Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could Jesus Have Possibly Sinned or Succumbed to Temptation?
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | August 30, 2006 | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 10/31/2013 10:27:20 AM PDT by GonzoII

Could Jesus Have Possibly Sinned or Succumbed to Temptation?

In a dialogue in 1997, a Baptist friend of mine stated:

Jesus Himself was not unable to sin. I realize that God the Father is unable to sin; however, Jesus, though He was in nature God, was able to sin. This is evident in this verse "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15, NRSV; cf. 2:18). If Jesus could be tempted, He could sin if He so chose. Satan clearly knew that Jesus could sin, as we see in the verses about Jesus' temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:1-10). If Jesus could not sin, then there was no temptation in the first place, and He was not "tested as we are."

God the Son also could not sin (what is called impeccability), simply by virtue of the fact that His Godhood or Divine Nature didn't cease; He merely took on an additional Human Nature (theologians call that the Hypostatic Union). What you are asserting is the ancient heresy known as Nestorianism.

God the Father cannot sin or do evil. Things are not evil just because He says they are, but in and of themselves. Love is not love because God says so, but because it exists eternally, grounded in God's character. God is Love. That is the key to ethics and the prevention against relativism and situation ethics. When God destroys nations, that isn't murder, because God is Creator and Judge, and has the prerogative to give life or take it away. They are judged because of the evil they have done, and so there is no injustice. And if God commands the Israelites to destroy a nation, then they are aso acting rightly, since they have received divine guidance. Most wars, on the other hand, are not conducted justly and ethically.

The "rules" do indeed apply to God also, just as He is "bound" by the laws of logic. Otherwise we take away His goodness and end up with a "god" which is not the all-loving, all-good, all-wise God of the Bible. That is a radical existentialism or some other man-made religion and not Christianity. God neither determines the moral law, nor is He "under" it, rather, He is it; He embodies it: God is Love. Therefore, God cannot sin, because His essence is holiness and love. He cannot will or do something sinful because that contradicts His essence as a perfectly holy Being.

Moreover, God can't break the law of non-contradiction because that is simply the way things are. If they weren't, we would have a chaotic universe. Even an omnipotent God can't make Himself not exist, or go back and prevent Himself from being eternal, because He is pure Existence. And Jesus (who is God) is also the Logos, or Word, and this is the very Greek word from which we get the word "logic." So logic, like love is grounded in God - not above Him. God Himself is "bound to logic" in the sense that He can't act contradictorily, or contrary to the laws of logic, but not in the sense that He is inferior to logic, since it is grounded in Him.

The laws of logic govern the relationships of propositions, theories, and facts. They have nothing to do with the content per se. The most airtight logic in the world will not make a false premise lead to a true conclusion. God understands and sees everything. Since we are neither out of time, nor omniscient, nor omnipresent, obviously we cannot know everything God knows. This is a limitation of knowledge, not logic. God can contradict neither Himself nor the laws of logic, nor the moral law of love. That is simply the divine reality. This does not equate with being "limited". His glory is pure Love and Intelligence and Wisdom. God's immutability is part of His essence. It cannot be otherwise with Him.

God is eternal; therefore, morality must have always existed, and is grounded in His Being and Essence. God is Love. That is the basis for love and Moral Law. If someone wants to claim that God created morality, then does that mean He was amoral before the time He created morality? That hardly makes any sense, since God doesn't change (immutability). Likewise with the laws of logic. God was always a logical Being, since He is - and has always been - omniscient. God could never at any time have made a circle square, or 2+2=5, or make something exist and not exist at the same time, or make Himself not exist, and then create Himself out of nothing. The law of non-contradiction is eternal, and is simply Reality. That doesn't make it greater than God; it is just the way things are, period.

The Incarnation does not entail the ability to sin. The mere fact of temptation does not presuppose the possibility of giving in to the temptation. The devil was just too stupid to know that his attempt to subvert Jesus was doomed from the start (just as he thought the crucifixion was his great victory, when in fact it was his utter defeat) .

