Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?

[Reynolds]

Very simple, Jesus as to being fully God, NOTHING changed in regards to Him as in Deity, but in his humanity, did learn and grow!

You have a degree of separation in your statement. Putting exclamation marks at the end does not make your same old statement correct.

 

[tyndale1946]

That is blasphemy! God the Father has no physical, human body so obviously that physical, human body cannot die.

To suggest that God the Father has a physical, human body is to accept the vile heresy of Mormonism which teaches that God the Father is just a Mormon boy from another planet who made good and is up on his heavenly planet having relations with his multiple wives and begetting little spirit babies to be put in physical bodies down on earth.

EWEH!... That's gross and disgusting!... Thank God I'm a Baptist and not a Morman... Then there are the Masons!... Opps... Shhhhh... That's a secret... Can't talk about that... Forget I was here... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

You have a degree of separation in your statement. Putting exclamation marks at the end does not make your same old statement correct.

Jesus as being fully God, His Deity leaned nothing new, but In His humanity, did grow up and have to learn Hebrew/Aramiac and whatever else he knew!

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus did not grow in knowledge or understanding as we grow. He grew experientially. He experienced what we experience. He was not ignorant and needed to be taught as we are/do.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That is blasphemy! God the Father has no physical, human body so obviously that physical, human body cannot die.

uhhh….
yeah, which is why no one has spoken of any such thing except yourself, right here.

To suggest that God the Father has a physical, human body is to accept the vile heresy of Mormonism

uhhhh..again, correct, which is why no one has spoken of such things here, well, until you did with this post right here.

which teaches that God the Father is just a Mormon boy from another planet who made good and is up on his heavenly planet having relations with his multiple wives and begetting little spirit babies to be put in physical bodies down on earth.

Yeah, which is why there are no Mormons in this conversation nor anyone who would affirm the slightest bit of this.
Are you feeling o.k?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The master deceiver failed in tempting Christ!

Yeah, we all know and affirm this and no one has suggested otherwise.

Do you think mere human distractions would have achieved what that father of all liars could not?

No, and no one has suggested or hinted at as much.
Furthermore, we all know full well that no human distractions achieved what the father of liars could not achieve.
Jesus did not sin.

The Scriptures have absolutely no account that Christ was "tempted" from the view of inner struggle or combat

Then you deny the Scripture as it clearly says he was tempted in all ways like as we are.

Often called "peer pressure"

Hmmm....so...Satan is Christ's peer then?
uh, I will be forced to disagree.

Again there is absolutely no Scripture indication that the Lord Jesus Christ had even the slightest inclination to respond to "temptation" much less to be prone to lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh or even the pride of life as you presented.

There absolutely is Scripture indication of it as has been presented repeatedly.
There is no room for it in your Theology perhaps, but there's plenty of Scriptural evidence to the fact.

 

[TCassidy]

uhhh….
yeah, which is why no one has spoken of any such thing except yourself, right here.

Your post #32. Don't run from it. Just own it.

uhhhh..again, correct, which is why no one has spoken of such things here, well, until you did with this post right here.

Your post #32. Don't run from it. Just own it.

Are you feeling o.k?

No, I am having a difficult day. But a man my age, suffering from not only a very bad heart condition, but also from MS, has to expect bad days now and then. But God is still in Heaven, so all is as it should be. "He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly therefore I will rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest on me." (2 Corinthians 12:9)

 

[SovereignGrace]

You have a degree of separation in your statement. Putting exclamation marks at the end does not make your same old statement correct.

He puts a ! on every post!

Uhhh...oops? Or oops!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Your post #32. Don't run from it.

I run from nothing..
I affirm the post.
I deny your accusation that I suggested that the Father had a physical body.

Your post #32. Don't run from it. Just own it.

I own my post just fine.
I deny the falsehood that I suggested that the Father has a physical body.

You are welcome to post where I said that.
I was (as I posted) making a "Reductio ad absurdum" argument...…as I said to S.G.....Reductio ad absurdums are meant to expose truly ABSURD and untenable consequences in order to demonstrate that the argument your co-conversationalist makes forces us to affirm unacceptable consequences.

Therefore, my argument EXPLICITLY DENIED that the Father was physical or could possibly die. My point was, in fact, that SG'S argument would force us into the very untenable conclusions you are accusing me of asserting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Your protestations of "Blashpemy!!!" are unfounded.

No, I am having a difficult day. But a man my age, suffering from not only a very bad heart condition, but also from MS, has to expect bad days now and then. But God is still in Heaven, so all is as it should be. "He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly therefore I will rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest on me. (2 Corinthians 12:9)

I am sorry.

 

[percho]

Not true.

Adam, prior to the fall, had no inner capacity impressing him to sin.

He chose to sin, and therefore became a sinner. He suffered death ( I would have put a period here) to the nature of innocence and fellowship with God.

