Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?

The purpose of the Virgin Birth was to allow Jesus to come that manner, and thus avoid being corrupted/tainted by Fall!

 

Untrue. Look at Benjamin's statements, and your own agreement with them.

You have the wrong thinking when it comes to Docetism which is important to Gnosticism because they do not consider Christ had a human body at all.

That thinking is not accurate with my posts on this subject.

Just as the Scriptures state, "The Word became FLESH..."

The truth is that you are like Benjamin in that your own bias obliges rejection of the truth of Scriptures.

agreed and Scriptural

False claim driven by your own bias

Again, false statements obliged by your own bias.

Again false statements unsupported by Scriptures.

Nope, that again is your bias conforming the very words of Christ. Christ IS the WORD of God, the WORD is God. The opening chapter of John teaches such, but your testimony must be that because Jesus must be referring to the Father, then the Lord Jesus Christ is not God.

Your denial is based upon the obliged human thinking of your view and not based upon the Scripture truth.

I never denied that Christ had physical need that the body would indicate (as all flesh in all animal forms do) the need for sustenance. So did the first Adam even prior to the fall.

What He did not have was the fallen nature in which the food , the pride of station, the desire for things were temptations in which he would be prone to submit anymore than the first Adam prior to the fall was prone to submit.

Again, this statement comes by being obliged in your own construct and not of the Scriptures. Here is a sample from one Scripture on this matter.

14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.​

Are you prepared to state that Christ lusted?

What I presented as a Scriptural principle you claim is:

Unless you can prove me in error by the statements of Scriptures, you present that which is mere obliged bias.

Your own words are a failure. For the Scripture state in John 12:

44And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45“He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me. 46“I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. 47“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49“For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. 50“I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”​

As you present only what you believe and no Scripture proof, as you rely purely upon your own rationalization demanded by the bias of your view, and as you have continued in attempting to place in into those who deny that Christ came in the flesh, it is important that you refocus and reframe you arguments using the Scriptures.

Construct your argument from the statements of Scriptures.

You stated I lack discernment, yet have shown you that is an inaccurate assumption on your part.

You stated I embrace heretical views of gnosticism and that is an inaccurate assumption on your part.

Both are inaccurate because I can and have shown by Scriptures the principles of which I have written.

Perhaps you can do the same?

 

Jesus came in the form of sinless humanity, not sinful humanity!

 

The thinking of the fallen nature as being inherited from the ancestors has been called into question on this thread.

I offer the following passage from 1 Peter as a proof that such is addressed in the Scriptures and that the fallen nature is indeed part of the heritage passed down from Adam to all humankind.

18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot. 20He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake....

It is important to take the Scriptures at face value when they state in Romans 5, 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.​

Sin did not enter through one man and woman, but one man.

But when it came to the taking on of flesh and blood by the Word we see from Luke,

1"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the Holy One being born will be called the Son of God.​

Mary did not have to be sinless, but being overshadowed by the power of the Most High allowed for the Holy One to come with no nature that was fallen and prone to sinfulness, had no need to combat sinful desires, had no issue in refuting and refusing the impresses of both the father of liars and the crowds.

Compromising the Truth of the Scriptures in order to satisfy some thinking that is obliged by bias has always been a problem from the earliest statements of the father of liars in the Eden.

Mary was as sinful as all (Romans 3), yet Christ was born, lived, died, arose, and is coming again without sin (Hebrews 4).

Yet some would ridicule such thinking!

Do they not understand that such authority is part of the believer, also

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.​

Christ did not need the cross to disarm the powers and authorities, He possessed such authority before the world was made. The sinful sin-shackled humankind needed such release from the "indebtedness... that condemned us."

Christ had no fallen nature, but was Holy, and calls all believers who dwell in Him to be Holy, just as He is Holy. Just as Peter expresses

15But as the One having called you is holy, be holy yourselves also in all your conduct, 16because it has been written: “You shall be holy, because I am holy.”​

Christ did not need to attain, gain, work for, or become Holy, nor did Christ have to combat to remain Holy. He was and is Holy.

Therefore, it is the Scripture principle that Christ was of the nature of the flesh and blood of the first Adam PRIOR to the fall, and not of that fallen nature of the flesh and blood that is shackled and held in condemnation passed from generation to generation for all have sinned.

