The history of how Sunday 'worship' came about.

[Jaime]

I don't believe Christ sinned. I believe he was 100% God and 100% man. I don't comprehend that but that is what I understand the Bible to have taight. I believe Jesus faced the temptations of the Devil and the pain of the cross as an exceptionally empowered human. How he managed being both and yet separate, I have no idea. It gives me comfort and encouragement as a Holy Spirit indwelt human myself to know he could and did put aside or emptied himself of his Godness and came to earth to live as a man - A sinless man. He was both Son of Man AND Son of God.

This is my understanding even if it isn't eloquent. 

[Cathlodox]

I don't believe Christ sinned. I believe he was 100% God and 100% man. I don't comprehend that but that is what I understand the Bible to have taight. I believe Jesus faced the temptations of the Devil and the pain of the cross as an exceptionally empowered human. How he managed being both and yet separate, I have no idea. It gives me comfort and encouragement as a Holy Spirit indwelt human myself to know he could and did put aside or emptied himself of his Godness and came to earth to live as a man - A sinless man. He was both Son of Man AND Son of God.

This is my understanding even if it isn't eloquent. 

Do you believe that Lucifer could tempt The Father and that there would be a possibility (no matter how small) that the Father could succumb to Lucifer's temptation?

I see on the informational link about Messianic Judaism that MJ's believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirits are "parts" of God. Did I read that right?

[Jaime]

I think some do and some don't. I thought the link I posted mentioned that.

In my way of thinking, wouldn't Lucifer have known Jesus had the "capacity" of succumbing to temptation or not and  not wasted his time on a futile task? I believe Jeaus faced the temptations in his holy Spirit empowered humanity. Laying aside, keeping aside somehow his Godness. Lucifer knew he was Son of Man and Son of God presumably.

[Cathlodox]

I think some do and some don't. I thought the link I posted mentioned that.

In my way of thinking, wouldn't Lucifer have known Jesus had the "capacity" of succumbing to temptation or not and  not wasted his time on a futile task? I believe Jeaus faced the temptations in his holy Spirit empowered humanity. Laying aside, keeping aside somehow his Godness. Lucifer knew he was Son of Man and Son of God presumably.

Jesus was tempted by or of the Devil for the same reason He was born of a virgin, was called out of Egypt, healed the sick, raised the dead, etc.

Jesus did all these things (to include being sinless) because "HE HAD TO" and the Scriptures could not be broken.

Making up a hypothetical that Jesus must have been able to sin otherwise Satan wouldn't have wasted his time on temptation would be like saying there was a possibility that The Christ could have been born of a Greek prostitute after a long hard weekend of servicing Roman soldiers. What percentage chance do you think there could be of that happening?

Jesus "could have been" bitten by a poisonous serpent while walking and "could have died" from being envenomated. What would have been the chances of that happening?

 

[Jaime]

So Jesus was tempted in his divine state and endured the cross in his divine state? I don't think so. There would be nothing incredible anout his God-ness fending off Satan or his enduring the cross in his God-ness. He did both as a Holy Spirit indwelt man as an example of the what we can be if we utilize the Spirit. Jesus turned off his godness some how for both in My opinion. Yes he HAD to accomplish both per the scriptures. He did so as a holy spirit indwelt, sinless son of man. Not as the all powerful son of God. Which would be more incredible to YOU? The being who emptied his Godness and became human or the full blown 100% God being in full God mode? Be had jis God nature intact in both. But I believe be answered both with only his human aspect or nature. And no I still don't understand something I can't adequately verbalize admittedly.

I think this link expresses it better than I did:

https://hanfordsentinel.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/how-did-jesus-resist-temptation-tim-dinkins/article_9c5e58a6-e81c-5816-9d80-660dc0f1f936.html#:~:text=It%20is%20important%20to%20remember,resounding%20defeat%20of%20the%20enemy.

[Cathlodox]

Jaime said: So Jesus was tempted in his divine state and endured the cross in his divine state? I don't think so.

Trinitarian 101 is that God became man without ceasing to be God. There wasn't a human Jesus and a Divine Jesus - Jesus was a Person with a Divine Nature and a Human Nature perfectly united.