The second Adam had no inner capacity impressing him to sin, and when given the opportunity and choice did not respond to the outward pressure and enticements.

When pressured to sin, when enticed to sin, the Lord Jesus Christ had no inner fallen nature in which He had to combat the impulse to do wrong. He succeeded where the first Adam failed.

Fully human does not mean that one must also have the fallen nature of the human condition. Such thinking is attempting to place Christ into a fallen estate which is incorrect.

Fully human means that he lived and breathed as a human, as the second Adam prior to the fall, not as Adam the human after the fall.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Heb 2:6 BTW son of man there is singular. I assume man is Adam.

V 14
Forasmuch then as the children (of man, Adam) are partakers of flesh and blood, he (? the son of man?} also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Before Adam was created did the devil exist and did he have the power of death and did he need to be destroyed?
Before Adam was created did God have a plan for that above and would that plan involve the redemption for the man to be created? Redemption from what, before the foundation of the world and the creation of man, Adam?

Before the foundation of the world, before man Adam was created was the above going to be accomplished by a woman taken from a man made in the image of God giving birth to a man, the son of God? Would that Son need to learn through sufferings, the obedience? Heb 5:8 YLT through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,

Was learning the obedience relative to death?
And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 22:41-44
who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, Heb 5:7

How hard was it for him to die for our sins?

For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb 12:3,4

 

[Benjamin]

Not true.

Adam, prior to the fall, had no inner capacity impressing him to sin.
.

Yeah, we know that the Calvinist’/Determinists’/Particular Redemptionist’ view of original sin and that they are forced to attempt to present Christ’ human nature which He assumed to not be 100% true but to be the nature of Adam before the fall or otherwise it throws a major monkey wrench into their soteriological view of inability, but such a claim falls flat on its face like an Agedman falling off his rocker.

He chose to sin, and therefore became a sinner. He suffered death to the nature of innocence and fellowship with God.

The second Adam had no inner capacity impressing him to sin, and when given the opportunity and choice did not respond to the outward pressure and enticements.

When pressured to sin, when enticed to sin, the Lord Jesus Christ had no inner fallen nature in which He had to combat the impulse to do wrong. He succeeded where the first Adam failed.

Well, I suppose if you’re going to start question begging about which nature Christ assumed even though either way IMO you are bordering on heresy (denial of true humanity), but your presuppositions of separating from Jesus Christ from humanity through "inner fallen nature" aside for now on the “First Adam/Second Adam nature issue just to start with the nature of the first pre-fallen Adam didn’t need saving my friend! Nothing to overcome there, easy peasy just a show. SO, that brings into view the more important question of HOW and WHY Christ came and WHAT EXACTLY did He overcame and how does this WAY work since as you would have it that He took the form of pre-fallen Adam who had no sin?! ...to start your argument.


As to the question of WHY, because of the fallen, human nature which needed redeeming, not the nature before the fall.

Christ, did assume the fallen nature and yet did not commit sin nor did He ever act in a sinful way through his fallen nature. IMAGINE THAT!! Jesus had free will and a the nature of fallen man, yet no sin… makes the Determinists’ head spin, doesn’t it?!

Instead, Jesus Christ’ life of sinless obedience in and through a fallen human nature begins to show HOW precisely the means by which fallen humanity is both judged and reconciled to God. Yes, Jesus OVERCAME this nature for us!

HOW could Christ really be like us except he assume, not some abstract human condition, but the actual condition in which we find ourselves?

As to the human fallen nature through Chalcedon we have learned that both truths of the nature of Jesus must be stressed with equal emphasis , guess you missed that because it seems you would have us believe that Christ did not really deal with the suffering, temptations, sorrows, and pains of fallen human experience. ...but He was only capable of doing so in a single Divine nature without the full true human nature.

Are we to assume Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations? No, we see what nature He came in:

(2Co 5:21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Where Adam failed Jesus being made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” overcame…ain’t got nothing to do with the first Adam’s nature. WHAT Jesus did was overcame and silenced Satan's falsehoods and proved that God did have sufficient love for ALL man as He through the Spirit had the ability to exercise self-denial and self-sacrifice on man's behalf as He conquered sin and suffered its consequences, John 3:16, as He paid the penalty that justice required. He did so while in human flesh and blood (Pre-fallen Adam didn't even have his skin yet! ) through the Spirit of God. Again, what likeness of flesh did Jesus come in to do this?!!

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

As for the non-heretical view Jesus shared ALL our conditions in humanity. He was under the same powers of destruction. Out of “the flesh” arose for Him the same temptations as for us, but He overcame.

(Rom 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

(Rom 8:4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Fully human does not mean that one must also have the fallen nature of the human condition. Such thinking is attempting to place Christ into a fallen estate which is incorrect.