 

When Paul contrasts Adam and jesus as being the first and second Adam, I really think he saw them both as being sinless humans, and Jesus passed the temptation to sin.
Both of them would ahve been in a sinless humanity state, as Adam fell into sin, so wouldn't jesus have to be sinless also then?

 

Sir, for all intents and purposes, you have denied Christ's humanity in every conceivable way. It is obvious.

Yes, your Theology robs this of all meaning.

Nothing you say on this topic is Biblically derived.
It is derived from a Theological Construct that you believe is Biblical, but it's not.

This is your problem...
You don't debate the relevant Scriptures, you aren't exegeting the temptations, you aren't referencing any Biblical statements about Christ's humanity...you are going to the
ONE GOSPEL THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE TEMPTION OF CHRIST

You debate the Temptation of Christ by IGNORING THE TEMPTATION!!!

I speak of the temptation of Christ in the Scripture.
You pit Scripture against Scripture in a vain attempt to destroy God's Holy Word.

Of course he didn't, because this "fallen nature" you speak of is a load of Gnostic poppycock and it blinds you to Bible truth.

Against the flesh, yes, because Spirit lusteth against flesh and flesh lusts against Spirit according to God's holy word:
Gal. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Jesus walked in, and was filled with the Holy Ghost and was constantly victorious over the flesh.....which, like us, he actually possessed.
You have denied the Holy Spirit's work in the economy of salvation, because as a Docetist, you deny that Christ actually came in the flesh, which is the Spirit of antichrist.
I John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Nothing you preach is Biblically derived.
You confuse the members of the Trinity
You pit Scripture against Scripture.

You redefine the temptation recorded in Three gospels by appealing to the one gospel which does not mention it.
You could not have been more vicious and violent to God's Holy Word than you are being.

The worst of heretics do not torture Scripture like you do here.

You are neck-deep in Gnostic blasphemy, but you just don't know it.

 

Yes, because it's not only un-biblical it's primitive, stupid, pagan witch-craft.
Augustine was a Gnostic heretic, persecutor of Christians, a fornicator who lived with mistresses, a connossieur of blood-thirsty Roman gladiatorial games, false witness and a cheerleader for prostitution and all manner of evils...
He dominates your thinking.
Not the Bible..
Augustine.

I absolutely ridicule this.
I ridicule this thinking.
It is stupid.
It is Gnostic.
It is heresy.

That's true, he disarmed the Strong-man when he defeated him at the temptation and throughout his ministry as he casted out demons.
But, that's just the Bible talking.

No, the Father gave him that authority when he bound the Strong man at the temptation and through the exorcisms he practiced.
He did not Bind the Strong Man by being born as something other than a human as you falsely preach.

Just listen to yourself, "sinful-sin-shackled" as though repeating a word makes your argument more powerful by increasingly more syllables to convey less information.
You are losing your mind and becoming more circular in you arguments as you continue to rant.

Right.
Because he was a human, and humans don't either.
Disabuse yourself of Augustine's Gnosticism and it will become abundantly clear and obvious to you and you won't feel the need to pit Scripture against Scripture as you do.

True, everyone knows that, you are saying nothing meaningful here.

Yes, he did..
He was tempted by Satan, but you deny the teaching of Holy Writ.
Christ was tempted and engaged in Cosmic Battle with the deceiver, the Strong man, and he DEFEATED HIM!.
You deny this, and instead exchange this glorious victory with a weak and powerless Christ who did not battle with Satan and win.

Please quote that Scripture...
OH, that's right...……
You can't because It does not exist.
That is a lie.

