the baby Jesus

[Angie Miller]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Angie, I understand your question, I think.

One assumption that people make in regards to the peccability (able to sin) vs. impeccability (not able to sin) argument is that being a human means that it is either already corrupt or able to be corrupted.

Please answer this: why do you think being a human must also involve the ability to be corrupted?

I guess because I have never met one that was not in some way. Everyone is at one time or another by something or someone. Daily we have to fight Satan to stop this.
Love in Christ Angie

[ October 30, 2002, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Angie Miller ]

 

[Daniel David]

Angie, this is what I am getting at: why did Christ have to be able to sin to be 100% human? The Bible explicitly says that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come as sinful flesh. Hrhema, you believe it or you don't. Personally, I think you don't know what you are talking about. You do not read in the Bible that Christ had a sin nature.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Angie, this is what I am getting at: why did Christ have to be able to sin to be 100% human? The Bible explicitly says that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come as sinful flesh. Hrhema, you believe it or you don't. Personally, I think you don't know what you are talking about. You do not read in the Bible that Christ had a sin nature.

Hold everything -- was it necessary for Christ to have a sin nature in order to be tempted? Don't react too quickly.

What if the choices are both good? What if the only difference is what God wants you to do, but the second choice is not disobeying any law or even disobeying Him?

Let's look at the temptations.

1. Food when He was hungry. Very hungry. To eat was not a sin. To turn stones into bread was not a sin.

2. To establish His identity. Showing who you are is not a sin. He performed plenty of miracles to testify to that later. So casting Himself off the high point of the Temple would not have been a sin.

3. Dominion over the kingdoms of the world. This would be His anyway in the future. No sin there.

4. To not die. What is the sin in preferring to live?

5. To not die in agony. This is not a sin either.

Folks, I had to go down to Sacramento and pick up some medications and a door latch (you needed to know that, right?

) and on the way down and back I was thinking about this thread. And it occurred to me that Jesus was never tempted to sin! None of those things were sins.

He was tempted to deviate from a plan. But as God He could not sin, and that part is right. But the part about being honestly tempted is also right. The only sin I could see which was ridiculous on the part of Satan, but maybe not because I don't understand enough, was telling Jesus that He could have dominion if He bowed down and worshiped Satan. That strikes me as ludicrous, but that also means there is something going on there I don't understand. That which is ludicrous is probably not a temptation!

So I will agree with Preach that Jesus did not have a sin nature. Actually, I was never thinking He did, but I wanted more time to think some of this through and pray about it. On the other hand, Hebrews says that He was made like us in every way, and that must also be acknowledged. That means the temptations were real temptations, just not the kind you and I normally face. We have no record of God the Father saying "Do not eat after you have fasted for forty days" etc. Leviticus 4:1 defines sin very clearly as doing what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands. 1 John 3:4, at the other end of the Bible, confirms that.

I do not read where Jesus was tempted to break any law. This would mean He was not tempted to sin!

But He was clearly tempted to change the timing of some activities, to prove Himself, and to avoid death and pain. These were not sins, but neither were they what had been chosen out of love for people before. And isn't that what has always amazed us? That He LOVES us? That He did what He did out of love for us?

He didn't have to. It would not have been a sin if He had not.

Jesus was being tempted to change His own plan for us, not to sin.

I'm still working this through, but there is where I have gotten so far...

 

[Aaron]

Christ was tempted with the things of this world, the lusts of the eyes, the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life, 1 John 2:16.

The temptation with all the kingdoms of the world was the lusts of the eyes. Satan "showed" Him all the kingdoms of the world.

The temptation to turn the stones to bread was the lusts of the flesh.

The temptation to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the temple and prove His Office (for the verse quoted was a Messianic prophecy) was the pride of life.

Hunger was not the temptation. The temptation was to do something for the reason of hunger. Of course it is wrong to eat merely to satisfy hunger. In ALL we do, whether we eat or drink we are to do to the glory of God. "The spirit lusts against the flesh," Gal. 5:17.

What Christ's temptation reveals is His impeccability.

 

[Helen]

You know something Aaron? I am convinced that if I said the sky was blue you would find a reason to argue with me!

Let's look at 1 John 2:16, in context and see if it says Christ was tempted by lusts of any kind:

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world -- the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does -- comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

Now, unless you are saying -- and I know you are not -- that Christ was a 'sinful man', I don't see how this passage has anything to do with what we are talking about! Christ is not mentioned there nor are His tempatations. And, having left heaven for the world, I doubt very sincerely that He loved the world in the sense written about above!

 

[Deekay]

Christians have always struggled to understand the relationship between the human and divine sides of Jesus. We readily admit that He had physical frailities. He got hungry and needed rest. He could be hurt and even killed (although not against His will). To deny these things would be to slip into docetism, the notion that Jesus was only pretending to be human. But what about mental/emotional weakness? Did He ever doubt or fear? The plain reading of certain passages would seem to indicate He did, although many of us aren't comfortable with that interpretation. I admit to being uneasy about the idea of Jesus even entertaining the possibility of sinning (I have the same uneasiness about passages that seem to tell us that Jesus' knowledge was limited while on earth), and so I find it difficult to be objective here. I think many others share the same reluctance.

It is salutary to remember that for Jesus temptation would not be the same as for us. When we are tempted, we often think long about the act, wondering if perhaps we might "get away" with it under certain circumstances. God is a God of grace, after all. At this point, we have probably already sinned, even if we turn away from the visible deed. We can be confident that Jesus would not have been tempted in this way. I guess this controversy hinges on one's definition of "temptation." Although Scripture makes it clear that Christ never sinned, it is not as clear that He never thought about sinning, even for a moment. In the end, I tend to lean to the side of impeccability, but I also admit to a lack of dogmatism on this topic.

[ October 30, 2002, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Deekay ]

 

[Aaron]

Helen, you say a lot of things I disagree with that I don't make an issue of. You say some things I agree with. But not lately.

Satan dangled the things of the world before Christ to tempt Him.

Let me rephrase my point. The things of this world are: the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes and the pride of life.

That is the same temptation with which he tempted Eve: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lusts of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lusts of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (the pride of life)...

I cited 1 John 2:16 to show you that all that is in the world are these things.

But if you need a Scripture that states the fact that Christ was tempted with these things, I will cite Heb. 4:15.

And I would not argue if you said that the sky was blue. But if you say it's purple-pink-polka-dotted, well...

 

[Helen]

Aaron, I've made the points I want to make. I don't see any point in continuing past that.

Thank you for your time.

 

[hrhema]

Helen: I am very disappointed that you would turn around and post what you posted. To say the things Satan tempted Jesus with if he had done them would not have been sin is ludicrous. Satan told him to worship him. If Jesus had done this it would have been sin. If Jesus would have thrown himself down from the pinnacle he would have been testing God as he said and that would have been sin. If Jesus would have used his powers to quench his hunger it would have been for selfish reasons and that would have been sin.
Your logic and reasoning is way off base.

"That is why we have a great High Priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God. Let us cling to him and never stop trusting him. This High Priest of ours understand our weaknesses,
FOR HE FACED ALL OF THE SAME TEMPTATIONS WE DO, YET HE DID NOT SIN." Hebrews 4:14-15.

"We all know that Jesus came to help the descendants of Abraham, not to help the angels. Therefore, it was necessary FOR JESUS TO BE IN EVERY RESPECT LIKE US, HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. He then could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people. SINCE HE HIMSELF HAS GONE THROUGH SUFFERING AND TEMPTATIONS, HE IS ABLE TO HELP US WHEN WE ARE BEING TEMPTED. Hebrews 2:10-18.

I think the writer of Hebrews made it very clear about Jesus. He said that Jesus was tempted in every way we as humans have been. You may not be comfortable with this but it is scripture. Not only that but the same writer said that Jesus had to become exactly like us humans or he could not have died for our sins. He had to be like us in every respect. This would include the sin nature whether you want to admit this or not. Scriptures do not lie.

I am sorry Preach the Word but you are not above the Bible and the Bible has made it very clear that Jesus was tempted in every aspect as we are and that he had to become exactly like us.

 

[Daniel David]

hrhema, let me post the Hebrews 4:15 passage in different translations:

NKJV
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

NASB
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

ESV
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

NIV
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

Amplified
For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning.

Young's Literal
for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but [one] tempted in all things in like manner -- apart from sin.

I am assuming you used the NIV. If you consider all the other versions, you will see that a literal translation does not support your view. Do not forget that the NIV seeks to translate what they thought the author meant.

Even so, all sin is boiled down to one of three categories: lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Jesus was tempted in each of those areas. Therefore, he was tempted in all points and still did not sin.

Further, Adam and Eve were fully human without having the sin nature. That was something they acquired. Christ is the second Adam. Christ did not have a sin nature. Just as Adam was fully human without it, so Christ could be fully human without it.

I think if you want to further this discussion, you should start a new thread. It has taken a different course, methinks.

 

[Daniel David]

Btw, if Jesus was tempted in every temptation the way you are saying, then the following would be a temptation:

Pornography
Speeding
Smacking your little brother for the heck of it (not that I ever did that)
Cocaine
Immodesty
Drunkeness
Terrorism
etc.

Hey maybe your Jesus did have those problems. The Jesus of Scripture didn't. He never struggled with sin.

Out unlike the feelings that dictate the theology on this thread.

 

[Angie Miller]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Angie, this is what I am getting at: why did Christ have to be able to sin to be 100% human? The Bible explicitly says that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come as sinful flesh. Hrhema, you believe it or you don't. Personally, I think you don't know what you are talking about. You do not read in the Bible that Christ had a sin nature.

First I would say, do not speak to me that way. That was rude! I was asking for view points and scripture not "TELLING" people He could or could not sin. So in the future you please have a little more respect toward me or do not answer or question my posts. If you show meaness again I will be the Christian I am and leave you to your opinions of me.
I know a lot more then you think, Good Day

 

[Daniel David]

Angie, that was not at all directed at you. I have tried to directly answer your questions.

I was saying - Angie - and then pointing out what others have said. I specifically addressed that post to hrhema, not you. I mentioned your name first to get your attention so you would see the dialogue exchange between me and hrhema. I thought it would clarify my position.

I certainly meant no offense toward you at all. I truly apologize for my poor choice of words and phrases.

hrhema, what I told you still stands without apology.

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

The sky isn't blue because it is the reflection of the ocean. It is blue because that is the longest wavelength of visible light.

 

[Angie Miller]

Maybe I am not as smart as I thought I was. I had no idea why the sky is blue!

 

[Angie Miller]

Preach The Word,Ahhh, I now see where you addresed the post elsewhere. Please accept my most humble apology. I was in a hurry and did not see the name. REALLY! I did not see it.
I am sorry for spouting off that way to you for no reason. Please accept my apology.
Plus I was grouchy yesterday and was probably looking for a release. I am sorry you were it!
Love in Christ Angie

[ November 01, 2002, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Angie Miller ]

 

[Daniel David]

The sky is not blue. The Bible says that satan is the prince of the power of the air. That means that he has colored the air at a very high height to make us all think it is blue. The sky is actually Garnet and Gold. Those would be the colors of heaven reflecting down.

Btw, if you live in Seattle, the sky is gray, always.

If you live in Alaska, Greenland, or part of Russia, right about now you are wondering what the sky is.

 

[hrhema]

Preach the word: You are very rude in the way you talk to people you disagree with. I don't care how much I disagree with someone I would not insult them like you did me but you will have to face God over the way you talk to people.

You did not prove one thing by quoting all those translations. You have failed to prove by scripture that Jesus did not have a sin nature.

When God created man with a free will he created him to be able to be tempted. If this was not so then Satan could never have tempted Eve and Eve could never have tempted Adam.

Preach the word you have acted like I said Jesus committed sin. I did not say that. No one on this post has said this.

A Jesus who could have sinned but did not sin to me makes better sense then someone who came to Earth and honestly could not have done so.

 

[Daniel David]

hrhema, you are correct that I did not prove to you that Jesus did not have a sin nature. However, the proof is there. You just choose to not accept it.

What is interesting to note though is that you did not prove he did have a sin nature. The burden of proof is on you. I gave the Scripture. The virgin birth is enough evidence if you think through the theological issues.

The reason I listed all of those translations of the same passage is to show that whatever translation you came up with is just way off. Clearly, people who translated that passage had an agenda with it. So much for integrity in translating...

Jesus was born of a virgin. Why was that important?

I will gladly stand before God and answer for my post and would rather that than answering for calling into question his perfect humanity and deity.

Btw, I never said that you think Christ sinned.

 

[Angie Miller]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Angie, this is what I am getting at: why did Christ have to be able to sin to be 100% human? The Bible explicitly says that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come as sinful flesh. Hrhema, you believe it or you don't. Personally, I think you don't know what you are talking about. You do not read in the Bible that Christ had a sin nature.

Well I thought that all humans sin so if Jesus was 100% human then that would apply to Him too. on the other hand He was, unlike us, 100% God. So ooooooooo,who knows! I just can not inturpret any scripture that says He could not sin. Frankly I would feel better in knowing He could have yet He did not. That might make me feel a little better about my efforts not to sin. Okay that could be construed as pride but that is not what I meant...
I need to think!
Love in Christ Angie