God the Father can be tempted as well in this sense, since Jesus responded to the devil during His own temptation: It is written, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." (Mt 4:7; NRSV; or, Do not tempt the Lord your God). Since men and demons are warned not to do this, it must be possible to do it. Thus, if God the Father can be tempted while being unable to sin, so can Jesus, who is also God. We find God the Father being tempted or "tested" (or else spoken of as possibly being tempted) in passages such as Ex 17:2, 7, Num 14:22, Deut 6:16, Ps 78:18,41,56, 95:9, 106:14, Is 7:12, Mal 3:15, Acts 15:10, Heb 3:9. And the Holy Spirit, who is the third Person of the Holy Trinity, is tempted in Acts 5:9.

Obviously, then, God being sinless and being God does not mean, ipso facto, that creatures cannot try to tempt Him. Jesus was clearly tempted in the Garden of Gethsemane, yet without sin, as always. His inability to sin makes His death on the Cross on our behalf no less willful or utterly profound, does it? He still had to endure it, and freely chose to do so, for our sake.

Men (or demons) test/tempt God by defiantly challenging Him to prove Himself to be what He claims, and by questioning His goodness and justice. The devil offered Jesus what he offers other men (often - sadly - successfully), not knowing that Jesus had no need of such things. In other words, men and the devil can try to tempt God, as the above biblical evidences make clear, but they will not be successful, for God cannot be tempted by evil (Jas 1:13). Since Jesus is fully God, He, too, not only did not sin, but cannot sin, by nature.

Jesus had a free will. But we need not presuppose the necessity and real potentiality of contrary choice in our definition of free will. Jesus' free will means that He possessed voluntary, uncoerced freedom of thought and action. Thus, God the Father and Jesus can possess free will even though it is not possible for them to sin. Any view contrary to this reduces God to a determined, mechanical, robotic, "deistic" being, no longer the biblical God. It is not true to say that God must have created the world, or us. He did it because He wanted to, and because He took pleasure in it, and sought to thereby express His love towards the creation which He freely chose to create. Nor will we be programmed robots in heaven, but rather, we will freely choose to love, worship, and serve God for eternity, just as angels and the saints in heaven now do.

Free will can be defined in two ways:
1) Necessity of contrary choice (i.e., evil),

and

2) Voluntary, uncoerced action.
One can freely and willingly always choose to do good. That's what God the Father and God the Son do, and also the angels. Since they had this choice, they are not robots. Neither is Jesus, who always chose good, but also could not choose evil. Why? Well, it's simple: creatures can rebel against their Creator, but how can the Creator rebel against Himself? The fact of the Incarnation changes absolutely nothing in that equation. The Hypostatic Union means that Jesus had two natures: fully God and fully Man.

Perhaps an analogy might be helpful here. If I were on an island with only one other person, who happened to be a beautiful woman, I could choose to "marry" her. There is no other choice if I am to be married. There is no "contrary choice," for not marrying her is not so much a "contrary choice" as it is nothing at all: the lack of a choice rather than a choice. Yet if I chose to marry her, it would be the act of a free agent, not forced or coerced at all. Nor is either scenario good or evil. I didn't have to have an "evil possibility" (say, marry a hog) in order to be free to marry her if I so chose. This isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it is good enough. Likewise, God (and Jesus) always freely choose good, and they can no more choose evil than we can breathe underwater. The essence of God is to be holy, and He cannot violate His own essence.

It is not the essence of a human being to sin, or to be able to sin. Rather, our essence comes from being made in the image of God, in Whom there is no sin, nor can there be. The less we sin, the more human we are (we tend to think of "humanness" as fallibility and tragically flawed weakness, but that is not really true from God's perspective). But getting back to the main topic: "could Jesus have possibly sinned?":

The temptation to sin and the appetite for it which leads to a strengthening of the desire, is a result of the fall of man. Catholics call this tendency to gravitate toward sin, concupiscence. Since Jesus is God and didn't fall, He cannot sin, and He cannot possess the concupiscence that men are burdened by. Jesus also couldn't doubt the way men do. He had perfect knowledge because He was God as well as man. Freedom from doubt flows out of freedom from ignorance. Therefore, Jesus couldn't doubt and "mull over" the lies of Satan, or be tempted by them in some sense of internal, existential agony - as if He were actually influenced by Satanic lies.