Well, sorry, but Jesus was not ashamed to call fallen man his brother: (Heb 2:11) For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

(Heb 2:17) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Fully human means that he lived and breathed as a human, as the second Adam prior to the fall, not as Adam the human after the fall.

(Heb 2:14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jesus Christ did not come to be theologian's puppet show as the heresy of the docetist might suggest that His sufferings were merely an illusion, but He came and stood in the same arena where ALL the sons of Adam stand and faced every temptation common to sinners while He overcame sin.

(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 

[agedman]

Yeah, we know that the Calvinist’/Determinists’/Particular Redemptionist’ view of original sin and that they are forced to attempt to present Christ’ human nature which He assumed to not be 100% true but to be the nature of Adam before the fall or otherwise it throws a major monkey wrench into their soteriological view of inability, but such a claim falls flat on its face like an Agedman falling off his rocker.

Your own bias obliges that you ignore the truth:

45Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shallf also bear the image of the man of heaven.​

It is no secrete that Christ came from heaven as the second Adam. It is poor human reasoning that would posit that He had the sin nature as the fallen Adam and not that nature that was prior to the fall.

Well, I suppose if you’re going to start question begging about which nature Christ assumed even though either way IMO you are bordering on heresy (denial of true humanity), but your presuppositions of separating from Jesus Christ from humanity through "inner fallen nature" aside for now on the “First Adam/Second Adam nature issue just to start with the nature of the first pre-fallen Adam didn’t need saving my friend! Nothing to overcome there, easy peasy just a show. SO, that brings into view the more important question of HOW and WHY Christ came and WHAT EXACTLY did He overcame and how does this WAY work since as you would have it that He took the form of pre-fallen Adam who had no sin?! ...to start your argument.

No heresy at all is even suggested other than what you would support by your biased thinking that Christ came as a sin-filled human and had therefore to be born-again and filled with the Holy Spirit to carry out the work of the redemption.

Such is the teaching of the Christadelphians who desire to prove their view using Romans 8 as some proof.

Yet, they do not distinguish that "sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" is not the same as stating that the Son was made in sinful flesh.

Apparently you make the same mistake, too.

For all your bluster, your own bias toward a scheme you find deplorable is pressing you into accepting that which is not consistent with the Scriptures.

As to the question of WHY, because of the fallen, human nature which needed redeeming, not the nature before the fall.

Christ, did assume the fallen nature and yet did not commit sin nor did He ever act in a sinful way through his fallen nature. IMAGINE THAT!! Jesus had free will and a the nature of fallen man, yet no sin… makes the Determinists’ head spin, doesn’t it?!

Instead, Jesus Christ’ life of sinless obedience in and through a fallen human nature begins to show HOW precisely the means by which fallen humanity is both judged and reconciled to God. Yes, Jesus OVERCAME this nature for us!

First, Would you like to present the Scriptures to prove your view on this matter that Christ had to overcome the sinful inner struggle of a fallen nature?

That in some manner, that according to your view, the perfect lamb of God was actually as sinful and degenerate of heart as the vilest of human hearts, and yet presentable as that final sacrifice for the human condition?

Does not Deuteronomy (as well as other passages) state that the sacrifice had to be without blemish? Are you stating that the fallen human nature is without blemish before a Holy God?

What is it that the writer of Hebrews states:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.​

But according to your view, the Christ was born blemished, continued as blemished, and by self will purged Himself to the point of being unblemished.

There is not a single type, verse, or passage that supports such thinking.

Second, the FALLEN human nature is NEVER redeemed, rather the person is redeemed and given a NEW nature. The redeemed are NEW creatures created in Christ, not some old worn out wine skin which cannot hold the riches of the new wine.

HOW could Christ really be like us except he assume, not some abstract human condition, but the actual condition in which we find ourselves?

Again, He came in the LIKENESS of, but He did not come AS a fallen human that needed His own redemption.

You want to proclaim I post heretical thinking?

Seriously?

Your own posts condemn you for the very thing you would condemn others!

As to the human fallen nature through Chalcedon we have learned that both truths of the nature of Jesus must be stressed with equal emphasis , guess you missed that because it seems you would have us believe that Christ did not really deal with the suffering, temptations, sorrows, and pains of fallen human experience. ...but He was only capable of doing so in a single Divine nature without the full true human nature.

Are we to assume Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations? No, we see what nature He came in:

(2Co 5:21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

WHEN did God make Him sin for us? Was it at the birth or at the cross?

You would have the blind leading the blind by having Christ in some fallen nature having to self overcome that which was already defeated by sinfulness.

Or, you will have to present that Christ was Himself redeemed, and nowhere in the Scriptures are such events presented.

Your argument fails merely for the lack of Scripture support.

Where Adam failed Jesus being made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” overcame…ain’t got nothing to do with the first Adam’s nature. WHAT Jesus did was overcame and silenced Satan's falsehoods and proved that God did have sufficient love for ALL man as He through the Spirit had the ability to exercise self-denial and self-sacrifice on man's behalf as He conquered sin and suffered its consequences, John 3:16, as He paid the penalty that justice required. He did so while in human flesh and blood (Pre-fallen Adam didn't even have his skin yet! ) through the Spirit of God. Again, what likeness of flesh did Jesus come in to do this?!!

Pre-fallen Adam didn't have skin?????

What kept his insides in?????

Such a remark is bordering on the absurd, and to think that others actually agree with you!!!!!!!

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

As for the non-heretical view Jesus shared ALL our conditions in humanity. He was under the same powers of destruction. Out of “the flesh” arose for Him the same temptations as for us, but He overcame.

Not "overcame" but "condemned".

Two completely different concepts in which you seem to have trouble distinguishing.

Continued response in next post.

 

[agedman]

To continue the response:

(Rom 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

(Rom 8:4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Again, these passages prove exactly what I stated.

See Romans 8: What did the law do to fallen humankind who are "weak through the flesh?" What did God provide by sending the sone not as "weak through the flesh" but in the "likeness of sinful flesh, and FOR sin, condemning sin in the flesh?"

Of course, you are going to attempt to place that last use of flesh in that verse to the fact that Christ must have had fallen sinful nature to condemn sin in the flesh.

That is, again, not drawing the appropriate distinctions and therefore leading you to inappropriate conclusions.

Well, sorry, but Jesus was not ashamed to call fallen man his brother: (Heb 2:11) For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

(Heb 2:17) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

To be a bit silly, would it have helped to have the Lord Jesus Christ come as a bird or cow?

Do you really think that the Holy can be in any manner paired with the unholy?

At no time was the Christ EVER unholy, and therefore had no fallen nature as you desire to entice others to accept.

(Heb 2:14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jesus Christ did not come to be theologian's puppet show as the heresy of the docetist might suggest that His sufferings were merely an illusion, but He came and stood in the same arena where ALL the sons of Adam stand and faced every temptation common to sinners while He overcame sin.

My but your interpretation of that Hebrews passage is extremely childish and poor.

• First, Flesh and blood do not enter heaven.
• Second, Christ coming in "flesh and blood" has nothing to do with the "nature" unless you cling to the Victorian era principles of station and status follows a blood line.
• Third, the "nature" of Christ was never evil, or evil inclined as you would desire to show. The temptation of the Wilderness shows that at no point was Christ even inclined much less susceptible to evil. Neither was Adam prior to him CHOOSING to take what was offered by Eve.
• Fourth, not a single verse you have offered supports your view, but makes your thinking all the more the obliged bias driven agenda that you so obviously carry.

(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Again, you are using a passage that is quoting from the OT. It is not about Christ being born as a fallen human, but that Christ took upon Himself the curse of the law at the crucifixion.

Christ was not "born in sin" and certainly not born as a sinner.

If you disagree, then show by Scripture, Christ was born a sinner, had sinned, redeemed Himself, and was unblemished as the perfect lamb as a result of such.

For if you cannot, then it falls that your thinking is erroneous, and you by having others agreeing with your post lead them into error.

 

[agedman]

Then you deny the Scripture as it clearly says he was tempted in all ways like as we are.

Not at all.

There is a difference between the fallen nature "temptation" that comes (as the Scriptures state?
16For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of lifec—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Therefore, if Christ was of a fallen nature, then He could not have been from the Father.

One cannot mix Holy with unholy.

Christ, in the flesh, was "without blemish" as the Scriptures state, and therefore was Holy. Born Holy, lived Holy, and died, arose and is returning Holy. There was never a blemish.

Nor was He given the nature to be blemished, to be enticed by the worldly. Yet the deceiver thought He was, and the results of such temptations presented are given in Scriptures.

Hmmm....so...Satan is Christ's peer then?
uh, I will be forced to disagree.

I made no such claim.

Here again is what I posted with the clarification language in bold so you don't miss it in the exuberance.

"Christ is aware of all things and thinking. The Scriptures have absolutely no account that Christ was "tempted" from the view of inner struggle or combat, but was "tempted" as one experiences the force of evil pressing to do wrong. Often called "peer pressure" for the father of all liars considered himself to be superior to the Christ and able to offer and pressure to accept what was offered."​

Upon reflection, I possibly could have made clearer distinction, but the point was that what we experience as "peer pressure," was not part of the nature of Christ. For Christ knew that He was the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and could therefore respond:

7Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
​

What the father of liars presented was not internal temptation, but that external, as a peer might pressure one to do evil.

Each of the temptations Christ experienced (that we are given to know) came from outside the flesh and were pressed upon him. He was not prone to sin, prone to lust, prone to steal, prone to lie, prone to be deceitful, prone to cheat... and therefore, when presented with such "temptation," was not subjected to the ungodly drives and urges.

It can therefore be rightly stated that He was in all manners and ways tempted, YET without sin. For the ungodly urges that thrive in the fallen nature are not part of the holy nature of God, even God in the flesh.

One might think that hunger for food or sleep are internal, but the truth is that the worldly marketeers make much effort to entice what the body by virtue of health requires.

Health is not dictated by hunger, nor tiredness. Rather, health is dictated by the depravation of food and sleep for they damages the body. Therefore, there is a difference between being tempted to eat or sleep and "bringing the body under subjection" through fasting and prayer (unless as I now find myself falling asleep praying).

This is important and not to be dismissed.

He was not fallen human nature clinging to some hope of being able to overcome, redeem Himself, and become unblemished. Rather, He is "The Lord YOUR God." He is basically stating that the father of all liars has no authority over Him and no ability to even put Him to the test, for He is unblemished.

When then the Scriptures state: "15For 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" it actually reinforces the truth of the hypostatic union of Holy with unblemished Holy, and not of that (in which some desire to post) human nature as one who could succumb had enough pressure, temptation, enticement, ... been expressed upon in a better manner, or by one with more authority than that father of liars.

Which is also the reason why the Lord could claim:
“Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Although written specifically to the Hebrews, it is a statement that encompasses all creation including all hosts of creation. The Lord Jesus Christ did not become the Lord Jesus Christ. Rather, He has always been and will forever be the Lord Jesus Christ.

There absolutely is Scripture indication of it as has been presented repeatedly.
There is no room for it in your Theology perhaps, but there's plenty of Scriptural evidence to the fact.

Scripture "Indication" does not present support of doctrine, not even the shadow of a doctrine.

The doctrine of the trinity, the hypostatic union and the prophecy concerning the birth, life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ does not support with evidence that which you desire to hold concerning this matter.

 

[Benjamin]

Your own bias obliges that you ignore the truth:

45Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shallf also bear the image of the man of heaven.​

It is no secrete that Christ came from heaven as the second Adam. It is poor human reasoning that would posit that He had the sin nature as the fallen Adam and not that nature that was prior to the fall.

You talk of bias, ignoring truth and poor human reasoning in hypocrisy my friend. It is your reasoning that can’t get past the truth that Jesus came from heaven to become a true natural man out of the dust yet had no sin when He got here in that form. In the Spirit He overcame sin and did set us an example of the power of God while leading the way to the truth and paying the price of the promise given to all of humanity.

(Rom 8:13) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

(Rom 8:14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

No heresy at all is even suggested other than what you would support by your biased thinking that Christ came as a sin-filled human…

First, My view, as you well know of any non-TULIPer/Non-Determinist view, if you are to be honest, is that man is born with a fallen nature that will sin, not one that is sin, therefore I will thank you not to put your question begging original sin presuppositions onto my view with such disingenuous accusations that I think Christ was sin filled!

Second, I made it clear, followed by scripture, that Christ having the fallen nature of man was not only necessary but Biblical that along with this true flesh and blood human nature He OVERCAME and YET had no sin!! BTW, my lighthearted statement that these Biblical principles which support Counter-TULIP principles sets the “Determinists’ head spinning” seems to have become more than a jest but seemingly more of a reality of a person possessed to start false accusations.

Third, I said your view which clearly attempts to evade true full human fallen nature to force fit your prized TULIPs borders on the definition of Calcedon heresy and you simply saying such is not suggested while throwing more false accusations and disingenuous strawman of Christ being a sinner at my position speaks for itself!

Forth, if you want to conclude that the verses I presented to support my view must be interpreted to mean that “Christ came as a sin-filled human” then that sorrowful interpretation is on you but it seems you’ve TOTALLY missed the point of Biblical wisdom which demonstrates the truth in the matter as I actually put it:

Benjamin said:

“Well, sorry, but Jesus was not ashamed to call fallen man his brother: (Heb 2:11) For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

(Heb 2:17) Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

And frankly it is sad to think you must apparently believe that the verses I presented to support the true human nature of Christ, and will give you again here, would have to conclude that He was EVER “sin-filled” merely because of attempting to put support behind your desperate adherence to your question begging conclusions on original sin, a subject concerning question begging which I addressed at the start of my post. Your argument sir, is not against me but against scripture:

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

(Heb 2:14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

If you want to conclude these verses have Christ sin-filled because of the nature He truly assumed that is on you but don’t include me in your “head spinning” contrived disingenuous strawman fallacies of attributing sin to Christ because of the nature He was born!

First, Would you like to present the Scriptures to prove your view on this matter that Christ had to overcome the sinful inner struggle of a fallen nature?

That in some manner, that according to your view, the perfect lamb of God was actually as sinful and degenerate of heart as the vilest of human hearts, and yet presentable as that final sacrifice for the human condition?

More question begging strawman untruth. Looking like that’s all you got. Try putting your head on straight, eh.

Does not Deuteronomy (as well as other passages) state that the sacrifice had to be without blemish? Are you stating that the fallen human nature is without blemish before a Holy God?

What is it that the writer of Hebrews states:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.


But according to your view, the Christ was born blemished, continued as blemished, and by self will purged Himself to the point of being unblemished.

Still question begging your conclusion that if Christ truly came in the nature of man that He would have to be sin-filled/blemished. More disingenuous strawman that it is my position that Christ was blemished after I clearly said:

“Christ, in assuming the fallen nature did not commit sin nor did He ever act in a sinful way through his fallen nature. IMAGINE THAT!! Jesus had free will and a sin nature, yet no sin… makes the Determinists’ head spin, doesn’t it?! “

IOWs, Jesus took on the true fallen nature of humanity and obviously had no pre-determined sin because He didn’t sin in during His time here in the flesh, -- which you want to insist is sin in and of itself, but this shows it isn't thus blowing up your presuppositions of original sin. Here is where you can be honest and admit that you are trying to deny the true human nature Christ partook in because otherwise, despite unavoidably bordering on heresy, your Deterministic systematic theology falls apart. But I understand it's not worth holding my breath for…

 

[Benjamin]

WHEN did God make Him sin for us? Was it at the birth or at the cross?

You really need to get past you’re your presupposition of sin at birth. The true question is HOW and WHY did God make Christ sin for us as I never said or suggested Christ was sin before the cross, that is merely your pathetic question begging strawman again trying to suggest I said otherwise because of your misunderstanding of the true nature of man based on your presuppositions that Christ must have been made sin to become human flesh in ALL of humanities attributes instead of overcoming sin within the true form of humanity. What we see here is your presupposition of pre-determined sin must have been wrong because Christ did indeed come in the true form of humanity and YET had no sin. …it’s no wonder to me that you could not see past your presuppositions but to be honest I find your attempts to hold them desperately stuck in fallacy.

Pre-fallen Adam didn't have skin?????

What kept his insides in?????

Such a remark is bordering on the absurd, and to think that others actually agree with you!!!!!!!

You really have a problem following the subject don’t you??? Rhetorical question, of course you do. Now, this is regarding your claim of Christ taking on the human form, not of true humanity but of “Pre-fallen Adam” because of your desperation to support your “absurd” as I said, “bordering on heresy”, attempt to walk back the “full true human nature” that Christ partook of, Heb 2:14, in order to necessarily maintain your ever failing original sin view.. Either that or you don’t know WHEN this event of gaining skin took place (HINT, it was after Adam sinned, thus fell. ):

(Gen 3:21) Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Yes your attempts to escape that Christ truly took on all the attributes of the full human nature while he did not sin and how this TOTALLY blows apart your systematic question begging view that the nature would of had to been of the nature of pre-fall Adam, who had no skin, or your presupposition on original sin fails…BUT, the point is where the bible says Christ came in flesh and blood nature of humanity your pre-fallen nature view logically has Him without even skin…and is “absurd” ...yes,, what held His insides in the question you need to answer not me and remains quite funny I might add.

Again, these passages prove exactly what I stated.

See Romans 8: What did the law do to fallen humankind who are "weak through the flesh?" What did God provide by sending the sone not as "weak through the flesh" but in the "likeness of sinful flesh, and FOR sin, condemning sin in the flesh?"

Of course, you are going to attempt to place that last use of flesh in that verse to the fact that Christ must have had fallen sinful nature to condemn sin in the flesh.

That is, again, not drawing the appropriate distinctions and therefore leading you to inappropriate conclusions.

Yet, the correct conclusion is that Jesus Christ overcame sin while in the flesh!! I’m so sorry you find that “inappropriate”.

I get the feeling that the clear reading will never be “appropriate” for you since it defies your theological puppet show, but sorry, you have failed to see the true accomplishments of Christ unless you see the true nature in which He did it.

To be a bit silly, would it have helped to have the Lord Jesus Christ come as a bird or cow?

Do you really think that the Holy can be in any manner paired with the unholy?

At no time was the Christ EVER unholy, and therefore had no fallen nature as you desire to entice others to accept.

Simply, YAWN, still question begging your original sin view while you deny the true full human nature of Christ regardless of your attempt to make silly out of it.

My but your interpretation of that Hebrews passage is extremely childish and poor.

Your continued strawmen, question begging and insults aside, …

In Hebrews Paul delivers an inescapable message that Jesus completely identified with sinful man and the inherent liabilities that humans received at birth. By sharing in the suffering, temptations, sorrows, and pains of fallen human experience for the cause, He is able to help those who are tempted.

(Heb 2:14) Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Jesus had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. You seem to have a problem with understanding Jesus’ self-denial because of the true nature and attributes He was subjected to and therein unfortunately you reject His true humanity.

