Can God be tempted? How well do we truly know Jesus Christ?

[Noah761]

The Preacher said, "What has happened will happen again, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Eccl 1:9, REB) When I read statements that seem strange to Christian teachings, or words and phrases given meaning different than what is has been standard, I see bright yellow caution flags. I'll give just two quotes that may clarify what I've been reading in the thread about whether Jesus carried out what he said he would do "I will raise it up again." We are reading an old heresy being revived here in the thread.

John Calvin commentary on John 2:19
"The argument of Nestorius, who abused this passage to prove that it is not one and the same Christ who is God and man, may be easily refuted. He reasoned thus: the Son of God dwelt in the flesh, as in a temple; therefore the natures are distinct, so that the same person was not God and man. But this argument might be applied to men; for it will follow that it is not one man whose soul dwells in the body as in a tabernacle; and, therefore, it is folly to torture this form of expression for the purpose of taking away the unity of Person in Christ. It ought to be observed, that our bodies also are called temples of God, (1 Corinthians 3:16, and 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16) but it is in a different sense, namely, because God dwells in us by the power and grace of his Spirit; but in Christ the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, so that he is truly God manifested in flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16.)

I will raise it up again. Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.

If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, (Romans 8:11.)

While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father."

"Nestorianism is basically the doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c.386-451), Patriarch of Constantinople, although he himself denied holding this belief. This view of Christ was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church.

The motivation for this view was an aversion to the idea that "God" suffered and died on the cross, be it the divinity itself, the Trinity, or one of the persons of the Trinity. Thus, they would say, Jesus the perfect man suffered and died, not the divine second person of the Trinity, for such is an impossible thought -- hence the inference that two "persons" essentially inhabited the one body of Jesus. Nestorius himself argued against calling Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos) as the church was beginning to do. He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council at Ephesus (431) accused Nestorius of the heresy of teaching "two persons" in Christ and insisted that Theotokos was an appropriate title for Mary.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins."
https://www.theopedia.com/nestorianism

 

[John146]

Are you saying that you believe that Jesus actually considered stealing, raping, pillaging, and murdering? Jesus had these things in His heart?

Being tempted is not sin. Giving in to temptation would be sin. Jesus was without sin, but was not without temptation. Scripture is clear.

 

[Noah761]

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

^ At His resurrection.


Hebrew 5:7-9
During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence.

8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered.

9 And having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him

^ At His resurrection.


This is why it's so critical to confess that The Son of God came in the flesh because it's the power of salvation for all those who believe. The Messiah became "The Resurrection". The resurrection of our corruption into incorruption is our blessed hope; mortality into immortality.


1 John 4:1-3 [footnote]
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world.

2 By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus [*footnote*] is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

*Footnote:
(BYZ and TR) that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh 


"In the flesh" means "like a man", exposed to temptations and death as we are.

I spent some time trying to figure out what you see in your quotes that has to do with Jesus' explicit statement: "Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'” (John 2:19, NRSV)

I went back to look at your writings in this thread and found one in #80. You are using the deception of changing definitions of words and phrases. Changing definitions from a known standard is a trick used to change one's ideology, theology and philosophy. In reply #80 you wrote:

"When we talk about "sinful nature" the proper understanding is Adam's corrupted flesh (i.e. mortal nature), not a corrupt condition of the heart.

As Paul says in Romans 5:12, it's because we die that we sin. A corrupted heart is referring to an "iniquitous heart" (a state or condition), whereas sin isn't a state or condition but an action that is a crime against the Almighty. The Messiah had neither an iniquitous heart nor committed crime against the Almighty...but he had Adam's corrupted flesh." [I made it italics to distinguish it from my writing.]

1. Where did you get the definition of "sinful nature" that means the fleshly body, the material matter of man, rather than the heart?

2. You wrote "whereas sin isn't a state or condition but an action" and where did you find that in a source authority?

3. You then spoke blasphemy! After writing "When we talk about "sinful nature" the proper understanding is Adam's corrupted flesh (i.e. mortal nature)" you then write that "The Messiah....had Adam's corrupted flesh." So, Jesus had a "sinful nature"?

Readers can check reply #80 to see if I am misquoting you or misrepresenting what you wrote.

