# Pretending vs Lying: Is there a difference?



## nick

Is pretending that something is real the same as lying?

Does the age of the person and timeline of when the "truth" is revealed play a part? What about motives?


----------



## JimmyH

My favorite 'lying' example was given by Mrs. Lillian Carter when her son Jimmy, was president of the USA. A NY Times reporter had come to interview Ms Lillian shortly after her son President Carter had told the American people, "I will never lie to you." Ms Lillian greeted the female reporter cordially and the interview began. Somewhere along the line the reporter asked, "Does Jimmy ever lie ?"

"White lies," Ms Lillian replied. "What are white lies?", the reporter asked. Ms Lillian responded, "Well you know how I greeted you saying how happy I was to see you, and how lovely you look ? Those are white lies."


----------



## VictorBravo

I removed the embedded video. Frankly, I'm not happy about seeing all the bikini-clad announcements for other video pranks at the end.

My only other comment is that the driver in that video violated the 6th Commandment by operating a video camera while driving.


----------



## nick

VictorBravo said:


> I removed the embedded video. Frankly, I'm not happy about seeing all the bikini-clad announcements for other video pranks at the end.



Removed that part altogether. YouTube forces the related-videos at the end, regardless of how "related" they are. The ones that show up at the end of mine are additional "prank" videos.

Oh, and I agree about the 6th commandment... didn't even think about that.


----------



## Leslie

If the context makes pretending obvious, then it's not lying. The essence of lying is intent to deceive, to get some gain by persuading a person to believe a falsehood. Untruth is not necessarily lying. It can be play or cultural misunderstanding, amongst other things.


----------



## Peairtach

This is a subject that crops up repeatedly on the PB. Are we ever allowed to lie in any and every circumstances? Do a PB search for "Are we ever allowed to lie?" or "Is it always a sin to lie/tell a lie?" or "Rahab" or "the Hebrew midwives", "Jews Gestapo Nazis Dutch Reformed", "axe-wielding madman" etc, etc.

Some Reformed theologians like John Murray have held that it is always wrong to tell a lie, whereas others have held that it is justified in narrow circumstances e.g. protecting life, because of certain biblical examples that appear approved.

Re pretending, I believe that, AFAIAA, all Reformed theologians would allow for innocent pretence, depending on the motive. E.g. Are you pretending in a game with a child or adult? This could come under the law of love as good. Are you pretending because you wants to rob a bank by a pretence? This is sin.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nick

Peairtach said:


> This is a subject that crops up repeatedly on the PB. Are we ever allowed to lie in any and every circumstances? Do a PB search for "Are we ever allowed to lie?" or "Is it always a sin to lie/tell a lie?" or "Rahab" or "the Hebrew midwives", "Jews Gestapo Nazis Dutch Reformed", "axe-wielding madman" etc, etc.



Thanks. I'll do that. Most of those I've heard before, as they seem to deal with deception with the intent for the other party to "never" know the truth. Maybe this does fall into the same category, I'll do the searches.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

​I believe God requires of us in the 9th Commandment to have truthfulness, sincerity and integrity in our whole life. Such was Christ's perfect example (and we should imitate Him cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1) and his affirmation of Nathanael, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” (John 1:47) Matthew Henry observes that David may suggest that his feigning himself to be a madman before Achish (see 1 Sam. 21:10-15) was sin, when in Psalm 34 he warns us that we speak no guile. Henry wrote, "Perhaps David, in warning us that we speak no guile, reflects upon his own sin in changing his behaviour. They that truly repent of what they have done amiss, will warn others to take heed of doing likewise." ​It is Satan who disguises himself to be that which he is not, even as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:3, 14) and by his subtlety deceives (2 Corinthians 11:3) and so his children do likewise (2 Corinthians 11:15; Ephesians 4:14). "As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?" (Proverbs 26:18-19)

Below are some quotes that may be of good information:



