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.
H
i disagree
the first Adam was imperfect because he chose to sin
the second Adam was perfect because he chose not to
God didn't declare creation good on the grounds that could be good, but on the grounds that it was already good. Therefore Adam could not have been imperfect
But that is only one side of the coin
God cannot sin...this is true
but man can
and Jesus was still 100% man
so.....
he is fully man as well
There was no "law" when Adam was around. If Adam hadn't sinned then there would be no need for the law
but he did sin....and God gave the law.....and no one could keep it perfectly because we were all fallen because of Adams sin
maybe I missed something but I feel like u should know this already....
i agree with most of this but....
i think u are only focusing on Jesus's divinity and ignoring his humanity
i know this response wasn't aimed at me but just wanted to throw in my two cents..
the first Adam was imperfect because he chose to sin
the second Adam was perfect because he chose not to
God didn't declare creation good on the grounds that could be good, but on the grounds that it was already good. Therefore Adam could not have been imperfect
But that is only one side of the coin
God cannot sin...this is true
but man can
and Jesus was still 100% man
so.....
he is fully man as well
There was no "law" when Adam was around. If Adam hadn't sinned then there would be no need for the law
but he did sin....and God gave the law.....and no one could keep it perfectly because we were all fallen because of Adams sin
maybe I missed something but I feel like u should know this already....
i agree with most of this but....
i think u are only focusing on Jesus's divinity and ignoring his humanity
i know this response wasn't aimed at me but just wanted to throw in my two cents..
H
Because they see God in all His glory...as He really is. If we saw that, we would die. Just drop down dead. So...of course the angels have always had a healthy fear of God. IMO
Satan is still battling against God...trying to steal the elect our of His hands. This is not evidence of lack of fear to u?
Satan is still battling against God...trying to steal the elect our of His hands. This is not evidence of lack of fear to u?
So the world was saved based on luck, or chance?
In other words, if you believe there was a chance (or the luck of the draw) that Jesus could have potentially sinned (Which is an appalling idea), then "chance" is one's Savior and not Jesus Christ because Jesus just got "lucky" in the fact that He did not fail in the fact that his soul was just as flawed as our soul. He got lucky that He didn't sin because if He did, we would have all been doomed not to mention God's Son would have been condemned before the Father (Which would have fractured the Trinity or the Godhead and end the universe as we know it).
But Scripture does not even remotely suggest Jesus as having a human soul in addition to a human body. For there are many opportunities for Scripture to mention if Jesus had a human soul. However, the Scriptures suggest the exact opposite. Jesus exclusively had an eternal divine soul (whereby He suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience so as to be like a man). Jesus said He came down from Heaven. Jesus did not say He was a new creation in addition to coming down from Heaven. The Scriptures say God was manifested in the flesh. It does not say, God was manifested in Him both body and soul. Scripture says the fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily. It does not say the fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him both body and soul. Jesus' soul and spirit was divine and eternal. For the Scriptures mention how God has a soul. Granted, God's soul is eternal and uncreated, though.
Also, Scripture does not suggest that Jesus could potentially sin either. On the contrary, Jesus was holy (which means perfect), separate from sinners, and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26).
In addition, there was NO chance Jesus spoke about how He could have failed in His mission (thinking He might have made it). That is unbiblical concept. For Jesus tells disciples in John 13:19 things that are yet future that are going to come to pass so that they might believe. One of these things that Jesus KNEW was going to come to pass was the time He was going to be in the heart of the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights (i.e. the place they could not come) (John 13:33); Also see John 14:28-29.
In other words, you need to prove your case with Bible verses that specifically states that Jesus could have sinned, failed in his mission, and had a human soul.
In Romans chapter 5 we learn, "For by one man sin entered the world and by one man many shall be justified."
Now, under the Mosaic Law there was an accounting and those under that Law had to bring their sacrifices accordingly. Prior to the Mosaic law, the Patriarchs offered sacrifices to God, but not as a result of particular sins–not because God said to them if you do such and such sin then you have to offer such and such sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Patriarchs were offered based upon faith, not law. Which explains the context of Romans 5:13.