(Joh 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

But Jesus was lead by the Spirit which He had without measure. Jesus in the true human form show us the way to life.

(Rom 8:14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.




If you have never seen Jesus, in your mind's eye, facing true temptation and the inescapable pains of the fallen human experience, then you are a Docetist. Sorry…

Christ was not "born in sin" and certainly not born as a sinner.

If you disagree, then show by Scripture, Christ was born a sinner, had sinned, redeemed Himself, and was unblemished as the perfect lamb as a result of such.

For if you cannot, then it falls that your thinking is erroneous, and you by having others agreeing with your post lead them into error.

Well, I’ve come to end of your ramblings and still nothing but the continued question begging and disingenuous strawman arguments about Christ being born a sinner. It is pretty clear that is all you got and until you take away the blinders and put away your presuppositions is going to be your constant disingenuous accusations that I believe Jesus Christ was a sinner based merely on your presuppositions is all you will ever have. Nuff said…

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Not at all.
Therefore, if Christ was of a fallen nature, then He could not have been from the Father.

I said nothing about a "fallen nature", nor do I think Christ had such a thing.
"Fallen Nature" is only entering this discussion as it is part of your Theological constructs.

One cannot mix Holy with unholy.

True.
Flesh isn't "unholy".....that's Gnosticism, which is the driving force behind the Docetism which governs most of these conversations.
Christ wasn't impeccable or not because of whether or not he had the weakness of human flesh.
Flesh isn't evil. It's weak, and prone to error, but not determined to error. Your Theology insists that it is, and that is what makes you err and essentially fall adrift of the correct statements in Chalcedon.
Christ took on flesh, yet he never sinned. As you conflate them, you are forced to deny one or the other, you choose to deny the reality of his humanity.
Your error, and that of most here, is to think that flesh is inherently wicked as a property that it possesses and thus you teach a Christ who was somehow constitutionally different from humans; that he either possessed, or did not possess something which all other men do, and then you go into long Theological discourses to describe a distinction completely foreign to the simple testimony of Scripture.
All you have to do is understand that sin is not an inherited disease, and that flesh while weak and subject to corruption is not morally evil in and of itself and you won't have to entertain any of this nonsense.

7Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Jesus was referring to the Father, not himself.

What the father of liars presented was not internal temptation, but that external, as a peer might pressure one to do evil.

So, Jesus wasn't hungry as the Scriptures teach after 40 days of fasting? I deny this. I believe the thought of bread absolutely made his mouth water, and he wanted desperately to turn those rocks into bread.
He wanted that because he was a human, and was made of flesh, like any man. He took on the weakness of flesh, and yet did not sin. That's the clear and simple testimony of Scripture.

Each of the temptations Christ experienced (that we are given to know) came from outside the flesh and were pressed upon him. He was not prone to sin, prone to lust, prone to steal, prone to lie, prone to be deceitful, prone to cheat... and therefore, when presented with such "temptation," was not subjected to the ungodly drives and urges.

There is not a hint of Scripture for this, this is pure Theological Construct.

It can therefore be rightly stated that He was in all manners and ways tempted, YET without sin. For the ungodly urges that thrive in the fallen nature are not part of the holy nature of God, even God in the flesh.

Gnostic Balderdash.

He was not fallen human nature clinging to some hope of being able to overcome, redeem Himself, and become unblemished.

I agree.
I am not a Gnostic, and therefore do not speak in such terms.
I know that sin is the transgression of the law, thus an action, and not a disease.
Because of this, I am not required to deny Christ's humanity, or simply redefine and nuance it and whittle it down to a mere costume he put on over his Divine perfection as you must do.

Rather, He is "The Lord YOUR God." He is basically stating that the father of all liars has no authority over Him and no ability to even put Him to the test, for He is unblemished.

Maybe God should have had you write the Scriptures, because none of the authors of the sacred text are aware of these truths you are privy to.

“‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Again, Jesus was referencing the Father here, not himself.
You have sacrificed much digital ink on your diatribes here speaking of the natures of God and hypostases and yet twice you have failed to distinguish something so simple as whether Jesus was speaking of himself or the father.
Methinks you would do well to put away your Theology books and read the Scriptures with an open mind. You might learn something not in your Theological framework.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus did not grow in knowledge or understanding as we grow. He grew experientially. He experienced what we experience. He was not ignorant and needed to be taught as we are/do.

Scriptures state to us in Hebrews 8:5 thast he did indeed learn, as he was fully human, save no sin nature as we all have, and he did learn how to talk, to read etc !

 

[Yeshua1]

Your own bias obliges that you ignore the truth:

45Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shallf also bear the image of the man of heaven.​

It is no secrete that Christ came from heaven as the second Adam. It is poor human reasoning that would posit that He had the sin nature as the fallen Adam and not that nature that was prior to the fall.