Jaime said: There would be nothing incredible anout his God-ness fending off Satan or his enduring the cross in his God-ness.

God Almighty (who cannot lie) revealed through the Old Testament Prophets that He would Himself come and save - there was no possibility of error or failure.

Luke 24, 25
He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"  And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 24, 44
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.  He told them, "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,  and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Affirming that Christ is "part of God" or it was possible that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation is simply one out of many ways to deny the Trinity Doctrine. It's as simple as that and proves prophecy is fulfilled in that there would be many who preach "false Christs".

Jesus was explicit that He was God Almighty AND that His (Jesus') words would NEVER FAIL. There are over 100 explicit examples in the Gospels alone where Jesus's own words say what was going to happen ultimately. Non-Trinitarians always attempt to introduce the question of assurance of Christ's victory prior to His death and resurrection. Scripture warns that such folks are indeed preaching another Christ. 

[Jaime]

Look at the link I posted.

And Jesus' Godness as I stated a d his humaness means his two natures. In learly said Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. I don't totally understand it, but i do understand he resisted Satan's temptations by relying on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as a sinless man.

The link in my previous post says it better than me.

[Cathlodox]

Look at the link I posted.

And Jesus' Godness as I stated a d his humaness means his two natures. In learly said Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. I don't totally understand it, but i do understand he resisted Satan's temptations by relying on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as a sinless man.

The link in my previous post says it better than me.

I'm focusing on your stating that there was a "potential" of Christ sinning - do I understand that you are saying that there was no potential of Christ sinning?

[Jaime]

He was 100% human. In addition to 100% God. He leaned on the Holy Spirit as a human AND God's  word to stifle the temptation. So without the Holy Spirit yes he "could have" been overcome just like any human or he wasn't, well.....human as scripture said he was when he emptied himself. His other  nature would not have assisted him in my understanding or he could have just come as 100% God alone. But of course he didn't. If he used his Godness at all, he couldn't be tempted as we are.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

He didn't cut corners  and use his God nature in my opinion.

[Jaime]

We need other wiser input here even if it disagrees with me. Come on guys and gals!

[Cathlodox]

He was 100% human. In addition to 100% God. He leaned on the Holy Spirit as a human AND God's  word to stifle the temptation. So without the Holy Spirit yes he "could have" been overcome just like any human or he wasn't, well.....human as scripture said he was when he emptied himself. His other  nature would not have assisted him in my understanding or he could have just come as 100% God alone. But of course he didn't. If he used his Godness at all, he couldn't be tempted as we are.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

He didn't cut corners  and use his God nature in my opinion.

Christ was like us in all ways EXCEPT for sin.

For YOU to be tempted within yourself you must first YEARN or LUST internally for the sin. If you are a heterosexual and a gay man tempts you to bugger him you will be repulsed by the idea and while it's true to say a gay man tempted Jamie, Jamie was not tempted within himself to get buggered by the gay man because Jamie didn't yearn or desire to be buggered.

This is all spelled out most excellently in James 1, 13-15

Jeus said His words would never fail and said other things like He "ALWAYS DID THE WILL OF HIS FATHER", combine this with Scripture saying there was no sin in him (which would include the unborn sin James 1, 13 describes) and you have zero possibility that Christ could have failed.

Of course some would rather introduce this possibility because they have a 19th century "prophet" that said He could have sinned and fallen.

I'm thinking not. 

 

[Jaime]

The James passage talkes ankit Hod cannot be tempted. Nesus was a dual natire being and those natires did not overlap.

Jesus was human  every way AS a human via his human nature. Not every human is tempted by the same things. Unless Jesus used a divine shortcut he was tempted in everyway we are as the human he was, His divine nature changes EVERYTHING. If Jesus' divine nature and capabilities overlapped his human nature and capabilities he wS not fully himan as  spelled out very well in the Hebrews 4 verse I quoted.

Do you say Jesus accessed his Human AND divine capabilities and tendancies simultaneously.  I would strongly disagree. Him choosing his human nature to respond with in  no way nullified his Divine nature. To me, this is the only way to remotely make sense of our conclusion that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine.  Which is mathematically impossible.

He didn't sin in his human  nature because of his demonstrated reliance on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. THE perfect example and demonstration FOR our benefit.

