tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post7027057899259218461..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: If Christ could not sin, how was he tempted in the desert?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-65697074974756898972013-06-28T08:23:05.531-07:002013-06-28T08:23:05.531-07:00Satan did not believe that God could create a man ...Satan did not believe that God could create a man that was unable to sin or be tempted by evil. All the effort Satan made to tempt Jesus failed and this is to prove to us that we have a messiah that in nature is like God, righteous, unable to be tempted by evil and incapable of sin. This was the lamb without spot or blemish and the example to us of the perfection we are to follow after. We are to be transformed to be in the image of Jesus who was the image of the invisible God.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18425079350083635791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-70857338485114344422013-02-17T16:19:28.483-08:002013-02-17T16:19:28.483-08:00Thank you Fr. on your article. The way I explain J...Thank you Fr. on your article. The way I explain Jesus' temptation is I 1st ask the person what food they really dislike. Then I state if I came to you with a barrel full of that food and asked you to do something and in return you would get that barrel of food, would you do it? You see I just tempted you BUT you were not tempted. Now satan came to Jesus with a barrel full of sin and tempted Jesus BUT Jesus was not tempted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-83283735991388464222013-01-02T09:52:01.876-08:002013-01-02T09:52:01.876-08:00@ Passerby
I realize this post is from some time ...@ Passerby <br />I realize this post is from some time ago and do not know if my comment will even be posted, but it seems that your idea of freedom is seriously misunderstood. To be free to choose an action does not in any way free you from the consequence of that action. No such thing could exist. However, you are nonetheless free to choose and with that choice, the consequences inherent in it. If this were not so, what good would choice be? Then, and only then, would life be truly meaningless, for no action on my part could yield any result at all, whether for good or evil. To argue that choice should be free of consequence or else, is not in fact ‘free choice’, is to argue for absolute chaos, which is impossible. <br />As for the goodness of God, He does not want you to choose a specific thing to please Him or for His good. God is complete; He does not need you to do anything for Him. Rather, God pursues you for your good, because you are made to share in Him, an unimaginable gift, and are thus incomplete without Him; He wants you to be whole. It is not a will God exerts on humanity to ‘follow Him or else’, but an ultimate respect for our choice, just as the path He laid out for us isn’t a demand to obey Him, but a road placed with care for our good, which can only be achieved in Him. Would you argue that a parent, telling their child to stay away from a hot stove is concerned only with a totalitarian concept of obedience, or that the parent is demanding a ‘my way or the highway’ ultimatum? No, the parent is concerned for the good of the child. To say that your freedom is a farce because the only choices are to touch the stove or not to touch it, and to bear the consequences of such a choice, is to deny the purpose of choice and thus, become the very realization of meaningless. <br />All of this said I see good in the fact that you find the world unworthy. You are unsatisfied; that is good because, if you were satisfied, you would not bother to look further. I was just such a person, restless and unsatisfied. I urge you, be restless, demand answers, seek… Most of all be open to what you find. <br /><br />- Brand New Catholic<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-71575224901082582112012-03-08T21:01:09.030-08:002012-03-08T21:01:09.030-08:00Hi Fr., thanks for your reply. You said:
@Ya...Hi Fr., thanks for your reply. You said:<br /><br /> @Yan,<br /> The demons (and Satan himself) did not know with certainty, but they suspected.<br /><br /> However, during periods of great suffering, Jesus seemed to be a mere man and to be abandoned by God ... hence Satan tempted him in the desert and inspired the Romans and Jews to conspire to kill him.<br /><br /> Had Satan known with certainty that Jesus is God, he would never have had him put to death -- since he would know that this would bring about his [Satan's] destruction.<br /><br /> Peace to you! +<br /> February 27, 2012 11:31 AM<br /><br />3 questions: 1] how do we know that the evil one knew that if Christ were God that His death would fulfill God's plan?<br /><br />2] I still don't see the textual basis for lowering the degree of knowledge of Christ to mere suspicion when the text says that the demons knew who He was. Isn't the point of view that they did know Him vindicated by virtue of the fact that He told them what to do, and they obeyed Him? 'Come out of him; go into those swine, etc., etc.'<br /><br />3] would it be reasonable to explain the temptation and the crucifixion [and slaughter of the innocents] despite the demons' knowledge of Christ by reference to their inability to will or do anything but evil?yannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-9343184676555397062012-03-06T10:38:24.866-08:002012-03-06T10:38:24.866-08:00Father Ryan,