It is clear you reject the teachings of the Bible about the nature of Christ so you reject the teachings of the Three Ecumenical Creeds. It would be helpful if you told us your Creed or Confession. Maybe you are a "No creed but the Bible" guy which means you make up your own religion. Do you have a Confession you can point to that we may know your belief system as a whole?

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Being tempted is not sin. Giving in to temptation would be sin. Jesus was without sin, but was not without temptation. Scripture is clear.

Thanks, but I've been down this rabbit hole so many times in this exhausting thread (that leads to nowhere).

 

[Noah761]

Spending time in this thread is like still working, it is time consuming and tiring, so a pause is good.

Probably most reading or participating in this thread to not have access to a couple of New Testament reference works so I'll do a copy/paste for readers to consider. I'll base it on a verse in Paul.

"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 8:3, KJV)

"Likeness" from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition 3rd Edition(BDAG)

Likeness/ὁμοίωμα homoioma - "3 There is no general agreement on the mng. in two related passages in which Paul uses our word in speaking of Christ’s earthly life. The expressions ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων (P46, Marcion, Orig.: ἀνθρώπου) Phil 2:7 and ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας Ro 8:3 could mean that the Lord in his earthly ministry possessed a completely human form and that his physical body was capable of sinning as human bodies are, or that he had the form of a human being and was looked upon as such (cp. En 31:2 ἐν ὁμ. w. gen.=‘similar to’, ‘looking like’; Aesop, Fab. 140 H. of Hermes ὁμοιωθεὶς ἀνθρώπῳ), but without losing his identity as a divine being even in this world. In the light of what Paul says about Jesus in general it is prob. that he uses our word to bring out both that Jesus in his earthly career was similar to sinful humans and yet not totally like them (s. JWeiss, Das Urchristentum1917, 376ff; cp. FGillman, CBQ 49, ’87, 597–604).—S. the lit. on ἁρπαγμός.—DELG s.v. ὅμοιο. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv."

"Likeness" from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume

"In Rom. 8:3 and Phil. 2:7 Paul uses the word with reference to Christ’s earthly life. In Rom. 8:3 he stresses the reality of Christ’s humanity by saying that he came in the “likeness” of sinful flesh; he entered the nexus of human sin but without becoming subject to the power of sin, as would be implied if Paul had simply said “in sinful flesh.” The homoíōma denotes likeness in appearance but distinction in essence. With the body the intrinsically sinless Christ becomes the representative of sinful humanity in order that by destroying this body God might cancel human sin. The term homoíōma is clearly an attempt to overcome the difficulty of having to say that the Christ in whom human sin is condemned is not himself a sinner. The word may well be an inadequate one, face to face with the mystery of Christ’s person and work, but it is not docetic as some suppose. Christ is not just a heavenly being with an external human form; he is fully and truly human, but not a sinner. The point is similar in Phil. 2:7, where Christ, taking servant form, is born in human “likeness.” The sense here is closer to that of form, but in the background are the two thoughts that he who is the full image of God becomes the image of man, and that the image means likeness rather than full identity, since Christ differs from all others by his consistent obedience (v. 8). Behind the statement lies the message of Jn. 1:14, namely, that God has entered human history. It is not implied that he has ceased to be God; even in his humanity Christ is at the same time a being of another kind. In the fathers Ignatius refers to the resurrection of believers corresponding to Christ’s “likeness” (Trallians 9.2), and an early sacramentary calls the bread the “likeness” of Christ’s body."

 

[Yahshua]

You are using the deception of changing definitions of words and phrases. Changing definitions from a known standard is a trick used to change one's ideology, theology and philosophy. In reply #80 you wrote:

I agree that changing definitions of words is a trick. This is why we need to go back to what the scripture says these concepts mean, not hold onto incorrect doctrines adopted from Catholicism.

1. Where did you get the definition of "sinful nature" that means the fleshly body, the material matter of man, rather than the heart?

Romans 5:12-14
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


^ The law of sin & death.

Simply put, because we die (i.e. are mortal) we sin...and when we sin, we deserve death. Sin...Death...Sin...Death. The earth was cursed because of Adam's sin. Adam came from the earth. And when Adam sinned all of us were inside him. Thus, the cursed flesh given to all mankind by Adam tempts each person to sin.