For sin was no doubt in the world prior to the law and so was transgression, hence there had to be some kind of law (Because sin is transgression of the law - 1 John 3:4). For obviously Paul does not contradict himself here. He says that sin was not accounted until the law came. The point is that there was no law from God to this point that had been codified, that is, placed into written form. Before the Law of Moses, sin was not imputed because there was no written Law to transgress. Then how was sin imputed to those living before the written Law? Well, sin was imputed to those living before the Law because the "death of sin" was passed down to them thru Adam's disobedience (Romans 5:12, 14, 17, 18, 19). Those living before the Law, were exclusively justified by faith and those who did not live by faith were condemned. In other words, the Old Testament saint living before the Law was justified by following a variation of Romans 8:1. Yes, they did not know who Christ was yet or this passage, but the Spirit of Christ was in fact within the prophets, though (1 Peter 1:10, 11).
Know what exactly? A set of beliefs that are not specifically stated or mentioned in the Bible?
I say this not to wound you, but so as to guide you to the truth in love; And to challenge you to seek the Scriptures and back up what you specifically believe.
Anyways, may God bless you.
And please be well.
With loving kindness to you in Christ,
Sincerely,
~Jason.
...
In other words, if you believe there was a chance (or the luck of the draw) that Jesus could have potentially sinned (Which is an appalling idea), then "chance" is one's Savior and not Jesus Christ because Jesus just got "lucky" in the fact that He did not fail in the fact that his soul was just as flawed as our soul. He got lucky that He didn't sin because if He did, we would have all been doomed not to mention God's Son would have been condemned before the Father (Which would have fractured the Trinity or the Godhead and end the universe as we know it).
But Scripture does not even remotely suggest Jesus as having a human soul in addition to a human body. For there are many opportunities for Scripture to mention if Jesus had a human soul. However, the Scriptures suggest the exact opposite. Jesus exclusively had an eternal divine soul (whereby He suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience so as to be like a man). Jesus said He came down from Heaven. Jesus did not say He was a new creation in addition to coming down from Heaven. The Scriptures say God was manifested in the flesh. It does not say, God was manifested in Him both body and soul. Scripture says the fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily. It does not say the fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him both body and soul. Jesus' soul and spirit was divine and eternal. For the Scriptures mention how God has a soul. Granted, God's soul is eternal and uncreated, though.
Also, Scripture does not suggest that Jesus could potentially sin either. On the contrary, Jesus was holy (which means perfect), separate from sinners, and undefiled (Hebrews 7:26).
In addition, there was NO chance Jesus spoke about how He could have failed in His mission (thinking He might have made it). That is unbiblical concept. For Jesus tells disciples in John 13:19 things that are yet future that are going to come to pass so that they might believe. One of these things that Jesus KNEW was going to come to pass was the time He was going to be in the heart of the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights (i.e. the place they could not come) (John 13:33); Also see John 14:28-29.
In other words, you need to prove your case with Bible verses that specifically states that Jesus could have sinned, failed in his mission, and had a human soul.
In Romans chapter 5 we learn, "For by one man sin entered the world and by one man many shall be justified."
Now, under the Mosaic Law there was an accounting and those under that Law had to bring their sacrifices accordingly. Prior to the Mosaic law, the Patriarchs offered sacrifices to God, but not as a result of particular sins–not because God said to them if you do such and such sin then you have to offer such and such sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Patriarchs were offered based upon faith, not law. Which explains the context of Romans 5:13.
For sin was no doubt in the world prior to the law and so was transgression, hence there had to be some kind of law (Because sin is transgression of the law - 1 John 3:4). For obviously Paul does not contradict himself here. He says that sin was not accounted until the law came. The point is that there was no law from God to this point that had been codified, that is, placed into written form. Before the Law of Moses, sin was not imputed because there was no written Law to transgress. Then how was sin imputed to those living before the written Law? Well, sin was imputed to those living before the Law because the "death of sin" was passed down to them thru Adam's disobedience (Romans 5:12, 14, 17, 18, 19). Those living before the Law, were exclusively justified by faith and those who did not live by faith were condemned. In other words, the Old Testament saint living before the Law was justified by following a variation of Romans 8:1. Yes, they did not know who Christ was yet or this passage, but the Spirit of Christ was in fact within the prophets, though (1 Peter 1:10, 11).
Know what exactly? A set of beliefs that are not specifically stated or mentioned in the Bible?
