Hi Greg,
Thanks for your responses.
Greg Logan wrote:Men don't pre-exist. This is fundamentally ontological.
Men can not sin. This is behavioral.
OK, let's review this. We have our two arguments:
- 'BAD' ARGUMENT
-Literally NOT ONE MAN is righteous. (Rom 3:10)
-Jesus is a MAN.
-Therefore, Jesus is not righteous.
- 'GOOD' ARGUMENT
-Literally NOT ONE MAN pre-existed.
-Jesus is a MAN.
-Therefore, Jesus did not pre-exist.
So the reason why the 'bad' argument is bad is because the implicit 'all'
can have exceptions. And the reason the 'good' argument is good is because the implicit 'all'
cannot have exceptions? That is what you're saying?
You are now bringing up ontology as the distinction and arguing that there's no such thing as a sinful nature (which may or may not be believed by other Unitarians). But exactly how does a
previous (or
post) state of existence have any affect on a
current one? Is Jesus currently, right now, a man or a divine person?
Greg Logan wrote:If there are not clear answers to these in scripture, I have little to know interest in them.
Interesting response. These questions
do interest me (as I'll explain below) and so I have a few follow-up questions if you'd be kind enough to answer them:
- 1. Given that you believe anyone can choose to not sin, how do you know that no one else throughout history has been sinless like Jesus? Can there be another exception to Romans 3:10?
2. Do you believe that the virgin birth is completely unrelated to Jesus' sinless life? In other words, do you believe Jesus would have lived a flawless life regardless of whether or not he had a human (biological) father?
I believe these questions are important because they affect the entire message of the Bible, such as what it says about the condition of the human family and our need for a savior. It sounds as though the consequence of your belief is that we don't need a savior
if we just make the choice to not sin, but,
for some mysterious reason, nobody has or ever will decide to make that choice besides Jesus. I have a really hard time accepting that large of a collective coincidence...unless I'm missing something?