|
Post by déjà vu on Sept 30, 2012 21:23:55 GMT -5
I believe we had this discussion before on here I can't remember the various opinion's.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 30, 2012 21:25:16 GMT -5
I believe we had this discussion before on here I can't remember what the consensus was, Consensus? ;D
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Sept 30, 2012 21:40:52 GMT -5
poor choice of word I will correct it
|
|
|
Post by guitar on Sept 30, 2012 21:45:23 GMT -5
Yes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 3:08:50 GMT -5
Who defines sin? Sin is a somewhat fuzzy concept.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 1, 2012 5:09:07 GMT -5
Who defines sin? Sin is a somewhat fuzzy concept. If sin is disobedience as most denominations define it then I would say no. ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 6:45:40 GMT -5
Who defines sin? Sin is a somewhat fuzzy concept. If sin is disobedience as most denominations define it then I would say no. ken Some definitions of sin is: transgression, against devine law or principles of morality etc. I would say no too especially as Jesus was held to be perfect- The Perfect One.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 6:55:36 GMT -5
I believe we had this discussion before on here I can't remember what the consensus was, Consensus? ;D Consensus of opinion was???
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 1, 2012 11:17:12 GMT -5
Jesus was a Jew and he fulfilled the Jewish law perfectly.
I suggest that for Jesus to sin would mean that he didnt follow the/some of the Mosaic laws.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2012 11:31:30 GMT -5
Jesus was a Jew and he fulfilled the Jewish law perfectly. I suggest that for Jesus to sin would mean that he didnt follow the/some of the Mosaic laws. Well, I would suppose that since the Son of God who was the Creator and who had let Moses see only His backside and was the author of the Mosaic law...we would surely expect Him to be keeper of the Mosaic law for He formulated it. Also as some have thought, that though Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, that He would NOT have caved into that temptation...His time with Satan and His answers against Satan's use of thescripture...Jesus beat Satan at Satan's own game....but being as Jesus is the Word that took on flesh and dwelt among us, that would mean that the Word is God and Jesus' 100 percent God part would not allow His 100 percent human part to cave in to temptation and sin.....
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 1, 2012 13:12:29 GMT -5
Hebrews 4:15 (KJV) 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.
Just curious if anyone knows of any other verse in the NT that conveys this same message?
Off hand, I cant think of any--but...maybe someone else can.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 1, 2012 14:50:36 GMT -5
If it was not possible for Jesus to sin, then wouldn't it make the temptation in the wilderness a pointless exercise?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 1, 2012 15:01:19 GMT -5
The last verse of Hebrews 2 refers to Christ having suffered temptation.
If he couldn't be tempted, why would it be considered "suffering"?
.................... ............... ...................... ..................... ..................
Hebrews 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.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 1, 2012 15:01:35 GMT -5
If it was not possible for Jesus to sin, then wouldn't it make the temptation in the wilderness a pointless exercise? Good point! I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for Jesus to mess up. I don't really see 'messing up' as sin though.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 1, 2012 15:03:21 GMT -5
Clearly, God cannot be tempted.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Oct 1, 2012 15:14:40 GMT -5
Overall Jesus could sin. As God he could not sin. As man he could sin, but had tremendous willpower in submission to his God part, but not (ab)using his God part.
You have to trust that Jesus never used his God part in being sinless or overcoming the world or overcoming temptation. Pure willpower. Pure submission.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 1, 2012 15:26:16 GMT -5
No, Jesus could not sin. He disobeyed the OT law, but that was no longer a sin, because Jesus brought a new law, as promised by the prophets and as expected of the Messiah. As a result, "sin" now means doing that which Jesus doesn't approve of...Jesus is the new law, the new standard.
So, if Jesus had danced naked in the street, we'd all be frolicking around sinlessly in our birthday suits.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 1, 2012 18:03:25 GMT -5
The last verse of Hebrews 2 refers to Christ having suffered temptation. If he couldn't be tempted, why would it be considered "suffering"? .................... ............... ...................... ..................... .................. Hebrews 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. Thanks, JO. If he was like his brethren (believers) in ALL things, then if he could not have sinned, neither can we! Hebrews also says he learned obedience through suffering. Disobedience is one aspect of sin.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2012 18:34:17 GMT -5
If it was not possible for Jesus to sin, then wouldn't it make the temptation in the wilderness a pointless exercise? Do you not have temptations and yes, even real strong ones that you do not allow yourself to indulge in? If so what is the pointless exercise in that? JO, we prove ourselves when we do not allow our temptations to overcome us, but we overcfome them. However, Jesus' temptations were not for His benefit any more then His human birth was for His benefit....it was all for the sinners' benefit....the kingdom of Heaven was at hand....salvation knocks on the door....
