Timeline for 2 Timothy 2:13 - Impossibility for God?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2017 at 18:35 | comment | added | user33515 | Yes, I did. I modified it somewhat. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 18:35 | history | edited | user33515 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1364 characters in body
|
| Dec 4, 2017 at 13:28 | comment | added | user474 | @user33515, did you have a chance to evaluate your answer? | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 23:33 | comment | added | user33515 | A lot of people are objecting to my answer. I'll look at it later. If it's wrong, I'll delete it. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 22:28 | comment | added | brianpck | This "grammatical analysis" of δύναται is completely off: as noted, it is a deponent verb and has none of the "middle" meanings in the quoted reference. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 22:23 | comment | added | user474 | @user33515 do you have any sense of the best rendering, or of how plausible a "he would not deny himself" rendering is? | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 20:41 | comment | added | Levan Gigineishvili | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 19:29 | comment | added | Levan Gigineishvili | And, Father's immutable will is that of Jesus as well in His divine essence: before incarnation, Logos was eternally with Father (John 1:1) - the ἤν (past continuous of εἶμι - "to be") denoting infinity - They had one divine will of creating the world, and one divine will of saving the mankind, but the Logos with adoption of human nature adopted also human will, for will is a feature of nature, thus He as incarnate Logos has two wills: divine and human. But human will is not a sinful will, and neither inclined to sin. Since both wills belong to the eternal Hypostasis of Logos, He cannot fall. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | Levan Gigineishvili | @elikakohen Haven't I said that I have used an analogy! When Jesus says that He is "the vine", He uses a similar analogy and not that his body is made of wood. And even stones are analogous to people for Jesus is also called stone (Romans 9:33). | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 18:55 | comment | added | elika kohen | @LevanGigineishvili - Stones are not analogous to people - who have will and desire. However, the point that "immutability of God's will" means "it is impossible to sin" is valid. What isn't valid is to assume "The Father's immutable will" was also true of Jesus, and therefore he wasn't tempted as other people - IF you fail to account for the direct contradictions to this theology, (Luke 22:44, Hebrews 4:15, Hebrews 12:2, etc.) Following the texts, and under "Trinity" doctrine, there is no issue; issues only rise if it is presumed that Jesus is actually "The Most High", (the Father). | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 18:01 | comment | added | Levan Gigineishvili | @elikakohen Yes, He was tempted as human, but "tempted" in His case does not and could not imply any possibility for Him to fall to sin, for He is the one through whom ALL things are created (thus, Himself, therefore, is uncreated) and the Principle for forgiveness of sins; so, "tempted" in His case means, to use an analogy, if a diamond is tempted by mud thrown at it to be defiled: yes, diamond may feel unease (cf. Jesus' pains and sufferings) by the hitting of the portions of mud, but it is impossible for mud to defile diamond that remains 100% intact. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 17:47 | comment | added | elika kohen | @LevanGigineishvili - Umm. I think you define blasphemy differently than Jesus did. And Paul is exactly contradictory to your point. He was very adamant that Jesus was tempted similarly as other men. But - this question, and this answer, I think, is speaking about "The Most High", (Jesus' father). So, if you are Unitarian, (all the same) rather than Trinitarian, (three in unity), then I can see where some of your "blasphemy" issues might pop up. But, this question is purely a linguistic / textual issue, not a theology / doctrinal. The implications are being addressed on a different site. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 17:43 | comment | added | elika kohen | user33515 - To your point of translating "δύναται" in the middle voice - I think that it is necessary given the context of "two immutable things" - being God + God. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 17:25 | comment | added | Levan Gigineishvili | δύναμαι is a DEPONENT verb, and as such it has a form of a medium voice but the meaning of the active voice! So, it has not an "enabling/not enabling" case! This as far as grammar is concerned, but it is also blasphemously counterintuitive to think that Paul implied that "if Jesus would like to, He would be steadfast and not commit sin, if He would not like to, He would not be steadfast and commit sin", then Jesus would not be any different from any of us, but Paul is clearly emphatic that Jesus is not in the same row with us, as elsewhere he asserts the same of the Father (Hebrews 6:18). | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:33 | history | edited | user33515 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2017 at 16:20 | history | answered | user33515 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |