The Impeccability of Our Lord Jesus Christ

[awelight]

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

1Ti 3:16 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.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh so He could be tempted according to His humanity.

Jesus was conceived by the Spirit, so He was always led by the Spirit, so He could not sin, but He was tempted according to the flesh.

Jesus had to be fully human to qualify as our Savior.

Jesus said the Father is greater than me so that means that God is greater than the flesh.

A man called Jesus good master and He said why call me good for there is only one that is and that is God.

Which Jesus as a man was giving glory to God that He is doing good because God is causing Him to do good.

Jesus prayed in the garden if the cup given to Him could pass, and if not then the Father's will be done, and that is the flesh.

Jesus was in the flesh so He was tempted.

Jesus was in the flesh like all humans and the saints shall receive a glorified body like Christ's glorified body.

I want to reply to three things herein - the rest was explained in my previous post.

1.) You said: "Jesus was conceived by the Spirit, so He was always led by the Spirit..." This is incorrect. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit - as to His humanity but He was not led by the Holy Spirit as you and I would be. For Jesus, in His incarnation, was/is both fully God and fully man. As the Second Person of the Godhead, He is equal to the Father and the Spirit. He took on Himself a role of servitude but He did not become less than God.

2.) You said: "Jesus had to be fully human to qualify as our Savior." This is very shallow thinking. Jesus had to be so much more to be our Savior. He had to be a perfectly Holy man. A man without "spot or blemish". Perfect in every way but even a perfect man could not be our Savior. But a perfect man, just in all things, could die in the place of those God is saving. Christ died in His humanity because God cannot die and only God can appease God. However, Christ in His humanity, cannot cover the eternal nature of transgression and sin. Only the eternal God can do that. Thus, the need for a God-man. As God, the Son, He redeemed His sheep. As the perfect man... the Lamb of God...He died for the redeemed. Because He was the God-man, His death is eternal. His resurrection is eternal. His flesh never saw decay or corruption.

3.) You said: " Jesus was in the flesh so He was tempted. " Therefore, it is obvious, you see no difference in Jesus Christ's "human nature" than you do in our own. You suppose then, that His flesh was tainted. It had the "sin principle" dwelling within it - just like ours. This is almost blasphemy. I would suggest you read the requirements of the "Passover Lamb" in the Old Testament and Romans Chapter 5. In particular, these two verses:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.

 

[awelight]

Jesus was like us in every way according to Scripture, yet without sin.

According to you, He was not like us at all .

I'll stick with what the Bible says.

I am always willing to discuss differences or entertain honest questions... However, if you have made up your mind on the subject, then I would repeat what I said previously.

If you want to believe in a Jesus Christ who could be tempted then knock yourself out. I for one, will not lower the nature and character of my Savior.

 

[SomeDisciple]

First - You need to update your understanding of temptation and sin

I think there's just a semantic disagreement happening here. Because even Oxford and merriam-webster have different definitions of "temptation".

Oxford calls temptation a "desire, especially to do something wrong" while Merriam-webster calls it an "enticement" which is an arousing of desire...

That's not the same thing.

So maybe we need to agree that we disagree on the definition of "temptation"

 

[Dino246]

If you want to believe in a Jesus Christ who could be tempted then knock yourself out. I for one, will not lower the nature and character of my Savior.

As far as Hebrews 4:15 is concerned - it does not say He was tempted - that is an English translation. It says:

- οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας.
- For we have not a high priest not being able to suffer with the weaknesses of us, but having been tested in all respects according to [our] likeness apart from sin.

Translators, must determine the proper use of the Greek word: πεπειρασμένον in order to give it the correct English word to express it's meaning. Even in the Strong's Concordance - tempted is the last thing mentioned: From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, try, tempt (-er).

The Greek word translated "weaknesses" in the English, has nothing to do with sin. This word means weaknesses in the realm of physical infirmities. As well as, the need for spiritual strengthening. Having a physical weakness is not a sin.

Surely, you do not believe that Jesus, the eternal Son of the living God, the Creator of all things, the Sustainer of all things and the one who was born, in the flesh, as that Holy Thing - Would entertain in His mind, at any time, things such as Idolatry, Murder, Theft, Adultery, Homosexuality, Lies, Drugs or Drunkenness?

God forbid. May it never be!

Because, unlike us, He did not possess a temptable nature and if one does not possess a temptable nature, then that one cannot be tempted.

While your research material is interesting, the point you make is weak. Strong's concordance indicates the frequency with which that Greek word is translated into a given English word in the KJV; it does not indicate the likelihood of a particular English word being accurate. That the vast majority of English translations use "tempted" here is good evidence that the word is the best translation, regardless of the other words into which the Greek term is translated.

Your closing argument is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Indignation is evidence only that you have been offended by the idea, not that the idea is objectively wrong.

 

[awelight]

I think there's just a semantic disagreement happening here. Because even Oxford and merriam-webster have different definitions of "temptation".

Oxford calls temptation a "desire, especially to do something wrong" while Merriam-webster calls it an "enticement" which is an arousing of desire...

That's not the same thing.

So maybe we need to agree that we disagree on the definition of "temptation"

That is an interesting point. However, no matter our definition of the word tempted or temptation, we would have to agree it can not have the same definition when applied to Jesus as it does when applied to us.

If we go back to the beginning of my argument, we will find I am arguing against Jesus Christ having a "Temptable Nature" within His humanity.

Thus, it doesn't matter ones definition of the word temptation... per se. It has to do with the two together. Temptable and nature. Together, these two are defined as: A nature that is subject to temptation.

This would perfectly describe US as human beings but cannot be applied to Jesus Christ in His Humanity. A temptation to do evil would never get a millisecond - of any traction - in the mind of our Lord because His nature is described as that "Holy Thing". (Luke 1:35) He was begotten "HOLY" as compared to us, which come forth from the womb lying. Jesus Christ had no part in the "Adamic curse". Therefore, His humanity was above temptation but not above examination. It was tested on many occasions: By the Jewish religionist, by the Devil but neither could find spot or blemish in His Holy Character. It was not subject to corruption or decay but was not above death.

Therefore, Jesus Christ had no reason to put off His flesh upon His resurrection but we must put off ours in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[awelight]

While your research material is interesting, the point you make is weak. Strong's concordance indicates the frequency with which that Greek word is translated into a given English word in the KJV; it does not indicate the likelihood of a particular English word being accurate. That the vast majority of English translations use "tempted" here is good evidence that the word is the best translation, regardless of the other words into which the Greek term is translated.

Your closing argument is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Indignation is evidence only that you have been offended by the idea, not that the idea is objectively wrong.

I am indignant to anything that deviates from the truth of Scripture. Especially, when it comes to proper understanding of the Triune God.

You raise an interesting point, as to the proper use of an English word to translate the Greek. Each translator, must determine which word is more appropriate. In this case: Tested, Tried, Examined or Tempted. It must take into consideration the "context", " word gender" and "subject". Therefore, a certain amount of overall Biblical understanding must also be used. In the case of Jesus, a good overall knowledge of His Person and Work maybe required in order to pick the proper English word (Or what ever language), for translation. While Greek words can have several English possibilities, one must not violate the truth because they do not have a good grasp of the subject matter being discussed within the context.

Example from the KJV:

Isa_45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Is "evil" a good English word here? Did "evil" have a different understanding in 1611? Should it be used today? Does it not contrast with this thought, presented in James?

James 1:13 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:

A better word, for Isa. 45:7, would be "Chaos or Calamity". For a Holy God can bring calamity upon one as a form of Judgement but cannot create Evil - as we understand the meaning of Evil.

Since, the KJV started the whole use of the word "Tempted and Temptation", as it is applied to Christ, it would be difficult for subsequent translators to let go of the word, in those related verses. Yet, many works on the Koine Greek language, speak to the proper understanding of this Greek word and how it should be understood. Nevertheless, translators continue to use "Tempted". But, the "many" do not make something "right".

I like what John Gill had to say on the subject:

Hebrews 2:18

For in that he himself ... - “Because” he has suffered, he is able to sympathize with sufferers.

Being tempted - Or, being “tried.” The Greek word used here is more general in its meaning than the English word “tempted.” It means to “put to the proof;” to try the nature or character of; and this may be done either:

(1) By subjecting a person to “afflictions” or “sufferings” that his true character may be tried - that it may be seen whether he has sincere piety and love to God; or.
(2) By allowing one to fall into “temptation,” properly so called - where some strong inducement to evil is presented, and where it becomes thus a “trial” of virtue.