James 1:14-15
14 But every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


Galatians 5:16-17
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.


The true definition of sinful nature is "mortality". Because people die they are selfish and unloving to one another. Because they are running out of time they lie and steal. They're never at rest for fear of death. This is why the solution to sin is The Resurrection & Life Himself. This mortal flesh is the problem. Those who follow their flesh are enemies of the Almighty.

It's why God hated Esau because he rejected his birthright (i.e. "right of the firstborn" relationship with God) for food to satisfy his belly (i.e. the flesh).


Romans 8:7
because the mind of the flesh is hostility toward God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, for not even can it be.


Whereas your concept of "sinful nature" is incorrect and has been adopted from Catholicism. "Original Sin" - "the absence of original holiness and justice into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins". It's akin to Calvinism's depravity doctrine.

2. You wrote "whereas sin isn't a state or condition but an action" and where did you find that in a source authority?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


^ A sin is transgressing against The Almighty's law. Lawbreaking. An action. Sins are committed.


Galatians 5:19-20
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.


^ Sins are actions of the flesh...or if you prefer the original KJV translated word: "Works" of the flesh. Whereas "iniquity" is "uncleanliness/wickedness/guilt", which is a condition of the heart. Notice in the following passage how sin is a separate concept from wickedness/iniquity:


Daniel 9:24 NIV
“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.


Daniel 9:24 NKJV
Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.


Sin is an action not a condition of the heart.

You then spoke blasphemy! After writing "When we talk about "sinful nature" the proper understanding is Adam's corrupted flesh (i.e. mortal nature)" you then write that "The Messiah....had Adam's corrupted flesh." So, Jesus had a "sinful nature"?

"He speaks blasphemy!!!"

Be sure.

The Messiah had neither an iniquitous heart nor committed crime against the Almighty...but he had Adam's corrupted flesh.

The Messiah had Adam's flesh from Mary, this is why His genealogy at the beginning is important, leading back to Adam.

Adam's flesh is corrupt; mortal because of his sin. It's the same flesh we all have that scripture says tempts us all to sin. If we take the proper definition of "sinful nature" which simply means morality/the flesh then yes Messiah, the Son of the Invisible God; The Creator God became mortal, exposing Himself to all of our weaknesses.

It's a heavenly court case. Satan's argument was that man can never live in obedience to God and so undeserving of all the God gives them. The Messiah's testimony was that man CAN live in obedience to God through His Holy Spirit as so inherited all things. He proved what man can do with the Spirit and so satan was kicked out with little time left.

When we divorce the Messiah from His humanity we corrupt the gospel into something that says "Yes The Messiah saved us from our sins but we can never truly follow Messiah's example. We can never stop sinning even with all of His help and forgiveness because He's God and we are merely man." This view attacks the process of daily sanctification.

1) Justification (saved)
2) Sanctification (grow in obedience/holiness)
3) Glorification (everlasting reward)

Readers can check reply #80 to see if I am misquoting you or misrepresenting what you wrote.

I quoted the post above for easy reference.

It is clear you reject the teachings of the Bible about the nature of Christ so you reject the teachings of the Three Ecumenical Creeds. It would be helpful if you told us your Creed or Confession.

I confess that doctrines from Catholicism are either partially or wholly false. I confess that religion to be the Whore of Babylon and the papal system - since its birth - is the beast of the sea she rides.

"Come out of her my people!" (Jer 51:45; Rev 18:4)

Maybe you are a "No creed but the Bible" guy which means you make up your own religion. Do you have a Confession you can point to that we may know your belief system as a whole?

The following is my Religion. It's the only pure one that exists.


James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion before the God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their tribulation; to keep oneself unstained from the world.

 

[keiw]

The account of Jesus being tempted by the devil in Mt. 4 -
Mt.4:1 KJV "tempted" is Greek peirazo, Strong's #3985 "to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline". The BDAG on this verse "to entice to improper behavior, tempt"

Mt.4:7 KJV "tempt" is Greek ekpeirazo, Strong's #1598 "to test thoroughly" with KJV Margin Note here "tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or, proof". The NRSV reads "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." The AMGL on this word here: "to put to the proof or test, make trial of, tempt" and the BDAG "to subject to test or proof, tempt".