If he had more in his human tool belt that we have  in oir hima. Tool belts,  he was not tempted in everyway that we are. With two opposing natures, he must have had an internal toggle switch of some kind between his two natures.

[Cathlodox]

Jaime said: Jesus was human  every way AS a human via his human nature.

Yes, He was like us in all ways EXCEPT for sin.
 

Jamie said: Not every human is tempted by the same things. 

That's right and exactly my point - Even God the Father was "tempted" by or of the Children of Israel in an external sense. What I'm saying is that for a man to be tempted within himself he 1st must yearn or lust for the sin. What sin is it that you maintain that Jesus lusted or yearned to commit so that it could be said Jesus resisted His yearning or lust to go through with it?

Jamie said: Unless Jesus used a divine shortcut henwas tempted in everyway we are as the human he was, sams the divine nature. It changes EVERYTHING if Jesus divine nature and capabilities overlapped his human nature and capabilities. This is spelled out very well in the Hebrews 4 verse I quoted.

Hebrews 4 says nothing of Jesus lusting or yearning to sin and if you check your Strong's and look up the word in question you'll find it has to do with "frailty" of the human body - meaning that Jesus caught colds, got sick, felt tired, hungry, thirsty, etc. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a moral degeneracy. Adventist groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA's and Christadelphians always push Hebrews 4 in this direction but it's an Arian rubric as the Greek is very clear.

Strong's G769 - astheneia
want of strength, weakness, infirmity

of the body

its native weakness and frailty

feebleness of health or sickness

The text says:
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Christ felt EVERY pain and weakness we feel related to our infirmities - He was TESTED as much and more than we are and still He was without sin. This is the meaning here.

Adventist groups always divorce the tempted part of this text away from it's context (infirmities of our bodies). This is necessary for them to do to support Arianism teaching that Jesus wasn't God Almighty. I was unaware that Messianic Jews had the same teaching.

Jamie said: Do you say Jesus accessed his Human AND divine capabilities and tendancies simultaneously.  I would strongly disagree. Him choosing his human nature to respond with in  no way nullified his Divine nature. To me, this is the only way to remotely make sense of our conclusion that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine.  Which is mathematically impossible.

Jesus was a Person with two natures, not two persons with two natures operating independently of each other. Again, this concept is Adventist Doctrine and contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Jamie said: He didn't sin in his human  nature because of his demonstrated reliance on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. THE perfect example and demonstration FOR our benefit.

This again is spot on Adventist Doctrine, it can be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and SDA Traditions. I'm curious Jamie, did you come from an Adventist background? The reason I ask is that this concept is alien in Protestant Faith Traditions and is only found in "Restorationist" Traditions hailing from the 19th century. I'd be interested in knowing if this is standard Messianic doctrine?

I do appreciate you talking to me about this as I've not had the chance to learn about Messianic Judaism - it seems like a very recent faith tradition .

[Jaime]

You are wrong. What I have described is in scripture as I pointed out. I know it goes against your Catholic dogma, which is incorrect as to scripture. I have said over and over again it is two natures of Jesus. I guess you believe the two natures overlap which in affect means the only nature that counts in the Catholic dogma is the God nature because an extraordinarily empowered human is not a human as we are and cannot be tempted just as we are in everything we are. The two NATURES MUST be and HAVE TO BE separate and be able to be toggled in and out of somehow at Jesus's will. I don't know the manner that happens, just that it DOES somehow. 100% man and 100% God's Word makes no sense otherwise and JESUS has no possibility of being tempted as we are in EVERY way WITHOUT that.

Jesus's human nature was tempted in the wilderness in EVERY way we are and he overcame because of his reliance on the holy Spirit and the word of God. His  God nature cannot be tempted as you have said per the book of James and I agree. That is why his God nature being tested or tempted would have never been at issue of failing or actually tested because it was his HUMAN nature that was tested or tempted and he overcame, NOT with human strength but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. This is significant to US. Something we have access to but never fully lean into as the human nature of Jesus did as our example for OUR natures as humans. Jesus did all his mIracles via his human nature empowered by the Holy Spirit. Why do I say that, you ask?! Because when the Pharisees said he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebub, he responded to them by saying you can speak against the son of man (the human) but it is unforgiveable to blaspheme the Holy Spirit! The very power of his miracles, not his God nature. Undoubtedly his God nature COULD HAVE performed the miracles, but Jesus himself indicated  it was by the power of the Holy Spirit per Mathew 22.