I say this not to wound you, but so as to guide you to the truth in love; And to challenge you to seek the Scriptures and back up what you specifically believe.
Anyways, may God bless you.
And please be well.
With loving kindness to you in Christ,
Sincerely,
~Jason.
...
Scripture does not mention how Satan feared God before his fall. Nor would it make sense for Satan to fear God in rebelling against him because no being had experienced punishment yet. In other words, kids know to fear their parents when they do wrong. If a child is never corrected for wrong behavior, then the child has nothing to fear from their parents.
Side Note: I am not talking about the type of fear that is about being scared in horror here. I am talking about chastisement.
Side Note: I am not talking about the type of fear that is about being scared in horror here. I am talking about chastisement.
I read this verse yesterday. I also thought about this verse earlier today (briefly), too. I did not bring it up because I knew folks here would just read it the wrong way. For Isaiah 7:15 cannot be used in support of saying that Jesus had the capacity to do evil. The passage does not say that. The butter and honey are spiritual representations of God's Law within the Scriptures. We know this because that is the picture we get from them when we do a word study on "butter" and "honey" in the Bible.
Isaiah 7:15 KJV
"Butter and honey [God's Law] shall he eat [study and learn], that he [Jesus] may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good [According to the Scriptures]."
In other words, Jesus is not learning how to refuse the evil by Him considering evil and then refusing it. The passage does not say that. The passage is saying He is learning about God's Laws within the Scriptures. For how else would Jesus be an expert in quoting the Law within Scripture if He did not study God's Word?
For did not Jesus say man shall not live by bread alone?
Side Note:
Oh, and here is a study on butter on honey.
http://members.naspa.net/ez1/Butter and HoneyFrame1Source1.htm
(Note: Not all views held by this author may not express my beliefs or views. I am merely agreeing with the truth within this article here).
Isaiah 7:15 KJV
"Butter and honey [God's Law] shall he eat [study and learn], that he [Jesus] may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good [According to the Scriptures]."
In other words, Jesus is not learning how to refuse the evil by Him considering evil and then refusing it. The passage does not say that. The passage is saying He is learning about God's Laws within the Scriptures. For how else would Jesus be an expert in quoting the Law within Scripture if He did not study God's Word?
For did not Jesus say man shall not live by bread alone?
Side Note:
Oh, and here is a study on butter on honey.
http://members.naspa.net/ez1/Butter and HoneyFrame1Source1.htm
(Note: Not all views held by this author may not express my beliefs or views. I am merely agreeing with the truth within this article here).
Last edited:
Like I said Mr. Twisty....how about take the word of God literal instead of twisting it away because it contradicts your erroneous view....Go translate it from Hebrew and it means exactly what it states.....
Originally Posted by dcontroversal
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Of course this will be twisted by Mr. Twisty and or ignored or the wording changed or not applied unto Jesus....he is good at that and preaches a different Jesus than what the bible teaches!
In other words<-----I don't need you opinion as I have the word of God which trumps your view.....Jesus learned to CHOOSE as he had to make a CHOICE......so keep rejecting truth which is par for the course with you!
In other words<-----I don't need you opinion as I have the word of God which trumps your view.....Jesus learned to CHOOSE as he had to make a CHOICE......so keep rejecting truth which is par for the course with you!
Like I said Mr. Twisty....how about take the word of God literal instead of twisting it away because it contradicts your erroneous view....Go translate it from Hebrew and it means exactly what it states.....
Originally Posted by dcontroversal
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Of course this will be twisted by Mr. Twisty and or ignored or the wording changed or not applied unto Jesus....he is good at that and preaches a different Jesus than what the bible teaches!
In other words<-----I don't need you opinion as I have the word of God which trumps your view.....Jesus learned to CHOOSE as he had to make a CHOICE......so keep rejecting truth which is par for the course with you!
In other words<-----I don't need you opinion as I have the word of God which trumps your view.....Jesus learned to CHOOSE as he had to make a CHOICE......so keep rejecting truth which is par for the course with you!
You are confusing a few vowels and a consonant.
choice
chance
those words are totally unrelated. Zero logical connectivity.
Again you are rejecting Hypostatic Union entirely, where you said you supported it before.
