himself!

In other words there is only either Jesus, Jevovah or The Holy Spirit at any one time but not all three? Let me rephrase: Is Jesus equal in all respect to The Holy Spirit and mutually to God, the Father?

BTW, I thoroughly respect your position concerning explaining God and also your refreshing simple outlook on the trinity

^^ Glad you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do.

Your question about manifesting if there were no us reminds me of another - if a tree were to fall in a forest and there was nobody there to see/hear it, would it make a sound when falling? I hope you get my point. Jesus is God, simple, whether there were people to manifest to or not. I used the idea of a bird precisely because of Jesus. And I notice you separated God from the bird whist I said "Could He have decided to go as the Bird Himself?" We both agree He COULD but you wonder if He WOULD. Neither of us can answer that.

However, the possibility that He could ratifies the concept and also ratifies Christ.

I do not ratify Trinity. For want of a better means of describing the GodHead, people have decided to use the word - it works and so it has come to stay. However, when clarity is sought, such as this discussion comes up. What I say is that there is one God and He has shown Himself to "different" men in a myriad of ways. However, to ALL men, He has shown Himself in three basic ways [1] A Spirit (fearful, totalitarian, awesome and unfathomable). [2] A Body (which dwelt amongst men and shed His "Glory" [3] An indwelling presence (which leads, guides, convicts, empowers and comforts).

Because these 3 are what is common to the generality, they are what are considered to make up the GodHead. However, they are the same personage and in real terms, God is One God.

Your question to Enigma - my 2 cents - Equality is relative and based on function - do your part and you're part of the team, so to say. Clothed in flesh, Jesus limited Himself but still remained the fullness since God is a Spirit. And they have the same wills. But where a Spirit has no restraints, a body has and if totally suppressed when Jesus walked the earth, His experience/life/sacrifice would have been a farce. Thus, the body was allowed its full complement in decision making.

@ both of you chaps (especially vescucci); tomorrow for me please, a bit late so I'm turning in; I'm only good for reading now.

Turning in too. BTW, replied your mail.

Great night, guys

Good man, Enigma. You're excused even though you need not ask. Same for you Nuke. But something to dream about sil vous plait.

@ Nuclearboy. Good stuff. As for your tree in the forest analogy, I'd point to other aspects of it but one will serve my purpose now: The tree fell. It fell. Once it was standing and next it fell. It cannot have been falling and making sounds no one could hear for eternity. Manifestation is an act (I'll drop the point of what use it would be to do it for no reason till later) even if it is not for anyone's benefit.

Also, I'm not entirely sure God can do absolutely anything. I think He has power over everything but I don't think he can commit suicide or cease to exist even if He wanted to.

Let me talk about another idea in my head. It seems to me that if Jesus and The Holy Spirit are like that, they existed as if just for our benefit and everyone gets a role to play. It's like a solution existing ever before the problem. It is like a mobile phone in the Jurassic waiting for the 21st century to arrive. It seems as though if there were four, one would be idle and if there were two, one would have to be made. I'm talking in terms of how we are affected by the trinity here.

Great thoughts there, Vescucci, and I'm sincere in saying you don't portray the regular NL poster - a dude with an agenda and a mousetrap. Rather, you're fast joining my hall of fame here.

However, you missed my point which was - did the falling of the tree produce noise? Look at it this way. 2 days back, we both walked past it and it was standing. Today, we again walked past and it was down. so that is not in contention. We KNOW it fell. Question is, did it make noise when it fell? Thats what is at stake.

Concerning Jesus and the HS, I find it rather funny that its Jesus you find existing because of us. Did you ever see God "the Father" to know He existed outside us? Truth is that brother, Jesus is the only manifestation of God we ever saw. The OT God could have existed only in the minds of worshippers. Jesus was "real". But I start to "stretch" issues.

As to God having power over all, yes. I would think commiting suicide is possible (if only in an understanding based manner) too - it would just mean stopping all things and none of us would ever know, ehn? Cos we too would "stop". So let me ask - when you great grand father died, how could you prove to him that God had not just committed suicide?

nuclearboy:


Jesus limited Himself but still remained the fullness since God is a Spirit. And they have the same wills.

The bolded above.

I will not answer you. Jesus' own words will answer you.

Matt 26:39 - "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." - The Prayer in Gethsemane.

Still insist there is no possibility of a dichotomy of wills?