I do appreciate the discussion back and forth. Though it seems you never hear what I'm saying really. If I am disagreeing with Catholic dogma, what I say is meaningless to you and that is sad. Catholic dogma is not infallible when tested against sscriptures as I have done. Many many Christians believe this the way I do as I showed in a link written by a pastor from an evangelical Bible Church, not one of MY tribesmen so to speak, and not an SDA or a Jenovah's Witness

Once again, i have said Jesus had two natures, and they don't overlap. The only way scripture works and Jesus is tempted as we are in EVERY WAY.

To answer one of yoir questions, "did I come from an SDA background?" No I did not. I know nothing of what SDA's believe except as their name indicates they hold to the 7th day Sabbath. I came from a Church of Christ background. We have been accused of being steeped in Catholic dogma mostly for our baptism beliefs, I THINK. I respect Catholics but disagree a lot with Catholics apparently from my discussions with some of them. Could be some common ground with baptism apparently, but I personally don't think that is even so. I DO know my faith is strengthened by these discussions. They rarely change minds immediately though but I think the back and forth pushing us  to test ourselves against scripture and maybe our beliefs we THINK we are comfortable. The very essence of iron sharpening iron. The friction, the rub so to speak is where we learn, as our beliefs are tested. I love that. I know since I have been here on this forum, I have mellowed a lot of my Chirch of Christ dogma, and some  I realized I didn't have a very strong leg to stand on even though it came from generations back. I have talked to others here that have experienced similar things. And others, not so much at least to my perception.  Being labeled with a high sounding heresy label means nothing to me, and is nothing new to me. And being counter to Catholic dogma is not new to me or phases me whatsoever. Us cofc-ers  seem to  migrste to and like being a peculiar people (inside joke). But I hope we can have other discussions in the future. If not that's OK too.

[Cathlodox]

Jamie said: You are wrong. What I have described is in scripture as I pointed out. I know it goes against your Catholic dogma, which is incorrect as to scripture. I have said over and over again it is two natures of Jesus. I guess you believe the two natures overlap which in affect means the only nature that counts in the Catholic dogma is the God nature because an extraordinarily empowered human is not a human as we are and cannot be tempted just as we are in everything we are. The two NATURES MUST be and HAVE TO BE separate and be able to be toggled in and out of somehow at Jesus's will. I don't know the manner that happens, just that it DOES somehow. 100% man and 100% God's Word makes no sense otherwise and JESUS has no possibility of being tempted as we are in EVERY way WITHOUT that.

Than you are also saying that the Methodist, Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox Churches also follow false dogma.
It would have been easier for you to just say that you didn't believe in the Trinity Doctrine at the beginning and were Adventist in your view of the Godhead. Helps explain why you are here.

Jamie said:  do appreciate the discussion back and forth. Though it seems you never hear what I'm saying really. If I am disagreeing with Catholic dogma, what I say is meaningless to you and that is sad. Catholic dogma is not infallible when tested against sscriptures as I have done. Many many Christians believe this the way I do as I showed in a link written by a pastor from an evangelical Bible Church, not one of MY tribesmen so to speak, and not an SDA or a Jenovah's Witness

Evangelical Christians subscribe to the same Trinity Doctrine that Baptists and Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans and the Reformed Churches do. Not sure where you got the idea that Evangelicals don't accept the Nicene Creed as a systemization of Scripture??? Only the "Restorationist" movements reject the Trinity - the Mormons, Adventist groups and evidently the 1 Evangelical body you were formally a member of.

Jamie said: Once again, i have said Jesus had two natures, and they don't overlap. The only way scripture works and Jesus is tempted as we are in EVERY WAY.

Once again you are not hearing me - I acknowledge that Jesus had two natures AND that Jesus was tempted / tested "BY" or "OF" the Devil. What I'm saying to qualify that is that Jesus WASN'T tempted within Himself - Jesus didn't YEARN or LUST for sin like you and I do. THAT is what I'm saying. I'm saying that Jesus wasn't fighting the urges to steal, commit murder, sleep with someone else's wife, have gay sex, etc.

