the baby Jesus

[Scott_Bushey]

Helen,
you write:
Sola Scriptura has real meaning for me.

Scott answers:
I applaude the idea. I live also by the tenet.

But, you cannot tell me that in the archive of your mind, that you have not been taught certain biblical ideas by your pastor leaders etc...
I grant you, they are biblical mandates (except of course for your rendition of *this sin nature thing*) and over time you have substantiated the claims by study. But, none the less, you have sat under your pastor, "to Learn" a thing or two. God has placed these men in our lives for this purpose. It is not *unholy or unbiblical* to admit this.

Having said this, it is in no way unholy to quote men of the past. These were brilliant men! Are you implying that some men are not (present tense), were not (past tense), more gifted than others in regards to exegeting Gods word?

In the scope of Christian physicians (M.D.'s),you surely believe that some are better than others correct?

 

[Aaron]

Man, has this thread gone off topic!

I'm at work and don't have time to write a 5000 word treatise in response to previous posts.

Forgive me for being blunt.

Helen, you don't know what has been going on in my life or the sorrows that my wife and I have seen. Just this week Laura's mother had a large tumor removed and another mass has been found in her lung.

Were there tears? Of course there were tears, hers and mine. It was only natural. How did we comfort one another? With sappy sentimentality? No, with the "old, old story of Jesus and His love." But we are not so emotional to think that because we couldn't help how we feel, that worldly sorrow and tears work anything but death.

They are sin.

But I believe in the forgiveness of sins, and Jesus is of great compassion. He knows that we are but dust, and He has borne our sorrows on the cross.

There is great comfort in this, and truly, the only comfort.

You on the other hand want folks to take comfort in the illusion that what comes naturally is good and righteous, and that God is "fair," and that He would somehow owe them this compassion because they aren't doing anything really wrong.

Please, please stop bringing personal experience into the arguments as somekind of authoritative evidence. It is not.

"Sola Scriptura?" Not on your part. "Scripture and feelings." That's your orthodoxy.

Now, I'm out of time. It will be later tonight that I respond to the points you have made with the Scriptures, and not with my feelings.

[ October 24, 2002, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Abiyah]

Scott --

In my point of view, which is obviously different
from yours, these people you speak of may have
been "brilliant" for their time, for what they
understood, with the influences they had, but I
contend that many of their ideas have had their
time, and that time has past. In the same way,
there were brilliant physicians and scientists in
the past, but today's developments and know-
ledge make their findings obsolete.

There are certainly religious systems that want
to hold on to their histories, and there are reli-
gious systems that are reexamining the old
beliefs, to see if they stand up to the scrutiny
of the Bible. I would prefer to be a part of the
later than a part of the first.

My synagogue is new--only c. 15 years old.
We only have that much history, although my
pastors were both educated in Baptist colleges
and reared in Baptist homes. Certainly, Baptist
belief has extremely heavy influence upon us!
But while it does, it does not escape scutiny.
We have examined the Trinity against Scripture.
We have examined baptism, human tradition in
the church, traditional beliefs about Messiah,
and much more--even religious art--and have
come to conclusions.

And before someone jumps upon what I just
said, yes, we do believe in the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, but not because such a
thought was, as historically claimed, an inven-
tion of the R. Catholic church, for we do not
follow their beliefs about their trinity. We
understand that the concept of "Adonai is God,
Adonai is One" is held in a certain tension against
the concept of Trinity, yet we believe both--that
Adonai is One and in the Trinity. We do not
attempt to explain it, we wonder at its mystery,
and believe that our God is does not necessarily
explain everything to us; His ways and thoughts
are above ours; He owes us no explanation.

Bottom line: There is no belief that we embrace
automatically just because the Baptist churches,
or church traditions over the years, have held to
them. We believe that it is the last days--time to
get serious with our God and stop playing the
tradition game. If the tradition stands up to the
scrutiny of the word, fine: accept it. If it does
not, get rid of it and stop wasting our God's time
or your own time--time better spent actually
serving and learning about Him.

 

[Abiyah]

Aaron --

I find it to be amazing that you weep together
with your wife for your exhaustion, your grief,
your relative, and that you call this sin. Are
the widow's tears sin? Are the tears of a parent
at the graveside of their child sin? Are the
tears of the parents in Maryland, who sit
beside their 13-year-old boy who was shot
just for going to school sin?

Aaron, our God created us with an outlet for
grief and exhaustion. He made us that way.
And I know that if I remind you of our Lord's
own grief and His use of this outlet, you will
respond that His grief was different, but the
fact remains.

We all look at the Bible through glasses
colored by our experiences, but you are
denying that any such coloring experiences are
valid unless they match your own.

[ October 24, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[hrhema]

I agree with Abiyah. I am not going to embrace doctrines taught by Roman Catholicism. This is exactly what most protestant churches have done. They have claimed to have come out of Catholicism but embraces still some of its beliefs and doctrines such as the way the Catholics teach about the Trinity.

I did not blaspheme or speak heresy. CD you adhere to Catholicism and that is your choice. I do not.

I believe Jesus was God before the incarnation and became God again when he ascended into Heaven but for the 33 years he walked upon this earth he was 100% complete human. With the capabilities to sin. He just did not sin. The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus took upon himself sinful flesh. If he could not have sinned then there would never had been a temptation by Satan in the wilderness. Why would Satan tempt a person to sin if they were incapable of sinning? Why would Satan had told Jesus to bow down and worship him if he was incapable of doing so? Why did Satan tell Jesus that if he threw himself down off the Temples pinnacle the angels would bear him up. If he was God in the form CD claims this would have not been neccessary because he could have just flew back up. A human Jesus would have needed the help of the angels.

If God the son is equal to God the Father and God the Holy Ghost while on Earth then why did he need to be full of the Holy Ghost? Why did his miracles be done by the power of the Holy Ghost instead of within his own power? Why would one part of the Godhead need the other parts to dwell within him. If he is co-equal while on Earth he would went on his own strength and power.

God cannot die. THis is why Jesus disrobed himself of his deity and became human so he could be sacrificed. If Jesus was co-equal while on EArth why did he need to pray to the Father?

Jesus robed himself in sinful flesh so he could be the perfect sinless Lamb of God. He could have sinned but he did not.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Helen, you don't know what has been going on in my life or the sorrows that my wife and I have seen. Just this week Laura's mother had a large tumor removed and another mass has been found in her lung.

I'm sorry for that, Aaron. It is hard to go through. I was by my father's bed when he died and several weeks ago my oldest son had a tumor removed from his neck. He is only 29. I thank God it was benign. But you are right, and maybe that is part of the point of a lot of this -- we don't know what each other goes through, and so it behooves us to walk carefully and talk carefully, with compassion, understanding and love. We all, at one time or another, can be overwhelmed with sorrows. Jesus Himself was a man of sorrows, well acquainted with grief.

Were there tears? Of course there were tears, hers and mine. It was only natural. How did we comfort one another? With sappy sentimentality? No, with the "old, old story of Jesus and His love." But we are not so emotional to think that because we couldn't help how we feel, that worldly sorrow and tears work anything but death.

Here is where I disagree with you most strongly on this issue, Scott. Here is one reason: chemical studies have shown that tears of happiness, for instance, have a different chemical content than tears of grief or sorrow. Tears which cleanse the eyes are also of a different chemical content. It appears that tears are an excellent way of the body dumping some of the excess chemicals very quickly that can lead to emotional breaks. They are a wonderful and God-designed stress and pain reliever and the only time I would even approach the idea that they were wrong is when someone goes from tears to tantrum. I will also say that the manipulative tears of some women are definitely on the far side as well.

But what you term sloppy sentimentality is part of being human and connecting with one another. Tears are also a form of communication. The only one a little baby has, for instance, when all is not right with his or her world -- and they are totally helpless to do anything about it other than cry out for help.

In fact, when we are in trouble, aren't we supposed to cry out for help to God? What's the difference, then, between that baby crying to us for help and us crying to God for help? Is one wrong and the other right?

It doesn't mean that we don't comfort one another in the love of Christ and with reassurances of HIS love and care. One does not negate or eliminate the other response. Crying at times is not only not a sin, it is downright healthy for you. "Cry and you will feel better" is an old wives' tale with truth in it. Those tears don't just dump chemicals to restore the balance you need internally, but they communicate externally to others regarding the depth of your pain or bewilderment or whatever else is going on.

Tears are not a sin. Far, far from it.

You said Jesus had borne our sorrows on the cross. I do not read that anywhere. Could you please point out to me where the Bible says that?

I know He bore our sins, but that we still sin...

In the meantime, you will find in Romans 9:2 that Paul has great sorrow and unceasing anguish in his heart, and had joy because of the sorrow of the Corinthians for him (2 Cor 7:7). In fact, we find a few verses later that God was the cause of their sorrow, as it led to repentance. In verse 10 Paul marks the difference between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow. We need to know that both kinds exist.

Jesus never sinned, and yet what we see in Matthew 26:38, that on the eve before his crucifixion, He says He is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.

Aaron, please be careful with your judgments. Not everything that is 'natural' is wrong. Our bodies are designed exquisitely and I praise God for that -- or I, for one, would not even be alive today. Not everything that is physical is evil, even if it is part of a fallen creation. The point is that it WAS created, and created by God Himself.

I praise God that my babies cried to let me know something was wrong. I have a tendency to get so distracted by projects I can forget a little one might need tending. Or I might not know, simply, that something has changed for them and their world is out of whack at the moment.

I wish Chris has been able to cry when he became victim to sudden onset viral pneumonia at three. I only heard a 'funny sound' over the intercom about an hour after I had put him down. That funny sound was him trying to aspirate his own vomit. He was unconscious, his heartbeat over 200, and his temperature 103 and climbing. We rushed him to emergency immediately. He never even cried when they did a spinal tap; and oh, how I wish he had been healthy enough at that point to cry from the pain of it. But he wasn't.

I have never confused natural with good and righteous, although you seem to have taken what I have said to mean that. But what is natural is, as I mentioned, exquisitely designed to survive the ravages of a fallen world. And I praise God for that.

And no, I cannot stop bringing personal experiences into my discussions. It keeps the discussions from being purely theoretical. One of the problems I have with some of my science writers whom I edit for is a tendency on their part to go with pure theory unsubstantiated by data or experience! Theology tends to have the same problems. People can go into some pretty far distant realms with theology and forget that life itself is denying some of what they are claiming. God gave us life. We cannot afford to ignore what God has put into creation to help us understand Him. Jesus used pictures from a fallen world constantly to demonstrate spiritual truths. Our lives also help us understand spiritual truths. And the life I know best is my own. God has worked with me through a number of experiences and if these experiences are of help to anyone in understanding anything about how God works, then it is worth it to share them.

That doesn't mean that what comes naturally is 'good and righteous.' It does mean that God is using it, though, to raise us up, and thus we need to pay attention.

Then, as a parting shot at me, you wrote:
"Sola Scriptura?" Not on your part. "Scripture and feelings." That's your orthodoxy.

Aaron, feelings are not good leaders, but they can be pretty decent judges a good part of the time. Feelings of guilt are very indicative that you have done something wrong, eh? Jesus promised us feelings of peace and joy. Feelings have their place. It is only when what you might be feeling is contrary to Scripture that we need to be awfully careful with our feelings. You yourself mentioned a God of compassion. He has feelings, too...

But I do go with Scripture as the final judge and authority. Just to let you know.

You said you would respond with Scripture later and not just your feelings. That's fine. You have exhibited quite a few feelings in this last post!

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by hrhema:
The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus took upon himself sinful flesh.

Besides your false analogies and bad logic, this statement is not true.

The Bible does say that he came in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. So he was very much like us. He was like us enough to have complete humanity. He was unlike us because he had no sin nature.

Give me a break...

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Helen, let us try this for the, well, I have lost count how many times I have tried to get you to answer this one simple question.

When Paul said in Phil. 3 that he was blameless concerning the law, was he really blameless?

Please give a yes/no answer then followed by further comments if you like. NO vague answers please. You never answer this. I suspect your position would be in jeopardy if you did. We will wait and see if you do.

Still waiting...

 

[Helen]

I answered you two days ago. Check page four here.

[ October 24, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Helen:
rlvaughn
If I didn't think it was worth bringing up about the babies, I wouldn't have brought it up...You see, there are too many parents who lose children early in life, or before birth, who agonize over where that child spends eternity.

Helen, I have no doubt that you thought this was worth bringing up. I would not challenge your sincerity in the matter. I would question, though, as to how conjecture about the differences and similarities between baby Jesus and other babies actually speaks to the issue. I would believe that discussing what the Bible actually says about infants and children would be of greater instruction, comfort and benefit. I am not saying you have not done that - just saying that the specific topic for discussion does not do that. I am not totally devoid of compassion or experience in this area. Though I have not lost an infant, I was raised in a home and by parents that lost an infant - a darling little girl whose life was cut off by her source of life, her and her mother's umbilical cord. That's something that sticks with a family for a long time - a lifetime.

...I want them to know, as surely as they are breathing, that their babies are with the Lord, no exceptions, no provisos.

I'm not sure how this relates to the comments I have made. I'm not sure how the topic relates to that either. What I assume is that you are saying that if the actions (crying, etc.) of baby Jesus were no different than the actions (crying, etc.) of any other baby, that somehow that proves that other babies do not sin.

I do not believe tiny babies sin.

I do believe tiny babies sin. If anyone wants to discuss that further with me, they can come over to the "Psalm 58:3 (and babies)" topic.

I have been making two arguments...Hope that clears it up a bit.

Yes, it does help clear some things up. That doesn't mean I agree with you on all of it, but I do understand that you are arguing with several people that do not all believe the same thing. So you have been touching both bases. I have not entered into the argument about whether babies go to heaven. I have strictly been arguing that babies do sin, whether they or you or I know it.

 

[Christian41974]

Helen, I understand what you said to me ,and I for one have no problem with anyone using personal experienes for what God has done in their life.

I agree with Preach the Word.

hrhema, I am not catholic ,and I am not sure what catholic doctrine(s) you are placing me with so please tell me. I am a member of a Baptist church not the catholic church.
hrhema, Jesus Christ was not only man but also God when He came to earth(1Timothy 3:16). He was not any less God on earth as He was in heaven. He was still "I AM" on earth(John 8:58). He still could call angels to His side if He had chosen such ,but He being God "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross"(Ph. 2:8). He did what none other could do because He was not just man as Adam was. And when you imply that Jesus was just man just like us then you seem to hold to some Morman and Islamic doctrine not Baptist and not Biblical. Because Jesus was man but He was also God.He was innocent like Adam was ,but He did not have a sin nature as already stated ,because if Jesus had a sin nature then His blood could not wash away our sins. Again it is heresy to say Jesus had a sin nature because He is God and a sin nature is not God's nature.

 

[hrhema]

CD and Preach the Word> The Roman Catholic Church is the ones who started the belief that Jesus did not have the sin nature. You cannot find anywhere in the Bible anything that backs your belief up so don't say I am talking heresy.
The Bible does not say the sin nature comes from the father only. That is speculation. Eve sinned first not ADam. You can speculate as I have read using the scripture where it was said one of Jacobs sons was paying tithes when he was still in his fathers loins but that proves nothing.

The problem is you are so full of catholic doctrinal beliefs. There is no Biblical basis for original sin as you teach. You cannot give scripture for this teaching. You have adhered to what Men have said but not what the Word says.

Neither of you have addressed why the temptation in the wilderness would have happened in the first place. You ignore what is obvious to hold on to man made doctrines that plainly the Bible does not teach.

If Jesus was God in the way you claim he could not have died. You cannot kill God. He again laid aside his diety and became the SON of Man while he walked about here on Earth.

Only if he sinned would he not have been worthy to be our sacrifice. The sin nature would not make him unworthy. That is faulty teaching and doctrine. How could Jesus tell us to overcome and to be perfect as his Father is perfect if he could not have sinned? " Here let me demand this of you but I cannot do it." I don't think so.

Neither of you tried to explain the fact that Jesus was subordinate while on Earth. How is that possible if he was deity while on Earth. How can one co-equal person be less equal. Why would he have to call angels to protect him? God the creator as God would not be subordinate to angels. As man he would have been. This is not Islamic doctrine. They don't even believe Jesus is deity in the least bit. You have never heard me say that Jesus was not God. He is God but he laid aside his deity while on Earth. God could not be tempted nor can he tempt. That is scripture but Jesus was tempted.

Why would God need to pray yet Jesus prayed?
Jesus spoke of himself being subordinate. Why would that be if while on Earth he was coequal.

Don't accuse someone of heresy if you cannot prove by scripture the heresy.

 

[hrhema]

Here is what I Timothy 3:16 says:

CHRIST APPEARED IN THE FLESH AND WAS SHOWN TO BE RIGHTEOUS BY THE SPIRIT. HE WAS SEEN BY ANGELS AND WAS ANNOUNCED TO THE NATIONS. HE WAS BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD AND WAS TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN. .

This does not prove your point CD>

 

[Aaron]

Sorry this is late.

If you are wrong -- you have driven people away from Christ by causing them to think that God has condemned people to hell on what seems to us an arbitrary basis...

No, not an arbitrary basis, on the basis that they are unworthy and unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven. That He has chosen to have compassion on some does not make God unjust or arbitrary to send those who are already destined and eminently worthy of eternal damnation to hell. He said, "I...will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy." And whom He will he hardeneth.

If I'm wrong then I believe a lie and teach others to believe a lie. If you're wrong, then you believe a lie and teach others to believe a lie, warm and fuzzy feelings notwithstanding.

If I am wrong -- I have at least encouraged people to keep seeking God by helping them understand the depth of God's love for all human beings. I have encouraged confidence in Him and trust in His goodness.

No, if you're wrong you've encouraged them to seek not God, but a god of your own making.

And this business about Paul not knowing the law?

Who said that? I said Paul may have been a Pharisee, but he did not have an understanding of the law. The law did not "come to him" in the sense that it opened his eyes to his own sinfulness. He saw the law as something that justified him.

The simple fact that Saul of Tarsus did not know Christ proves that he did not understand the law, for the law and the prophets testify of Christ.

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

I know your attempts to make me feel like I have done no wrong to shed tears for my own griefs spring from a desire to do good, but it is a zeal without knowledge, and I find no comfort therein.

Tell me the old, old story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, Of Jesus and His love.
Tell me the story simply, as to a little child,
For I am weak and weary and helpless and defiled.

Tell me the same old story when you have cause to fear
That this world's empty glory is costing me too dear.
Tell me the story always, if you would really be
In any time of trouble a comforter to me.

I read of a pastor who testified that any time one of his congregation sinned, he would weep uncontrollably for hours. He didn't weep when their loved ones died, or if they all fell on hard times. But if they sinned, the tears would not stop.

Now there is a godly sorrow.

We are commanded to weep and mourn over our sins and the sins of others, though they brought us pleasure for a season:

Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord.

There is no other mourning commanded, and certainly no comfort promised for any other.

Paul speaks elsewhere of a "voluntary humility," an example of which is Peter's refusing Jesus to wash his feet. Christ said plainly, "If I don't wash your feet, you have no part with me." Peter's was a voluntary humility, not a commanded humility, and would have excluded him from the Kingdom of God.

Unless the mourning is a commanded mourning, it is a worldly mourning and it works death.

God is not a doting father. He is our heavenly Father. He is a jealous God, and He will not take second place. Why should He offer comfort for the loss of those things in this world which only competed with Him for our hearts.

Now, to bring this back to the baby Jesus.

How could He cry or communicate His own needs and remain sinless? Was there ever a time He asked for food to satisfy His hunger? Was there ever a time when He sought His own comfort?

No, even as an infant He had perfect trust in His Father. He was one quiet baby.

Oh, in answer to your request for a verse: Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

 

[Helen]

IN other words, it is a sin to say

"and give us this day our daily bread..."

since that is seeking after our own needs.

I'm going to leave it at this. I am absolutely stunned that anyone could believe that crying is a sin for a baby, or even that a tiny baby could sin.

For a baby, crying is simple communication.

Crying is not even a sin for adults -- but never mind.

This thought did occur to me, though: if a baby is sinning when he or she cries, maybe you ought to punish him or her. After all...

Never mind. It is honestly the most bizarre bit of Bible interpretation I have heard since the day-age theory for Genesis.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Helen:
Never mind. It is honestly the most bizarre bit of Bible interpretation I have heard since the day-age theory for Genesis.

You should read some of the things you have posted.

 

[Aaron]

Oops. Almost forgot.

Originally posted by Helen:
IN other words, it is a sin to say

"and give us this day our daily bread..."

Huh?

You would agree that it is a sin to go to men with that prayer. Wouldn't you?

We are commanded to make our requests known unto God, not men. (Philippians 4:6)

 

[Helen]

It is absolutely NOT a sin for my kids to let me know that they are hungry. I much prefer them to tell me than to simply raid the fridge on their own!

And when I am post-surgical and enough stomach upset has worn off to be thirsty or hungey, I have just never considered it a sin to let my husband or children know that. They would feel awful if I didn't say something.

God has put us here for each other, Aaron, as part of a body. When my foot was broken, my arms held the crutches. When someone needs help, I appreciate knowing, so I can do something. When one of my children is hungry, I also appreciate knowing, so I can do something.

And when my retarded son takes me by the arm and leads me to the refrigerator, he is not sinning by telling me he is hungry or thirsty. He is simply communicating the best way he knows how tht he needs me to help him at that moment.

Where on earth you got the idea that that sort of thing is sin is WAY beyond me!

 

[Aaron]

Helen,

I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.

I am an emotional man by nature. I am a doting father, and my heart breaks when my girls cry. I do not shut my ears to the cry of the poor.

I cry myself. I am a man and have experienced the full range of emotions that a man can feel. (I think).

But the Bible tells me that nothing in my flesh (human nature) is a good thing. Away with "Chicken Soup for the Soul" stories! I am ALL unrighteousness.

Only those emotions which spring from God's Spirit; peace, love, joy, etc., (not to be confused with human peace, love, joy, etc.) are good.

But, I think I've said all I can say about this.

 

[Christian41974]

hrhema,first of all, 1Timothy 3:16-And without great controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJB
First of all I don't know what you were quoting from but it was not a Bible.
I think it is funny that you think I am pro- catholic in anyway.
1Tim.3:16 teaches among other things that God was manifest in the flesh not just a man but God and that is not speculation.And it is talking about Jesus.
In Colossians 2:9, The Bible says, "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."KJB In its context v6 the Scripture is speaking of Jesus. Jesus lacked nothing in His flesh in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Again it is still speculation to say Jesus had a sin nature and still heresy. Romans 5:15-21 teaches we get our sin nature from Adam. We sin because we are a sinner: we are born sinners. Only Adam and Jesus were at their beginning innocent without sin. Jesus still is innocent without sin but Adam is not. Jesus was mentioned as the second Adam in 1Cor. 15:45-47. He took upon Himself flesh but He did not take a sin nature. The sin nature is the nature man is born with.Jesus was born of God not man. That is why there is a virgin birth because Jesus got His nature from God the Father. I am not saying Mary was perfect but the Bible teaches we all die in Adam. It is man's nature that teaches him to hate and rebel. Man is born depraved and dead in his nature. Man comes short and his works are as filthy rags. But Jesus was born in the flesh. Yes, the Son of Man ,but also the Son of God. He was as much God as He was man. The devils still feared Him. He was still Deity. He was God come in the flesh still God. You say He prayed why would God pray? To teach us how for one thing, another thing because that is how He and we should talk to our Father which is in heaven. He was baptised also and He is still God. Why did Jesus do that? - to fulfill all righteousness. Why was He temted? so as Hebrews 2:18 teaches He can succour those that are tempted and be a help to them. We sin because of our nature: God does not sin because of His nature. If Jesus had been born with our nature He could not have helped but sin because that would have been His nature.But He was born of God with God's nature.You said one can not kill God and that is true that is why Jesus said in John 10:17,18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life , that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to take it again..."
Here it is again, Romans 5:15-21 The verses are talking about the offence and the free gift. One obviously the first sin by Adam and the other salvation in Jesus Christ. 15."For if through the offense of one many be dead" V16."And not as it was by one that sinned"V17.For if by one man's death reigned by one ; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)V18. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;" V19."For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". Clearly, all these Scriptures are giving reference to Adam and his first sin and how it has passed on to us. We all die in Adam it is that simple. Not speculation but Scripture. These verses no where mention Eve as a sin imparter but ONLY Adam.