Even in His human nature, Jesus possessed the Beatific Vision which all who go to heaven will one day possess. He could be tempted only insofar as the devil or persons can try to do that, but He never did and indeed never could succumb to the temptation in the least. He obviously suffered physical pain and emotional agony, as in His sorrow over Jerusalem, and on the cross and in the Garden of Gethsemane, but not the anguish of soul leading to doubt and sin. Many passages in the Bible prove that Jesus was without sin, which would include never giving into temptation (note especially Hebrews 4:15; verses now in RSV):
John 8:46: Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

Hebrews 4:15: For we have not 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.

Hebrews 7:26-28: For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

Hebrews 9:14: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

1 Peter 1:19: but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

1 Peter 2:22: He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.

1 John 3:5: You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911: "Temptation of Christ"):
Like Adam, Christ (the second Adam) endured temptation only from without, inasmuch as His human nature was free from all concupiscence; but unlike Adam, He withstood the assaults of the Tempter on all points, thereby affording His mystical members a perfect model of resistance to their spiritual enemy, and a permanent source of victorious help (Hebrews 4:15-16).
Fernand Prat, S.J.:
Jesus is neither a sinner nor sin, personally, but as a member of a sinful family, with which he identifies himself. It is in the same sense that he is made a "curse," like the branch of an accursed tree. Similarly, on account of our union with him who is justice itself, we participate in his "justice." Jesus, being by his nature impeccable, cannot be made a sinner by his contact with sinners, while our moral union with the Just One par excellence renders us really just ourselves. And this justice, because it comes from grace and not from us, is rightly called the "justice of God."

(The Theology of St. Paul, Westminster, MD: Newman Bookshop, 1952, Vol. II, 205)
Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, translated by Patrick Lynch, edited in English by James Canon Bastible, Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., fourth edition, 1960, p. 169) says that Christ "could not sin" and based that on the Hypostatic Union: "His human actions are actions of a Divine Person." He adds: "From the Hypostatic Union there arises a physical impossibility of sinning and from the Beatific Vision a moral impossibility . . ." Ott classifies this as a sententia fidei proxima doctrine (regarded generally by theologians as a truth of revelation). He adds (emphasis mine):
The Fifth General Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, which asserted that Christ only became conpletely impeccable after the resurrection (Denzinger 224). It follows from this that He was already impeccable.
Likewise, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980, "Impeccability of Christ," 269), states that this means the "absolute impossibility of Christ committing any sin."

The bishops have rendered their authoritative opinion as well:

Review of Fr. McBrien's Catholicism, National Council of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Doctrine, April 9, 1996:
A. Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Statements

1) The Impeccability of Jesus Christ

Catholicism/span> insists that it is possible to hold the faith of the church while maintaining that Jesus Christ could have sinned. "It is not that Jesus Christ was absolutely incapable of sin, but rather that he was able not to sin and, in fact, did not sin" ( p. 547). The book argues that "both views - the one favoring impeccability and the one that does not - are within the range of Catholic orthodoxy" (p. 547). This position, however, cannot be reconciled with the Christology of the councils.

[Footnote 2: In the anathemas against the Three Chapters, the Second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the opinion attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia that Jesus attained impeccability only with the resurrection (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 434).]

In two natures, Jesus Christ is only one hypostasis (or person), the hypostasis of the Word. With Christ there is no possible subject of the verb to sin. There are indeed two wills in Christ, but only one person, one subject. The contention that Jesus could have sinned, if followed to its logical conclusion, inevitably implies a Nestorian or an adoptionist Christology, though it must be said that Catholicism does not draw such extreme conclusions.
Fr. William Most, Comments on Richard McBrien, Catholicism, 3rd Edition:
The sinlessness of Jesus

He admits that Jesus did not sin, yet He was capable of sinning (p. 547). He as not immune to sexual desires (pp. 562-63).