In v7 Jesus has quoted Deut. 6:16 in his answer to the devil. Which reads: "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah."KJV, or "Do not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah", NRSV. In this reference, "tempt" is the Hebrew nacah, which Strong's defines as "1. to test. 2. (by implication) to attempt." In the Greek Septuagint, the KJV "tempt" is again the same Greek as Jesus is recorded using in Mt. 4:7, ekpeirazo.

Can a person be tempted if he has no sin nature, no original sin? If no original sin or sin nature is present, must the enticement be a test or trial, rather than a temptation as it is with us sinful men?

"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: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (Jas 1:13-14, KJV)

If God cannot be tempted with evil, could Jesus Christ be tempted with evil, or is he more accurately tested in all the usual human needs?

"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18, KJV)
"Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested." (Heb 2:18, NRSV)
"Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test." (Heb 2:18, REB)

Jesus did not have the sin nature as we have. Jesus was impeccable therefore could not sin. The phrase from John 14:30 as explained by Albert Barnes seems to speak to this:

"Hath nothing in me - There is in me no principle or feeling that accords with his, and nothing, therefore, by which he can prevail. Temptation has only power because there are some principles in us which accord with the designs of the tempter, and which may be excited by presenting corresponding objects until our virtue be overcome. Where there is no such propensity, temptation has no power. As the principles of Jesus were wholly on the side of virtue, the meaning here may be that, though he had the natural appetites of man, his virtue was so supreme that Satan “had nothing in him” which could constitute any danger that he would be led into sin, and that there was no fear of the result of the conflict before him." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/john-14.html

From Robert L. Dabney's Systematic Theology:
"Now, none will say that the second Person, as eternal Word, was, or is peccable. It would seem then, that the trait can only be asserted of the humanity. But, first, it is the unanimous testimony of the Apostles, as it is the creed of the Church, that the human nature never had its separate personality. It never existed, and never will exist for an instant, save in personal union with the Word. Hence, (a.) Since only a Person can sin, the question is irrelevant; and (b.) Since the humanity never was, in fact, alone, the question whether, if alone, it would not have been peccable, like Adam, is idle. Second, it is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin. For this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error. In the God man "dwells the fullness of the God head bodily," Col. 2:9. Third, this lower nature, upon its union with the Word, was imbued with the full influences of the Holy Spirit. Ps. 14:7; 61:1, 3; Luke 4:21; and 4:1; John 1:32; 3:34. Fourth, Christ seems to assert his own impeccability, John 14:30. "Satan cometh and bath nothing in me." So Paul, 2 Cor. 5:21, Christ "knew no sin," and in Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to day and forever." John 10:36, "The Father hath sanctified and sent Him in the world." Fifth, if this endowment of Christ’s person rose no higher than a posse non peccare , it seems obvious that there was a possibility of the failure of God’s whole counsel of redemption. For, as all agree, a sinning sacrifice and intercessor could redeem no one. There must have been then, at least a decretive necessity, that all his actions should be infallibly holy."
https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/Robert Dabney/RLD_Systematic Theology.pdf

No God cannot be tempted. Satan wouldnt have wasted his time. Jesus could have failed that is why satan tried at Jesus weakest point-40 days fasting.

 

[NotmebutHim]

Here's how I understand the fact that Jesus was tempted:

His human nature, I believe, was the same as what Adam & Eve had prior to the fall (before their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good & evil). Jesus experienced temptation as Adam & Eve had, but because He had the divine nature also (and was relying on the Holy Spirit), He didn't actually succumb to the temptations.

Whereas Adam & Eve gave in to their temptation(s), Jesus didn't give in to His.

$0.02

 

[keiw]

Here's how I understand the fact that Jesus was tempted:

His human nature, I believe, was the same as what Adam & Eve had prior to the fall (before their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good & evil). Jesus experienced temptation as Adam & Eve had, but because He had the divine nature also (and was relying on the Holy Spirit), He didn't actually succumb to the temptations.

Whereas Adam & Eve gave in to their temptation(s), Jesus didn't give in to His.

$0.02

2 1/2 cents--inflation. the point is Jesus could have failed.