 

HOS, Just to clarify, because you know Agedman has shown he is going to continue to make a play on “fallen nature” must = sin-filled nature according to his determinist presuppositions. When I’ve used the term “fallen nature” I’ve meant it to be in the nature that man faces who has gained the human attributes which have knowledge of good and evil, to have sense, reason and intellect, to know they were naked, that were returned to the ground it came from - now cursed, and would eat by the sweat of their face or go hungry, that would be truly tempted by Satan for destruction, IOWs, the nature which was subject to the judgment and wrath of God while having everything going against them in the full true human experience and were doomed to fail and fall short of a perfect sinless life and would die in the flesh in sin with God as their Judge. That “fallen nature”…the very nature that Jesus Christ came to be in and overcame not having sinned because he was freely led being filled with the Spirit rather than His own and necessarily true human will, which was truly and absolutely vulnerable to fail, but for His flawless obedience to the will of the Father wherein He defeated death and in love provided the gift of grace through faith for ALL mankind…


I’m pretty sure you knew where I was coming from as I told Agedman like a dozen times that my position on human “fallen nature” did not attribute sin to Jesus Christ’ necessary truly human nature which he is unfortunately trying to avoid the fullness of and apparently he only wishes to play on the semantic ambiguity fallacy with that term according to his presuppositions of determined sin without recognizing his opponent’s position in order to build his strawman argument to fallaciously defend his position.

Well said!

 

Right, which is the un-biblical assumption wherein he errs, and inasmuch as he must insist Christ is sinless, he must therefore deny he took on humanity like you and I since humanity is "sinful" by the rote fact of that same "fallen nature" he thinks to be Scripture.

That's exactly what I gathered you meant, and I concur.
You have expressed it admirably I think.

I know exactly where you're coming from, but I don't think he's playing with semantic ambiguities, and I don't think he's even TRYING to argue fallaciously, the notion is so ingrained in him that "FLESH = SIN"
That he honestly doesn't even know how to debate it.
I assert he's Gnostic, but, he honestly can't even understand the accusation.
HE REALLY CAN'T!
He's not being unnecessarily impudent, he just doesn't get it.
He has no idea how to assess his own assumptions and call them into question when he reads the Bible.
You see how he interpreted the temptation of Christ by appealing to the gospel of John which doesn't even mention it???
He honestly doesn't even see how that is a problem.
He thinks, quite honestly in his mind, that to make Christ truly human is to ascribe sinfulness to him.
He knows that can't be true, so he has to deny Christ's humanity.

It is what it is, I continue to debate for others' sake, but not his, I don't think an "Agedman" (who likely goes by that moniker because he assumes that means accrued wisdom) can learn a new trick!
Sometimes....an "Agedman" is simply more resolute and intractable in error.
We must understand we are asking him to reexamine a lifetime of more than probably 50 years of dogma...…..that's an uphill battle to be sure!
Not everyone is gifted with the capacity of self-reflection I know you to be capable of.

 

There comes a time when I must leave a thread because of the slander and foolish accusations are unworthy of further response.

Some time ago, I would attempt to reframe and reillustrate in hope of shedding enough light upon the matter that others who were unconvinced would eventually find the truth. But such is no longer in my strength, nor that which the Spirit within me would regard as peaceable.

It has come to that point in this thread.

It is pointless to respond any further.

I will trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate the hearts of the readers of this thread according to the truth of His Word.

 

I didn’t notice if anyone addressed the following in the thread: Could Jesus have prayed to his Father to send angels to rescue him from the coming suffering? If yes, then had he done so, would it have been a sin? What does Scripture indicate?

 

He was fully God, so can God sin/

 

All prophecy concerning Him pointed to His coming to die for our sins.[1 Corinthians 15:1-4]If He would have prayed for His release from the cross, those prophecies become null and void, and the scriptures could never be trusted.

 

We have to understand that God is determined History from Eternity past, and he is not open theistic, so the Cross was already a done deal to him, just had to be worked out yet in history!

 

It’s funny you should mention that, as there doesn’t seem to have been any aware of that until it was revealed after the resurrection. Or hadn’t you noticed? You don’t think modern rabbis are awaiting a Messiah that will be martyred for their sins, do you?

 

You need to clarify this some. I can’t understand the point(s) you’re making. Thanks in advance.

 

This response sounds like you are answering Yes; No; per scripture. But is that what you intended?

 

My point is that the OT does not spell out what has now been revealed concerning the Messiah. Even today there are many who revere the OT but have no understanding of a crucified Christ. Only in Christ is the veil removed (2 Cor 3:14). So, while I understand your point, it does not address the questions I posed. Of course this is hypothetical, as it is finished and we now know. But because of all the theological debate here, I see my questions as quite germane and needing direct address. I see Brother Glen has already commented.