> Brethren, if there is no spiritual power in godliness, it is worth nothing. We want no clouds without rain. Of shams and mere pretences we have more than enough. Those who have not the power of godliness, show us a very damaging picture of religion. They make out our Lord’s religion to be comparable to a show at a country fair, with fine pictures and loud drumming on the outside, and nothing within worth a moment’s consideration. The best of the show is on the outside; or if there be anything within, it is a masquerade where all act borrowed parts, but no one is what he seems to be. Gracious Lord, never suffer us so to act as to make the world think that our Redeemer is nothing more than the clever manager of a theater, where nothing is real, but all is pantomime. Men and brethren, if you pray at all, pray God to make you real, through and through. May you be made of true metal! It were better for you that you had never been born than that you should make Christ dishonorable among the sons of men, by leading them to conclude that religion is all a piece of acting.


~Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Form of Godliness Without the Power



> He knows the standard of right-with Him are the weights and the scales. Therefore knowing what our actions are and what they ought to be, He readily enough discovers our discrepancies and mistakes-and there will be no possibility of our escaping His Infallible decision. I am amazed we are so ready to deceive ourselves as we are. I marvel that so many count it worth their while to deceive their fellow Christians and their ministers! It is a poor ambition to live a life of deceit. Be what you seem to be and seem to be what you are! But oh, if we could cheat ourselves throughout life, and deceive all those who watch us, yet we could never once have deceived God, “for by Him actions are weighed” so accurately that a mistake is never made!


~Charles Haddon Spurgeon, THE KING’S WEIGHINGS



> When we seek for mercy we mean it, and do not play at confession and repentance. Our eyes look to God and our whole body is full of the Light of God—we see what we are doing and awake ourselves to do it in earnest. We know what we are praying about and there is no question as to the deep sincerity of our cries and tears. We desire with the whole force of our nature to find pardon and acceptance through the precious blood of Christ. We do not merely say that we desire salvation and eternal life, but we feel that we must have them and cannot be denied! We cease from playing fast and loose with God. We no longer hesitate between two opinions, but one thing we seek after, desiring it of the Lord—we would be right with God in all respects. The man that is walking in the Light of God is thoroughly sincere. The shadows of pretence have been chased away—he is downright earnest in all that he does.
> 
> O my Hearers, many of you have never come so far as this, though this, alone, is not far! By being in a place of worship you show an outward respect to Divine things, but are you worshipping God? Did you worship Him just now in the prayer and in the praise? You are listening to me while I talk of the highest things that ever occupied the human mind, but do you long to be a partaker of these things? Do you hunger and thirst after righteousness? Those who are walking in the Light of God are free from pretence and are living in real earnest—is it so with you? Contentment with unreality is a sign of dwelling in darkness! Careful keeping up of shams, diligent puffing out of wind-bags and constant creation of make-believes—all this is of the night and its dreams! But to be what you seem to be, to be true in all the phases of your life—this is surely seen in those who walk in the Light of God! What can God have to do with shams? What cares He for empty professions? Everything must be true which is to come under His eyes.


~Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Child Of Light Walking In Light



> The last property is, "without hypocrisy;" in true wisdom there is much light, but no guile. The greatest care of a Christian is to be what he seemeth to be, and to account godliness the chiefest cunning. Carnal men count them wise that can manage their matters with most craft and guile, and gratify their interests by a plausible dissimulation; but this the Lord hateth. The hypocrite is the greatest fool, and putteth the greatest cheat upon himself in the issue; all that he gaineth by his designs is but the fee of hell: "He shall give him his portion with hypocrites" (Matt. xxiv. 51). Well then, reckon sincerity as the highest point of wisdom: "Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we had our conversation in the world," &c. (2 Cor. i. 12.) Avoid hypocrisy in all the actions of your life; not only in addresses to God, but your respects to men. The Scriptures that require "faith unfeigned" (1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 5), do also require "love unfeigned" (1 Pet. i. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 6; Rom. xii. 9). "Let us not love in word and tongue, but in deed and in truth" (1 John iii. 18). We should be as willing to do them good, as to proffer it; to reprove, as to flatter; to pray to God for them in secret, as to make professions of respect to themselves.