 

[Noah761]

If I stop using the English name "Noah" and switch to the transliteration of the Hebrew "Nôach" maybe I can give the appearance of a Bible scholar who can teach my own creed without any documentation whatsoever to back it up. A person has to be very gullible to accept the writings and claims of someone who produces no recognized or peer reviewed source authorities to back up his claims. This is a good example of accepting the nutty idea "No Creed but the Bible", because then you see only the creed of one single, sinful individual who may even be Satan himself, appearing as an 'angel of light', "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2Cor 11:13-14, KJV).

"For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2Tim 3:6-7, KJV)

A misleading claim of cultists is to attack truth as actually nothing but Roman Catholic doctrines and definitions held over into Protestant churches of today, but give no source authority to back or demonstrate the claim. The Hebrew/Greek Lexicons I quote, as well as Strong's Dictionaries, are not Roman Catholic works. The Three Ecumenical Creeds are solidly based on the Bible and are accepted by Orthodox, RCC and Protestants. The doctrines taught in those Creeds are held by those who do not even claim creeds, if they are Christian. For serious people who want to see the Scripture basis for the teachings of the Creeds, you can access the Source Texts at the following:

For the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed the Scripture basis can be seen here:
https://steadfastlutherans.org/2017/08/apostles-and-nicene-creeds-according-to-scripture/

The Scripture basis for the Athanasian Creed is here:
https://steadfastlutherans.org/2017/09/athanasian-creed-according-to-scripture/

I see no legitimate way to claim the name "Christian" unless one accepts the biblical truth in those three creeds, accepted by all branches of the churches of Jesus Christ. When I encounter people who reject those doctrines, based solidly on the Scriptures, I have doubts they have ever had an encounter with Jesus Christ.

 

[Yahshua]

...

This is all I hear while reading the last posts...


John 7:12
And there was much murmuring about Him among the crowds. For some were saying, "He is good." But others were saying, "No, but He deceives the people."

Luke 20:1-2
1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?


If I am the one they're referring to (^_^) clearly I'd be in good company.

It's an honor to be challenged the same as Messiah. Men always seek to exercise some perceived sense of authority. The claim that a peer-reviewed approval is necessary to legitimize biblical truth is asinine and no different than claiming that "only the magisterium (The pope and bishops) can properly interpret the scriptures over the laity", which is a repeat of the Pharisees' nonsense. It's the same spirit. It's the doctrine of the "Nico--laitans" that Messiah HATES (Rev 2).

So, in following the Messiah's example, I'd pose His same question:


Luke 20:4
4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?


What one should be focused on and judging is if the words of a person align with the Words of scripture (because it's supposed to be the ultimate authoritative documentation by which all spirits are tested and reproved [1 John 4:1; 2 Tim 3:16-17]), not with whether their words align with doctrines or creeds accepted by a whole lot of people who call themselves an "authority" or a certain religious label...because in this arena the majority doesn't necessarily confirm what's true.


Matthew 7:13-15
...wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves


The truth is, only a few find the right way. This should signal that the majority of us maaayyy notttt have it all correct, and we each should be extra diligent to make sure that our doctrines properly align with scripture and not simply be based on them.

We wouldn't want to be so sure of our doctrines and creeds to never have ourselves "studied to see that these things be true" (Acts 17:11), only to find out that we're the ones being told to "depart" when He arrives because He "never knew" us, despite how sure we were of ourselves and others.

----

Scripture says The Messiah was tempted in all ways that we are but did not sin.

Believe the scripture.

 

[posthuman]

Sin is an action not a condition of the heart.

**ahem**

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery:​

but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
(Matthew 5:27-28)​

 

[Pilgrimshope]

No, I am not telling you that. You need to study scripture more.

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

Joh_12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Joh_12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.



This is concerning Jesus thus we cannot claim everything Jesus said was him speaking of himself. Sometimes the Father spoke through Jesus.



Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Go back to what Jesus said:

"I will raise it up"


"my words which he (Christ) shall speak"
"my (the Father's) words in his (Christ's) mouth"
"the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak"
"whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak"
"as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things"


We cannot say Jesus definitely said he would raise himself from the dead. We can say the Father gave Jesus things to say, and he said them and the writers of scripture say over and over that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead.


