IMMORTALITY IN THE WILDERNESS. THE AIM FOR JESUS TEMPTATION

[LaurenTM]

Some of you seem to be getting hooked-up on the word, "earned."

Have I made a correct assumption? If so, then I submit that it seems to come two ways:

One, that He completed His task here successfully, and earned the right to represent us by being the Firstborn, resurrected of God.

And, two, that He earned Immortality for us.

We already know that He never claimed to do anything except what He saw the Father doing. So that certainly seems to imply that He was not operating freely as the omnipotent God, walking around with some flesh hanging on His All-Powerful energy.

Is there anyone here willing to deny that He divested Himself of His previous powers to actually BECOME a man? Or do you feel He just LOOKED like a man, and retained all of His powers? He even said on the cross that He wouldn't just blink His eye or wave His hand to destroy those people, but rather, as the man He still was, He would actually have to call for an army of Angels to do that for Him.

scripture teaches He became fully man...but without sin

the op is stating Jesus inherited sinful flesh

Jesus also said He did nothing apart from the Father

He also said that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father

the question here is whether or not Jesus was not fully God as John indicates He was

the statement made by the op and agreed to by beyond, is not found in the Bible

opinions on the very nature of Christ which run counter scripture are heretical

beyond makes similar statements in other threads and the leaves

its odd

 

[LaurenTM]

nothing falling out of the tree when it gets a good shaking indicates there is nothing to fall out

 

[BeyondET]

Some of you seem to be getting hooked-up on the word, "earned."

Have I made a correct assumption? If so, then I submit that it seems to come two ways:

One, that He completed His task here successfully, and earned the right to represent us by being the Firstborn, resurrected of God.

And, two, that He earned Immortality for us.

We already know that He never claimed to do anything except what He saw the Father doing. So that certainly seems to imply that He was not operating freely as the omnipotent God, walking around with some flesh hanging on His All-Powerful energy.

Is there anyone here willing to deny that He divested Himself of His previous powers to actually BECOME a man? Or do you feel He just LOOKED like a man, and retained all of His powers? He even said on the cross that He wouldn't just blink His eye or wave His hand to destroy those people, but rather, as the man He still was, He would actually have to call for an army of Angels to do that for Him.

That's a good point, I'd say yes he was a human fleshly man and omnipotent though superbly self controlled...

when he was around 12 years old

Luke 2:52
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

 

[BeyondET]

Jesus did the opposite of what Adam did when He was in the wilderness forty days and nights and and He earned immortality.
1CORINTHIANS 15:20-22

Jesus obeyed the single commandment given to Him by the Spirit of God who lead Him to be tempted of the devil. For forty long days, He succeeded to obey this commandment with the sinful flesh which He inherited from His mother Mary.

He succeeded in doing the opposite of what Adam did in Eden. With a sinful Inheriteđ flesh on Him, He obeyed God's commandment and conquered the inherited sin in His flesh becoming the first immortal Man to live on earth. He became immortal by the reason of His obedience.


ROMANS 8:3 In whose flesh did Jesus condernmed sin? He condernmed sin in His own flesh.

Well you are correct, yes his body was from that very same blood line from the beginning thus he carried that weight upon his shoulders, though the temptation wasn't while he was in the human body, he was in spirit at that time of temptation...

And yes that is quite the superb control I'd say indeed... how many people in their own flesh can accomplish such a thing. There's been only one who was able to do that...

 

[Sac49]

What I find interesting about the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, now a lot of folks probably won't agree on this but that's ok.. IMO that account in scripture didn't happened after the baptism of Jesus but before that while Jesus was of the power yet not complete until the decent like a dove...

Where i am saying you are incorrect is in the order of Jesus baptism and temptation. In your opinion you say that the temptation was before the baptism. Three of the four Gospels mention both Jesus baptism and temptation. All three put the baptism first. So where do you get the idea that it happened the other way around?

Read;
Matthew 3:13-4:11
Mark 1:9-11
Luke 3:21-4:13

Sorry if there was a missunderstanding in where i was saying you are incorrect.

