How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[DHK]

You are completely missing YOUR OWN POINT. You said a lion does not feel guilty when he kills his prey, because that is his nature. I agree 100%!!!

A man DOES feel guilty when he sins, BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS NATURE. It offends his own nature, he is not happy, he is not comfortable, he cannot be satisfied with himself as a sinner, he is fearful and depressed... Every psychological problem men have is because they are unhappy with themselves because they are sinners.

There is a difference between knowing guilt and feeling guilt.
The unsaved KNOW they sin and enjoy it without feeling guilt.
When convicted of the Holy Spirit then they FEEL their guilt.

Don't be confused by the two. Look here:
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Right, they don't feel guilt. They take pleasure in what they are doing, in the sin. But they know that they are doing wrong.

Man is only truly happy when he obeys God's laws and is good, because that is what is natural for him.

Read Luke 12:
Luke 12:18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
--You can't deny this man wasn't happy. He had all that life had to offer.
He had everything but God.
It was David that asked: "Why do the wicked prosper?" Yes, they are happy.
But perhaps you are speaking of joy and peace and the fruit of the Spirit. That is a different kettle of fish.

This is why Paul taught that men without law perish without law. Why? Because Adam sinned? NO, because they are a law to themselves.

There was law in heaven before the universe was created. There was law in place when Adam was created. There has always been law. The earth cannot turn on its axis without law. Man has law written in his heart.

By nature they do the things contained in the law. Men by nature know what is right and wrong, and men know when they sin and are convicted by their own conscience. But this knowledge or awareness of right and wrong is not developed in a newborn child or even a small child.

Actually it is. They need to be taught to do right; they do wrong almost as soon as they are born. The illustration Hank posted demonstrates that.
But as they go on in their sinful life and become hardened by sin, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit their consciences may become seared as a hot iron. If they continue refusing the conviction of the Holy Spirit, there may come a time where he may no longer "strive with them."

It takes some time to develop, just as a child is not born knowing how to walk.

But his sense of deception doesn't take long at all. Every mother knows that.

You just don't get it, Paul is telling you men keep the law BY NATURE.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

It is right there, plain as day, but it goes in one ear and out the other. You would rather listen to Calvinists tell you the exact opposite of what scripture truly says. Pathetic.

The statement is a general principle.
If you are going to take it as an exact statement with no exceptions then everyone on earth would be sinless and living in perfect harmony--obeying the law. We know that is not true, don't we. They don't keep on obeying the law. In fact they disobey the law more than obey it. Your interpretation is obviously wrong.

 

[Winman]

There is a difference between knowing guilt and feeling guilt.
The unsaved KNOW they sin and enjoy it without feeling guilt.
When convicted of the Holy Spirit then they FEEL their guilt.

There are some folks who sin and do not feel guilty, but I believe that would be a very small minority. Most folks are very aware they are sinners and are very guilty, though they might be very reluctant to admit that. Psychologists make millions because folks feel guilty.

Don't be confused by the two. Look here:
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Right, they don't feel guilt. They take pleasure in what they are doing, in the sin. But they know that they are doing wrong.

Their conscience is seared. They put guilt out of their minds. They drink alcohol, take drugs, sex, or other distractions. After awhile they do not feel the guilt any more.

But all men originally feel guilty when they sin because it is unnatural for men to sin. God made us to be righteous creatures.

Read Luke 12:
Luke 12:18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
--You can't deny this man wasn't happy. He had all that life had to offer.
He had everything but God.
It was David that asked: "Why do the wicked prosper?" Yes, they are happy.
But perhaps you are speaking of joy and peace and the fruit of the Spirit. That is a different kettle of fish.

I agree, people find all sorts of ways to put sin and guilt out of their minds. Again, they drink or take drugs, or lose themselves in pastimes like sports or watching movies, etc... These are all distractions to keep reality at bay.

There was law in heaven before the universe was created. There was law in place when Adam was created. There has always been law. The earth cannot turn on its axis without law. Man has law written in his heart.