Naturally the most important thing is that Jesus did die and did rise back to life in a resurrection. Whether it was he or his Father that resurrected him is somewhat minor of an issue but I do believe it is best to get things as accurate as possible. In other biblical issues a small mistake can become the faulty foundation of a false doctrine so let's show ourselves approved and show God that we know who raised Jesus from the dead

they are one you can’t seperate the fetter and son. Jesus is the father who had become a man God is the spirit in him there’s only one of them he manifest himself three ways

and yes we all need to study scriptire more I agree with that part lol

Jesus is God the father manifest in the flesh known as the son and after he died and rose he was glorified as he was beforehand

God came into the world and returned to heaven after having provided for our salvation to seperate Jesus from God is a lack of understanding

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭9:6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh afterwards he returned to his glory

“I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17:4-5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

at this point right here everything Jesus said is God speaking his own words from his own mouth

“Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭3:21-22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The son is the father manifest on earth and the holy soirit is how he comes to dwell in us like he did Jesus

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the word was made flesh and walked among us he is God manifest on earth in the form of a man

not really sure of your argument Christ can’t be seperated from the father they are one manifest in two realms the father in heaven and the son on earth

 

[TheLearner]

The account of Jesus being tempted by the devil in Mt. 4 -
Mt.4:1 KJV "tempted" is Greek peirazo, Strong's #3985 "to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline". The BDAG on this verse "to entice to improper behavior, tempt"

Mt.4:7 KJV "tempt" is Greek ekpeirazo, Strong's #1598 "to test thoroughly" with KJV Margin Note here "tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or, proof". The NRSV reads "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." The AMGL on this word here: "to put to the proof or test, make trial of, tempt" and the BDAG "to subject to test or proof, tempt".

In v7 Jesus has quoted Deut. 6:16 in his answer to the devil. Which reads: "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah."KJV, or "Do not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah", NRSV. In this reference, "tempt" is the Hebrew nacah, which Strong's defines as "1. to test. 2. (by implication) to attempt." In the Greek Septuagint, the KJV "tempt" is again the same Greek as Jesus is recorded using in Mt. 4:7, ekpeirazo.

Can a person be tempted if he has no sin nature, no original sin? If no original sin or sin nature is present, must the enticement be a test or trial, rather than a temptation as it is with us sinful men?

"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: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (Jas 1:13-14, KJV)

If God cannot be tempted with evil, could Jesus Christ be tempted with evil, or is he more accurately tested in all the usual human needs?

"For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb 2:18, KJV)
"Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested." (Heb 2:18, NRSV)
"Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test." (Heb 2:18, REB)

Jesus did not have the sin nature as we have. Jesus was impeccable therefore could not sin. The phrase from John 14:30 as explained by Albert Barnes seems to speak to this:

"Hath nothing in me - There is in me no principle or feeling that accords with his, and nothing, therefore, by which he can prevail. Temptation has only power because there are some principles in us which accord with the designs of the tempter, and which may be excited by presenting corresponding objects until our virtue be overcome. Where there is no such propensity, temptation has no power. As the principles of Jesus were wholly on the side of virtue, the meaning here may be that, though he had the natural appetites of man, his virtue was so supreme that Satan “had nothing in him” which could constitute any danger that he would be led into sin, and that there was no fear of the result of the conflict before him." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bnb/john-14.html

From Robert L. Dabney's Systematic Theology:
"Now, none will say that the second Person, as eternal Word, was, or is peccable. It would seem then, that the trait can only be asserted of the humanity. But, first, it is the unanimous testimony of the Apostles, as it is the creed of the Church, that the human nature never had its separate personality. It never existed, and never will exist for an instant, save in personal union with the Word. Hence, (a.) Since only a Person can sin, the question is irrelevant; and (b.) Since the humanity never was, in fact, alone, the question whether, if alone, it would not have been peccable, like Adam, is idle. Second, it is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin. For this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error. In the God man "dwells the fullness of the God head bodily," Col. 2:9. Third, this lower nature, upon its union with the Word, was imbued with the full influences of the Holy Spirit. Ps. 14:7; 61:1, 3; Luke 4:21; and 4:1; John 1:32; 3:34. Fourth, Christ seems to assert his own impeccability, John 14:30. "Satan cometh and bath nothing in me." So Paul, 2 Cor. 5:21, Christ "knew no sin," and in Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to day and forever." John 10:36, "The Father hath sanctified and sent Him in the world." Fifth, if this endowment of Christ’s person rose no higher than a posse non peccare , it seems obvious that there was a possibility of the failure of God’s whole counsel of redemption. For, as all agree, a sinning sacrifice and intercessor could redeem no one. There must have been then, at least a decretive necessity, that all his actions should be infallibly holy."
https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/Robert Dabney/RLD_Systematic Theology.pdf

Jesus as God could only be tested like Job was.