~Thomas Manton, An Exposition of the Epistle of James



> Take heed of putting holiness upon you as a loose garment, to cast off or on at pleasure, according to your differing companies and occasions, but be sure that you gird it close to you with the golden girdle of truth (Ephesians 6:14), that in all places you may be what you seem to be; that you are to God what you seem to be to man; and that you are to God at all times what you seem to be to man at any time.


~Christopher Ness, The Crown and Glory of a Christian



> Study sincerity, Psalm 51:6. "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward part." Be what you seem to be, be not like rowers in a barge, that look one way and row another. Do not look heaven-ward by your profession, and row hell-ward by your conversation; do not pretend to love God, and yet love sin: simulata sanctitus, duplicata iniquitas. Counterfeit piety is double iniquity. Let your hearts be upright with God: the plainer the diamond is, the richer it is; and the more plain the heart is, the more doth God value his jewel. A little rusty gold is far better than a great deal of bright brass. A little true grace, though rusted over with many infirmities, is better than all the glistering shews of hypocrites. A sincere heart is God's current coin, and he will give it grains of allowance.


~Thomas Watson in Farewell Sermons Of Some Of The Most Eminent Of The Nonconformist Ministers Delivered At The Period Of Their Ejectment By The Act Of Uniformity In The Year 1662.



> To draw near to God with the lips, while the heart is far from Him. To serve God—and seek ourselves; to pretend to love God—and yet be in league with sin. We should not in this sense, be like the serpent—deceitful and given to shifts. Oh, be upright! Be what you seem to be! God loves plainness of heart, Psalm 51:6. The plainer the diamond is, the more it sparkles; the plainer the heart is, the more it sparkles in God's eye! What a commendation Christ gave Nathaniel! John 1:47, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit.


~Thomas Watson, Wise as Serpents—Harmless as Doves



> Is God’s knowledge infinite? Study sincerity; be what you seem. “The Lord looketh upon the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). Men judge the heart by actions; God judges them by the heart. If the heart is sincere, God will see the faith and bear with the failing. Asa had his blemishes, but his heart was right with God (2 Chronicles 15:7). God saw his sincerity and pardoned his infirmity. Sincerity in a Christian is like chastity in a wife, which excuses many failings. Sincerity makes our duties acceptable, like musk along linen that perfumes it. If God sees our heart is right, that we love Him, and desire His glory, “Now,” says He, “give me your prayers and tears. Now you shall come up with Me into the chariot of glory.” Sincerity makes our services golden, and God will not cast away the gold though it may want some weight. Is God omniscient, and His eye chiefly on the heart? Wear the girdle of truth about you–and never leave it off.


~Thomas Watson, The Knowledge Of God



> ​The danger of appearing to be what we are not. It may have been a harmless and successful device to simulate madness; but self-respect was gone, and a "more excellent way" of escape might have been sought of God. This is the great peril of us all both in prosperity and adversity. The guise under which the simulation appears is varied. An appearance of wealth covers real poverty; a geniality of manner is adopted when real aversion lies in the heart; a pretence of ill health secures escape from obligations; ambiguous words and evasions are employed to suggest our ignorance of matters when we know them well. To be real, to be known to be just what we are, is the only safe and wise course for a true Christian.


~Pulpit Commentary​ on 1 Samuel 21:10-15

Also read an interesting sermon by Frederick B. Cowl "Old Shoes Clouted" on JOSH. ix. 5, "And old shoes and clouted upon their feet." from Digging Ditches: And Other Sermons to Boys and Girls, p. 100 http://books.google.com/books?id=kplAAAAAYAAJ. And check out Charles Spurgeon's sermon on the useless disguse of Jeroboam's wife, "A Hearer In Disguise." http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs584.pdf


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Nick,

I understand that the video in the op has been removed. That may have provided all the needed context, but as your op now stands, I am unable to grasp just what you are after. 

