Christ was tempted LIKE as we are, but He never desired or was tempted to do evil.

[Jason0047]

No, But then again, this very teaching was declared heresy in three successive Councils in the 3-4th centuries. Christ's Incarnation was explained, defined as it was always understood from the beginning. My question is why would you even bring out this topic and then not follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

Narrow is the way that leads unto life; And few be there that find it. So it is not the majority of the popular view of religious men that count. But it is in what does God's Word actually say and the few who find life within it.

Part if not entirely your problem is that you are being guided by the false teaching of Original Sin.
Our human nature is not evil. The human nature has nothing evil in it. It is fallen, meaning it became mortal. We have a nature that is now subject to decay, corruption and death. We sin because of this parasite known as death. It is US that sins, not the flesh. The flesh causes us to sin easily. Our flesh influences us to sin. Christ did not permit His Human nature to cause Him to sin. He had the ability to sin not. We have the ability to not sin but we cannot do it perfectly. That is the connection between His two natures. His Human nature was in perfect alignment with His Divine. It is not that He could not sin but that He did not sin. Keeping the law perfectly would have been impossible if He could not sin.

Actually, your whole issue here is not about Christ and His Incarnation or dual natures, but the fact that you have this erroneous understanding of Original Sin. It is correct that if man has a sin nature, and is born a sinner, Christ could NEVER save us because He could not become man as we are. He would be something other than we are. It would be some other creature keeping the law perfectly, as well, our mortal nature would never have been resurrected from death. It would not be our nature, but whatever nature this creature you perceive has.

It might behoove you to study on just what the Incarnation of Christ means, and just what is the content of Christ's saving work through that Incarnation. Also, why the theory of Original Sin is unscriptural.

Notice here that you did not in any way address the verses that I brought up (Like others here have done). You are focusing a laser beam on what you believe; Opinion only. In fact, there is no mention of even one verse within your post here. Please provide Scripture so we can debate Scripture. For opinions are just that. Opinions.

 

[dcontroversal]

Did Jesus have a carnal nature or a sinful nature? Yes, or no?

Did Jesus have sinful flesh? Yes, or no?

I already answered that as he did no sin...you accused me of saying and or implying something I did not say nor imply you owe me an open apology! Second..to be tempted does not mean that one has sinned and or has a carnal, sinful nature and you still are failing to open your eyes to the truth....

 

[Jason0047]

I already answered that as he did no sin...you accused me of saying and or implying something I did not say nor imply you owe me an open apology! Second..to be tempted does not mean that one has sinned and or has a carnal, sinful nature and you still are failing to open your eyes to the truth....

I will give you an apology if you answer the following questions below with a "no."

Did Jesus have a carnal nature or a sinful nature? Yes, or no?

Did Jesus have sinful flesh? Yes, or no?

For to me, if you say "yes", that is in effect saying there is darkness in Jesus Christ. So are you saying "yes" to these questions?

 

[Cassian]

Narrow is the way that leads unto life; And few be there that find it. So it is not the majority of the popular view of religious men that count. But it is in what does God's Word actually say and the few who find life within it.

Yes a Gospel that has not changed since the beginning. A Gospel that the Holy Spirit has not permitted man to corrupt.
Here you are a man who chooses to impose his own faulty interpretation upon God's revelation, Gospel.

Notice here that you did not in any way address the verses that I brought up (Like others here have done). You are focusing a laser beam on what you believe; Opinion only. There is no mention of even one verse within your post here.

Texts have little meaning when man can change the meaning according to his best interpretation. It should be quite obvious to any on any forum where sola scripture reigns supreme, that all that happens is texts being thrown around like confetti and each has a different interpretation. Man reigns supreme in his authority over Christ and the Holy Spirit.
All you are seeking is affirmation that your view is correct. The same for any other. Neither has the focus of what scripture actually means, what it has always meant from the beginning.

 

[Jason0047]

I will give you an apology if you answer the following questions below with a "no."

Did Jesus have a carnal nature or a sinful nature? Yes, or no?

Did Jesus have sinful flesh? Yes, or no?

For to me, if you say "yes", that is in effect saying there is darkness in Jesus Christ. So are you saying "yes" to these questions?

I will add one more question, too (In Light of Adam and Eve).

Did Jesus have the potential free will to do evil?

Yes, or no?

If Jesus had the potential to do evil, where did this potential evil come from?

 

[Brainfreeze]

I implied Jesus had carnal flesh, " by saying that I'm not saying sinful carnal soul" I'm saying He lived in the Spirit and walked in flesh like you and me. HE NEVER SINNED, He knew no evil, this is like 3x just I've said this.. But He did reject evil and temptation, as us carnal minded men should do, reject the flesh and live with Jesus in the Spirit.