McBrien grants that the Church does teach, as does the NT, that Jesus was without sin. But he has trouble about the impeccability, inability to sin, of Jesus. He quotes the Third Council of Constantinople (381) saying that His human will is "compliant, it does not resist or oppose, but rather submits to the divine and almighty will." We grant this does not explicitly state impeccability. McBrien continues saying it seems better to conclude that it is the "clear and constant belief and teaching of the Church that Jesus Christ was perfect in his humanity." He seems then to think of the Council of Chalcedon which he cited earlier saying He was "like us in every respect apart from sin," and the similar statement of Hebrews.

So McBrien says the NT does not go in for theological speculation. And the official texts do not formally teach impeccability. This is true.

Nor are there many patristic texts on impeccability, not enough to satisfy the requirement of being practically unanimous. St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote (R 2141): "they are stupid, who affirm, I do not know how, that even Christ could have sinned." St. John Damascene is more helpful (R 2386): "Because there is one person of Christ, and in Christ, there is one who wills through each nature: as God, in approving, and as man, being made obedient." (Cf. also St. Athanasius in R 798).

But we can sharpen this up a bit: We do not say it is nature that sins, but a person sins. But in Christ there was only one Person, even though two natures. If He had sinned, the sin would have been attributed to the one Person, a Divine Person. Which of course is impossible.

Finally we mention Canon 12 of the second General Council of Constantinople, in 553 (DS 434) which spoke of Theodore of Mopsuestia as "impious" because he spoke of Christ as "suffering from passions of soul and desires of the flesh, and gradually going away from the worse things, and so becoming better by advancing in works . . . merited divine sonship . . ."
See also the related papers:

2 Corinthians 5:21: Was Jesus Christ Literally Made Sin on the Cross?

Dialogue on The Last Temptation of Christ

And excellent papers by others (Protestant):

Could Christ have Sinned?: peccability or impeccability, Mike Oppenheimer

The Impeccability of Christ, John W. McCormick

The Impeccability of Christ, John F. Walvoord



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: christ; jesus; jesuschrist; temptation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

How could God sin? I didn't even
want to put the question mark in.

1 posted on 10/31/2013 10:27:21 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

(As Hilary would say) “What difference does it make?”
He didn’t. SO there


2 posted on 10/31/2013 10:31:35 AM PDT by WKB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Next - Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?


3 posted on 10/31/2013 10:32:33 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

What would theology be today if there were no robots?


4 posted on 10/31/2013 10:34:17 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

He was guilty of only one thing:
Love in the first degree.


5 posted on 10/31/2013 10:35:28 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Luke 4:20-21

20And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”


6 posted on 10/31/2013 10:37:13 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Jesus is both natural man, being born of a woman, and spiritual man, being born of God. It’s why he is called both Son of man and Son of God.

And we also are both natural and spiritual.

I think Jesus refusal to sin, even though he was met with the same temptations as the rest of us with a natural nature is similar to my experience, of late, with all you can eat chinese food.

Here’s how it works:

When I was younger, I LOVED all-you-can-eat chinese for all sorts of reasons, but I always felt lousy for hours after gourging myself.

So I am of two minds before I make the decision to get the food: It’s really good and I’ll really enjoy it, but I’m gonna feel lousy afterward. Think of the former as the “natural” man not caring about the consequences but wanting that yummy food. And he is at war with the “spiritual” man who knows that in the long run I am going to be sorry I at the food.

As I have gotten older, the latter wins. The former submits because he has been controlled by the wisdom of the “spiritual”.

So, Jesus knew what was on the line. He saw hot women. He saw chances to save himself and destroy the plan, but the spiritual side successfully subdued the human side.

And how fierce was this battle? He sweat blood.


7 posted on 10/31/2013 10:38:28 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Next - Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Yes.

It’s about his control over the space/time continuum, Mr. Carlin...


8 posted on 10/31/2013 10:39:15 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

A presupposition does not a truth make but it sure can shape your lens.


9 posted on 10/31/2013 10:41:32 AM PDT by Frapster (frak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15, NRSV; cf. 2:18).

I’ll keep the above and whoever wants can keep all those other words (there are a lot).