I know that much has been said here now, but I wonder if it addresses what you were asking.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## nick

The context was simply in having fun (usually on the part of the pretender at first). Some examples:

Joking around: Approaching a stop sign with your wife in the car and "pretending" that you are going to run it (while taking into account surrounding vehicles, etc).

Things that are not real, but kids think so: Taking your young kids to a place like Disney World to "meet" Mickey Mouse. (Santa could be lumped in here, but he has a lot more baggage than just being some imaginary character)


----------



## VictorBravo

nick said:


> Removed that part altogether. YouTube forces the related-videos at the end, regardless of how "related" they are. The ones that show up at the end of mine are additional "prank" videos.



Right. I was pressed for time before heading off for Lord's Day services and decided to pull it simply because of the "trailers."



Alan D. Strange said:


> I understand that the video in the op has been removed. That may have provided all the needed context, but as your op now stands, I am unable to grasp just what you are after.



The video showed a husband driving on a freeway, with young son in back, talking to his video recorder (presumably a smart phone). He was following a semi being towed backwards so it looked like it was facing him. He tells us he is going to scare his wife who is sleeping in the front passenger seat.

So he yells to his wife to wake up, "a truck!" She wakes up and lets out a yowl--husband laughs and tells her it was a joke. 

Towed semi then switches lanes so we see there was never a danger.

I've never like these kinds of pranks, and this one alarmed me a bit more than usual.

First, as I mentioned, the 6th commandment violation really troubled me. The guy is videoing himself while driving on a freeway with a young son in back and a wife next to him. He looks away from the road so he can tell his story to the youtube audience. Hairs on my neck went up just thinking about this. He is so interested in what his youtube audience will find amusing that he apparently doesn't even think of the potential risk of harm he is undertaking.

Second, causing someone to wake from a sleep by pretending a life-threatening event is occurring is plain dumb. The wife might have reflexively reacted by grabbing the steering wheel to avoid what she thought was an imminent head-on. Then the result of the prank would be disaster.

Finally, what kind of humor are we enjoying at the expense of others? It's only funny to those not being pranked. Is that honoring your wife? I think it is more along the lines of dishonoring abuse.

Anyway, those are my quick thoughts on the matter....


----------



## Leslie

The video referred to has other ethical problems.

Jesus on the road to Emmaus pretended to be a stranger in Judea. He deceived the two people, causing them to believe a falsehood. But His purpose was utterly benign. Thus also with white lies, such as "I'm glad to meet you."


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

Leslie said:


> The video referred to has other ethical problems.
> 
> Jesus on the road to Emmaus pretended to be a stranger in Judea. He deceived the two people, causing them to believe a falsehood. But His purpose was utterly benign. Thus also with white lies, such as "I'm glad to meet you."



I would take issue with the idea that the Lord Jesus pretended to be a stranger to the two men on the road to Emmaus. I don't believe He deceived the two disciples, but rather He had power over their eyes. Luke 24:16-31 and Mark 16:9-20 are the relevant texts (however, some argue Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of Mark's Gospel). These are the two most relevant verses:

Luke 24:16, "But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him." 

Mark 16:12, "After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country."

Luke explains that the men's eyes were prevented from recognizing Christ. Mark doesn't suggest otherwise and should be seen as in harmony with Luke's account. Henry notes that Christ "had really his own countenance, appears by this, that their eyes were holden, that they should not know him; and when that restrain on their eyes was taken off, immediately they knew him, Luke 24:16-31." The issue is that God prevented the men's eyes from being able to recognize Christ.