Scripture describes the mechanism by which we are tempted, we first must LUST or YEARN for the sin - this is how we are "led astray". Additionally the Hebrews Scripture qualifies what it's talking about - it's talking about the infirmities of the Body - it's saying that Jesus suffered from everything we suffer from EXCEPT lusting or yearning for sin.

Of course I'm happy to talk with you and hope to continue to do so - in the end it's God that saves and I don't believe for a second that you have to formally accept Catholicism to be saved.

I just looked up the Church of Christ and see that they do believe in the Adventist Godhead, they believe in 3 Beings who are united in one purpose and are of one character. See - I learned something!!!

[Texas Conservative]

What "Church of Christ" did you look up?  Jaime's version is probably not the one you looked up.

[4WD]

I just looked up the Church of Christ and see that they do believe in the Adventist Godhead, they believe in 3 Beings who are united in one purpose and are of one character. See - I learned something!!!

Am I missing something here?  Does not Catholicism profess God to be three beings in one -  God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

[Jaime]

Cathlodox, since we both don't  apparently hear each other, I don't see any point in continuing dialoguing with each other. Best wishes to you.

[Cathlodox]

Cathlodox, since we both don't  apparently hear each other, I don't see any point in continuing dialoguing with each other. Best wishes to you.

Best wishes to you as well. May God see us both in His Kingdom.

[Cathlodox]

Am I missing something here?  Does not Catholicism profess God to be three beings in one -  God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

Catholicism, as does Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed Churches insist God is ONE BEING which has an indwelling of three co-equal Persons.

Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and all Protestant Faith Traditions are united in this Doctrine. Restorationist Churches such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and SDA's teach that the early church soon became corrupted and needed to be restored - thus Martin Luther, while brave was simply blowing lucifers trumpet - he was teaching the wine of Babylon with advocating the Nicene Creed. Same with John Calvin - trumpet of Lucifer.

Sabbath Herald
"The doctrine of the Trinity WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CHURCH BY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush." (vol. 6, no. 24, page 185)

The SDA Doctrine is 3 Beings and the ONLY truly immortal Being is Flesh Father.

Michael the archangel (AKA Christ) could have sinned, failed & ceased to exist.

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ', paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

The teaching that God has 3 "parts", ie. is three Beings is incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity. Let alone the teaching that 1 or more of the parts could eternally cease to exist and become as if they never existed. This is simply Arianism.

[Amo]

Some people just cannot take scripture for what it plainly states. Without placing into a box of their own understanding. Even in relation to God Himself, as though He were limited by their or our understanding.

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; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 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. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

We do not have to perfectly understand how this could be, but we are admonished to believe. To have faith in God's word, which we have been assured, is the truth.

[Jaime]

I agree Amo. If it was 't possible for Jesus to succumb to temptation, how could he be tempted? And especially tempted in every WAY we are. I trust he was tempted in every way we are, and that he (his human nature) remained sinless by the power of the Holy Spirit and the reliance on God's word. Possibly that is an object lesson for us!

[Cathlodox]

Amo said: We do not have to perfectly understand how this could be, but we are admonished to believe. To have faith in God's word, which we have been assured, is the truth.

All SDA's have to understand in this area is that if Scripture says it was impossible for The Christ to sin, loose His Salvation and eternally cease to exist as if He never existed in the first place and Ellen White says IT WAS POSSIBLE for Christ to sin and cease to exist than you must go with Ellen on this regardless if Christ, The Holy Spirit, the Apostles themselves and every Christian they shared the Book of Hebrews with would have considered the SDA view heretical.

[4WD]

All SDA's have to understand in this area is that if Scripture says it was impossible for The Christ to sin, loose His Salvation and eternally cease to exist as if He never existed in the first place and Ellen White says IT WAS POSSIBLE for Christ to sin and cease to exist than you must go with Ellen on this regardless if Christ, The Holy Spirit, the Apostles themselves and every Christian they shared the Book of Hebrews with would have considered the SDA view heretical.