 

[dcontroversal]

I will give you an apology if you answer the following questions below with a "no."

Did Jesus have a carnal nature or a sinful nature? Yes, or no?

Did Jesus have sinful flesh? Yes, or no?

For to me, if you say "yes", that is in effect saying there is darkness in Jesus Christ. So are you saying "yes" to these questions?

I already answered and don't apologize...you will be the one to pay...not me....!

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

I already answered that as he did no sin...you accused me of saying and or implying something I did not say nor imply you owe me an open apology! Second..to be tempted does not mean that one has sinned and or has a carnal, sinful nature and you still are failing to open your eyes to the truth....

 

[dcontroversal]

I will add one more question, too (In Light of Adam and Eve).

Did Jesus have the potential free will to do evil?

Yes, or no?

If Jesus had the potential to do evil, where did this potential evil come from?

I already answered and your theology still fails to understand the temptation of Jesus and the reason for said temptation.....

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

I already answered that as he did no sin...you accused me of saying and or implying something I did not say nor imply you owe me an open apology! Second..to be tempted does not mean that one has sinned and or has a carnal, sinful nature and you still are failing to open your eyes to the truth....

 

[Brainfreeze]

I will add one more question, too (In Light of Adam and Eve).

Did Jesus have the potential free will to do evil?

Yes, or no?

If Jesus had the potential to do evil, where did this potential evil come from?

Yes, HE MADE THE TREE Jason...

The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…

 

[Jason0047]

Yes a Gospel that has not changed since the beginning. A Gospel that the Holy Spirit has not permitted man to corrupt. Here you are a man who chooses to impose his own faulty interpretation upon God's revelation, Gospel.

And yet again, you ignore Scripture that is is many that find life and not the few. Jesus said, narrow is the way that leads unto life. Not many. In otther words, it is not the majority popular view that is the narrow road.

Texts have little meaning when man can change the meaning according to his best interpretation. It should be quite obvious to any on any forum where sola scripture reigns supreme, that all that happens is texts being thrown around like confetti and each has a different interpretation. Man reigns supreme in his authority over Christ and the Holy Spirit.
All you are seeking is affirmation that your view is correct. The same for any other. Neither has the focus of what scripture actually means, what it has always meant from the beginning.

So you believe the Bible is unknowable? That text has little meaning so we should not quote Scripture? Jesus would disagree with you. Jesus quoted Scripture to the devil to defeat him.

 

[Jason0047]

I already answered and your theology still fails to understand the temptation of Jesus and the reason for said temptation.....

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

I already answered that as he did no sin...you accused me of saying and or implying something I did not say nor imply you owe me an open apology! Second..to be tempted does not mean that one has sinned and or has a carnal, sinful nature and you still are failing to open your eyes to the truth....

So we agree that Jesus was externally tempted only?

If Jesus was tempted internally, where did this internal temptation to do potentially do bad (by the thing one is being tempted with) come from?

 

[SolidGround]

So we agree that Jesus was externally tempted only?

If Jesus was tempted internally, where did this internal temptation to do potentially do bad (by the thing one is being tempted with) come from?

The Bible doesn't discuss what you are talking about.
You have concluded that there are 2 types of temptation, internal and external.
I don't follow that philosophy.

Temptation is temptation. There are no subdivisions.
All temptation is either received or rejected.

Clarify, and give Scripture to prove that there are 2 types of temptation.

 

[Jason0047]

Yes, HE MADE THE TREE Jason...

The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…

No. God (Christ) does not directly create evil. God is good. The Tree was in having the knowledge ..... *cought* ..... knowledge .... of good and evil. The tree in and of itself was not evil. It was only evil if Adam and Eve had eaten of that tree in rebellion against God. Their lust (desire) for the fruit, and their disobedience of God (by eating it) was what was evil.

Jesus did not have any lust (bad desires) like Adam and Eve. He was pure and Holy. Good and without flaw. He is our substittute. He took on our sin within his body. He did not take on sin while at birth. Jesus took on our sin in the Garden of Gethsmane with the cup.

 

[dcontroversal]

So we agree that Jesus was externally tempted only?

If Jesus was tempted internally, where did this internal temptation to do potentially do bad (by the thing one is being tempted with) come from?

The lust of the flesh--->command that these stones be turned into bread
The Pride of Life--->His Angels will lift you up if you are who you say you are
The Lust of the Eyes-->See all these Kingdoms, I will give them if you will fall down before me
Weakness-->Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me

Tempted in ALL POINTS AS WE ARE!

