As I stated before within this thread, Jesus did not reject in going to the cross in this moment. Jesus did not have a moment of weakness. Jesus here was not outside the Father's will. Jesus was simply asking the Father if there was another way to save us, but then He instantly knew that there was no other way and He quickly agreed with the Father's plan to save us by going to the cross. Remember, Jesus said if it is POSSIBLE let this cup pass. This was not a refusal of going to the cross, but it was Jesus exploring with the Father (If there was some other way). If Jesus did not truly want to go to the cross, then he would have said to the Father that He just didn't want to do it despite the Father's will. So there was no refusal of receiving the cup from the Father. Jesus asked if it was POSSIBLE to the Father (Seeking the Father's will). Jesus never refused the cup. He was merely asking if there was some other way (Just to be sure). In fact, if Jesus did refuse in going to the cross, by his statement of "let this cup pass from me" then Jesus would be hypocritcal for rebuking Peter when Peter did not desire Jesus to go to the cross. Jesus went so far as to call Peter.... Satan for suggesting such a thing.
Christ was tempted LIKE as we are, but He never desired or was tempted to do evil.
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
As another poster pointed out in regards to Adam not having a sin nature and yet being able to sin:
Well, I already answered this before. It is true that Adam did not have a sin nature and that there is nothing wrong with him when he was created. For Adam chose to act on his free will decision to do evil instead of good. But because of that one decision, all of humanity is now paying for it. That is why Christ had to come down from Heaven in the flesh of a man. He came to bring life where Adam could not. Adam was just a man. But Jesus was the God man and makes it possible for us to live in Him. Whereas in Adam, he brought sin and death when he was tempted by Eve in being deceived by the devil. In other words, Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (i.e. sin). Jesus cannot have sin or darkness within Him and consider in doing evil. Jesus was the Light in a dark world and dying world. Jesus was impeccable and good. Jesus came to take away our sins. Jesus could not take away our sin if He struggled with sin Himself. See, Jesus cannot be exactly like us (beyond the flesh), because Jesus is also God, too. His humanity did not sacrifice His divinity and good nature as being God. For God loves us and wants to save us from our dark ways. There is no darkness in God.
But see, God knew Adam would choose evil. Adam (although created good), was not the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan with mankind. God knew that Adam was going to need a Savior Jesus Christ. A Savior who was good and not bad in any way. A Passover Lamb that was with spot or defect.
Well, I already answered this before. It is true that Adam did not have a sin nature and that there is nothing wrong with him when he was created. For Adam chose to act on his free will decision to do evil instead of good. But because of that one decision, all of humanity is now paying for it. That is why Christ had to come down from Heaven in the flesh of a man. He came to bring life where Adam could not. Adam was just a man. But Jesus was the God man and makes it possible for us to live in Him. Whereas in Adam, he brought sin and death when he was tempted by Eve in being deceived by the devil. In other words, Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil (i.e. sin). Jesus cannot have sin or darkness within Him and consider in doing evil. Jesus was the Light in a dark world and dying world. Jesus was impeccable and good. Jesus came to take away our sins. Jesus could not take away our sin if He struggled with sin Himself. See, Jesus cannot be exactly like us (beyond the flesh), because Jesus is also God, too. His humanity did not sacrifice His divinity and good nature as being God. For God loves us and wants to save us from our dark ways. There is no darkness in God.
But see, God knew Adam would choose evil. Adam (although created good), was not the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan with mankind. God knew that Adam was going to need a Savior Jesus Christ. A Savior who was good and not bad in any way. A Passover Lamb that was with spot or defect.
Last edited:
HAHAH you are hilarious...another poster......what a joke dude....
Adam was made how? and what made the first ADAM a living SOUL.....HE WAS GOOD and The second Adam was MADE how and said...why callest thou me GOOD.....How did you get saved without the ability to admit error and sin and or being wrong?
Adam was made how? and what made the first ADAM a living SOUL.....HE WAS GOOD and The second Adam was MADE how and said...why callest thou me GOOD.....How did you get saved without the ability to admit error and sin and or being wrong?