I am definitely not SDA, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that it was impossible for the man, Jesus Christ, to sin.  It says that He didn't sin.  That is not the same thing.

[Rella]

I am definitely not SDA, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that it was impossible for the man, Jesus Christ, to sin.  It says that He didn't sin.  That is not the same thing.

100% correct

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I am definitely not SDA, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that it was impossible for the man, Jesus Christ, to sin.  It says that He didn't sin.  That is not the same thing.

Ok, so Scripture doesn't answer that question.

But it's still a question, isn't it?

Is God capable of sin?  I'd lean towards no.
Was Jesus God?  Yes.

If those answers are right, the logical syllogism would be that Jesus couldn't sin.

[Jaime]

Jesus had some divine help. Not HIS divine nature, but he fully leaned on the Holy Spirit from his human nature. For his God nature he was incapable of sin. With only his human nature he was capable of sinning, but didn't BECAUSE OF help of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. I see no indication of Jesus' two natures overlapping especially to be our high priest tempted in EVERY WAY we are.

Now if we are talking about Jesus being 50% man and 50% God, maybe so, but 100% God and 100% man, his man nature would have to be exactly like ours according to scripture.

If his God nature could intervene on his human side, Jesus was simply a Super human equipped infinitely beyond us to withstand temptation.

Satan would have to have known which nature he was working against. No hope against his God nature. Maybe some hope against his human nature, but didn't count on the human Jesus leaning on the Holy Spirit.

[Texas Conservative]

I generally think the discussion of whether or not Jesus could sin and be God stupid.  Jesus didn't sin.  End of story. 

Speculation about what if scenarios just doesn't make any sense.

[Jaime]

Yes, Jesus didn't sin...... BY the power of the Holy Spirit. Same scenario with his miracles. He was accused of doing his miracles by the power of Beelzebub by the Pharisees. He told the Pharisees that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.  The value of the temptation issue is relevant only  to how Jesus' two natures worked.

[Cathlodox]

I generally think the discussion of whether or not Jesus could sin and be God stupid.  Jesus didn't sin.  End of story. 

Speculation about what if scenarios just doesn't make any sense.

When God tells you that there is to be no speculation on this question hypothesizing that there could have been is really saying something. 

[Jaime]

There is no reason for a question other than God's word says Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, SO If no sin was possible, how was he tempted as we are?  THAT is the question left hanging, in my opinion. I take seriously the fact that he was tempted as we are and a great encouragement as he overcame the temptation by the power of the Holy Spirit and the sword of the spirit, God's word - ALL in his human nature. I think this is hugely important, not just a point of trivia. What better example do we have to wage our battles against Satan than to fully utilize our helper, the indwelled Holy Spirit and how to weild the Sword of the Spirit (God's Word)

[Cathlodox]

There is no reason for a question other than God's word says Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, SO If no sin was possible, how was he tempted as we are?  THAT is the question left hanging, in my opinion. I take seriously the fact that he was tempted as we are and a great encouragement as he overcame the temptation by the power of the Holy Spirit and the sword of the spirit, God's word - ALL in his human nature. I think this is hugely important, not just a point of trivia. What better example do we have to wage our battles against Satan than to fully utilize our helper, the indwelled Holy Spirit and how to weild the Sword of the Spirit (God's Word)

That's my point Jamie, God's Word explicitly said Christ would NOT SIN. Restorationist groups such as the SDA's, Jehovah's witnesses and a few others repudiate God's word by affirming God didn't know what He was talking about.

#1
Isaiah 46, 9-10 says that God knows the end from the beginning - this means God literally knows EVERYTHING before it happens.

#2
Daniel 2, 44 -45
Zephaniah 3, 5
Isaiah 35, 4
Isaiah 55, 10-11
Job 42, 2
Isaiah 14, 24
Psalm 33, 8
Psalm 102, 12

The way this breaks down is that God (who knows the end from the Beginning) clearly said back in Daniel 2, 44-45 that it was certain the Christ would succeed. In fact the text said the Great God of Heaven said this. 

Isaiah 35, 4 explicitly states that God Himself was going to be the one that would come and save us. Jesus confirms that this text in Isaiah was referring to Him. Here is where He said it.