Aha.

ok
[img]http://s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=ffffff/txt=ffffff/border=ffffff/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]

nuclearboy:
All "Deists" keep saying God can do anything but most are liars who mouth the words but do not believe what they say. Elementary thought brings one question to mind. Vescucci, does God have the right to decide (out of love and for your sake) to be a small beautiful bird whose chirps make you smile one day when you are feeling low? Or a tiny chipmunk who's gymnastics brightens your day? Or is He restricted to being a "terrible", "overbearing" God whose voice kills? Pray, who would be the party restricting Him? If the first 2 are possible, would it mean that any hunter that shoots and hits the bird/chipmunk has killed God? Would you then not realise that basically God is to be found in all of creation since we model His existence albeit in limited forms?

I would like to learn more about highlighted, nuclearboy. Can you please expound on it a little?

I'm honoured Nuclearboy. Thank you. And I am glad you understand me. I do not wish to prove anyone wrong. I just seek to understand.

Let me go back to the tree analogy. The sound made (and I don't think we can categorically say it made a sound. Probably is the word to use for people could have brought it down gently for all we know) as the tree fell, happened and it occupied a point in time. My argument has changed from manifestation in itself to the occurence of manifestation since I think it is a stronger point. But I promised I'd come to it later and so I will. The falling tree is like the term 'only begotten son of God'. What's the use of that word if there wasn't a time when Jesus wasn't begotten? In the same way, when we passed by the tree the first time, there was and had never been a sound. The sound came thereafter, if it came at all.

Lol at the grandfather bit. But what is is what is. What we see may not be the same thing and what we don't perceive certainly is no proof of its non-existence. If my grandfather (who has no power to perceive by the way cuz he's dead) can't feel God's presence, it doesn't mean He's dead. It's like in the film The Matrix, someone outside the matrix is dead or non-existent to those in the matrix. Considering that our existence is a form of the matrix, God needs to actually die and not simply appear to have.

I'll talk about manifestation later and I'll use your other analogy. Also I'll comment on your reply to how the trinity seemed tailored uncannyly for our salvation.

Ah. See assignments for Nuke. And I've not even finished with my own questions.

@MyJoe. Do you believe in the trinity and if you do how do you believe it? I mean what interpretation do you give it?

Deep Sight:

The bolded above.

I will not answer you. Jesus' own words will answer you.

Matt 26:39 - "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." - The Prayer in Gethsemane.

Still insist there is no possibility of a dichotomy of wills?

Aha.

But if you are arguing from the Bible/Christian perspective, as you did yesterday, the answer to this is extremely simple. Jesus, while on earth, was both divine and human! For a start the passage does not suggest a difference of will; more critically, you are referring to the human Jesus rather than the divine Jesus! It is a different thing if you are saying Jesus the man (EDIT i.e. the historical figure) was not God at all!

vescucci:

In other words there is only either Jesus, Jevovah or The Holy Spirit at any one time but not all three? Let me rephrase: Is Jesus equal in all respect to The Holy Spirit and mutually to God, the Father?

BTW, I thoroughly respect your position concerning explaining God and also your refreshing simple outlook on the trinity

I'm not sure I fully understand this question. It seems straightforward that there are all the three at anytime; all three are in heaven now; even if we say only the Spirit is on earth now but then He is perpetually connected to the other two from whom he proceeds (according to the Trinitarian formula with the Filioque included).

maybe
[img]http://s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=ffffff/txt=ffffff/border=ffffff/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]

@ Enigma - “Could the will ever disagree with the personage of God”

This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence of God the Father?

In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the time.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.

It is your position that Jesus was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).

Given this, the simple question is ask; is this –

How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”

Does this not show God willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will?

Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?

Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?

Now God is perfect and thus unchangeable.

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” The unchangeability of God is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how BIZZARRE it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

@ Alethia - I am aghast at your heavy reliance on the word "speaketh."

Does your conscience not speak to you? Is it a separate personal sentient being? No.

Do the times and events of the world not speak to us all? Does this make them personal sentient beings?

Figures of speech, please.

DeepSight asked how Christ could say "not mine but yours" yet we say they are the same!

Enigma has done justice to the issue but let me add this - The sacrifice of Jesus would have been a farce (insincere, unfair, unworthy) if He was not a man! That said, He would not have been able to achieve Sinlessless were He not God. The fact is though tempted, He could not sin - it was not His nature. It is this duality that has caused a stumbling block to so many. Yet it remains the truth. And that duality explains two personalities fighting. Maybe its not apt to use this as example, but has not science proved the existence of the human that is like Jekyll and Hyde? A split personality? Take it to wherever you wish to but you get my point here.

The human had a will and we see it expressed here. Consider that its being included seems a weakness - would DS argue his opponents case? Why then is it there if it is not just the truth?