Got Questions says it best on the statement of Jesus's question in regards to God only being good.
“As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. ‘Good teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good – except God alone. You know the commandments: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ‘Teacher,’ he declared, ‘all these I have kept since I was a boy.’ Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ At this, the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.”
Is Jesus here rebuking the man for calling Him good and thereby denying His deity? No. Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words, to understand the concept of Jesus’ goodness and, most especially, the man’s lack of goodness. The young ruler "went away sad" (Mark 10:22) because he realized that although he had devoted himself to keeping the commandments, he had failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments—love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength (Matthew 22:37-38). The man’s riches were of more worth to him than God, and thus he was not "good" in the eyes of God.
Jesus’ fundamental lesson here is that goodness flows not from a man’s deeds, but rather from God Himself. Jesus invites the man to follow Him, the only means of doing good by God’s ultimate standard. Jesus describes to the young ruler what it means to follow Him—to be willing to give up everything, thus putting God first. When one considers that Jesus is drawing a distinction between man’s standard of goodness and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good. The command to follow Christ is the definitive proclamation of Christ’s goodness. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to adopt, Jesus is good. And it necessarily follows that if Jesus is indeed good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His deity.
Thus, Jesus’ question to the man is designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the man to recognize Christ’s divine identity. Such an interpretation is substantiated by passages such as John 10:11wherein Jesus declares Himself to be “the good shepherd.” Similarly inJohn 8:46, Jesus asks, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” Of course the answer is "no." Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), holy and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26), the only One who “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
The logic can thus be summarized as follows:
1: Jesus claims only God is good.
2: Jesus claims to be good.
3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God.
Such a claim makes perfect sense in light of the flow of Mark’s narrative with regards to the unfolding revelation of Jesus’ real identity. It is only before the high priest in Mark 14:62 when the question of Jesus’ identity is explicitly clarified. The story of the rich young ruler is one in a sequence of stories designed to point readers toward Jesus’ self-understanding as the eternal, divine, incarnate Son of God.
Article Source:
If Jesus was God, why did He say "No one is good but God alone"?
“As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. ‘Good teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good – except God alone. You know the commandments: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ‘Teacher,’ he declared, ‘all these I have kept since I was a boy.’ Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ At this, the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.”
Is Jesus here rebuking the man for calling Him good and thereby denying His deity? No. Rather, He is using a penetrating question to push the man to think through the implications of his own words, to understand the concept of Jesus’ goodness and, most especially, the man’s lack of goodness. The young ruler "went away sad" (Mark 10:22) because he realized that although he had devoted himself to keeping the commandments, he had failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments—love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength (Matthew 22:37-38). The man’s riches were of more worth to him than God, and thus he was not "good" in the eyes of God.
Jesus’ fundamental lesson here is that goodness flows not from a man’s deeds, but rather from God Himself. Jesus invites the man to follow Him, the only means of doing good by God’s ultimate standard. Jesus describes to the young ruler what it means to follow Him—to be willing to give up everything, thus putting God first. When one considers that Jesus is drawing a distinction between man’s standard of goodness and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good. The command to follow Christ is the definitive proclamation of Christ’s goodness. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to adopt, Jesus is good. And it necessarily follows that if Jesus is indeed good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His deity.
Thus, Jesus’ question to the man is designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the man to recognize Christ’s divine identity. Such an interpretation is substantiated by passages such as John 10:11wherein Jesus declares Himself to be “the good shepherd.” Similarly inJohn 8:46, Jesus asks, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” Of course the answer is "no." Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15), holy and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26), the only One who “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21).
The logic can thus be summarized as follows:
1: Jesus claims only God is good.
2: Jesus claims to be good.
3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God.
Such a claim makes perfect sense in light of the flow of Mark’s narrative with regards to the unfolding revelation of Jesus’ real identity. It is only before the high priest in Mark 14:62 when the question of Jesus’ identity is explicitly clarified. The story of the rich young ruler is one in a sequence of stories designed to point readers toward Jesus’ self-understanding as the eternal, divine, incarnate Son of God.
Article Source:
If Jesus was God, why did He say "No one is good but God alone"?
Last edited:
Yes!
There´s a wrong double moral on saying He was GOD and, at the same time, He was a man pretending He experience same way we do. Otherwise, His fast, was not fasting. His temptations, were not a way to prove His obedience to the Father´s will.
He could have carried the croos violating gravity laws and THAT HUGE PAIN HE FELT, and I liked the EXAMPLE He gave on avoiding drugs when someone wanted to give Him vinegar with manure, to feel that pain less (a stupid thing, by the way, because His death would have been prolonged in time) and that was one of those reasons to break the thieves´ bones, to fasten their dead.
He knew what hunger and thirst are. The moment the devil offered Him the glory of those powers demons offer, sex and all sort of wordly pleasures were implied...
He was angry at those who made money at the temple area. Not only those who sold animals for sacrifices, moneytraiders, but also those priest who GAVE PERMISSIONS to be those areas to make it a market place (like some churches today that include fundrising in the preaching of THE WORD, by the way)
There´s a wrong double moral on saying He was GOD and, at the same time, He was a man pretending He experience same way we do. Otherwise, His fast, was not fasting. His temptations, were not a way to prove His obedience to the Father´s will.
He could have carried the croos violating gravity laws and THAT HUGE PAIN HE FELT, and I liked the EXAMPLE He gave on avoiding drugs when someone wanted to give Him vinegar with manure, to feel that pain less (a stupid thing, by the way, because His death would have been prolonged in time) and that was one of those reasons to break the thieves´ bones, to fasten their dead.
He knew what hunger and thirst are. The moment the devil offered Him the glory of those powers demons offer, sex and all sort of wordly pleasures were implied...
He was angry at those who made money at the temple area. Not only those who sold animals for sacrifices, moneytraiders, but also those priest who GAVE PERMISSIONS to be those areas to make it a market place (like some churches today that include fundrising in the preaching of THE WORD, by the way)
Do you think for one second that there is darkness in Jesus Christ? That Jesus had the potential to actually sin but simply chose not to sin? I am sorry, Jesus is good. Jesus is God.
The moment someone called Jesus "good" He Himself addressed that "glory" to GOD, saying there´s only ONE who is good...
When He was trasnfigured, into the one He really was in heaven, John, James and Pete heard GOD speaking on behalf of His own son, saying: "He is the one I am well pleased... listen to Him..."
Have you read that, Jason?
Jesus himself rejected what you tried to defend and Jesus saw with disdain, or rejectable.
The moment someone called Jesus "good" He Himself addressed that "glory" to GOD, saying there´s only ONE who is good...
When He was trasnfigured, into the one He really was in heaven, John, James and Pete heard GOD speaking on behalf of His own son, saying: "He is the one I am well pleased... listen to Him..."
Have you read that, Jason?
Jesus himself rejected what you tried to defend and Jesus saw with disdain, or rejectable.
You made me think about those moments he also like to take the passover... and He would like to TAKE it, next time, when He comes back.
Luk_22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Mat_9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat_11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Luk_22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Mat_9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mat_11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Last edited:
Cut and paste more articles...here is what I see in your posts...blah blah rejection of the word blah blah opinion blah blah more rejection of truth in favor of opinions blah blah quoting other false teachers blah blah blah..........TRAGIC for sure and devalues the temptation of Jesus and what it actually accomplished!
E
I look at it this way.
one who can not sin can not be tempted to sin, the possibility has to be there
One who takes place of the sinner, must have been able to sin, yet not sin, or his sacrifice would be insufficient.
God can not die, God can not sin. Jesus had to be able to do both of those to be the lamb of God who removes the sin of the world. Being temped in all areas as we are, yet with out sin.