Luke 7, 19
And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

So, Jesus was speaking to devout Jews who knew the Jewish Scriptures and there was zero doubt here that Jesus identified Himself as the subject of Isaiah 35, WHO IS GOD ALMIGHTY.

The next question Arians need to ask themselves is IF God's word is REALLY reliable OR is God's word and existence "conditional". Nicene Christians have to answer that God's word is FINAL and ETERNAL.

Isaiah 42, 4
He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law

Zeph 3, 5
The just Lord is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame

Isaiah 55, 11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Isaiah 14, 24
The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

Psalm 119, 89
For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Proverbs 19, 21
There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand.

Those are just a few of Scriptures that speak to how reliable God's Word is.

Now, Jesus was explicit that EVERYTHING written about Him in the Old Testament HAD TO HAPPEN.

Luke 24, 44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The Old Testament Scriptures said

2nd Chron 19,7
Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts

Psalm 22, 31
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

These are just a fraction of the Scriptures that Jesus said HAD TO BE FULFILLED BY HIM. Jesus says in Matthew 24, 35 & Mark 13, 31 that His Words WILL NEVER FAIL OR PASS AWAY yet Arians claim that Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED and fell prey to Lucifer's temptations which default into Jesus' words BEING FALSE had that happened. This sort of hypothetical Jesus IS NOT THE CHRIST of Sacred Scripture, it's another Christ. Flat out.

Arians intentionally misinterpret Hebrews 4 to allow for a peccable Christ because their doctrine demands / requires it - it's the go-to way to emasculate Christ and make no mistake this is exactly the intention.

Listen to arian logic contained in this thread.

The Bible says that Jesus was tempted and that has to mean He could have sinned, fell and eternally ceased to exist.

What a clownish and satanic thing to say - The Bible says that God was tempted by the Israelites

1st Corinthians 10, 9
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

So Christ (God) was tempted by the Children of Israel - could God have failed to resist their temptation thereby invalidating ALL THE SCRIPTURES that said this hypothetical was eternally impossible???

Here is a hint, if you are going to make up a doctrine make sure that it can pass even the most basic infantile Biblical test! I can assure you that any Doctrine that asserts God is "CONDITIONAL" on God meeting requirements is not the God of Scripture, it's a false God.









 

[Jaime]

No, it says he did not sin. Big difference as 4WD pointed out.

It wasn't MY doctrine. God's word said he was tempted in EVERY WAY we were. If he faced the temptstions with any powers we don't have it wasn't as we are tempted. He leaned into the Holy Spirit as we have available, and on God's word as we have available.

Cathlodox, it is again futile for us to dialogue. Please address others if you must.  I will refrain from replying directly or indirectly to you.

[Texas Conservative]

No, it says he did not sin. Big difference as 4WD pointed out.

It wasn't MY doctrine. God's word said he was tempted in EVERY WAY we were. If he faced the temptstions with any powers we don't have it wasn't as we are tempted. He leaned into the Holy Spirit as we have available, and on God's word as we have available.

Cathlodox, it is again futile for us to dialogue. Please address others if you must.  I will refrain from replying directly or indirectly to you.

Sounds like putting God in a box.  I prefer to realize there are some things I cannot fully understand.

Since it says Jesus did not sin, that is where I draw my line.

Speculation on whether Jesus was peccable or impeccable while on earth in His 33 years is just not fruitful. 

[4WD]

That's my point Jamie, God's Word explicitly said Christ would NOT SIN. Restorationist groups such as the SDA's, Jehovah's witnesses and a few others repudiate God's word by affirming God didn't know what He was talking about.

I think you are making a common mistake here.  Yes, God's foreknowledge in this case is real.  He knew that Jesus would not sin.  And that was absolute; it was certain.  But it was not certain because God knew ahead of time that He would not sin.  It was certain because Jesus made the choice to not sin.  God foreknew Jesus' choice not to sin.  God's foreknowledge is not causative. The failure to understand that is one the Calvinists make and it is disastrous.  They make the mistake of thinking God's foreknowledge and predestination are essentially equivalent.  That is false.

Therefore, all of your references showing that God knew that Jesus would not sin does not negate Jesus' ability to choose not to sin. It does not change the fact that Jesus could have sinned but He didn't.