Calvin explains:


> 16.But their eyes were restrained. The Evangelist expressly states this, lest any one should think that the aspect of Christ’s body was changed, and that the features of his countenance were different from what they had formerly been. For though Christ remained like himself, he was not recognized, because the eyes of beholders were held; and this takes away all suspicion of a phantom or false imagination. But hence we learn how great is the weakness of all our senses, since neither eyes nor ears discharge their office, unless so far as power is incessantly communicated to them from heaven. Our members do indeed possess their natural properties; but to make us more fully sensible that they are held by us at the will of another, God retains in his own hand the use of them, so that we ought ever to reckon it to be one of his daily favors, that our ears hear and our eyes see; for if he does not every hour quicken our senses, all their power will immediately give way. I readily acknowledge that our senses are not frequently held in the same manner as happened at that time, so as to make so gross a mistake about an object presented to us; but by a single example God shows that it is in his power to direct the faculties which he has. bestowed, so as to assure us that nature is subject to his will. Now if the bodily eyes, to which peculiarly belongs the power of seeing, are held, whenever it pleases the Lord, so as not to perceive the objects presented to them, our understandings would possess no greater acuteness, even though their original condition remained unimpaired; but no in this wretched corruption, after having been deprived of their light, they are liable to innumerable deceptions, and are sunk into such gross stupidity, that they can do nothing but commit mistakes, as happens to us incessantly. The proper discrimination between truth and falsehood, therefore, does not arise from the sagacity of our own mind, but comes to us from the Spirit of wisdom. But it is chiefly in the contemplation of heavenly things that our stupidity is discovered; for not only do we imagine false appearances to be true, but we turn the clear light into darkness.


----------



## bookslover

No, pretending that something is real is not lying. A simple example: when you read a novel, you know that the characters are not real and the story is not real. For the sake of being entertained, however, you willingly enter the novelist's literary world and accept what he tells you. When you've finished the novel, back into the real world you go. The novelist is not lying, in the ordinary sense of that world. He's just telling a story. You know it's not true going in.


----------



## Leslie

When Jesus was asked the question whether he were a stranger and hadn't heard the news,, He answered, "What news?" While not an outright falsehood, He implicitly confirmed their supposition that He was a stranger. Thus they were confirmed in their false belief. Their eyes not recognizing him was temporarily before this. That refers to their not recognizing His face and perhaps not his voice in greeting.


----------



## Afterthought

For the 9th Commandment, I find Ames helpful (though I don't know whether he is correct: Perkins, for example, seems to include intent to deceive in the notion of lying) for providing categories of thinking concerning the difference between pretending and lying. However, I'm not sure whether it could be extended to "misleading" statements or "I'm glad to meet you" statements, which are under discussion just above.

"18. A lie is properly a testimony, whereby one pronounceth otherwise than is in his heart. Acts 5. Whence is that phrase in Scripture of a double heart, of a man that is a liar. Psalm 12:3.

19. But because a thing pronounced, doth not consist only in outward words, but chiefly in their sense; therefore the same words which are true in one sense, in another sense become a lie. Matt. 26:61.

20. Ironies, fables, jests, repeating also of false things, and the like are not lies, because they are not testimonies; and they are not testimonies because they are not confirmed by the credit and authority of the speaker.

21. An intention of deceiving, although it do almost always accompany a false testimony, yet it is not of the essence of it, neither is it necessarily required to a lie; for although one knows that he with whom he hath to do cannot be deceived by his lie; yet if he have an intention in speaking to affirm that which is false, he lies no less than if he had hope of deceiving.

22. An intention of hurting doth indeed increase the mischief of a lie: but it maketh not the nature of it: for if a man out of jesting or a desire to please and be officious, confirm that by his credit which he knows to be false, it is a lie: pernicious of its own nature, if not others, yet to the author himself: as it is in those who are given to flatteries or boastings, or are delighted in confirming monstrous fables or fictions unto others.