He also can not relate to us, and understand our temptations if he was not able to sin, He had to have the same desires we have, yet be able to overcome them and not sin. of he can not understand what we go through.
one who can not sin can not be tempted to sin, the possibility has to be there
One who takes place of the sinner, must have been able to sin, yet not sin, or his sacrifice would be insufficient.
God can not die, God can not sin. Jesus had to be able to do both of those to be the lamb of God who removes the sin of the world. Being temped in all areas as we are, yet with out sin.
He also can not relate to us, and understand our temptations if he was not able to sin, He had to have the same desires we have, yet be able to overcome them and not sin. of he can not understand what we go through.
So all humans have free will, but Jesus didn't?
So God, the creator of free will, does not have free will Himself.
So Jesus did not choose to be righteous, but righteousness was forced upon Him?
Of all beings to possess true free will, Christ is first if not only.
Do you really think you are defending the holiness of Christ? You are just redefining what the Word says about purity.
In your logic, the ability to choose is the same thing as sin?
Don't let pride overtake you. It is okay to accept the Bible for what it is.
Christianity doesn't need a new Messiah,
It needs men to follow the Messiah that was sent.
Don't re-form the Word to fit your views,
but let God reform your views to fit the Word.
If you continue seeing yourself as a revolutionary teacher, the only revolution occurring is a revolt and rebellion against the foundation of The Faith,
which is Christ: the Cornerstone, and also a Stumbling Block.
Keep Christ, Logos/the Word, as your Cornerstone, not your Stumbling Block.
So God, the creator of free will, does not have free will Himself.
So Jesus did not choose to be righteous, but righteousness was forced upon Him?
Of all beings to possess true free will, Christ is first if not only.
Do you really think you are defending the holiness of Christ? You are just redefining what the Word says about purity.
In your logic, the ability to choose is the same thing as sin?
Don't let pride overtake you. It is okay to accept the Bible for what it is.
Christianity doesn't need a new Messiah,
It needs men to follow the Messiah that was sent.
Don't re-form the Word to fit your views,
but let God reform your views to fit the Word.
If you continue seeing yourself as a revolutionary teacher, the only revolution occurring is a revolt and rebellion against the foundation of The Faith,
which is Christ: the Cornerstone, and also a Stumbling Block.
Keep Christ, Logos/the Word, as your Cornerstone, not your Stumbling Block.
I fully agree and just like Adam was created Good and without sin still had the ability to be tempted and sin....The whole point of the temptation of Jesus was so he could sympathize with us and KNOW what we deal with so as to be the Great High Priest that he is.....to say that his temptation was not like ours is foolish...rejects the word and devalues his temptation while rejecting the word of God...Period...the scriptures are clear...one can slice and dice all he wants and it will only continue to make him look foolish...temptation is temptation is temptation and ALL POINTS LIKE AS WE ARE states it clearly.......!
First, Hebrews 7:26 says Jesus is separate from sinners, holy, and undefiled. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says Jesus knew no sin. Meaning, if Jesus battled with a sin nature, then he would have to know what sin was personally or internally within him in order to combat it. Scripture says Jesus knew no sin. He was made to be sin on our behalf when He took on our sins in the Garden Gethsemane with the cup.
Second, The wrong is not in saying Jesus could not have done potential evil like us. That doesn't make any sense. The wrong is in saying that there is potential darkness in some way within Jesus for Him to actually consider in doing evil (i.e. to be tempted internally). God is good. He is not evil. 1 John 1:5 says there is no darkness in God. Jesus is God. So we must conclude there was no sin nature, no potential to sin, no consideration to sin because Jesus knew no sin and had no darkness with Him.
Third, it is also erroneous to suggest that Jesus' temptations were not real if He was not tempted internally. His temptations were real but they were merely external only. For Jesus was still tempted externally by the devil and other sinful people. That does not remove the temptations put before him by others externally. Yes, if you were to think of Jesus being tempted from an internal perspective, then it is true that Jesus was not really tempted. For Jesus was not tempted internally. But it is false to lump in fasting into the category of temptation. Jesus fasting was real because he had a physical body to fast. Jesus had a real stomach that was hungry when he fasted. But Jesus did not consider in breaking that fast ever because it would have gone against His nature as God. God cannot be tempted. God cannot consider sin or potentially sin no matter the circumstances. God is Holy and perfect in everything He does.