 

[Yahshua]

**ahem**

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery:​

but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

(Matthew 5:27-28)​

Post, brother, if we take this statement of truth and pull it apart notice that there's an action described.


"...looketh on a woman to lust after her" = committed adultery. An action was taken. It wasn't taken directly with the woman but the action was taken.


- an iniquitous/wicked heart WILL "...looketh on a woman to lust after her"

- an iniquitous/wicked heart WILL commit sin.


...but the sin itself; the crime itself (of looking to lust) isn't the specific state that the heart is in (i.e. wicked or pure).


Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil; for of the abundance of his heart his mouth speaketh.


The "good/evil treasure" part is the condition or state.

The "bringing forth" part is the sin or good work.

 

[posthuman]

Post, brother, if we take this statement of truth and pull it apart notice that there's an action described.

an action that takes place in the heart - "to lust" - and Christ points out ((just like in Matthew 5:22 concerning hatred in ones heart)) that sin isn't 'only sin if it manifests with physical action' - He searches the heart.

is it your opinion that Christ lusts after women, but wow, thankfully, managed never to act on the wicked desires in His heart with His eyes? IOW would you say the Messiah's heart has evil in it?

 

[posthuman]

i'm reminded @Yahshua i have another question specifically for you;
one maybe you have the presence of mind to understand why i ask it -

• is Jesus Christ good?

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus is the father who had become a man

No, Jesus is the son of God the Father. You are posting non-Trinitarian nonsense.

 

[Yahshua]

an action that takes place in the heart - "to lust" - and Christ points out ((just like in Matthew 5:22 concerning hatred in ones heart)) that sin isn't 'only sin if it manifests with physical action' - He searches the heart.

This is a strawman. You've added the word "physical". Thinking is an action but thought isn't physical.

To understand the phrase "in the heart" or "out of the heart" recall the command to "love the Lord with all your heart". It isn't a commandment of "feelings". It specifically has to do with active thought and intention.

To actively think upon God daily intending to be pleasing to Him is loving Him with "all one's heart". Likewise, to actively think ill of someone wishing their harm, being angry at the thought of them is having hatred for them "in one's heart". And actively undressing a person in your mind thinking about what they look like, imagining being with them in your mind is lusting after them "in one's heart"; and doing so towards a married person is committing adultery "in one's heart".

These are actions of the mind. Different from feelings.

If a very attractive woman crossed your path and caught your eye, you haven't lusted after her you simply feel she's attractive (I mean, how else are two people meant to get together and start a family if they're not first attracted to each other). It doesn't turn into lust until you start actively thinking about what I mentioned above, that's when you've crossed the line into lust "in your heart".

This distinction should be clear, but for some reason, we're still struggling with understanding the Spirit over the Letter. Only now, the letters we're struggling with are the actual printed words of scripture.

It's a figure of speech.

Wicked hearts commit sinful acts. A sin is an act of breaking God's law.

is it your opinion that Christ lusts after women, but wow, thankfully, managed never to act on the wicked desires in His heart with His eyes? IOW would you say the Messiah's heart has evil in it?

Nonstarter because it's also a strawman. I'm not going to defend something you imagined. When you want to discuss what *I* said then I'll be happy to.

i'm reminded @Yahshua i have another question specifically for you;
one maybe you have the presence of mind to understand why i ask it -

• is Jesus Christ good?

Folks are fully capable of sharing their thoughts so I don't have a clue as to your intention behind the question, but prior to His glorification, I'll refer you to what He said of Himself.


Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Luke 18:19
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.”


Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.


The question is, why did He say this considering that we also know He was sinless and pure of heart?

 

[ewq1938]

Thinking is an action but thought isn't physical.

Well, isn't it? Thoughts are actions of the brain, which is part of the physical body. Not all physical things involve movement or muscles.