Man by nature desires to be good. Only a few totally twisted people truly enjoy being evil. Most people really want to be good, it is natural. Men have conscience. The word conscience by definition means men have a desire or drive to do what is right, and feel guilty when they do wrong.

Conscience:

a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

Our conscience proves that by nature we desire to be good.

Actually it is. They need to be taught to do right; they do wrong almost as soon as they are born. The illustration Hank posted demonstrates that.
But as they go on in their sinful life and become hardened by sin, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit their consciences may become seared as a hot iron. If they continue refusing the conviction of the Holy Spirit, there may come a time where he may no longer "strive with them."

Babies are flesh. The flesh has lusts. Not all lust is evil, a child needs certain lusts to survive. They desire to be fed, to be changed, to be kept warm. When lust becomes sinful is when we obey lust in transgression of God's law.

It is not evil to desire sex as long as it is within marriage. But as soon as you go outside marriage to satisfy this natural lust, then it is sin.

But his sense of deception doesn't take long at all. Every mother knows that.

Yes, eventually a child's mind will mature and they will understand right from wrong. But babies and very small children do not have this ability.

The statement is a general principle.
If you are going to take it as an exact statement with no exceptions then everyone on earth would be sinless and living in perfect harmony--obeying the law. We know that is not true, don't we. They don't keep on obeying the law. In fact they disobey the law more than obey it. Your interpretation is obviously wrong.

This verse simply states that men BY NATURE do the things contained in the law. Men are not evil monsters as Calvinism portrays them. You can go to the deepest jungle and find people who have almost no contact with the rest of the world, and you will find people living by laws. They do not steal, or lie, or commit adultery generally speaking, they live in peace and love one another. Yes, there are always exceptions, but even the most primitive men know right from wrong and try to live right generally speaking.

 

[DHK]

You can go to the deepest jungle and find people who have almost no contact with the rest of the world, and you will find people living by laws. They do not steal, or lie, or commit adultery generally speaking, they live in peace and love one another. Yes, there are always exceptions, but even the most primitive men know right from wrong and try to live right generally speaking.

And they are cannibalistic too!:laugh:

 

[Inspector Javert]

And they are cannibalistic too!:laugh:

Sometimes.....but, the mere observation of that means nothing in and of itself. It is usually mistakenly taken by moral relativists to demonstrate somehow that values or laws are not Universal but merely cultural, and in a small way, I think you are falling prey to the same kind of thinking, in that although you believe in a Universal moral Law, you are contending that other societies DON'T, or that they are unaware of them, and I think that is mistaken.

Usually, in such scenarios, although the expression of certain values (e.g. cannibalism) is preposterous to us, it is often practiced because of an adherence to the same or similar shared basic values common to all men:
Cannibalism, (when rarely practiced) is usually for certain reasons:

1.) In New Guinea, for example: it was often the ultimate punishment for and constituted the complete removal of someone considered demonic and a murder.........(it completely removed such a person's essence entirely from society).......

That's a fundamental value we share.

2.) In some rare societies, it was performed by descendants of the deceased as a respectful way to dispose of the dead. The dead person was in essence "GIVING" themselves to their posterity in the last way they possibly could do so....They were "providing" for their families.

That's also a shared value even if the EXPRESSION of it is inherently wrong.

Even sutee' (for instance) was couched in a notion of ultimate loyalty to one's spouse and was therefore an aberrant way of expressing a commonly shared Universally admired Principle.


Thus, what we are seeing with such wicked practices is the noetic effects of the fall.......but we are also witnessing a shared and Universal conscience or "law" common to all men. And witnessing that although they are utterly confused....they still know that law, and have in some ways, simply been given over to a reprobate mind vis a vis Romans 2.

 

[DHK]

Sometimes.....but, the mere observation of that means nothing in and of itself. It is usually mistakenly taken by moral relativists to demonstrate somehow that values or laws are not Universal but merely cultural, and in a small way, I think you are falling prey to the same kind of thinking, in that although you believe in a Universal moral Law, you are contending that other societies DON'T, or that they are unaware of them, and I think that is mistaken.

Usually, in such scenarios, although the expression of certain values (e.g. cannibalism) is preposterous to us, it is often practiced because of an adherence to the same or similar shared basic values common to all men:
Cannibalism, (when rarely practiced) is usually for certain reasons:

1.) In New Guinea, for example: it was often the ultimate punishment for and constituted the complete removal of someone considered demonic and a murder.........(it completely removed such a person's essence entirely from society).......

That's a fundamental value we share.

2.) In some rare societies, it was performed by descendants of the deceased as a respectful way to dispose of the dead. The dead person was in essence "GIVING" themselves to their posterity in the last way they possibly could do so....They were "providing" for their families.

That's also a shared value even if the EXPRESSION of it is inherently wrong.

Even sutee' (for instance) was couched in a notion of ultimate loyalty to one's spouse and was therefore an aberrant way of expressing a commonly shared Universally admired Principle.


Thus, what we are seeing with such wicked practices is the noetic effects of the fall.......but we are also witnessing a shared and Universal conscience or "law" common to all men. And witnessing that although they are utterly confused....they still know that law, and have in some ways, simply been given over to a reprobate mind vis a vis Romans 2.

I agree with most of what you say.
I was being a tad sarcastic with the lavish idealism expressed by Winman here:

You can go to the deepest jungle and find people who have almost no contact with the rest of the world, and you will find people living by laws. They do not steal, or lie, or commit adultery generally speaking, they live in peace and love one another. Yes, there are always exceptions, but even the most primitive men know right from wrong and try to live right generally speaking.

There is no perfect society; no society anywhere in the world that: does not steal, does not lie, etc. It just doesn't exist.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I agree with most of what you say.
I was being a tad sarcastic with the lavish idealism expressed by Winman here:

I thought you might be....

I was just throwing that out there in general so someone else (a lurker maybe) mightn't take that observation and run with it and jump to the all too common post-modern:
"Society-says/ Society-does" moral relativism...

There is no perfect society; no society anywhere in the world that: does not steal, does not lie, etc. It just doesn't exist.

Agreed....no person either....
The salient point only being that they all KNOW they shouldn't lie, cheat, steal etc...

 

[righteousdude2]

There is a difference between knowing guilt and feeling guilt.

DHK - you are an intelligent sort of person ... but I would say that this statement is more semantics and less truth!

 

[HankD]

Someone please define sin nature with scripture. Let me pose a question here. Did God create Adam with a sin nature or did Adam bring about a sin nature by his personal choice to sin?

It is a doctrine that requires compilation like the doctrine of the Trinity.

for instance

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?​

10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.​

...​

Not just Jeremiah's heart but "the" heart, the human heart, not just the mature older heart, but every heart. Not only is it deceitful but it is deceitful above all things.​

...​

Not only is it wicked it is desperately wicked.

We may feel some guilt and remorse but it is of such a nature that we ourselves cannot fully know it, only God and He must give us a revelation that we are indeed this manner of sinner.


How did the human heart go from "very good" to this condition?

By one man sin entered (past tense) the world.

Yes God waits until the heart has borne the fruit of what it is until He gives according to its works because He is Just.


HankD

 

[HankD]

Here is another

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.​

7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:​

8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.​

...​

Again, no qualifications just an indictment against the human tongue and of what it is capable.​

...​

Only God can tame the human tongue.​

...​

How did the human tongue go from "very good" to an unruly evil, full of deadly poison?​

...​

By one man...​

...​

HankD​

 

[Winman]

Here is another

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.​

7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:​

8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.​

...​

Again, no qualifications just an indictment against the human tongue and of what it is capable.​

...​

Only God can tame the human tongue.​

...​

How did the human tongue go from "very good" to an unruly evil, full of deadly poison?​

...​

By one man...​

...​

HankD​

Hank, I completely understand your argument, but the fact that Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve had no sin nature, yet all sinned argues that a sin nature is not required to sin.

It seems to me that arguing that we sin because we have a sin nature is nothing but an EXCUSE for sin. It is not our fault we sin, we were born with these sinful bodies with sinful natures that compels us to sin, even against our will! I mean, if we are complaining about being sinful, then obviously we do not desire to be sinful. Is this not so?