 

[BeyondET]

Where i am saying you are incorrect is in the order of Jesus baptism and temptation. In your opinion you say that the temptation was before the baptism. Three of the four Gospels mention both Jesus baptism and temptation. All three put the baptism first. So where do you get the idea that it happened the other way around?

Read;
Matthew 3:13-4:11
Mark 1:9-11
Luke 3:21-4:13

Sorry if there was a missunderstanding in where i was saying you are incorrect.

There are many statements in the bible that are just plopped right in without any kind of flow to it at all..

IMO people need to understand today's bible isn't how the orginal authors wrote those letters, scribes. They all weren't in one book there were many letters and testimonies before the collection of them all was placed in one book the bible..

Take Mark he produced his book because he was teaching to the Greeks, so he used a condensing along with grand osa style of teaching...

 

[Naboth]

While I think Jesus was baptized before the tempting I suppose to the topic would Jesus have been made immortal by the baptism of water? I would think him immortal before this also as John the Baptist said "Lord I need be baptized by you". Yet maybe just as with the baptism, so also the temptation in the wilderness, that all righteousness might be fulfilled.

 

[Willie-T]

scripture teaches He became fully man...but without sin
the op is stating Jesus inherited sinful flesh

Jesus also said He did nothing apart from the Father

He also said that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father

the question here is whether or not Jesus was not fully God as John indicates He was

the statement made by the op and agreed to by beyond, is not found in the Bible

opinions on the very nature of Christ which run counter scripture are heretical

beyond makes similar statements in other threads and the leaves

its odd

I don't know if many of you have noticed (or even care) that I am a person who disdains "moving on" when sequentially presented points have never yet been settled. To me, that is the crux of building on shaky foundations.

To that point, I direct us, now, back to just what it meant for Jesus to have become fully man..... BUT WITHOUT SIN.

What does that mean? I submit it means that although He was not born with a "sin nature", that if He HAD sinned, then He would then be WITH SIN... "a sinful man" just like anyone else, and unable to be the sacrificial lamb.

In order for Him to remain sinless, does it not stand to reason that there had to be some way that it was possible somewhere in His 33 years on Earth, that He could have sinned? You have to be susceptible to something, in order to resist it. Otherwise, it wouldn't even concern you. (I am thoroughly not the least bit frightened that I will burn up if I fly into the sun. Because it cannot happen. I AM, however, quite aware that if I jump off a tall building, I will die.)

Those here who seem to believe that Jesus had no concern, at all, that He had the capability of giving in to sin, could you explain all the mention of the devil foolishly trying to tempt a being who was untemptable?

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

Jesus did the opposite of what Adam did when He was in the wilderness forty days and nights and and He earned immortality.
1CORINTHIANS 15:20-22

Jesus obeyed the single commandment given to Him by the Spirit of God who lead Him to be tempted of the devil. For forty long days, He succeeded to obey this commandment with the sinful flesh which He inherited from His mother Mary.

He succeeded in doing the opposite of what Adam did in Eden. With a sinful Inheriteđ flesh on Him, He obeyed God's commandment and conquered the inherited sin in His flesh becoming the first immortal Man to live on earth. He became immortal by the reason of His obedience.


ROMANS 8:3 In whose flesh did Jesus condernmed sin? He condernmed sin in His own flesh.

This is 100% false doctrine.

 

[LaurenTM]

I don't know if many of you have noticed (or even care) that I am a person who disdains "moving on" when sequentially presented points have never yet been settled. To me, that is the crux of building on shaky foundations.

To that point, I direct us, now, back to just what it meant for Jesus to have become fully man..... BUT WITHOUT SIN.

What does that mean? I submit it means that although He was not born with a "sin nature", that if He HAD sinned, then He would then be WITH SIN... "a sinful man" just like anyone else, and unable to be the sacrificial lamb.

In order for Him to remain sinless, does it not stand to reason that there had to be some way that it was possible somewhere in His 33 years on Earth, that He could have sinned? You have to be susceptible to something, in order to resist it. Otherwise, it wouldn't even concern you. (I am thoroughly not the least bit frightened that I will burn up if I fly into the sun. Because it cannot happen. I AM, however, quite aware that if I jump off a tall building, I will die.)