23. An intention to speak that which is false, makes a lie, although that which is spoken be most true.

24. The asseveration of a thing uncertain for certain, is accounted with a lie although we think it to be true.

25. Also that secrecy whereby one doth not speak the truth when Justice or Charity requires it, doth partake of the nature of a lie.

26. But when neither Justice nor Charity requires to give testimony, then the truth or part of it may be concealed without sin. Jerermiah 38:27.

29. That dissembling which consists in deeds or signs, and not in words, is not properly a lie: unless the same either of their own nature, or by some certain appointment, have the force and use of speech: as, 1 Sam. 20:20-22, Matt. 26:49. Because such deeds and signs that are not verbal, have no certain and determinate signification, so as they can have the force of a testimony.

30. Therefore such dissembling is sometime lawful, as in warlike stratagems. Josh. 8:31. But it is made unlawful when in respect of the end or manner, it fights with religion, Justice or Charity." (William Ames. _The Marrow of Sacred Divinity_)


----------



## Loopie

Leslie said:


> When Jesus was asked the question whether he were a stranger and hadn't heard the news,, He answered, "What news?" While not an outright falsehood, He implicitly confirmed their supposition that He was a stranger. Thus they were confirmed in their false belief. Their eyes not recognizing him was temporarily before this. That refers to their not recognizing His face and perhaps not his voice in greeting.



I do not think Jesus was being deceptive in any way, shape, or form. He often asked questions in order to bring about certain responses, such as statements of faith. When the woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus' garment, he asked "Who touched me?" He certainly was not ignorant of who touched him, and he was not trying to deceive anyone. Rather, he was bringing forth a confession of faith from the woman. The same could be said when Jesus asked Peter "Who do you say that I am?" Jesus knew who he was, and was not trying to feign ignorance or deceive Peter. Rather, by asking the question he was bring forth a certain response from his disciple.


----------



## Edward

nick said:


> Joking around: Approaching a stop sign with your wife in the car and "pretending" that you are going to run it (while taking into account surrounding vehicles, etc).



I don't see the humor in trying to terrorize your spouse. Perhaps you could explain the punch line to me so I won't think I'll of you.


----------



## Andres

nick said:


> Things that are not real, but kids think so: Taking your young kids to a place like Disney World to "meet" Mickey Mouse. (Santa could be lumped in here, but he has a lot more baggage than just being some imaginary character)



As someone mentioned earlier, I think the line between pretending and lying is the intent to deceive. My son enjoys some Disney shows/characters and at two years old, I think it's certainly possible that the lines of fantasy and reality may be blurred in his mind. However, never have I, nor do I intend to, try and deceive my son into believing that the Disney characters are real. 
Now take Santa for example ...this is _not _the case with most parents and Santa. They _do _attempt to convince their children that the Santa Claus character is in fact real. Parents concoct elaborate stories to perpetuate the lie of Santa! At this time of year, many adults are quite ridiculous in the ways they deceive children into believing something that is simply not true.


----------



## jwithnell

I dread the day my son's pretend mouse and piggy disappear for good. While I don't have much patience for all the psycho-bable and child rearing, I do think imaginative play is generally harmless and potentially beneficial.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Andres said:


> Parents concoct elaborate stories to perpetuate the lie of Santa! At this time of year, many adults are quite ridiculous in the ways they deceive children into believing something that is simply not true.


 Agreed! 

I was going to bring up Luke 24 and the road to Emmaus but not Jesus looking different, or him asking about what happened in Jerusalem but this one little phrase: "and he made as though he would have gone further." verse 28. It seems there is a bit of acting going on like there.

(Interesting note, I believe it was when I was reading Kuyper he hit on why puritan's outlawed card playing (chance), dancing (he didn't give a reason), and acting/theater (because they actors never got to work on their own character because they were in a constant state of flux pretending to be a new character each week or month and they saw this as dangerous.)