Notice that it doesn't say "sin is the potential to commit transgression of the law."
choice
chance
those words are totally unrelated. Zero logical connectivity.
Again you are rejecting Hypostatic Union entirely, where you said you supported it before.
Notice that it doesn't say "sin is the potential to commit transgression of the law."
That is a very dangerous statement to make to people without clarifying in more detail in what you mean. If I say I learned right from wrong, that means I went thru some kind of trial and error life process so as to learn good and evil. Meaning, I made the mistake of sinning and realized how wrong it was for me to learn in not doing that sin again for me to know the difference between good and evil (Thereby teaching me to refuse other kinds of evil that I have not experienced). Now, if Jesus learned this trial and error process by thinking about doing evil but not acting upon it, it would be no different then actuallly doing evil, as well. The Bible describes bad thoughts as just as evil as the action of sin. For 1 John 3:15 says whosever hates is brother is a murderer, and no murderer has eternal life. Jesus said, "that whosever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). One of the reasons the world was destroyed was because of thiis statement in Scripture, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5). This is then followed up by God saying, "I will destroy man...". That is why everyone here is wrong for making such a statement about Isaiah 7:15 and not clarifying in detail in what they mean. For when I learned from good and evil, I did not fully realize it until I did wrong and was corrected for that bad (i.e. to get one's hand caught in the cookie jar). In other words, we humans learn more from a mistake, then we do from just reading it in a book. We understand the gravity of right and wrong by our own rights and wrongs. So no. Jesus did not go thru a trial and error process of right and wrong like we do. As I said, He merely just gained the knowledge of right and wrong by studying God's Law within the Holy Scriptures. For how else would He learn about right and wrong? By trial and error? If that were so, then He would have sinned and or had bad thoughts which would have been a stain on his Holy character in connection with the Father.
For what do you mean? Please clarify if Jesus was not studying God's Word, how did He learn about right and wrong? Did He observe other people's rights and wrong? I can see that. But Jesus did not experience his own rights and wrongs which is implied by the statement everyone here made. Hebrews 7:26 says Jesus is Holy, separate from sinners, and undefiled. Someone who is Holy does not have evil thoughts or even a potential to sin. For something that is Holy means it is perfect.
For what do you mean? Please clarify if Jesus was not studying God's Word, how did He learn about right and wrong? Did He observe other people's rights and wrong? I can see that. But Jesus did not experience his own rights and wrongs which is implied by the statement everyone here made. Hebrews 7:26 says Jesus is Holy, separate from sinners, and undefiled. Someone who is Holy does not have evil thoughts or even a potential to sin. For something that is Holy means it is perfect.
Last edited:
If Jesus truly had "free will" and if Jesus had the potential or capacity to do evil, like most people here claim, that means there is the possibility that Jesus could have failed in his mission (Which is what many have said here). If Jesus could have potentially failed in his mission that means that Jesus did not save us based on WHO HE IS but Jesus saved us based on "chance or luck" (Because there was a possibility that He could have failed). If it was "chance or luck" whereby Jesus saved us, then that thing called "Chance" becomes greater than God and thereby "Chance" is your Savior. For it is not a choice (i.e. one's free will) if there was no way Jesus could have ever sinned. Do you see where I am coming from? Whenever true choice or true free will is involved in any situation, there involves "Chance" or the Possibility that I could have failed by me choosing the wrong path. For if my choice in not accepting Christ did not have any weight, or significance then that means God chose me against my free will to be in Heaven with Him, and God chose others against their free will to send them to Hell (i.e. No Chance involved). For if a person truly has "free will" that means they have the potential to do either good or evil. There is a "Chance" for every person here today to accept Jesus or to reject Him. God draws all men unto Himself. But people refuse the drawing of Christ. They reject the possibility of being with Christ and they will regret that choice at the Judgment (Realizing there was a "Chance" or opportunity that they could have chosen Him but they did not choose Him). Jesus did not have the capability to do evil like us. There was no "Chance" He could have failed because Jesus Christ is God. If He is not God then, yes, I can see how you might think Jesus might have had the "Chance" or possibility in him failing or in choosing the wrong thing (i.e. free will, - Which involves chance, possibility, etc.).