Thanks for the insightful article, s...Father Ryan,<br /><br />Thanks for the insightful article, somehow you've always managed to ask some very enlightening questions that I've never even thought about!<br /><br />I have a questions related to the discussion in this thread about free-will.<br /><br />You said that free-will as defined for human beings on earth is actually less free than that possessed by the saints in beatific vision since they are no longer able to choose evil.<br /><br />I had always thought that the reason God gave us free will is to be able to love him freely, i.e. if we have a choice not to love Him then our choice to love Him is meaningful. <br /><br />He could have created us to be automatons or robots that are unable to choose not love Him, completely subservient to all His commands. Is this the definition of freedom you are talking about?<br /><br />It also raises the question about our Blessed Mother, since we praise her Fiat (yes) to the Incarnation so much. If she was unable to say No, why do we even celebrate her Yes?<br /><br />A final question, is there a reason why only Mary is Immaculately Conceived? Could God also not create everyone in the same way and prevent anyone to go to hell?<br /><br />Your clarifications on these matters are very much appreciated.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-29406631358080718432012-03-01T19:50:44.271-08:002012-03-01T19:50:44.271-08:00Passerby,
If my may comment on one thing – the id...Passerby,<br /><br />If my may comment on one thing – the idea that you are presenting that good means one thing on one worldview and another thing in another worldview, one thing when spoken of creation another when spoken of God and his nature, I am not sure is fairly stating the case.<br /><br />Have you ever read the divided line section in Plato’s Republic? That section has helped to shape my (still very imperfect) understanding of what we mean when we say God is good. That passage speaks to the various goods of this world having their origin in a Good surpassing them all.<br /><br />In other words (as I understand it…), if the sunshine feels good, if the flower looks good, the chocolate tastes good; and (moving towards more intangibles), if the intellectually beautiful order of geometry is good, if the justice of a properly resolved court case is good, if the love of mother for child is good – to the extent that these can all be called good univocally (and I think there’s a readily perceivable – though hard to articulate – way that they can), to that extent (what they have in common) they reveal their Cause, reveal God.<br /><br />For me, this helps make God’s goodness a bit – just a bit – easier to think about, nearer, more comprehensible, more “real”. I don’t know if I am expressing it well at all though…<br /><br />It may not directly answer the “problem of evil” aspect of your question, why this good God created the world with so little of his own goodness in it… but it does perhaps reassure that the things we do like about it – the things that really are good, not the bad parts like war and wicked nurses and stubbed toes – those things we wish were all in all – will in fact be all in all when we go to heaven. Provided we choose heaven. I think it may be hard to choose heaven if we think of the wicked and nasty parts of the world as reflecting God’s nature, when – they don’t. <br /><br />I have a hard enough time understanding / trying to explain goodness of God that I will not make any attempt to try and offer any ideas towards explaining the evil in the world (there are wiser people than I who have and can address that). But perhaps these thoughts are maybe a start towards thinking out at least one aspect to your questions and eventually getting to the whole?<br /><br />So sorry Fr. Ryan this is very long – if you read it and it is not worth the length, please do not publish. But perhaps ramblings like this are not wholly unproductive…<br /><br />- TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-55783934758748406782012-03-01T19:11:50.951-08:002012-03-01T19:11:50.951-08:00@T,
I'm sorry, the comment must not have gone ...@T,<br />I'm sorry, the comment must not have gone through.<br />I didn't delete it ... it must have just been lost in cyber-space.<br /><br />Truly, apologies.<br /><br />If you would like to re-submit, please feel free. Though, in truth, I probably won't have time to respond.<br /><br />Peace to you. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-50368305952651671342012-03-01T19:05:04.077-08:002012-03-01T19:05:04.077-08:00Fr,