The Saviour was subjected to both these in as severe a form as was ever presented to people. His sufferings surpassed all others; and the temptations of Satan (see Matt. 4) were presented in the most alluring form in which he could exhibit them. Being “proved” or “tried” in both these respects, he showed that he had a strength of virtue which could bear all that could ever occur to seduce him from attachment to God; and at the same time to make him a perfect model for those who should be tried in the same manner.

Hebrews 4:15

But was in all points tempted like as we are - “Tried” as we are; see the notes at Heb_2:18. He was subjected to all the kinds of trial to which we can be, and he is, therefore, able to sympathize with us and to aid us. He was tempted - in the literal sense; he was persecuted; he was poor; he was despised; he suffered physical pain; he endured the sorrows of a lingering and most cruel death.

This is the difference between blind translations and having an understanding of the subject.

 

[Dino246]

I am indignant to anything that deviates from the truth of Scripture. Especially, when it comes to proper understanding of the Triune God.

You raise an interesting point, as to the proper use of an English word to translate the Greek. Each translator, must determine which word is more appropriate. In this case: Tested, Tried, Examined or Tempted. It must take into consideration the "context", " word gender" and "subject". Therefore, a certain amount of overall Biblical understanding must also be used. In the case of Jesus, a good overall knowledge of His Person and Work maybe required in order to pick the proper English word (Or what ever language), for translation. While Greek words can have several English possibilities, one must not violate the truth because they do not have a good grasp of the subject matter being discussed within the context.

Example from the KJV:

Isa_45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

Is "evil" a good English word here? Did "evil" have a different understanding in 1611? Should it be used today? Does it not contrast with this thought, presented in James?

James 1:13 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:

A better word, for Isa. 45:7, would be "Chaos or Calamity". For a Holy God can bring calamity upon one as a form of Judgement but cannot create Evil - as we understand the meaning of Evil.

Since, the KJV started the whole use of the word "Tempted and Temptation", as it is applied to Christ, it would be difficult for subsequent translators to let go of the word, in those related verses. Yet, many works on the Koine Greek language, speak to the proper understanding of this Greek word and how it should be understood. Nevertheless, translators continue to use "Tempted". But, the "many" do not make something "right".

I like what John Gill had to say on the subject:

Hebrews 2:18

For in that he himself ... - “Because” he has suffered, he is able to sympathize with sufferers.

Being tempted - Or, being “tried.” The Greek word used here is more general in its meaning than the English word “tempted.” It means to “put to the proof;” to try the nature or character of; and this may be done either:

(1) By subjecting a person to “afflictions” or “sufferings” that his true character may be tried - that it may be seen whether he has sincere piety and love to God; or.
(2) By allowing one to fall into “temptation,” properly so called - where some strong inducement to evil is presented, and where it becomes thus a “trial” of virtue.

The Saviour was subjected to both these in as severe a form as was ever presented to people. His sufferings surpassed all others; and the temptations of Satan (see Matt. 4) were presented in the most alluring form in which he could exhibit them. Being “proved” or “tried” in both these respects, he showed that he had a strength of virtue which could bear all that could ever occur to seduce him from attachment to God; and at the same time to make him a perfect model for those who should be tried in the same manner.

Hebrews 4:15

But was in all points tempted like as we are - “Tried” as we are; see the notes at Heb_2:18. He was subjected to all the kinds of trial to which we can be, and he is, therefore, able to sympathize with us and to aid us. He was tempted - in the literal sense; he was persecuted; he was poor; he was despised; he suffered physical pain; he endured the sorrows of a lingering and most cruel death.

This is the difference between blind translations and having an understanding of the subject.

I agree with you on the point of the KJV's influence (right or wrong) on subsequent translators. I disagree on your statement, " one must not violate the truth because they do not have a good grasp of the subject matter being discussed within the context" as the people doing the translating are typically the people who have the very best "grasp" of the subject matter.

Whether the best English word is "tempted", "tried", "tested", "examined", or something else, it doesn't matter. My point still stands: if Jesus could not fail, the trial/test/temptation was not genuine. A test that you cannot fail is not really a test.

