Could Christ Have Sinned? III

[Oseas3]

Context doesn't change the fact that Jesus said one thing and did another. To get at the point of the original question, let's set aside the possibility of a lie.

You are saying that because you have not the Spirit of Christ. JESUS did not lie, neither changed His mind. Also, it is impossible you to understand JESUS having not His mind.

What makes you think Jesus could not change His mind? God commands all men everywhere to change their minds (Acts 17:30), so that action by itself is hardly a sin. Do you think it would be a sin for Jesus to change His mind about going to the feast in Jerusalem? If not, then what's the problem?

If Jesus' deity did not prevent Him from dying, why should it prevent Him from changing His mind?

Acts 17:29-31

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

See, Acts 17:v.30 is referring to the ignorance in "to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device".

So, what kind of ignorance do you intend to attribute to JESUS based on Acts 17: v.30, to justify your false interpretations and false testimonies?

On the other hand, you admit that Satan had dominion over JESUS, JESUS was overcome or subdued by Satan, the father of lie. John 8:v.44

 

[Tsalagi]

it is impossible you to understand JESUS having not His mind.

But you do?

 

[Tsalagi]

Agreed praise to God.
So saying He was not going to the feast (at first seemingly not going at all)
is an error in translation no matter what documents were relied upon.

Not correct. Jesus told His brothers He was NOT going up to the feast (v8). Then He went up to the feast (v10). That's exactly what the Greek text says.

 

[Oseas3]

But you do?

It is you who Judge, as you judge JESUS.

What makes you think Jesus could not change His mind? God commands all men everywhere to change their minds (Acts 17:30), so that action by itself is hardly a sin. Do you think it would be a sin for Jesus to change His mind about going to the feast in Jerusalem? If not, then what's the problem?

If Jesus' deity did not prevent Him from dying, why should it prevent Him from changing His mind?

See, Acts 17:v.30 is referring to the ignorance in "to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device".

So, what kind of ignorance do you intend to attribute to JESUS based on Acts 17: v.30, to justify your false interpretations and false testimonies?

On the other hand, you admit that Satan had dominion over JESUS, JESUS was overcome or subdued by Satan, the father of lie. John 8:v.44

 

[SavedByGrace]

Could Christ Have Sinned?

IMPOSSIBLE

 

[SavedByGrace]

"Yet" is not in the better NT manuscripts; that's why you don't find it in most modern English translations. It was added early on precisely because of discomfort with the suggestion that Jesus would say one thing and do another. Read Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament note on this passage. The same papyrus that adds "yet" to this verse changes Mary's name to Martha or to "the sisters" in several verses; evidence of theological motivation at work. Details and photos here.

Who cares what METZGER says??? The words NOT YET is in the original!

 

[SavedByGrace]

"God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19). Yet Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man, and He certainly was a man as well as being God.

Let's agree that God does not lie, and He does not change His mind (repent). In John chapter 7 Jesus tells His brothers He is NOT going up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths (John 7:8-9). But then He DOES go (John 7:10). Did He lie, or did He change His mind? Either way, what do you do with Numbers 23:19?

• οὐκ] א D K Π 1071 1079 1241 1242 1546 ℓ672 ℓ673 ℓ813 ℓ950 ℓ1223 ita itaur itb itc itd ite itff2 vg syrc syrs copbo arm eth geo slav Diatessaron Porphyryaccording to Jerome Ambrosiaster Epiphanius Chrysostom Augustine Cyril
• οὔπω] p66 p75 B E F G H L N T W X Δ Θ Ψ 070 0105 0141 0180 0250 f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 597 700 892 1006 1010 1195 1216 1230 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1354 1424 1505 1646 2148 Byz Lect itf itq vgmss syrp syrh syrh(gr) syrpal copsa coppbo copach2 goth Basil Nonnus ς WH

The second reading is οὔπω, NOT YET, and dates from around the 2nd century and has by far the strongest textual evidence.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Part of the story is missing and the ms or fragment which has it has not quite been found

I have shown in #27, that the strongest textual evidence has οὔπω, NOT YET!

 

[SavedByGrace]

It was added early on precisely because of discomfort with the suggestion that Jesus would say one thing and do another

absolute RUBBISH!

 

[Tsalagi]

Who cares what METZGER says??? The words NOT YET is in the original!

Greek scholars "care what Metzger says," and so does anyone else who is seriously engaged in the art and science of textual criticism. Who do you think helped compile the list of manuscript witnesses you quoted above? If you own a copy of Nestle-Aland, check the flyleaf. If you trust your own textual judgment more than Dr. Metzger's, rock on.