I am wondering the status of a missing commen...Fr,<br /><br />I am wondering the status of a missing comment I had signed...<br /><br />It had a question about the implications of existence as a good in itself on our attitudes towards the putting down of animals. I humbly submit that though such – and the questions of Passerby which inspired it - may perhaps lean toward more of a philosophical consideration, the great theologian St Thomas did not shy away from elucidating philosophical considerations for the reader as well as theological ones. <br /><br />If somehow my signature failed, can this count as “claiming” the comment for publication?<br /><br />- TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3267449337509955812012-03-01T10:52:24.802-08:002012-03-01T10:52:24.802-08:00@Father: But you are running from the discussion i...@Father: But you are running from the discussion in a dishonest way. Don't you see that I accepted your axiom in a previous post and then considered what kind of implications that axiom has. Beware, the same axiom within different theories has different implications. For example, both euclidean and non-euclidean geometric theories have lines in it. It's just that lines in non-euclidean theories are no more so straight. The same thing is with the term 'good'. That term has one meaning in everyday speech, but when one considers implications the same term has in your theory, it seems to me it is no more 'so straight'. In everyday speech, good is generally considered as something one would like. In your theory, it is more of a reference point. Just like unit on a number line. It is put somewhere on the line, and if you happen to be on the same side as it is then you are positive, but if you happen to be on the other side then you are negative. In other words the world is as it is, that is the way God liked it, and he is the mightiest of us all, his will is done. He is the reference point. If you like it his way - good for you, you are on the positive side, if not then suffer. To put the same thing another way, I have a question for you - what does the goodness of creation mean to those who are in hell? <br /><br />PS. As for that counsel of yours, to get out and see the beauty of creation, maybe I am writing this from a wheelchair in an institution with wicked nurses which don't like taking me out? Maybe I am writing this from a basement in Gaza strip/Iraq/Afghanistan, and I can't get out since there are bombs everywhere, while my family and friends are already killed? That is a possibility, isn't it? But alas no, I am writing this from a peaceful and beautiful town in Europe, and I do get out to marvel the beauty of creation (especially nature). But I still don't find it worthy. And it still isn't much of an argument.Passerbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68543165801926401752012-03-01T04:51:05.380-08:002012-03-01T04:51:05.380-08:00we have a God that out of his pleasure created the...we have a God that out of his pleasure created the world as it is, gave us the ability not to like it, and then said 'if you like it, good for you, if not - go to hell (literally)'. --- passerby summarized well, the apparent dilemma and misconception of the word freedom. It seems there is no freedom (we are not rationally free not to choose God) - my question is most people do not understand freedom and would say there is no freedom in a choice that boils down to heaven or hell. How do you present a simple layman's explication of freedom to such people--- where is their misconception and how to correct it? when they say I only have two choices- heaven or hell- therefore I reject this kind of "game" or choice... ?P Dan Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01713720659096244032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3171846943404504562012-03-01T04:20:06.428-08:002012-03-01T04:20:06.428-08:00@Passerby
The proposition you are making is only a...@Passerby<br />The proposition you are making is only apparently christian. It seems horiffic. But you are missing one big thing. God revealed Himself and all those things. It would be horrible if He didn't. But He did and we can know His Revelation and thus we can be saved from the eternal fires of Hell.Marko Ivančičevićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04579400863718513875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3644051649759378442012-02-29T10:30:39.150-08:002012-02-29T10:30:39.150-08:00@Passerby,
In order to have theological discourse,...@Passerby,<br />In order to have theological discourse, the basic premises of faith and reason must be already accepted.<br />Thus, theological discussion is possible for a Catholic and a protestant, but not for a Catholic and an atheist.<br /><br />Rather, when the fundamental axioms of the faith are not accepted, the discussion must be philosophical.<br />And a Catholic and atheist can have a philosophical discussion (as can a Catholic and an Hindu).<br /><br />However, if even the basic premises of philosophy are doubted -- as in the principle of non-contradiction or the fact that being is good -- then even philosophical discourse is impossible.<br /><br />You have rejected the axiom that being is good ... thus, no, this is not theological nor even philosophical discourse.<br />Nothing more can be done ... at least, not in terms of rational discussion in comment boxes.<br /><br />Rather, better to get out and see the beauty in creation, be with other people in friendship, etc. Easier to regain reason in the world than on the web. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-44144257280922714752012-02-29T02:36:11.481-08:002012-02-29T02:36:11.481-08:00But this is theological discussion, isn't it? ...But this is theological discussion, isn't it? We are discussing what freedom is, and where the supposition that man can be free even without possibility to sin leads us. You now say that goodness of existence is an axiom. Yes, I agree, within that theory it is an axiom. But let us now consider where does that axiom, together with human (but no Jesus-human) kind of freedom, lead us. You are aware that my thinking existence not worth it is a sin within that worldview? Therefore, in thinking existence not worth it, I am exercising my human (no Jesus) kind of freedom. And it is not pleasant, you can take my word for it. If I didn't have that kind of freedom, then I would think existence is real nice. Since I have to exist, that would be much better. What's more, if I keep thinking the way I do till I die, I go to hell. Actually, that's what hell is - not wanting for all eternity something that God wants, which therefore is, and suffering because of it. So, resuming all that, we have a God that out of his pleasure created the world as it is, gave us the ability not to like it, and then said 'if you like it, good for you, if not - go to hell (literally)'. Therefore, something is good by the sheer fact that it is (i.e. exists) and that God is the strongest who makes to be all that is. That is the christian theory, when you get to the bottom of it?<br /><br />PS. I do think existence not worth it, but I won't kill myself just yet, don’t worry.Passerbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-11068359391600738652012-02-28T16:59:22.628-08:002012-02-28T16:59:22.628-08:00The difference between people and animals: I thin...The difference between people and animals: I think someone like Passerby could feel painfully – excruciatingly – the dilemma presented (loving all-powerful God, yet world of evil and horrible temporal suffering and existence of hell) without being suicidal, if such a person recognized that they have an indestructible soul and hence have no power to put themselves completely out of existence. (They’d be in even less in danger of suicide if they also believe in hell.) Such a one would not seek suicide, but rather understanding – but they’d seek it rather urgently, desperate for an answer to the intellectual dilemma so painful to them. Apparent contradictions such as Passerby is struggling with, Fr DL re-articulating, are surely able to be resolved… <br />- TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-91844302913057180852012-02-28T10:21:29.362-08:002012-02-28T10:21:29.362-08:00@Passerby,
I'm sorry ... I am not clear on wha...@Passerby,<br />I'm sorry ... I am not clear on what it is you are looking for.<br /><br />If you are searching for pastoral counsel, that is one thing.<br />If you are hoping to engage in theological discussion, that is quite another.<br /><br />The comment box here is really only suited to theological discussion ... feel free to email me if you want to talk on a more pastoral level.<br /><br />Regarding the theological point: It is a simple axiom that being is good ... it is not the type of thing which can be proven ... though to deny it can be shown absurd -- since, if being is not good, then there is utterly no meaning at all.<br /><br />If you are seriously doubting whether existence is worth it ... the only advice I can give here is that you should get off the internet, get off the blogs, go to your local parish priest and talk with him. <br />Get in touch with family or friends quickly, don't be alone for any extended period.<br />Find a counselor quick (your parish priest should be able to help with this). <br /><br />Peace to you. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78869882504169054922012-02-28T06:01:21.903-08:002012-02-28T06:01:21.903-08:00Father, you say:
you are saying that you don'...Father, you say:<br /><br /><i>you are saying that you don't really care whether you exist or not and that, if your existence is not just as you like it, then you may well rather not exist at all. Such ingratitude!</i><br /><br />Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. And calling it 'ingratitude' isn't much of an argument, you are aware of that? I mean, this kind of thing angers me. When you call me ingrateful, you actually suppose the thing that you should prove. The thing being the goodness and the beauty of the world. I honestly said I don't like it. Should I lie?Passerbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-45533934971502022832012-02-28T05:56:32.064-08:002012-02-28T05:56:32.064-08:00Re: gift horse with bad teeth. I quote:
And thus,...Re: gift horse with bad teeth. I quote: <br />And thus, to say that you don't really care for "horses" (mocking my analogy of looking a gift-horse in the mouth), is a very silly thing ... you are saying that you don't really care whether you exist or not and that, if your existence is not just as you like it, then you may well rather not exist at all.<br /><br />Such ingratitude!<br /> Dear Fr. I was hoping for a better response than that. I am a catholic priest for 18 years and I see many young people- due to many sinful situations, etc... saying" " I prefer not to" why should I live, I did not ask to be born, I never wanted to be, so I will live my life as I see fit or take my life...." to respond to them "such ingrates" is to not hear their pain and confusion.... And also a question I find hard to answer--- why would such a good God, who wants me to freely love him, leave me only the "choice" of loving the "gift horse" (right now I am dealing with a woman who was abused by her father for over 8 years)... loving him, accepting the cross, or living forever in hell.... why can't this Good God, there seems to be no alternative, between God or hell (after this life) it would seem, if I could choose hell, nothingness or God, I would willingly choose nothings- preferring never to have lived than heaven or hell--- there are people so damaged that would say it would have been if I never had been born (Job)... how is it freedom when the choice is God's way or no way (hell).... Fr. DLP Dan Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01713720659096244032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-37816591914034750632012-02-27T17:36:23.805-08:002012-02-27T17:36:23.805-08:00@Questor,