 

[awelight]

I agree with you on the point of the KJV's influence (right or wrong) on subsequent translators. I disagree on your statement, " one must not violate the truth because they do not have a good grasp of the subject matter being discussed within the context" as the people doing the translating are typically the people who have the very best "grasp" of the subject matter.

Whether the best English word is "tempted", "tried", "tested", "examined", or something else, it doesn't matter. My point still stands: if Jesus could not fail, the trial/test/temptation was not genuine. A test that you cannot fail is not really a test.

As to your first paragraph, you seem to believe that all translators were believers. Probably not - but in spite of this, God's Truth prevailed - upheld by His Power. Most translators of published Bibles are "Scholars" and being a Scholar, does not mean that person is a true believer. Many who claim to be Christians have nothing more than "Head" knowledge. The reason why I included John Gill's commentary, was not to back me up but to show how others have seen the problem of the translation. Why? Because they have a good grasp on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ - from Gen. 1:1 - Rev. 22:21.

As to your second part -- The purpose of testing or examining someone is not about success or failure. It is about proving His "Genuineness" to His examiners -- Is He who He says He is? Can He do what He says He can do? Etc.. This period of testing, was for the purpose a satisfying the OT requirement. Three passages need to be earnestly observed about the Passover Lamb:

Exo 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household:

On the Tenth day, of the first month, a lamb without "blemish" was to be selected. It also must be the "first-born", which is not mentioned here.

Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old: ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats:
Exo 12:6 and ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at even.

Note: The Lamb is to be kept for observation until the fourteenth day. So selected on the 10th. Observed for three days - to make sure it is perfect in everyway. Killed on the 14th day. Therefore, this is why Jesus began His ministry and proclaimed the Kingdom for three years and then was put to death. It was never about success or failure but proving He was the Lamb of God - without any blemish. This same thought is carried over to the NT by Peter:

1Pe 1:19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ:
1Pe 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake,

Finally -- If there was even the slightest possibility of Jesus Christ failing, it could have been disastrous. 1.) If He could have failed, then how does He differ from Adam? For Adam could not keep the commandment and would have never been able to keep it. This is why God planned redemption before He ever created. 2.) If He could have failed, then there was a possibility that God's plan and purpose would be usurped. Scripture, says that is impossible. 3.) If He could have failed and didn't - then how did He manage to not fail? Was He kept by God from failing? If so, by your way of thinking, wouldn't this also be unfair - to be artificially propped-up?

 

[Dino246]

As to your first paragraph, you seem to believe that all translators were believers. Probably not - but in spite of this, God's Truth prevailed - upheld by His Power. Most translators of published Bibles are "Scholars" and being a Scholar, does not mean that person is a true believer. Many who claim to be Christians have nothing more than "Head" knowledge. The reason why I included John Gill's commentary, was not to back me up but to show how others have seen the problem of the translation. Why? Because they have a good grasp on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ - from Gen. 1:1 - Rev. 22:21.

Yes, some scholars are not believers. To make your point valid, you would have to demonstrate with evidence that the particular translators who chose "tempted" instead of "tested" were not believers. Your conjecture may be sensational, but it's empty.

As to your second part -- The purpose of testing or examining someone is not about success or failure. It is about proving His "Genuineness" to His examiners -- Is He who He says He is? Can He do what He says He can do?

There's just one problem with this idea: His believers were not with him in the desert. They did not even know about the testing until long after it happened. There is no record in Scripture that Jesus, while in the flesh, told any of them about it.

This period of testing, was for the purpose a satisfying the OT requirement. Three passages need to be earnestly observed about the Passover Lamb:

While Christ did indeed fulfill the requirements of the Passover lamb, the testing in the desert was not part of this. He was not crucified until several years later; the examination of the lamb happens in the few days preceding the sacrifice, as it did with Jesus.

Finally -- If there was even the slightest possibility of Jesus Christ failing, it could have been disastrous.

Jesus didn't fail, so it's rather pointless to discuss what might have happened if He did.

1.) If He could have failed, then how does He differ from Adam? For Adam could not keep the commandment and would have never been able to keep it. This is why God planned redemption before He ever created.

Jesus is God incarnate; that's what makes Him different from Adam. Adam is a creation; Jesus is the Creator.

2.) If He could have failed, then there was a possibility that God's plan and purpose would be usurped. Scripture, says that is impossible. 3.) If He could have failed and didn't - then how did He manage to not fail? Was He kept by God from failing? If so, by your way of thinking, wouldn't this also be unfair - to be artificially propped-up?