Fourth, Jesus did everything according to the Father's will and obedience (This would include all things Jesus said and did). John 12:49 says, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father has sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."; And Jesus also said in John 4:34 that His meat is to do the will of the Father, too. So no, Jesus did not do anything outside the Father's will. The Father and the Son are both God or of the Godhead or the Trinity. God can no more disagree with Himself then for rain to not be wet.
Fifth, the point about Jesus refusing to drink of the vinegar (mixed with gall) after tasting it has nothing to do with him being tempted internally. Jesus suffered physical real pain and refusing to numb that pain shows that He wanted to suffer physically. This is not proof that Jesus battled sin or a sin nature. Nor does Christ knowing hunger and thirst equate with Jesus struggling wiith some kind of carnal nature. The devil at first did not know Jesus was the Son of God. The devil was testing Jesus, and said, if you are God's Son.... do this.... etc. (Matthew 27:40).
Sixth, Jesus getting angry at the money changers has nothing to do with Jesus supposedly being tempted internally or in Christ's supposed potential to do evil, either. There is no mention of Christ's internal struggle with sin at this point or any other point in Scripture. Such a notion that Christ is internally tempted is all fabricated because of a false theology about Jesus (Trying to make Him more like the creation (sinful man) than the Creator (Who is God).
Second, The wrong is not in saying Jesus could not have done potential evil like us. That doesn't make any sense. The wrong is in saying that there is potential darkness in some way within Jesus for Him to actually consider in doing evil (i.e. to be tempted internally). God is good. He is not evil. 1 John 1:5 says there is no darkness in God. Jesus is God. So we must conclude there was no sin nature, no potential to sin, no consideration to sin because Jesus knew no sin and had no darkness with Him.
Third, it is also erroneous to suggest that Jesus' temptations were not real if He was not tempted internally. His temptations were real but they were merely external only. For Jesus was still tempted externally by the devil and other sinful people. That does not remove the temptations put before him by others externally. Yes, if you were to think of Jesus being tempted from an internal perspective, then it is true that Jesus was not really tempted. For Jesus was not tempted internally. But it is false to lump in fasting into the category of temptation. Jesus fasting was real because he had a physical body to fast. Jesus had a real stomach that was hungry when he fasted. But Jesus did not consider in breaking that fast ever because it would have gone against His nature as God. God cannot be tempted. God cannot consider sin or potentially sin no matter the circumstances. God is Holy and perfect in everything He does.
Fourth, Jesus did everything according to the Father's will and obedience (This would include all things Jesus said and did). John 12:49 says, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father has sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."; And Jesus also said in John 4:34 that His meat is to do the will of the Father, too. So no, Jesus did not do anything outside the Father's will. The Father and the Son are both God or of the Godhead or the Trinity. God can no more disagree with Himself then for rain to not be wet.
Fifth, the point about Jesus refusing to drink of the vinegar (mixed with gall) after tasting it has nothing to do with him being tempted internally. Jesus suffered physical real pain and refusing to numb that pain shows that He wanted to suffer physically. This is not proof that Jesus battled sin or a sin nature. Nor does Christ knowing hunger and thirst equate with Jesus struggling wiith some kind of carnal nature. The devil at first did not know Jesus was the Son of God. The devil was testing Jesus, and said, if you are God's Son.... do this.... etc. (Matthew 27:40).
Sixth, Jesus getting angry at the money changers has nothing to do with Jesus supposedly being tempted internally or in Christ's supposed potential to do evil, either. There is no mention of Christ's internal struggle with sin at this point or any other point in Scripture. Such a notion that Christ is internally tempted is all fabricated because of a false theology about Jesus (Trying to make Him more like the creation (sinful man) than the Creator (Who is God).