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2012 18:38:24 GMT -5
The last verse of Hebrews 2 refers to Christ having suffered temptation. If he couldn't be tempted, why would it be considered "suffering"? .................... ............... ...................... ..................... .................. Hebrews 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. Again temptations are NOT sin, JO...it's the caving in to them that is the sin. His temptations as we read after His baptism, did He cave into those temptations? I don't believe He did, Satan used scripture to tempt Him, and He used scriptures to deny those temptations.... Jesus' temptations were NOT for His benefit, Nor even His human birth was for His benefit...His temptations made Him a perfect chief priest in which He can intercede on our part because He knows how it feels to be tempted....but being tempted DOES NOT mean a person has sinned just to have the temptations....it's the caving in to the temptations that are the sins....didn't Jesus say repeated to the seven churches in Revs. to "overcome"...isn't that what disregarding severe temptation would be called "overcoming"?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2012 18:48:39 GMT -5
The last verse of Hebrews 2 refers to Christ having suffered temptation. If he couldn't be tempted, why would it be considered "suffering"? .................... ............... ...................... ..................... .................. Hebrews 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. Thanks, JO. If he was like his brethren (believers) in ALL things, then if he could not have sinned, neither can we! Hebrews also says he learned obedience through suffering. Disobedience is one aspect of sin. Emy, you and JO both need to go read Jesus' temptations that Satan had tempted Him with....DID He cave in to those temptations? What was the purpose of Him being tempted. Consider carefully before anyone declares that Jesus was tempted and partook of those temptations because that would be against what the scripture plainly says....it only says that He was tempted in all points as we are....can you not see that within the account after Jesus' baptism, that Satan was tempting Jesus in "all points as we are"....and the bible is explicit that Satan did not tempt Him any more for along time....the nexct time we read of His responses to what was going on in His life is His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane....there we read of His strongest temptation there....He prayed that this cup He was facing might pass from Him....but then He cried that His Father's Will be done.....He had to Pray this horrible heartwrenching prayer 3 times and as it also mentions I think in Hebs. that it was heard that HE FEARED during that time and He WAS made perfect through this suffering..... We cannot honestly say Jesus sinned and it wasn't because of changed laws at all for He said that all the law would be kept UNTIL THE EARTH PASSES AWAY> the earth hasn't passed away yet. The pupose of Jesus' temptations was His suffering in His human body made His body perfect so that His bodily sacrifice on the cross would not be in vain...it was so that His perfect human blood cleanses the believers/repenters from sin and His "perfectr body" of rightreousness becomes ours when we appear before God. Does not this make more sense then to take it as Jesus could be tempted and He did sin? That to me is pure danger to think that. Because then you've declared that Jesus died in vain...His sacrifice will not cleanse you and bring you before God with Jesus' righteousness NOT yours. Plus you're forgetting that He had the Holy Spirit in FULL measure as it states in John's gospel...thus the Holy Spirit would keep Him from caving in to temptation...... would we not take a chance of blaspheming the Holy Spirit in saying Jesus sinned like we do?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 1, 2012 18:55:28 GMT -5
The last verse of Hebrews 2 refers to Christ having suffered temptation. If he couldn't be tempted, why would it be considered "suffering"? .................... ............... ...................... ..................... .................. Hebrews 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. JO, you've kept confusing "tempted" as being "sin" to start with...Jesus was tempted by Satan was He not? Did He sin in that accounting?" Was He not tempted in "all points as we are" in that very accounting. It isn't wrong to be tempted, it is sinful to cave in to that temptations. NO ONE is saying Jesus couldn't be tempted, we're saying He didn't cave in to that temptation and that would have been the sin. JO, do you not understand that in order for Jesus to be the one who hangs all our of sins on the cross and we then are cleanse through His spilled perfect blood and we are given His righteousness, not our own, so that we appear before God as "without sin".....think deepr JO, and be careful what you say what Jesus did that was wrong...for He had the Holy Spirit IN FULL MEASURE and thus it might just be saying something that would blasphem the Holy Spirit....
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 1, 2012 20:06:38 GMT -5
Wasn't this what "Truitt's Doctrine" (Truitt Oyler) was all about? That Jesus could not sin?