Also I wanted to know your guy's opinion on Rahab and also what about magic tricks from honest gospel magician's that explain it is all skill based sleight of hand and illusion who say things like "it appears it is in this hand" instead of "the coin is in my right hand" when it really isn't (and who stay away from other dangerous elements like mentalism and hypnosis).


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

GloriousBoaz said:


> I was going to bring up Luke 24 and the road to Emmaus but not Jesus looking different, or him asking about what happened in Jerusalem but this one little phrase: "and he made as though he would have gone further." verse 28. It seems there is a bit of acting going on like there.



I think it is important to read verse 28 and 29. "And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. *But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us:* for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them." (Luke 24:28-29)

Gill explains:



> The Ethiopic version renders it, "he began to pass by them": which carried in it an appearance as if he intended to have travelled further; and in it there was no fraud, dissimulation, or collusion: he would have gone some little way further, doubtless, had they not detained him; and he intended to stay with them, provided they should ask him, as he did, though not all night, which he never designed: the whole of it is nothing else but a piece of modesty, civility, and prudence; for guile was never found in his mouth.



Henry agrees:



> They courted his stay with them: He made as though he would have gone further; he did not say that he would, but he seemed to them to be going further, and did not readily turn into their friend's house, which it would not be decent for a stranger to do unless he were invited. He would have gone further if they had not courted his stay; so that here was nothing like dissimulation in the case.


----------



## nick

Edward said:


> nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joking around: Approaching a stop sign with your wife in the car and "pretending" that you are going to run it (while taking into account surrounding vehicles, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the humor in trying to terrorize your spouse. Perhaps you could explain the punch line to me so I won't think I'll of you.
Click to expand...


That's in the category or terrorizing your spouse? I don't think there is much I can do for you not to think ill of me. I'm glad my wife and I share the same sense of humor.


----------



## Peairtach

Loopie said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Jesus was asked the question whether he were a stranger and hadn't heard the news,, He answered, "What news?" While not an outright falsehood, He implicitly confirmed their supposition that He was a stranger. Thus they were confirmed in their false belief. Their eyes not recognizing him was temporarily before this. That refers to their not recognizing His face and perhaps not his voice in greeting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think Jesus was being deceptive in any way, shape, or form. He often asked questions in order to bring about certain responses, such as statements of faith. When the woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus' garment, he asked "Who touched me?" He certainly was not ignorant of who touched him, and he was not trying to deceive anyone. Rather, he was bringing forth a confession of faith from the woman. The same could be said when Jesus asked Peter "Who do you say that I am?" Jesus knew who he was, and was not trying to feign ignorance or deceive Peter. Rather, by asking the question he was bring forth a certain response from his disciple.
Click to expand...


It's slightly more complex than this, since in His humanity Christ was not omniscient, omniscience being an attribute of deity.

So sometimes when Christ expresses lack of knowledge in the Gospels, it is genuine. We mustn't deny aspects of Christ's humanity in order to preserve His deity, when the Gospel writers didn't themselves, being also another evident token in Scripture of its divinity.

See the relevant threads on the PB, as this is too big a sub-topic.

In the case of the woman, in his humanity Christ may well have not have known about this lady. In the case of Peter, Christ knew and believed in His human soul that He was Divine and the Messiah.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nick

Peairtach said:


> It's slightly more complex than this, since in His humanity Christ was not omniscient, omniscience being an attribute of deity.
> 
> So sometimes when Christ expresses lack of knowledge in the Gospels, it is genuine. We mustn't deny aspects of Christ's humanity in order to preserve His deity, when the Gospel writers didn't themselves, being also another evident token in Scripture of its divinity.



This will make for some good Lord's Day discussion this coming Sunday.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

John Tillotson's sermon OF SINCERITY TOWARDS GOD AND MAN (Works of Dr. John Tillotson, Late Archbishop of Canterbury. Vol. 04. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) and John Gill's Of Godly Sincerity (21. Of Godly Sincerity.) may be of interest to some.


----------