That is a secondary problem for man. The greater problem is that man is mortal. Man inherited mortality, the condemnation of death. We sin because we are mortal. I Cor 15:56.
If Christ ONLY atoned for sin, then we are all still condemned in the flesh. A sacrifice for sin does not give man life again.
Christ also came to destroy death, Heb 2:9, Heb 2:14-17, II Tim 1:10, Rom 5:12, 18.
The Scriptures say that Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. Many times Scripture talks about how our sins are purged by his blood. So no. You would be wrong. It is about man's sinful condition and how Jesus died to take away our sin. For Jesud died on the cross as the spotless Passover Lamb for our sins. His death would serve no purpose if He was not purging us of our sins on the cross. That's basic gospel, my friend. [/quote] actually only half and the less important one.
Not one of these texts state that man is born with sin. They do convey that man is born in sin, in a sinful world and sins upon entering this world. But not one states man is born with sin. Kinda impossible when sin is an act against God's will. Could you explain just what sin or sins a fetus does so that it will be born a sinner?
Nothing you say above is relevant because you are holding on to an erroneous, false idea, being that man has a sin nature and that man is born a sinner. Neither can be found in scripture outside of imposing an false supposition and twisting scripture to support the false supposition.
If Christ ONLY atoned for sin, then we are all still condemned in the flesh. A sacrifice for sin does not give man life again.
Christ also came to destroy death, Heb 2:9, Heb 2:14-17, II Tim 1:10, Rom 5:12, 18.
The Scriptures say that Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. Many times Scripture talks about how our sins are purged by his blood. So no. You would be wrong. It is about man's sinful condition and how Jesus died to take away our sin. For Jesud died on the cross as the spotless Passover Lamb for our sins. His death would serve no purpose if He was not purging us of our sins on the cross. That's basic gospel, my friend. [/quote] actually only half and the less important one.
Not one of these texts state that man is born with sin. They do convey that man is born in sin, in a sinful world and sins upon entering this world. But not one states man is born with sin. Kinda impossible when sin is an act against God's will. Could you explain just what sin or sins a fetus does so that it will be born a sinner?
Nothing you say above is relevant because you are holding on to an erroneous, false idea, being that man has a sin nature and that man is born a sinner. Neither can be found in scripture outside of imposing an false supposition and twisting scripture to support the false supposition.
Really? but in waht sense? Because I don´t want to be derailed from the OP.
Mat_9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Joh_10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Mat_9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Joh_10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
That is human reasoning that cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Scriptures say Jesus struggled with sin as we did. Hebrews 2, and Hebrews 4 is talking about external temptation and can easily be understood and read from that perspective which it was intended to be read. Nowhere does the Scripture say that Jesus had to struggle with sin as we do to be our Savior. Jesus took on sin within his body and then died for ous sins on the cross and then conquered the punishment for sin and death with rising from the dead. That's the gospel. There is no reason to complicate it.
More slicing and dicing of the word away by a rejection of truth in context........while making a stand on opinion.....what a joke! And the bolded above rejects clear scripture that it was AFTER his FASTING THAT THE DEVIL attempted to get his to turn the stones into bread...not to mention that he was led of the SPIRIT INTO THE WILDERNESS TO BE TEMPTED OF THE DEVIL...dude you know no bounds....!
No, my friend. The claim that Jesus was tempted internally is not irrelevant. It is wrong and evil to suggest such a thing. If Jesus is God (And He is God) then to claim that God can be tempted to do evil or wrong is not right. It's wrong on so many levels and yet people are not able to see that. They it was okay for Jesus to consider in doing evil because he had a human side and that human side would not conflict with His divine and Holy side. But darkness of any kind within God would conflict within Jesus Christ who is God Almighty in the flesh. Jesus is the Light to a dark and dying world. Jesus cannot have darkness in Himself (so as to be tempted) to do any wrong. It's not possible. Now, if you say Jesus is not God, then your claim that Jesus could have potentially sinned would make sense. But we both know Jesus is God. So to say that God can sin is a contradiction against His perfect, Holy, sinnless, and impeccable character.