Those here who seem to believe that Jesus had no concern, at all, that He had the capability of giving in to sin, could you explain all the mention of the devil foolishly trying to tempt a being who was untemptable?

no I get that...since I am the same way...but it is not always possible for resolution and in fact I would almost call it a miracle around here and that is why some threads are 50 pages long

What does that mean? I submit it means that although He was not born with a "sin nature", that if He HAD sinned, then He would then be WITH SIN... "a sinful man" just like anyone else, and unable to be the sacrificial lamb.

I don't find that all that disagreeable. In fact, in order to actually bear the sins' of the world, it seems He would have NEEDED that exact thing ... so my conclusion mirrors yours...believe me, I do not care for 'blind' faith nor faith with no reason or ability to explain why it believes

the Bible says He was tempted in all ways as we are...but does not list the temptations other than after His baptism...yes, I have noticed that and if you take that at face value...well....

Those here who seem to believe that Jesus had no concern, at all, that He had the capability of giving in to sin, could you explain all the mention of the devil foolishly trying to tempt a being who was untemptable?

oh I don't believe that

I think we may be believing the same

my beef is with the character who won't answer questions

nowhere is it written we cannot ask...I think God expects us to ask...and it's ok...I have floundered in faith for sure...I think that is a normal process...you go back to the stone from when you have been hewn...if you can forgive the Bible 'language'

 

[Sac49]

There are many statements in the bible that are just plopped right in without any kind of flow to it at all..

IMO people need to understand today's bible isn't how the orginal authors wrote those letters, scribes. They all weren't in one book there were many letters and testimonies before the collection of them all was placed in one book the bible..

Take Mark he produced his book because he was teaching to the Greeks, so he used a condensing along with grand osa style of teaching...

First i understand how the "books" "letters" of the Bible were originally written and then placed in what we now know as the Bible.

Your argument still does not back up your claim. Reason? All three mention the exact same order.

Do you believe 2 Tim 3:16-17? If so then how could God get the order wrong in all three "tellings" of Jesus baptism and twmptation? Or are you saying that the were originally written in a different order originally? And how do you back that up?

 

[LaurenTM]

anyway...I was supposed to be off here over an hr ago...and now my hands are freezing from being outside with the dogs without proper clothes and blah blah blah

will respond later...I am spending way too much time on the forums

 

[BeyondET]

no I get that...since I am the same way...but it is not always possible for resolution and in fact I would almost call it a miracle around here and that is why some threads are 50 pages long



I don't find that all that disagreeable. In fact, in order to actually bear the sins' of the world, it seems He would have NEEDED that exact thing ... so my conclusion mirrors yours...believe me, I do not care for 'blind' faith nor faith with no reason or ability to explain why it believes

the Bible says He was tempted in all ways as we are...but does not list the temptations other than after His baptism...yes, I have noticed that and if you take that at face value...well....



oh I don't believe that

I think we may be believing the same

my beef is with the character who won't answer questions

nowhere is it written we cannot ask...I think God expects us to ask...and it's ok...I have floundered in faith for sure...I think that is a normal process...you go back to the stone from when you have been hewn...if you can forgive the Bible 'language'

Aww did it you bother you I jumped on your buddy...

 

[Willie-T]

Lauren,

This was not directed at you. I just used your post as an intro so that none of us would be left wondering what I was talking about.

We Christians have long done something the Dinosaur People on PBS do all the time. And that is to make guesses and assumptions, then turn those into "facts" in their minds, running wildly, from that point on, as though their conclusions were hills to battle for and die upon in stubborn resistance to any further examination.

ie: "It is possible dinosaurs lived as long ago as xxx million years."
"Therefore, the Earth would have to be much older."
"Now, since we know the Earth is xxxxx million years old.............."

We needn't laugh and scoff, since we do many similar things in the outlandish conclusions we come to about the Bible and our religious history. And it has become my desire to quelch that irrational information in my own personal studies.

 

[Chester]

I knew there would be some who would disagree it's quite ok..

So tell me in your opinion what happened when the spirit descended on Jesus at the baptism??