But was in ALL points tempted like as we are, yet without sin
For in that he himself SUFFERED being TEMPTED, he is able to succour them that are tempted

 

[Cassian]

And yet again, you ignore Scripture that is is many that find life and not the few. Jesus said, narrow is the way that leads unto life. Not many. In otther words, it is not the majority popular view that is the narrow road.

And I said nothing of majority. I stated what was given by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is not the majority either. Which is why your statement of few applies.

So you believe the Bible is unknowable? That text has little meaning so we should not quote Scripture? Jesus would disagree with you. Jesus quoted Scripture to the devil to defeat him.

I don't. The text has meaning because it has always had the same meaning from the beginning. It has never changed from the beginning and surely no individual man has ever imposed his interpretation upon scripture.
Which is not like you and every sola scripturists. Every false teacher quotes scripture as well which I already stated. My assumption is that Christ already understood what it meant. You are trying to figure out what it meant as every sola scripturists does and thus you have all the thousands of interpretations of a single Book. You could not prove your point from scripture any more than a Jehovah Witness could either disprove yours or prove his own.

 

[dcontroversal]

The Bible doesn't discuss what you are talking about.
You have concluded that there are 2 types of temptation, internal and external.
I don't follow that philosophy.

Temptation is temptation. There are no subdivisions.
All temptation is either received or rejected.

Clarify, and give Scripture to prove that there are 2 types of temptation.

No doubt...more man made theology!

 

[Jason0047]

The Bible doesn't discuss what you are talking about.
You have concluded that there are 2 types of temptation, internal and external.
I don't follow that philosophy.

Temptation is temptation. There are no subdivisions.
All temptation is either received or rejected.

Clarify, and give Scripture to prove that there are 2 types of temptation.

A real world example of external and internal temptation is if a guy tried to take a blind man (since birth) into a strip club (not knowing he was blind) trying to tempt him with looking at women lustfully. The guy was externally tempting the blind man; But the blind man (since birth) would never be tempted internally to look upon a women in lust because he never seen a women before. The blind man's temptation would be external only; And not internal temptation.

 

[Brainfreeze]

No. God (Christ) does not directly create evil. God is good. The Tree was in having the knowledge ..... *cought* ..... knowledge .... of good and evil. The tree in and of itself was not evil. It was only evil if Adam and Eve had eaten of that tree in rebellion against God. Their lust (desire) for the fruit, and their disobedience of God (by eating it) was what was evil.

Jesus did not have any lust (bad desires) like Adam and Eve. He was pure and Holy. Good and without flaw. He is our substittute. He took on our sin within his body. He did not take on sin while at birth. Jesus took on our sin in the Garden of Gethsmane with the cup.

Are you telling me He doesn't use evil situation that WE bring and He makes good... I can show you otherwise with scripture.

 

[Jason0047]

The lust of the flesh--->command that these stones be turned into bread
The Pride of Life--->His Angels will lift you up if you are who you say you are
The Lust of the Eyes-->See all these Kingdoms, I will give them if you will fall down before me

All external temptations by the devil. Jesus did not consider in ever doing them.

Weakness-->Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me

No, Jesus did not weak here in desiring to NOT go to the cross. He immediately then said, let your will be done. Jesus was asking if there was another way, but then knew immediately that there was not another way. So He said to the Father, let your will be done. Jesus was still within the Father's will here. For if Jesus said, I refuse this cup and let it pass from me. Then that would be a different story. That would be weakness. For if Jesus did not desire to go to the cross at all or save us in some way, then He would have been hypocritical for rebuking Peter for the fact that he desired Jesus to not go to the cross. For what did Jesus call Peter when Peter did not want him to go to the cross?

Also, you did not answer my questions above. Please answer them.

 

[Jason0047]

Are you telling me He doesn't use evil situation that WE bring and He makes good... I can show you otherwise with scripture.

God did not DIRECTLY create evil. God uses the evil that came into existence by free willed beings (That chose evil). God can use the evil (That was already put forth in motion by free willed beings) for His good purposes. But God does not actually create evil beings directly, nor does God actually do evil. Neither does God use (already pre-existing evil from man) for bad purposes but only for good purposes. The Scriptures say there is no darkness in God. God is Good, Love, Life, Light, and Righteousness. All the evil in this world comes from man (That man chose). One day, there will be no more evil. One day there will be no more death, disease, pain, suffering, darkness, etc. Why? Because God is good; And not evil.