No heresy at all is even suggested other than what you would support by your biased thinking that Christ came as a sin-filled human and had therefore to be born-again and filled with the Holy Spirit to carry out the work of the redemption.

Such is the teaching of the Christadelphians who desire to prove their view using Romans 8 as some proof.

Yet, they do not distinguish that "sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" is not the same as stating that the Son was made in sinful flesh.

Apparently you make the same mistake, too.

For all your bluster, your own bias toward a scheme you find deplorable is pressing you into accepting that which is not consistent with the Scriptures.




First, Would you like to present the Scriptures to prove your view on this matter that Christ had to overcome the sinful inner struggle of a fallen nature?

That in some manner, that according to your view, the perfect lamb of God was actually as sinful and degenerate of heart as the vilest of human hearts, and yet presentable as that final sacrifice for the human condition?

Does not Deuteronomy (as well as other passages) state that the sacrifice had to be without blemish? Are you stating that the fallen human nature is without blemish before a Holy God?

What is it that the writer of Hebrews states:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.​

But according to your view, the Christ was born blemished, continued as blemished, and by self will purged Himself to the point of being unblemished.

There is not a single type, verse, or passage that supports such thinking.

Second, the FALLEN human nature is NEVER redeemed, rather the person is redeemed and given a NEW nature. The redeemed are NEW creatures created in Christ, not some old worn out wine skin which cannot hold the riches of the new wine.





Again, He came in the LIKENESS of, but He did not come AS a fallen human that needed His own redemption.

You want to proclaim I post heretical thinking?

Seriously?

Your own posts condemn you for the very thing you would condemn others!



WHEN did God make Him sin for us? Was it at the birth or at the cross?

You would have the blind leading the blind by having Christ in some fallen nature having to self overcome that which was already defeated by sinfulness.

Or, you will have to present that Christ was Himself redeemed, and nowhere in the Scriptures are such events presented.

Your argument fails merely for the lack of Scripture support.



Pre-fallen Adam didn't have skin?????

What kept his insides in?????

Such a remark is bordering on the absurd, and to think that others actually agree with you!!!!!!!



Not "overcame" but "condemned".

Two completely different concepts in which you seem to have trouble distinguishing.

Continued response in next post.

Many seem to be having the impression that unless jesus either had a real sin nature like us, was not reall human, or that he overcome the nature to sin by not being God manifest. but by willpower doing it!

 

[agedman]

What we see here is your presupposition of pre-determined sin must have been wrong because Christ did indeed come in the true form of humanity and YET had no sin. …it’s no wonder to me that you could not see past your presuppositions but to be honest I find your attempts to hold them desperately stuck in fallacy.

What do you call it when some one who is trying to disprove you actually proves you correct by their own admission?

What was Adam BEFORE the fall?
A human made by God who had no sin?

What was Christ?

God taking on the flesh made by God who had no sin.

Just as Benjamin states it, "because Christ did indeed come in the true form of humanity and yet had no sin."


Either Christ came sinful, or without sin.

Either Christ came sinful and therefore had to redeem Himself, or He was unblemished and had no sin.

Like the first Adam prior to the fall was made as flesh and blood and without sin.

Like the first Adam prior to the fall was in full and total unhindered fellowship with the Father.

Like the first Adam prior to the fall not needing redemption.

It must just be too simple and logical.

Benjamin's perms fails, and therefore the rest is frankly unworthy of my time.

He fails because of this thinking presented:

“Christ, in assuming the fallen nature did not commit sin nor did He ever act in a sinful way through his fallen nature. IMAGINE THAT!! Jesus had free will and a sin nature, yet no sin… makes the Determinists’ head spin, doesn’t it?! “​

Christ had no "sin nature." Could not, for the Holy cannot ever mix with unholy and Christ was not a mixture of sinfulness and holiness.

Fact - one cannot have a "fallen nature" and not commit sin. 1 John makes that clear.

Rather, the nature of Christ was as the first Adam prior to the fall. "I and the Father are one..." John 10.

"If you have seen me you have seen the Father..." John 14

The Word that created and holds all things in existence is perfect. For it IS God. "

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

"14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
​

Benjamin cannot admit to that fact, but must present what is inconsistent because his own bias toward "Determinists'" thinking obliges such.

Yet, the issue was never about "Determinists'" thinking, but what the Scriptures teach in fact and principle.

I have given a few statements from Scriptures that show that Christ did not come as a fallen nature who had to combat sinful desires of the flesh as all fallen creatures must do. But came in flesh and blood as the "First Adam YET WITHOUT SIN" which was certainly not the case following Adam's decision to eat that which was forbidden.

Therefore, Christ came as the "First Adam" prior to the fall.

That is not "Determinists'" thinking.

That is the truth of Scriptures.