Truitt and his brother Walter and John Starkweather and some other workers along with Truitt's family and friends who believed this were put out of the work and out of meetings period? Some serious discipline went on in Montana, and also in Texas/Louisiana to John S, who was the Texas overseer. Similar to Propp's purging in Alberta...
Posted by Paul Abenroth on the Professing Message Board, 1/25/03 re Truitt & Walter Oyler & John Starkweather:
Three or four of us young bucks happened to be included in a meeting in about 1967 in the house at Olympia Convention when a number of workers met with the two Oyler boys and John Starkweather regarding their doctrinal understanding. In attendance were Willie Jamieson, Tharold Sylvester, Howard Mooney, Ernest Nelson, Charlie Krub, Bob Ingram, Ralph Sines, Dennis Jacobsen, Scott Vail, Margaret Robertson, Blanche Curtiss and some others.
No hymns were sung, no prayers offered -- mainly statements of accusation and warning against the two Oylers and John.
You can rest assured that us younger ones went away with a clear understanding of what we might be in for if we in any way sympathized with the views held by the three fellows who were the subject of the meeting that day.
I think any who want to know very much about this issue should write to these men personally and get it straight from them. Though I have visited with them on various occasions for many hours, I do not want to misrepresent them. I will highlight two or three points, however.
ONE: It must be understood from the outset that the friends and workers do not teach or possibly even understand the orthodox Christian concept of the Fall. It all starts from there. Since these three did teach the Fall they were at odds with the friends and workers right from the start.
TWO: Accompanying the orthodox concept of the Fall is the orthodox teaching that Jesus assumed a pre-fall human nature that was perfect and sinless just as Adam was perfect and sinless before the Fall, and further, that given His person and nature as the Son of God he could not sin. This also put them at odds with the friends and workers.
The F&W's always misunderstood this. When they heard those men say that Jesus could not sin, they interpreted that as meaning he did not have a human nature. The only human nature the friends ever knew about was a sinful one. Many could not grasp that the orthodox teaching was that the Pre-fall human nature of Adam was also sinless.
THREE: The workers rejected the idea of a Fall, claiming that a Fall would have required God to change his mind and send Jesus as an afterthought, not according to his original plan. Therold used to flatly state, "Adam's sin was not a Fall, but rather an expose."
FOUR: The bottom line was that word got around that these things the men were teaching were taught by the Catholic Church. For the workers that settled it. We cannot have any Catholic teaching among us. As I see it, their teaching was more in line with both Protestant and Catholic doctrine. But as many of us know, that is anathema to many workers and friends.
So that's about as far as I feel comfortable going. In fairness to those men people who want to know the details could write and ask them. I do not warrant that I have represented them 100 percent accurately, but only that this is my understanding after many visits with them.
Sincerely,
Paul Abenroth Walla Walla, Washington
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 1, 2012 20:41:47 GMT -5
Sharon, I don't know anyone - here or otherwise - who believes that Jesus DID sin. It clearly says he was without sin, the sinless One.
The question is/was COULD he have sinned? I think we are having a mis-communication, because of course he could not, if he was to be a worthy Savior. But because he was human also, the possibility did exist. However, through his obedience to God's Will, he did not.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 1, 2012 21:35:39 GMT -5
It might be time to define "sin." The Pharisees certainly think he sinned.
So the "sinless One" means never a slip-up? To me, this discussion is a little like those I've had with believers in Biblical inerrancy. No matter how many errors you point out in the Bible, they just pretend they don't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2012 8:22:17 GMT -5
It might be time to define "sin." The Pharisees certainly think he sinned. So the "sinless One" means never a slip-up? To me, this discussion is a little like those I've had with believers in Biblical inerrancy. No matter how many errors you point out in the Bible, they just pretend they don't exist. You're probably right that a definition of "sin" is in order. The advocating of plucking corn on the Sabbath would have been widely considered a sin in those days, but perhaps our theologists here have a different idea.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Oct 2, 2012 9:50:04 GMT -5
When we refer to sin,it is usually a fleshly act. This is not in my mind the sin that God sees as sin. Sin came because the devil tempted man with the thought"you shall be as God" That is sin. Jesus never had that thought. It says "He counted it not robbery to be equal with God" Even though He was a son. jmo
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 2, 2012 10:32:39 GMT -5
When we refer to sin,it is usually a fleshly act. This is not in my mind the sin that God sees as sin. Sin came because the devil tempted man with the thought"you shall be as God" That is sin. Jesus never had that thought. It says "He counted it not robbery to be equal with God" Even though He was a son. jmo Lin, what does that mean "He counted it not robbery to be equal with God"?
|
|