I'm not buying this argument.

First, why would God curse us to be sinners in the first place? Does that make sense? God hates sin, correct? So why would he curse us to lose our free will to do good? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you would expect? Don't we lock up criminals to prevent them from committing more crime? Wouldn't it make more sense for God to take away our free will to do evil?

Cursing men with a sin nature is kind of like giving criminals weapons so they can commit more crime. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Winman]

It is a doctrine that requires compilation like the doctrine of the Trinity.

for instance

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?​

10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.​

...​

Not just Jeremiah's heart but "the" heart, the human heart, not just the mature older heart, but every heart. Not only is it deceitful but it is deceitful above all things.​

...​

Not only is it wicked it is desperately wicked.

We may feel some guilt and remorse but it is of such a nature that we ourselves cannot fully know it, only God and He must give us a revelation that we are indeed this manner of sinner.


How did the human heart go from "very good" to this condition?

By one man sin entered (past tense) the world.

Yes God waits until the heart has borne the fruit of what it is until He gives according to its works because He is Just.


HankD

To this argument I would answer that Jesus himself told us to determine what kind of tree we are.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

This verse argues that man has both the option and ability to determine what kind of tree he is, and what kind of fruit he produces. We can "either make" the tree good and his fruit good, "or else make" the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt.

So, our heart might be desperately wicked, but that does not mean we cannot repent and do good if we so choose.

 

[Judith]

It is a doctrine that requires compilation like the doctrine of the Trinity.

for instance

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?​

10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.​

...​

Not just Jeremiah's heart but "the" heart, the human heart, not just the mature older heart, but every heart. Not only is it deceitful but it is deceitful above all things.​

...​

Not only is it wicked it is desperately wicked.

We may feel some guilt and remorse but it is of such a nature that we ourselves cannot fully know it, only God and He must give us a revelation that we are indeed this manner of sinner.


How did the human heart go from "very good" to this condition?

By one man sin entered (past tense) the world.

Yes God waits until the heart has borne the fruit of what it is until He gives according to its works because He is Just.


HankD

So if Adam was created with a good heart and yet he sill sinned from choice doesn't that mean that Jesus by choice could have sinned but He chose not to?

 

[HankD]

Some people believe He could, I do not.

HankD

 

[DHK]

DHK - you are an intelligent sort of person ... but I would say that this statement is more semantics and less truth!

A person can lie. We all know it is wrong. But he can do it over and over again, one after another and become a habitual liar. Perhaps you know such a person. He won't feel any guilt. Key word is "FEEL" guilt, but certainly know that is wrong. Not until the Holy Spirit convicts him of his wrong will he actually feel the terrible wrong that he has done.

David didn't feel the full impact of his sin until he was confronted by Nathan. He was a warrior and had killed often. But after confronted by the prophet he was smitten in his heart, convicted by the Spirit, and out of that we have that beautiful Psalm of repentance in Psalm 51 where he expresses great feelings of sorrow and remorse--feelings that he didn't have before that time, though he knew he had done wrong.

 

[DHK]

Hank, I completely understand your argument, but the fact that Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve had no sin nature, yet all sinned argues that a sin nature is not required to sin.

Another non sequitor. We are not speaking of requirements to sin; but a sin nature. Keep focused.
You continue to return to these examples. They actually are red herrings because God dealt with angels different than he deals with mankind.
Adam and Eve were created beings; we are not. Different circumstances require different action. You are constantly questioning God's actions. Why is that?

It seems to me that arguing that we sin because we have a sin nature is nothing but an EXCUSE for sin.

So arguing that a lion kill his prey is nothing more than an excuse that he kill again. That is his nature. Before the curse he didn't kill; why now? Are you just making excuses for the lion? You are not making logical arguments.
The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin.
The leopard cannot change his spots.
Man cannot change his sinful nature.

It is not our fault we sin, we were born with these sinful bodies with sinful natures that compels us to sin, even against our will! I mean, if we are complaining about being sinful, then obviously we do not desire to be sinful. Is this not so?

It is in our nature to be sinful. Every child is born a selfish being.
This world is on its way to hell because they are inherently evil.
Even Paul said: "It is not I but sin that dwells within me."