Your position holds a "propped-up" Jesus who couldn't fail; my position holds a Jesus who didn't.

 

[awelight]

Yes, some scholars are not believers. To make your point valid, you would have to demonstrate with evidence that the particular translators who chose "tempted" instead of "tested" were not believers. Your conjecture may be sensational, but it's empty.


There's just one problem with this idea: His believers were not with him in the desert. They did not even know about the testing until long after it happened. There is no record in Scripture that Jesus, while in the flesh, told any of them about it.


While Christ did indeed fulfill the requirements of the Passover lamb, the testing in the desert was not part of this. He was not crucified until several years later; the examination of the lamb happens in the few days preceding the sacrifice, as it did with Jesus.


Jesus didn't fail, so it's rather pointless to discuss what might have happened if He did.


Jesus is God incarnate; that's what makes Him different from Adam. Adam is a creation; Jesus is the Creator.


Your position holds a "propped-up" Jesus who couldn't fail; my position holds a Jesus who didn't.

Thanks for your replies. In many of the cases, we are not that far apart. On some of your replies I will give further clarification.

You said, that His believers were not with Him in the desert - however, the testing was not being done for believers. Believers do not need to examine Jesus' genuineness. This testing was for the purpose of the Devil. The Father of lies. It was to allow the Devil to examine Jesus - as to whether He was/is the Son of God. Therefore, the Devil was allowed to test Him on three points. When I referred to examination, I was referring to the religious Jews.

As to the Passover Lamb of the OT, indeed this was done in days but as to the Lord, the religionist had three years to examine the Lamb of God and according to Scripture, they examined Him on countless occasions. Jesus was barraged with questions, each time they were trying to trip Him up. Which if they had known, He was/is the Son of God, they would have known how foolish the attempt was.

It is certainly NOT pointless to discuss what might have happened if He did fall into sin. The whole purpose of the Second Person of the Godhead coming in flesh, was to accomplish what mere mortals could not! This was the Father's Plan from all Eternity. As John the Baptizer said: "Behold, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the World." This was His Divine proclamation at the very first of Jesus Christ's ministry on earth. If Jesus could have failed - it would have made God out to be a liar and thus, not God.

My position on the subject of "impeccability" does not hold to a "propped-up" Jesus. It holds to the perfectly holy nature of that Jesus. Because He was the God-man - the union of the Divine and perfect humanity. Therefore, He did not suffer from the imperfection of Adam's creation. What do I mean from this statement? That requires some in depth thinking.

In the simplest form. when God determined to create man, He created him "upright" but not perfectly holy. This is because, in order to create Adam perfectly holy - God would have to create God. For Scripture clearly says, that only God is perfectly holy in all His attributes. Only this perfection, cannot sin. Anything else, will sin - sooner than later. While eve was "upright", she could not master her curiosity when the temptation came. She couldn't even quote what God had said correctly. When she presented the fruit to her husband, he trusted her more than God.

God knowing this frailty, master planned the redemption of His people even before He Created anything. In order to satisfy His Holy Justice, one who was perfect in everyway, must die an unjust death for them. This required the union of the Divine person with a human person. A person who was "conceived" by the Holy Spirit, in a "pure and sanctified womb", never having been touched, in anyway, by the sin principle; therefore, a vessel fit for the Divine Son. As God, He wrote the Law - as the perfect man, He kept the Law.

Jesus Christ, is so far above us, even as believers, that it stagers the imagination. Morally, we are closer to Hitler, than to Him.

 

[Dino246]

You said, that His believers were not with Him in the desert - however, the testing was not being done for believers. Believers do not need to examine Jesus' genuineness. This testing was for the purpose of the Devil. The Father of lies. It was to allow the Devil to examine Jesus - as to whether He was/is the Son of God. Therefore, the Devil was allowed to test Him on three points.

If we follow your assertion to its logical conclusion, what we have is not evidence of Jesus' impeccability, but only of His identity. The testing does nothing to demonstrate that Jesus could not sin, but the text clearly tells us that He did not.

In the simplest form. when God determined to create man, He created him "upright" but not perfectly holy. This is because, in order to create Adam perfectly holy - God would have to create God. For Scripture clearly says, that only God is perfectly holy in all His attributes. Only this perfection, cannot sin. Anything else, will sin - sooner than later.