@MyJoe:

I'll answer your question with one of mine - could you please list 10 things you believe God cannot do?

Deep Sight:

It is your position that Jesus was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).

Given this, the simple question is ask; is this –

How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”

Does this not show God willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will?

Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?

Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?

Now God is perfect and thus unchangeable.

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” The unchangeability of God is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

@Deepsight
When I read your posts I perceive a sharp intellect, superb reasoning power and intelligence; but an intellect not grounded by the intuition will only lead to many errors.

The conclusion that you drew above makes sense but it is not right. The expression, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt,” does not show a dichotomy of wills, rather it confirms the will.

I will tell you a story: When I lived in New Jersey for a while, every winter morning I loathed to step into the cold weather and go to work. Standing before my door, I will always say, "If there is anyway I can avoid daring this cold weather I would, but nevertheless I must go to work."

My will remains to go to work; the fact that at the door I expressed reluctance or fear of facing the cold weather does not mean that a different will arose in me. My will to go to work remained unflinching even when I expressed the fear of not walking in the cold weather.

Come to think of it my will was to go to work; walking in the cold is only a consequence of my will and not the will itself.

The will of God, why Jesus was sent to the earth is to bring the word of the father to mankind. Jesus being from the Truth was sent to give the truth to mankind. To bear witness to the Truth, to stand by it no matter what.
Jesus fulfilled this mission; He knew the will of God and would not deny the Truth even in the face of physical death.

What mankind decided to do to Jesus was their volition, and not the will of God, neither was it the purpose for which Jesus was sent. I repeat: Jesus was sent to deliver the Truth. Darkness tried to make Jesus fail by throwing obstacles in His way; when He would not succumb to any of the temptations, darkness used mankind to threaten the mission. Darkness used mankind to force Jesus to deny the Truth or face death by crucification, a very painful death.

Jesus remained faithful to the Truth and would rather accept to be crucified than deny the Truth. Has it ever occurred to you that if Jesus, during his trial, had denounced His teachings an accepted that He was a charlatan, Pontius Pilet would not have crucified him.

The prayer in Gethsemane which you quoted above was a confirmation of the fact that Jesus knew what awaited Him if He remained faithful -- death on the cross, which He would rather have avoided. But knowing that for Him not to deny the Truth that (death on the cross) was His only option; and He accepted it.

Let us analyze the situation of Jesus at that point. He had only a few options:
(1) To run away to a far distant land or to deny all his claims as being the Son of God.
(2) To miraculously change the mind of those that whished to Crucify Him.
(3) To remain faithful, stick to His guns and bear the consequences.

Option (1) would mean that Darkness has triumphed. It would mean that wolf had succeeded in scaring Jesus away from the sheep(mankind) that Jesus had come to shelter. Not to stand by His words or to run away is tantamount to withdrawing His words(the Truth on which salvation of mankind lies). This would leave mankind in the arms of darkness because all faith in Jesus and the salvation that comes from His words will be lost. Even though the average humanbieng may have taken this option; Jesus who was Love incarnate, would not. He would rather die than see His sheep left alone in the arms of the wolf.

Option (2) is not an option at all because it is impossible. Miraculously changing the mind of people is tantamount to interfering with their free will. Free will is an integral part of a human spirit; God does not interfere with the free will of man. Otherwise God would have changed the mind of all mankind to think and only behave righteously. Since mankind has free will; what they decide to do is of their own accord alone. God can only warn and show them the right path to follow; whether they choose to follow it or not is their choice. But these choices carry consequences which mankind cannot avoid. So God would not retrieve the gift of free will which He gave man in the beginning, just to save Jesus. This will amount to changing the laws of creation or the laws of God which are unchangeable. God is perfect and thus unchangeable; and so are His laws.

Option(3) Is the only option that was left for Jesus who would not deny His father or pray that the laws of God be changed, i.e. pray that God will interfere with the free will of man. Accepting death on the cross rather than denying His words would show mankind the validity of His words. Indeed many people, including Mary became convined that Jesus was the son of God when they saw that in the midst of His painful crucification He would not retrieve His words or deny His origin. With His death on the cross He set a seal to His conviction that He was the son of God; and thereby gave His words a validity that His followers vowed to live by it for the rest of thier exsistance. Actually later some of His followers, like Peter, would rather be killed than deny Jesus. So had Jesus not accepted death on the cross, had he ran away or denied His origin, his followers would have ran away too or discard all his teachings; the Truth He brought would have vanished like words spoken in the wind. But I digress.