I have not been very clear ... what I me...@Questor,<br />I have not been very clear ... what I mean to say is that Satan DID NOT know with certainty (not even moral certainty) that Jesus was God ... and this is why he had him put to death ... had he known, he would have realized that the death of Jesus would bring about the salvation of sinners -- and he would never had desired to have Jesus put to death.<br /><br />So, the "destruction" of Satan, of which I speak, does not refer to his fall from heaven, but to the harrowing of hell.<br /><br />Hope it is clearer now! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68858486759578750992012-02-27T17:27:19.457-08:002012-02-27T17:27:19.457-08:00@Questor,
You ask a couple of very good questions!...@Questor,<br />You ask a couple of very good questions!<br /><br />1) CCC 1861 is very clearly speaking of human freedom in this life of viatores, prior to the beatific vision. <br />In heaven, the saints are free, though mortal sin no longer remains a possibility.<br />Yet, to be clear, it is indeed true that the human will is in itself (as a creature) capable of sin ... and in this sense, we may even say that Christ's human will (considered as a creature, in itself and not as "of Jesus") was "capable of sin" ... however, in concrete reality, Jesus could not possibly sin ... and thus, he was totally free.<br /><br />2) Regarding the question of growing in merit ... it is true that Christ merited all things in the very first moment of his existence ... indeed, he did not essentially grow in holiness or in merit throughout his life.<br />This is a mater of faith ... and your intuition here is correct. Christ, because he possessed the beatific vision, did not grow in holiness or in merit throughout his life, but was full of grace and perfect in merit from the first moment of his existence.<br /><br /><br />Finally, regarding Christ's temptations ... Scripture says (in a most literal translation), he was "tempted in all things in like manner - apart from sin" ... meaning, he was tempted in every way we are, excepting in those which arise from sin.<br /><br />For example: Do you really think Jesus was tempted from memories of past sins? Of course not! It is blasphemy.<br /><br />Likewise, he was not tempted from concupiscence, because he did not have original sin.<br /><br />Without weakness of the will, he could only suffer exterior temptations ... and he suffered them to the end, in a manner far greater than we have. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13557439662248790822012-02-27T17:16:54.859-08:002012-02-27T17:16:54.859-08:00@Your Conscience,
When a person leaves a comment, ...@Your Conscience,<br />When a person leaves a comment, above the box where the comment is written one will find the following:<br /><br />"If you want your comment to be published: Use a name or pseudonym, and keep it short (generally, less than 100 words), to the point, and civil.<br /><br />All comments must be approved by a blog-administrator. If your comment is deleted, please don't take it personally."<br /><br />I do not remove the ability to post as "anonymous" because I want to allow people to post without having a subscription to blogger or other such accounts.<br />Still, it is extremely difficult to try to respond to many different comments when I can't tell whether they are from the same person or different people.<br /><br />Why don't you start your own blog? Then you can allow free speach to whomever you choose. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3552897329545487122012-02-27T17:08:54.119-08:002012-02-27T17:08:54.119-08:00Fr. Ryan Erlenbush, I take note of your statement ...Fr. Ryan Erlenbush, I take note of your statement that "Had Satan known with certainty that Jesus is God, he would never have had him put to death -- since he would know that this would bring about his [Satan's] destruction."<br /><br />That raises some questions: Did Satan have to "know with certainty" in order to "bring about his [Satan's] destruction"? If not, did he also not know that too?<br /><br />And by "certainty", do you mean "moral certainty" or do you mean "absolute certainty"? Which is the standard for bringing about one's destruction?<br /><br />And had not Satan already "brought about" his [Satan's] destruction before Jesus was put to death, in the sense that he had already committed a capital offense of some sort?<br /><br />Again, thank you for your patience.Questornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77600366752441700282012-02-27T15:54:01.201-08:002012-02-27T15:54:01.201-08:00Dear Fr. Ryan Erlenbush,