Scripture says nothing of the bolded portions of your statement. In other words, you're attempting to make a "Scripture-based" argument that is not actually based on Scripture.

God knowing this frailty, master planned the redemption of His people even before He Created anything. In order to satisfy His Holy Justice, one who was perfect in everyway, must die an unjust death for them. This required the union of the Divine person with a human person. A person who was "conceived" by the Holy Spirit, in a "pure and sanctified womb", never having been touched, in anyway, by the sin principle; therefore, a vessel fit for the Divine Son. As God, He wrote the Law - as the perfect man, He kept the Law.

Jesus' death was unjust because He was sinless and blameless. Whether He could not sin or merely did not sin has no bearing on that.

 

[SomeDisciple]

I would definitely disagree that Adam was not created holy. He was created holy, and chose to be unholy. If God created Adam with a sin-nature.... then we can just blame God for everything that has ever gone wrong, because he set Adam up to fail on purpose, like some kind of mentally abusive parent.

"I'll set him up to fail, and then 'save' him so he will have to love me!"

Lol, that's psychotic.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Adam's fall didn't catch God by surprise. He had Jesus' crucifixion scheduled
and on track even before creating the cosmos' very first particles. (1Pet 1:18
& Rev 13:8)
_

 

[PaulThomson]

There was no latent sin in Jesus to be stirred by temptation and no habits of sin to be overcome. But he did have "weaknesses" (ασθενεια) common to our human nature (hunger, thirst, weariness, etc.

Are you saying that God created Adam with latent sin in him, and yet Adam was very good.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I would definitely disagree that Adam was not created holy. He was created holy, and chose to be unholy. If God created Adam with a sin-nature.... then we can just blame God for everything that has ever gone wrong, because he set Adam up to fail on purpose, like some kind of mentally abusive parent.

"I'll set him up to fail, and then 'save' him so he will have to love me!"

Lol, that's psychotic.

The “sin nature “ was created by good and evil knowledge man was made to only have good knowledge we werent prepared to have discernment between good and evil yet it’s why God warned them not to eat the fruit the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not meant for mankind to partake of

“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:16-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

When God gave them this commandment it was meant to preserve thier life by warning them not to do this

satan used the commandment against them by te prong then with a lie deceiving their thinking because they weren’t prepared to discern good and evil they were unsuspecting

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:4-6, 8, 10-11, 17, 19, 22-24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Now the commandment condemns them both because they have broken it and it clearly says “ when you do this you’ll surely die “ everything has now changed to snide of mankind’s mind and heart were now perceiving God through a cloud of good and also evil desire and knowledge man was corrupted

the evidence is here God creates man

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:27-28, 31‬ ‭

man is placed in Eden by God for a purpose , Satan deceived man man breaks the commandment and partakes of good and evil knowledge entering thier minds and hearts then god says because they have partaken of good and evil they must be cast out of Eden nd now they will toil and labor all thier days until they return to the dust they were in the beginning before he created thier body

and now just ten generations later after God creates a very good creation and gives earth to man now the same God sees what man has done to it what we made this earth into

“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. ( evil knowledge corrupted our minds we weren’t supposed to have evil thoughts and desires )

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭6:5-7, 12-13, 17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This clearly was not Gods intended plan it says he’s is repenting because he’s created mankind and mankind has corrupted his very good world he created by thier corrupt minds and hearts now filled with every evil imagination possible they’ve become wicked sinners but it’s obviously not what he intended

he told then his Will for them and they rejected it and followed the serpents ideas and it led mankind to genesis six and God who created them is now grieved in his heart because he made this evil and wicked creation who kill and chest and steal and lie and commit whoredoms and are unfaithful and violent and greedy and they do harm
Constantly to one another we made a sinful violent world when we followed the knowledge of evil and we see here where it leads when we reject gods word and follow satans


If we look at the design of God mankind plays a vital role on earth and has dominion that’s where the issue was it wasn’t Gods Will that led to the flood but mankind’s corrupted Will through deception

the fact that he is grieved and repenting for creating man tells us this wasn’t his design it’s a regretful hurtful guy when he sees what we became and did with the blessing of dominion on earth