Now back to the prayer at Gethsemane
The first part of the prayer: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, " is a confirmation of the fact that Jesus would rather not be crucified. Crucification was not the will of God. But since crucification stood between Him and fulfilling the will of the father, he sought for a way within the will of the father to fulfill His mission and avoid crucification. "O my Father, if it be possible, " In other words, 'Is there a possibility or is there a chance that I can still fulfil your will without being crucified.' Just as I once asked myself, if there is possible way that I can to work or walk to my car without daring the extreemly cold weather.


The second part of the prayer: "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt," is a confirmation of the fact that Jesus would do anything that is within the will of His father; He would do the will of the father no matter what. "Nevertheless not as I will," is a figure of speech which signified that Jesus would not even consider any option contrary to the will of the father. In other words, 'even though I dont want to be crucified, and no matter how pianful crucification may be, I will go through it if thats the only way I can save this mission and thus fulfill your will.' It doesn’t show a contrary will; because the will of God, in the first place, was not to crucify Jesus. Jesus was sent that mankind would listen to Him and not crucify Him. Salvation lies in His words and not in His crucification. From this we can see how much Jesus loved the father and how much he loved manking. A son that would rather suffer than jeopadise the mision his father sent him is indeed a worthy son.


Another analogy may suffice. If my will is to go and visit a man another country. In the midst of the long and inconveniencing journey, I may ask myself, "Is there any other way for me to visit this man without making this inconveniencing journey?" Or I can say to myself, "If it is possible for me to visit this man without this journey, I would do it." This does not mean that a different will other than the will to visit the man has excited in me.

Even while disciplining my son, I would always ask myself, "Is there any way I can make this child learn his lessons without spanking him?" My will which remains unflinching is to teach my son whom I love so much; but sometimes in order to accomplish this(teach my some) I am faced with the option of spanking him. I express reluctance at this option which I would rather not do because it is not part of my will; but I am forced to do it because it is the only way I could remain faithful to my mission of teaching him the lessons of life. I will rather go through the emotional pains of spanking my son than to leave him to grow up a bad child.

This does not entail another will or an opposing will. It only shows reluctance at facing an unimportant, unnecessary, and inconveniencing episode, which was not part of the will in the first place.

Thanks

Deep Sight:

@ Alethia - I am aghast at your heavy reliance on the word "speaketh."

Does your conscience not speak to you? Is it a separate personal sentient being? No.

Do the times and events of the world not speak to us all? Does this make them personal sentient beings?

Figures of speech, please.

^Normally you would have posted a tome refuting my argument by now but alas for Deep Sight, you are unable advance any except a tepid "Figures of speech". I suspected you would say that; which was why I specifically posted the various Greek words translated as speaketh or saith in English. Only G3004 is used in the way you suggest and even at that; it was not an iron-clad rule.
Please do read the post again: this time without your presuppositions. And please pay attention also to the personal pronouns describing the Holy Spirit in those passages: he, himself.
Again I ask you: does an impersonal force speak or hear?

The answer to your post (no 120) really is in my post (no 117). There are two parts to the answer: (a) the passage does not show a difference of will(s) between Jesus and God the Father (pls see a reasonable expansion of this point by justcool just above); (b) the statement was made by Jesus the human not Jesus the God. We Christians believe that whilst on earth, Jesus was both fully human and fully God; we call it the Hypostatic Union; please look it up.

By the way, my curiosity leads me to ask this: do you now still think that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being? Especially after the following link given earlier above?  http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

i read thru some of this posts and immediately i understood the motive behind it, its a carefully disguised post seeking to create doubt in the faith of some Christians- its worked in the past i.e ever wondered why there are so many christian denomination each believing in one creed or the other and critizing others for not sharing in their beliefs.

arguing abt trinity, the holy spirit,  etc is neither hia nor dia and tis utter foolishness

Christianity is about salvation/redemption/reconcilliation to the  Father, through Jesus Christ the son of GOD and living your life, overcoming sin/challenges, fulfilling destiny by the aid of the HOLY Spirit -

i 'll end with these verses-

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa.55:8,9)

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" -Prov 3:5

"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things to confound the mighty."  -1 Cor 1:27

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" -Jn 14:6

"and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" -Jn 8:32

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever" -Jn 14:16

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" -Jn 14:26

"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them" - mark 4:12

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

could you please list 10 things you believe God cannot do?

No. I cannot list 10 things I believe God would intend to do and cannot do.

nuclearboy:
I'll [b]answer [/b]your question with one of mine -

You have not done so. You have not provided the insight I sought.