10 posted on 10/31/2013 10:43:34 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Could Jesus Have Possibly Sinned ...
IIRC, the Gospel of Thomas claims Jesus killed a few people. Of course he brought them back, but ... just sayin'.
11 posted on 10/31/2013 10:46:26 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

As scripture testifies, His seed remained within Him ... when Moses received the tablets, he brought humankind a written description of what God IS NOT ... God is not a liar, therefore He cannot lie. We humans on the other hand ...


12 posted on 10/31/2013 10:46:27 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Ask that question about Mooseham-ed. Oh wait, his followers don't care!!

Seriously though, anyone who questions just one religion (Judeo-Christianity) and ignores Islam is suspect in my book.

13 posted on 10/31/2013 10:47:42 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Christ on Earth was both fully human and fully divine.

Humanity is able to sin.

His divine nature allowed him to transcend his humanity.


14 posted on 10/31/2013 10:49:30 AM PDT by MortMan (We've gone from ‘failure is not an option’ to ‘failure is not an obstacle’.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

According to Mohammad Jesus DID sin when he “lied” about being God. Don’t TELL me Muslims and Christians have ANYTHING in common.


15 posted on 10/31/2013 10:51:18 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Blaspheme of the highest order.


16 posted on 10/31/2013 10:52:15 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

What? You mean you’re gonna argue with chrislam?


17 posted on 10/31/2013 10:52:20 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Next - Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?

The problem is with the question. Rocks exist because God created them. God created them during His creation whose final act of creating was to breathe life into man. At the end of each day of creation God "saw that it was good".

God had a purpose for his creation, rocks included, which God accomplished in the beginning.The question rejects God's stated purpose for His creation and implies that God can and will act without purpose.

At the risk of creating a bad analogy to demonstrate the silliness of the question: Could the contractor build an elevator that goes to the 150th floor of a 100 story building? Perhaps, but why in the world would he want to?

18 posted on 10/31/2013 10:54:52 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Sorry I distracted you from the first moronic question.


19 posted on 10/31/2013 10:56:18 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Next - Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Yes.

It’s about his control over the space/time continuum, Mr. Carlin...


20 posted on 10/31/2013 11:06:54 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DManA

He can do whatever He wants, He is God.


21 posted on 10/31/2013 11:10:21 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Considering that “temptation” is a sin...

Hebrews 4:15- “For we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respecs like ourselves, but without sin”. And

1 Peter 2:22 - “He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth”.

The answer is NO.


22 posted on 10/31/2013 11:11:47 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

Maybe a little off topic; maybe not.

Is killing people always a sin?

I would say, “No”.


23 posted on 10/31/2013 11:17:43 AM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

Question 2.

Is “Gospel of Thomas”, authoratative, or in the Bible, or possibly Gnostic.

I would say, “no”, “no”, and “maybe”.


24 posted on 10/31/2013 11:21:01 AM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Is killing people always a sin? I would say, “No”.
You would be wrong. Thou shall not kill.

Is “Gospel of Thomas”, authoratative, or in the Bible, or possibly Gnostic.
Does not make it wrong.
25 posted on 10/31/2013 11:24:12 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
"You would be wrong. Thou shall not kill."

Actually Thou shalt not murder is the understanding.

26 posted on 10/31/2013 11:27:12 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

It seems the tension is between Jesus’ humanity and his deity. If he is truly human, he is capable of sin but resisted it perfectly. But as deity, he is incapable of sin so doesn’t that counter his humanity and capacity to sin.

I once heard an explanation that I found very satisfying. It goes like this. In his humanity, Jesus’ resisted all temptation to sin so his deity, which would have prevented sin, was a backstop against sin that was never reached or needed.

This maintains his humanity and his sinlessness while retaining his perfection as deity.


27 posted on 10/31/2013 11:31:31 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then how could he be tempted?

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 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. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Yet he did not sin.
That is the key- YET. He did not sin.

28 posted on 10/31/2013 11:34:15 AM PDT by mountn man (The Pleasure You Get From Life Is Equal To The Attitude You Put Into It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
“And how fierce was this battle? He sweat blood.”