If "It is simply an...Dear Fr. Ryan Erlenbush,<br /><br />If "It is simply and absolutely impossible for Christ to sin... even in his humanity, our Savior could not sin", can you tell us, why does the Catholic Church teach the following:<br /><br />(1) "Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom." (CCC#1861)<br /><br />(2) "the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning... is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach." (CCC#1732)<br /><br />According to CCC#1861, it seems that if Jesus had "human freedom", then there must have been "a radical possibility of mortal sin". And conversely, if it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then Jesus did not have "human freedom", i.e. he -lacked- human freedom.<br /><br />Likewise, according to CCC#1732, it seems that if the acts of Jesus were in any way human, or if there was any "basis of praise" for Jesus (or God), then there was "the possibility of... sinning". Otherwise, there's no "basis of praise" for Jesus or God. <br /><br />How do you explain this seeming contradiction without saying that the Catechism is not saying what it says?<br /><br />And if Jesus was not tempted "by any defect of his will, nor by any sinful inclination" nor "by the flesh", then what is the sense in saying that Jesus was tempted in "all things like as we are"? If it's "excepting in those ways which involve sin", i.e. if it's not all things like as we are, then how is that "all things like as we are"? What exactly does the phrase "all things like as we are" really mean?<br /><br />Another translation such as "similarly been tested in every way" might be used, but that too seems problematic, as how could Jesus have been tested "similarly" and "in every way" if he was not inclined in the same ways and to the same things as other people? For example, we don't "similarly test in every way" how a man would react in space by sending a rock into space, do we? And how could a man be tested "in every way" in just a relatively few days time? Indeed, to test "in every way" in just a few days time would mean not testing over a longer period of time, and thus not be "in every way".<br /><br />Maybe you might answer the question if asked differently: How does Jesus "sympathize with our weaknesses" if he doesn't have and never has had our weaknesses?<br /><br />Thank you for your patience.Questornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-55639901551906780612012-02-27T15:23:10.403-08:002012-02-27T15:23:10.403-08:00Dear Father Ryan Erlenbush, comments submitted und...Dear Father Ryan Erlenbush, comments submitted under "Anonymous" are in fact submitted under the pseudonym "Anonymous" and were in fact openly invited for posting under that pseudonym by you/your blog. It may come across as lacking in "good manners", indeed hypocritical, for you to then allege that such posters lacked "good manners" for having accepted your invitation, for using the pseudonym you so kindly offered. Again, such posters did provide a pseudonym, indeed the one you offered them to use: "Anonymous", and they were accepting your/your blog's own invitation to post as such. If you find it difficult to try to respond to numerous "Anonymouses", your blog gives you a tool: the date/time of the post. For example, "Anonymous 11:44 AM". Perhaps your blog also gives you the opportunity to remove the "Anonymous" pseudonym from your blog's menu choices, for I've seen many other blogs that seem to have done that rather than invite and then insult the invited guests.Your Consciencenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-59857876177266473062012-02-27T13:24:20.707-08:002012-02-27T13:24:20.707-08:00@mrd,
I don't think you quite understand how ...@mrd,<br /><br />I don't think you quite understand how temptation and sin actually work in our lives. Several years ago a powerful Chicago congressman - was it Dan Rostenkowski? - was compelled to resign when the extent of his financial corruption was revealed. What struck me at the time was the incredulity of some observers at how a man as rich as he was would stoop to diverting something like $5400 from his office's postal allowance into his personal account. And of course, Tiger Woods is, or was, married to a Sports Illustrated model. Which did not serve to keep him from the other pretty ladies, did it?<br /><br />If you have a billion dollars, it will be because you like having money. Even another 100 grand. If you have a swimsuit model wife - unless her appearance is far down the list of her attractive qualities - it will be because you like the pretty girls. And you will notice your wife is not the only one.Richard Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13186948147536029312012-02-27T12:08:59.932-08:002012-02-27T12:08:59.932-08:00Several purely anonymous comments (not having even...Several purely anonymous comments (not having even a pseudonym placed at the bottom of the comment) which were unclaimed, have been deleted.<br /><br />In the future, all wholly anonymous comments will not even be posted.<br /><br />It is just too difficult to try to respond to numerous "anonymouses" ... if you want to join the discussion, have the good manners to provide a name or pseudonym.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com