No, nobody can believe in a true Hypostatic Union. Everyone believes in a variation of it. Something has to be sacrificed on one side or the other in order for that Union to work. See, if you believe Jesus had a human soul in addition to having a divine soul, then something has to be sacrificed. Either His divine soul and his divine powers must be sacrificed (so as to be a man) or the concept of a human soul must be sacrificed (So that God can still be God). See, if you believe Jesus was stripped of all his divine powers or at least some of his powers, then you do not believe in a true Hypostatic Union either. You cannot say God is still God 100% because He has now been stripped of His powers in some way (If that is what you believe). You also cannot say God is still God 100% God because now the Lord has this human soul/spirit mixed or added to His divine Spirit (If that is what you believe, as well). I can say that God is still God 100%. But you can't say that. I don't sacrifice Jesus' deity over his humanity. I believe Jesus is 100% human only as far as to the extent of his body and flesh and by the fact that He had a mind, will, and emotions that were limited (By the Lord suppressing His divine attribute of Ominscience) so as to have a limited mind that was like a man. The Scriptures essentially say that Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. It does not say Jesus was made EXACTLY as sinful flesh, my friend.
Important Note: The words above that are in Cap's are only for emphasis purposes only; I am not attempting to shout here.
Oh, and having evil thoughts is just as bad as sin. Jesus did not seem to think it was good that a man look at a woman in lust beause it would be committing adultery in one's heart. John says that if you hate your brother, it is the equivalent of murder, and no murderer has eternal life abiding within them. In Genesis 6, it essentially says, man's thoughts were evil continually. This is followed up by God saying He will destroy man. So no. Bad thoughts are evil and they would have defiled our Lord.
No, nobody can believe in a true Hypostatic Union. Everyone believes in a variation of it. Something has to be sacrificed on one side or the other in order for that Union to work. See, if you believe Jesus had a human soul in addition to having a divine soul, then something has to be sacrificed. Either His divine soul and his divine powers must be sacrificed (so as to be a man) or the concept of a human soul must be sacrificed (So that God can still be God). See, if you believe Jesus was stripped of all his divine powers or at least some of his powers, then you do not believe in a true Hypostatic Union either. You cannot say God is still God 100% because He has now been stripped of His powers in some way (If that is what you believe). You also cannot say God is still God 100% God because now the Lord has this human soul/spirit mixed or added to His divine Spirit (If that is what you believe, as well). I can say that God is still God 100%. But you can't say that. I don't sacrifice Jesus' deity over his humanity. I believe Jesus is 100% human only as far as to the extent of his body and flesh and by the fact that He had a mind, will, and emotions that were limited (By the Lord suppressing His divine attribute of Ominscience) so as to have a limited mind that was like a man. The Scriptures essentially say that Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. It does not say Jesus was made EXACTLY as sinful flesh, my friend.
Important Note: The words above that are in Cap's are only for emphasis purposes only; I am not attempting to shout here.
Oh, and having evil thoughts is just as bad as sin. Jesus did not seem to think it was good that a man look at a woman in lust beause it would be committing adultery in one's heart. John says that if you hate your brother, it is the equivalent of murder, and no murderer has eternal life abiding within them. In Genesis 6, it essentially says, man's thoughts were evil continually. This is followed up by God saying He will destroy man. So no. Bad thoughts are evil and they would have defiled our Lord.
Last edited:
Isaiah 7:15 KJV
"Butter and honey [God's Law] shall he eat [study and learn], that he [Jesus] may know [Have knowledge] to refuse the evil, and choose the good [According to the Scriptures]."
In other words, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil by their sin; However, Jesus did not gain the knowledge of good and evil by sin (Because Jesus was without sin) as I am sure you will agree. Jesus gained the knowledge of good and evil by eating butter and honey (Which is by studying God's Laws within the Scriptures). Jesus studied (ate the spiritual butter and honey) God's Law to let Him KNOW about the knowledge of good and evil whereby it guided His Holy nature as God (Who is not capable of doing evil) in God's Holy ways.
I mean, think about it. God refuses evil and chooses good all the time; Not because God has the capacity to do evil, but because of WHO GOD IS. God is not capable of sinning; And Jesus is God. But if you believe Jesus could have potentially chosen evil, then Jesus is not God. For one of the basic requirement in being God is if you are Holy and good.