First, why would God curse us to be sinners in the first place? Does that make sense?

Adam was the federal head of the human race. He made the wrong choice. He plunged the entire human race into sin. This is the result of the Fall. If you want to blame someone blame Adam, not God.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

God hates sin, correct? So why would he curse us to lose our free will to do good? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you would expect?

Why do you continue to question God?
Can a finite mind comprehend an infinite God? No.

Don't we lock up criminals to prevent them from committing more crime? Wouldn't it make more sense for God to take away our free will to do evil?

You continue to question God's will and God's methods. You have no faith in your Maker; no faith that He is doing right, and the right thing for you.

Cursing men with a sin nature is kind of like giving criminals weapons so they can commit more crime. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

It was Adam's sin, not God's. Why do you continue to blame God, and question him for God's ultimate plan in redemption?

 

[Judith]

Some people believe He could, I do not.

HankD

Based on what?

 

[percho]

Was redemption, "the plan," before the foundation of the world, that is this present age, before the man, Adam was created in the image of his creator?

Why? Is the answer to why relative to this statement? For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:5

Was Adam created in the image of his creator and placed into, the foundation of the world, which was subject to angelic beings to be redeemed and become inheritors of the world to come by being changed into the image of his resurrected redeemer?

What is man? How human was Jesus, the Son of God, whom God, appointed heir of all things? Does the word of God state that Jesus was the Son of God, being born of woman and also being resurrected from the dead?

Are we (Man) really joint heirs with Christ

But we see not yet all things put under him, Adam and his sons, created in the image of God. Adam did not fall from receiving all things.
The all things was going to come to Adam, the first man, but through the last Adam.

 

[Winman]

Another non sequitor. We are not speaking of requirements to sin; but a sin nature. Keep focused.
You continue to return to these examples. They actually are red herrings because God dealt with angels different than he deals with mankind.
Adam and Eve were created beings; we are not. Different circumstances require different action. You are constantly questioning God's actions. Why is that?

It is absolutely relevant. You and others continually seem to argue that the fact all men sin PROVES they are born with a sin nature. That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The scriptures themselves prove people without a sin nature can sin.

So arguing that a lion kill his prey is nothing more than an excuse that he kill again. That is his nature. Before the curse he didn't kill; why now? Are you just making excuses for the lion? You are not making logical arguments.
The Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin.
The leopard cannot change his spots.
Man cannot change his sinful nature.

You do not know that the lion did not kill before the fall. The scripture deals with men, not animals. Romans 5 is not speaking of animals. In fact, it is not even speaking of angels, because Satan and the angels sinned BEFORE Adam. Satan was the first sinner in the world, not Adam. So Romans 5 is speaking of men only.

I am not saying the lion killed before the fall, I don't know. But the lion certainly seems designed to kill. Did the Great White Shark eat plants before the fall?

It is in our nature to be sinful. Every child is born a selfish being.
This world is on its way to hell because they are inherently evil.
Even Paul said: "It is not I but sin that dwells within me."

That is the question. And the fact that sin dwells in flesh does not mean men were born that way. If you are saved the Holy Spirit dwells in you, but you were not born that way. Did the spirit of Satan dwell in Adam and Eve before they sinned? Why couldn't it be the very same for us, that the moment we decide to sin is when we become children of the devil?

In fact, I think this is exactly what the scriptures show. The prodigal son belonged to his father at first. It was only when he willingly and knowingly went out in sin that he was "joined to a citizen of that country" which I believe is a figure of Satan.

Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

The prodigal son was not lost here, he was not dead in sin, and he was not separated from his father.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

This is when I believe the prodigal son became a child of the devil, when he willingly and knowingly joined himself to Satan. I believe this is the very reason Jesus told us these facts in this parable.

Adam was the federal head of the human race. He made the wrong choice. He plunged the entire human race into sin. This is the result of the Fall. If you want to blame someone blame Adam, not God.

Baloney. There is not one word of scripture to support this theory, which wasn't even known until the 17th century.