Perhaps you are unaware that we do not have "the original." There are demonstrable errors in every extant NT Greek manuscript, including p66 and p75, as the linked article demonstrates. The earliest copy is not always or necessarily the best copy for a given passage.

p.s. using all caps and exclamation marks does nothing to strengthen the weight or persuasive value of an argument.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Greek scholars "care what Metzger says," and so does anyone else who is seriously engaged in the art and science of textual criticism. Who do you think helped compile the list of manuscript witnesses you quoted above? If you own a copy of Nestle-Aland, check the flyleaf. If you trust your own textual judgment more than Dr. Metzger's, rock on.

Perhaps you are unaware that we do not have "the original." There are demonstrable errors in every extant NT Greek manuscript, including p66 and p75, as the linked article demonstrates. The earliest copy is not always or necessarily the best copy for a given passage.

p.s. using all caps and exclamation marks does nothing to strengthen the weight or persuasive value of an argument.

I have copies of many Greek Papyri manuscripts and the major Unical mss. I also have the early Church fathers in English, Greek and Latin. Bruce Metzger was a second-rate LIBERAL scholar. Here is some of the RUBBISH that Metzger said:

“It is not history, but a legend (the Book of Esther), set back early in the Persian period, intended to explain the origin and significance of Purim. Though embellished with numerous fictional devices, it may well rest on an historical account of some local deliverance of the Jews in Persia, for there is external evidence of a certain Marduka holding an official post at Susa under Xerxes I…Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form… The book (of Jonah) is a didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to new, more consequential use…Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements.” (Herbert May & Bruce Metzger, The Oxford Annotated Bible, Introduction, pp. xxi, 603, 1120, 1514)

“Although the author of this letter calls himself "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modem scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author in the early part of the second century who wrote in Peter's name…In the light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give the letter greater authority” (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background Growth and Content 3rd Edition. p.294)

 

[SGO]

Whether He changed his mind or not, He did not lie.
Isn't lying a sin?
There was no sin in Him.
How could He die for us if He sinned?
Imagine all the scenarios God thought about before He created the world.
Jesus lying might have been in one of those scenarios but it was certainly rejected.

Here is a verse where alternate scenarios were considered by our Lord:

And thou, Capernaum,
which art exalted unto heaven,
shalt be brought down to hell:
for if the mighty works,
which had been done in thee,
had been done in Sodom,
it would have remained until this day.
Matthew 11:23

 

[SGO]

For who hath known the mind of the Lord,
that he may instruct him?

But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:16

 

[Tsalagi]

I have copies of many Greek Papyri manuscripts and the major Unical mss. I also have the early Church fathers in English, Greek and Latin. Bruce Metzger was a second-rate LIBERAL scholar. Here is some of the RUBBISH that Metzger said:

“It is not history, but a legend (the Book of Esther), set back early in the Persian period, intended to explain the origin and significance of Purim. Though embellished with numerous fictional devices, it may well rest on an historical account of some local deliverance of the Jews in Persia, for there is external evidence of a certain Marduka holding an official post at Susa under Xerxes I…Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form… The book (of Jonah) is a didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to new, more consequential use…Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements.” (Herbert May & Bruce Metzger, The Oxford Annotated Bible, Introduction, pp. xxi, 603, 1120, 1514)

“Although the author of this letter calls himself "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modem scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author in the early part of the second century who wrote in Peter's name…In the light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give the letter greater authority” (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background Growth and Content 3rd Edition. p.294)

I am not interested in Metzger's opinions as a theologian, in the same way that I didn't check the spiritual beliefs of the doctor who screwed the titanium plate into my broken wrist. If you want to cite someone with more experience and greater skill in textual criticism who draws a different conclusion on the reading of John 7:8, feel free to trot him out. Still not impressed by the all-caps.

 

[SavedByGrace]

If you want to cite someone with more experience and greater skill in textual criticism who draws a different conclusion on the reading of John 7:8, feel free to trot him out

sure, myself!

 

[SGO]

Who cares what METZGER says??? The words NOT YET is in the original!

Yetti for you.

 

[Tsalagi]

Could Christ Have Sinned?

IMPOSSIBLE

Scriptural arguments persuade better than opinions in colors and caps.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Scriptural arguments persuade better than opinions in colors and caps.

You are free to believe in what heresies you want

 

[Tsalagi]

You are free to believe in what heresies you want

It's not heretical to believe Jesus could have sinned but chose not to. If it was impossible for Him to sin, Satan is a first-class moron spending nearly six solid weeks trying to get Him to do so in the desert. There is little doubt that the devil knows whether someone is susceptible to temptation or not.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It's not heretical to believe Jesus could have sinned but chose not to. If it was impossible for Him to sin, Satan is a first-class moron spending nearly six solid weeks trying to get Him to do so in the desert. There is little doubt that the devil knows whether someone is susceptible to temptation or not.

Jesus Christ could NOT have ever sinned