"Butter and honey [God's Law] shall he eat [study and learn], that he [Jesus] may know [Have knowledge] to refuse the evil, and choose the good [According to the Scriptures]."
In other words, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil by their sin; However, Jesus did not gain the knowledge of good and evil by sin (Because Jesus was without sin) as I am sure you will agree. Jesus gained the knowledge of good and evil by eating butter and honey (Which is by studying God's Laws within the Scriptures). Jesus studied (ate the spiritual butter and honey) God's Law to let Him KNOW about the knowledge of good and evil whereby it guided His Holy nature as God (Who is not capable of doing evil) in God's Holy ways.
I mean, think about it. God refuses evil and chooses good all the time; Not because God has the capacity to do evil, but because of WHO GOD IS. God is not capable of sinning; And Jesus is God. But if you believe Jesus could have potentially chosen evil, then Jesus is not God. For one of the basic requirement in being God is if you are Holy and good.
Last edited:
In other words, the Eternal Living Word in the body of child is merely getting up to speed with God the Father's knowledge about refusing evil and choosing good just as the Father does (Because God the Father already naturally refuses the evil and chooses the good). It does not mean that Jesus had thought or done evil before this point. Nor does it mean Jesus had a free will to do good or evil by this statement. Remember, Jesus says He only does what He sees His Father does. Jesus does all of what His Father tells Him to do, too. Jesus was one with the Father. If Jesus thought evil or considered evil, then the Father could no longer be one with Jesus and the Trinity would have been fractured thereby ending the universe (Which is not possible).
Last edited:
In other words, the passage woud read like this,
Isaiah 7:15 KJV
"Butter and honey [God's Law] shall he eat [study and learn], that he [Jesus] may know [Acquire knowledge] to refuse the evil, and choose the good [Just as God the Father naturally refuses the evil and chooses the good because He is Holy]."
Isaiah 7:15 KJV
"Butter and honey [God's Law] shall he eat [study and learn], that he [Jesus] may know [Acquire knowledge] to refuse the evil, and choose the good [Just as God the Father naturally refuses the evil and chooses the good because He is Holy]."
Jesus was studying God's Laws within the Scriptures which guided Him in refusing the evil and choosing the good just as God the Father naturally refuses the evil and chooses the good. For Jesus only does what He sees His Father doing. Jesus is one with the Father. Jesus could not consider in doing evil, because it would be against being one with the Father who is Holy.
If one considers in doing evil, they are not good, but they are bad.
Jesus was always pure in His thoughts.
Why? Because Jesus is good; For He is the Good Shepherd.
If one considers in doing evil, they are not good, but they are bad.
Jesus was always pure in His thoughts.
Why? Because Jesus is good; For He is the Good Shepherd.
Last edited:
K
Hebrews 4:15
New International Version
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.
New Living Translation
This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin.
English Standard Version
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
New American Standard Bible
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
King James Bible
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin.
New International Version
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.
New Living Translation
This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin.
English Standard Version
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
New American Standard Bible
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
King James Bible
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin.
From: http://members.naspa.net/ez1/Butter%...me1Source1.htm
My point would be - Jesus studied the OT scriptures - which is what enabled him to refuse evil and choose the good. In order to refuse something one has to be presented with something to refuse - So if he refused evil - he was presented with evil and to choose good he was presented with good. That is a choice no matter how you look at it. We also are to study scripture so that when presented with evil or good - we can know to refuse the evil and choose the good and Jesus Christ is our example in that he always chose the good.
Adam was created perfectly - to be a perfect man. He was given only one commandment which he failed. It wasn't the "sin" that caused Adam to KNOW good and evil; it was eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that caused Adam to KNOW that he had sinned.
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. - Jesus Christ
My point would be - Jesus studied the OT scriptures - which is what enabled him to refuse evil and choose the good. In order to refuse something one has to be presented with something to refuse - So if he refused evil - he was presented with evil and to choose good he was presented with good. That is a choice no matter how you look at it. We also are to study scripture so that when presented with evil or good - we can know to refuse the evil and choose the good and Jesus Christ is our example in that he always chose the good.
Adam was created perfectly - to be a perfect man. He was given only one commandment which he failed. It wasn't the "sin" that caused Adam to KNOW good and evil; it was eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that caused Adam to KNOW that he had sinned.
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. - Jesus Christ