3. In the seventeenth century Johann Cocceius proposed a different theory of original sin. He taught that God entered into a covenant with Adam as the federal head of the human race. If Adam obeyed God, all mankind would receive eternal life; but if he disobeyed, all would be condemned to corruption and death. Since Adam sinned, God imputed his sin to all his descendants. This has been called the Federal Theory of Original Sin or the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. It has influenced greatly the churches of the Reformed tradition. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God ever entered into such a covenant with Adam. The theory was born in Europe, not Eden.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...nevitably-leading-to-heresy-if-not-worse.html

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Adam was the legal precedent for those who sinned as he did. They were also judged or "made" sinners and the sentence of death passed on them as it did Adam. Likewise, those who believe on Jesus as Jesus believed his Father are imputed or "made" righteous and are given life.

Why do you continue to question God?
Can a finite mind comprehend an infinite God? No.

I am not questioning God and you know it. This is total dishonesty on your part.

You continue to question God's will and God's methods. You have no faith in your Maker; no faith that He is doing right, and the right thing for you.

I have faith in God, and that is why I know God did not curse men to become sinners.

It was Adam's sin, not God's. Why do you continue to blame God, and question him for God's ultimate plan in redemption?

It may have been Adam's sin, but it was God who determined the punishment for that sin. There is not one word in the curse that supports that God caused Adam to have a sin nature, and that this sin nature was passed down to all his descendants. That is a total invention of man.

Show me in the curse where God said man would have a sin nature, and that all his descendants would be born with a sin nature, you can't do it.

 

[Winman]

Based on what?

I believe Jesus implied that he could lie.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus said "if" I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you.

Why even suggest he could lie if it is impossible? We are told directly elsewhere in scripture that God in heaven cannot be tempted, and that he cannot lie.

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

The scriptures directly say God cannot lie or be tempted, but we know Jesus as a man could be tempted. In fact he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15). And I believe in John 8:55 that Jesus implies he could lie.

In addition, what would be the point of the Spirit driving Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? This would be meaningless.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

I believe Jesus had to become a man and defeat the devil as a man to redeem us. He took on "the same" flesh and blood, the nature of the seed of Abraham, and was made like unto his brethren the Jews "in all things" to redeem us. He could be tempted, he felt the "feelings" of our infirmities (weakness), suffered being tempted.

If Jesus couldn't sin, how could he suffer being tempted?

So, I believe Jesus as a man could sin. He defeated Satan the way a saved man would, by faith and obedience to the word of God.

 

[Judith]

I believe Jesus implied that he could lie.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Jesus said "if" I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you.

Why even suggest he could lie if it is impossible? We are told directly elsewhere in scripture that God in heaven cannot be tempted, and that he cannot lie.

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

The scriptures directly say God cannot lie or be tempted, but we know Jesus as a man could be tempted. In fact he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15). And I believe in John 8:55 that Jesus implies he could lie.

In addition, what would be the point of the Spirit driving Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? This would be meaningless.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

I believe Jesus had to become a man and defeat the devil as a man to redeem us. He took on "the same" flesh and blood, the nature of the seed of Abraham, and was made like unto his brethren the Jews "in all things" to redeem us. He could be tempted, he felt the "feelings" of our infirmities (weakness), suffered being tempted.

If Jesus couldn't sin, how could he suffer being tempted?

So, I believe Jesus as a man could sin. He defeated Satan the way a saved man would, by faith and obedience to the word of God.

I agree that the Lord could have chosen at any time to sin. He was the second Adam and Adam was able to sin. The difference is that Jesus did not. I think that the reason some do not want it possible for Him to be able to sin is because they do not want to admitt that they are totally responsible for their sin.
If it was impossible for Jesus to sin then we cannot relate to His temptations nor He to ours. His were all a fluke. Only when it is possible to sin is a temptation real. All sin is a choice. No one has to sin, ever. Adam could sin and so could have Jesus. The great news is He did not.
Once we understand that and stop holding to the claim "no one is perfect, or no one can keep the commandments, or we are all human, or what ever else we might hold to so as to deny our sinfulness, only then we can be about really confessing the sinfulness of our sin.