I agree with you that Jesus' baptism was after the temptations. I came to that conclusion from a careful study of the Gospel of John. Recognizing that the gospels are not always in chronological order makes this a difficult question. Lauren quotes the gospel of Mark - it does look there like the baptism was first.

 

[BeyondET]

First i understand how the "books" "letters" of the Bible were originally written and then placed in what we now know as the Bible.

Your argument still does not back up your claim. Reason? All three mention the exact same order.

Do you believe 2 Tim 3:16-17? If so then how could God get the order wrong in all three "tellings" of Jesus baptism and twmptation? Or are you saying that the were originally written in a different order originally? And how do you back that up?

Yes in my opinion they were in a different order.. And those have been worn out long ago thus why we have copies..

To say the line up exactly is false, anyone with proper reason can see that, when reading those.. One says he met both men on a beach and the two others have a different take..

Here's another, John in prison saying to his disciples go and ask Jesus is he the one,, ahh didn't he baptize Jesus before going to prison because he never made it out if prison he was beheaded in prison... The proper order for that one is the wrong use of the translated word (prison) this has caused confusion some seem to think John was trying to prove a point to his disciples or something well Jesus would not have said go back to John and tell him this...

 

[Naboth]

I agree with you that Jesus' baptism was after the temptations. I came to that conclusion from a careful study of the Gospel of John. Recognizing that the gospels are not always in chronological order makes this a difficult question. Lauren quotes the gospel of Mark - it does look there like the baptism was first.

What about the Gospels of Matthew and Luke?

 

[Sac49]

I don't know if many of you have noticed (or even care) that I am a person who disdains "moving on" when sequentially presented points have never yet been settled. To me, that is the crux of building on shaky foundations.

To that point, I direct us, now, back to just what it meant for Jesus to have become fully man..... BUT WITHOUT SIN.

What does that mean? I submit it means that although He was not born with a "sin nature", that if He HAD sinned, then He would then be WITH SIN... "a sinful man" just like anyone else, and unable to be the sacrificial lamb.

In order for Him to remain sinless, does it not stand to reason that there had to be some way that it was possible somewhere in His 33 years on Earth, that He could have sinned? You have to be susceptible to something, in order to resist it. Otherwise, it wouldn't even concern you. (I am thoroughly not the least bit frightened that I will burn up if I fly into the sun. Because it cannot happen. I AM, however, quite aware that if I jump off a tall building, I will die.)

Those here who seem to believe that Jesus had no concern, at all, that He had the capability of giving in to sin, could you explain all the mention of the devil foolishly trying to tempt a being who was untemptable?

I believe you are correct. Jesus had the capability of sinning just like the rest of us. Jesus he DID inherit the sinful nature. If Jesus did not inherit the sinful nature then the tempations would have meant nothing as then he would have been incapable of sinning. Jesus had to be fully man for this to have been of any credit. The only difference is that Jesus is also fully God. Satan knew Jesus had the capability of sinning which is why he tempted Him. If Jesus was incapable of sinning then satan would have left Him alone.

Also if Jesus was incapable of sinning then the statement "He knew no sin" would read "He could not sin". If Jesus was incapable of sinning then "being like Jesus" would be impossible. Because Jesus was capable of sinning He now gives us a "picture" to follow. Because He was capable of sinning yet did not sin gives us the perfect example of how we are to live our lives.

 

[Willie-T]

Correction:
I used the word "quelch" above.... which is an old form of "squelch." Neither is what I really meant. I should have used the word, "quash."

The former both mean to "quiet" or "silence", while the latter means to "void" and "do away with."

 

[Chester]

I agree with you that Jesus' baptism was after the temptations. I came to that conclusion from a careful study of the Gospel of John. Recognizing that the gospels are not always in chronological order makes this a difficult question. Lauren quotes the gospel of Mark - it does look there like the baptism was first.

Actually, sometimes my memory and my brain don't work together! I got my facts turned around. I believe the baptism was first, and then the wilderness! The quotes from Matt., Mark, Luke made me doublecheck my thinking - and I looked back to my notes from studying John 1 and found that I concluded from studying John 1 that the baptism was first followed by the wilderness.