“The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: But the earth hath he given to the children of men.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭115:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

we we’re meant to walk in fellowship with God upon the earth without sin and violence and death but we followed the lies of Satan rather than Gods perfect Will expressed by his word to us

Of course God knew the end before the beginning but this doesn’t change how things unfolded

Mans Death was never the Will of God it’s why he told them not to eat the fruit

satans Will was man’s death it’s why he lied and told them they wouldt die as God told them but the object was the knowledge of good and evil that caused the problem man’s disobedience corrupted creation because he gave earth to man

this later is why Jesus was born a son of man and it’s said that he now has all
Power and judgement on earth because he is fully God and fully a son of man meaning God now possesses heaven and earth

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Mans failure is why things fell apart , but through Christ the perfect man now come and having dominion things are held together and restored back using and first we the people are restored through him and later creation also will be restored

 

[Nehemiah6]

Jesus' death was unjust because He was sinless and blameless. Whether He could not sin or merely did not sin has no bearing on that.

Christ (a) could not sin. (b) would not sin, (c) had no sin and (d) did not sin. We are talking about the sinless Son of God who is "separate from sinners" ("sin apart"). Any temptation thrown at Him had zero effect. But He could sympathize with us.

 

[evyaniy]

Adam had free will which he used to make the wrong choice. The Son also had free will and could have asked His Father to send angels to save Him from His assigned duty as the Lamb of YAH Who takes away the sins of the world. But then how would the Scriptures be fulfilled. He also prayed in the garden to His Father to take the cup away from Him if there was any other way, yet not His will but the Father's will be done. He used His free will to be obedient even to the point of death to save us as the law and His Father required of Him. By His obedience we are saved.

 

[PaulThomson]

It’s a really good study but it does require us to understand we don’t know everything already

Amen. My pastor asked us one day who the modern pharisees are. After some thought I suggested they are the kind of people who, when they hear something that does not fit neatly into their own tradition, they don't go afresh to scripture to see if it can be found there like a Berean, but immediately reject it and throw back some quotes and proof-texts from proponents of their own tradition (and possibly also knee-jerk slap the label of a particular historical heresy on the person) to justify not even interacting with the person's reasoning.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Amen. My pastor asked us one day who the modern pharisees are. After some thought I suggested they are the kind of people who, when they hear something that does not fit neatly into their own tradition, they don't go afresh to scripture to see if it can be found there like a Berean, but immediately reject it and throw back some quotes and proof-texts from proponents of their own tradition (and possibly also knee-jerk slap the label of a particular historical heresy on the person) to justify not even interacting with the person's reasoning.

Amen if we would test what people say against what’s really there we would always be able to discern from good doctrine and bad what’s written has always been the same and will remain the same but we can conform if we aren’t beyond learning

 

[PaulThomson]

To say Jesus Christ had to be capable of sinning in order to be tempted as we are would require the belief that Jesus Christ inherited the sin nature from Adam, which he did not, Romans 5.

The NRSV and REB change to test is the better understanding of Hebrews 2:18. I believe to deny the impeccability of Jesus Christ drags one into a blasphemous system of belief

Maybe the idea that we all inherit a sin nature from Adam is false. Sin was only crouching at the door of Cain's soul before he murdered Abel. It was because Cain did not exercise mastery over sin that sin entered in and became the strongman enslaving his flesh. Gen 4.

In the womb, Jacob and Esau had not yet done anything good or evil, even though they were fighting, because they did not know the law yet. Rom. 9

Before Paul/Saul heard the law, sin had no power over him but lay dead. Sin took an opportunity by the law to deceive Saul into disobedience and kill him. Rom. 7

It seems to me that we are all conceived without an indeelling sin nature, but under the death sentence of a limited lifespan because of Adam. Through being deceived into not trusting God, we fall inti a first misuse of our innately very good in-the-image-of-God attributes of self-awareness, other-awareness, intellect, emotions, senses and free-will, and this allows sin in, and we start to go astray from God. Once sin and distrust of God is in us, our flesh which we tend to rely on is too weak to keep sin consistently in check, and we put our reliance on God and His grace too infrequently to walk in habitual holiness.

If this is so, then Jesus began his human life like all of us: innocent and sinless. But unlike us, He at no point yielded to sin's arguments to allow it to master him and get inside his body. Hence, the devil had nothing in Him.