The first thing I thought of is we are human, but we also have God dwelling in us. And of course we sin. I think the Garden of Gethsemane was Christ's biggest temptation - I would go even as far as saying that Christ was anxious, but then quickly turning that worry into a prayer. Like Paul tells us “Don't be anxious about anything, but with prayer and thanks call on God” (or something to that effect). While dwelling on worry is probably a sin (not trusting in God), I think the momentary anxiousness is the normal human response to a bad situation.

Could Jesus have jumped ship? Yes, I think He had free will and could have. Would He? No. Another scene comes to mind, when Jesus is baptized and God says something like “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Why would it please God for Jesus to be baptized if Jesus had no choice in the matter? It would make Jesus an automaton imho.

29 posted on 10/31/2013 11:37:34 AM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mountn man
"If Jesus COULDN'T sin, then how could he be tempted?"

I would say He came, He saw, and He conquered perfectly as only God could.

I believe if He could hear the thoughts and suggestions of men he could of heard those of the Devil and acted accordingly.

30 posted on 10/31/2013 11:40:06 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“Actually Thou shalt not murder is the understanding.”

And one doesn’t have to look to Thomas to see God doing lots of killing.


31 posted on 10/31/2013 11:44:44 AM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
"And one doesn’t have to look to Thomas to see God doing lots of killing."

I'll take issue with your term "killings".

From the article:

"When God destroys nations, that isn't murder, because God is Creator and Judge, and has the prerogative to give life or take it away. They are judged because of the evil they have done, and so there is no injustice."

32 posted on 10/31/2013 12:16:04 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

He might have enjoyed the occasional non fat free yogurt, but that is it.


33 posted on 10/31/2013 12:17:41 PM PDT by deadrock (I am someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avenir
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15, NRSV; cf. 2:18).

Jesus is the innocent Lamb of God - unspotted and without sin - the perfect Sacrifice to redeem us of our sins.

34 posted on 10/31/2013 12:23:49 PM PDT by Slyfox (Satan's goal is to rub out the image of God he sees in the face of every human.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: deadrock
"He might have enjoyed the occasional non fat free yogurt, but that is it."

No way, a worker was a worker in those days, He would have needed every calorie.

35 posted on 10/31/2013 12:30:58 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
His seed remained within Him

As I read your post, I have the impression you mean that to say that Jesus' genetic seed, as in sperm, did not leave him; i.e., he did not have intercourse with a woman--ok, or anything else, neither ever have a wet dream. I hope not to have put that inference upon your writing inappropriately, but I believe that would not reasonably follow the context from which that piece of Scripture comes, I John 3:9, where, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." speaks to God's seed being in anyone born of God, as Jesus was (though through Mary, He had David's seed, also) and therefore even a human, so begotten, cannot sin."

Yet, I don't see eye-to-eye with (for example, Lutherans) those who would aver that we sin because we have a sinful nature. Conversely, if we were brought to this Earth as "born of God", we would not, or even "could not." I subscribe to the tenet, "fully God, fully human." I don't reflexively ascribe infallibility to various Councils any more than I would to a pope. Such I do ascribe to canonical Scripture.

We must be in the dispensation of which Ezekiel 18:2-3 speaks. Sinning is no longer a question of parentage or seed. "The soul who sins shall die" (without a Savior to wash those sins away).

Mt 5:48 ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") would be a horrible taunt if God's Holy Writ were to command an impossibility. A gerbil endlessly attempting to catch his tail in a spinning race would serve a similar, mindless point.

HF

36 posted on 10/31/2013 12:32:24 PM PDT by holden (Alter or abolish it yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: deadrock

I messed up, I didn’t see the “non” fat free...


37 posted on 10/31/2013 12:32:32 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: holden
"As I read your post, I have the impression you mean that to say that Jesus' genetic seed, as in sperm, did not leave him ..." and you are profoundly WRONG. I was referring to the spirit within Jesus. You see, the Bible is its own best commentary, and the concept of 'seed' is so much more than the genetic one, biblically. But then I suspect you already knew that and took this opportunity to address the strawman you wanted to attack..
38 posted on 10/31/2013 12:40:52 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
No, I was not and am not interested in attacking a strawman. It was your apparently taking that verse out of its context that brought me to a possible outlier purpose. I clearly referenced my comment as in inference.

To say--as you do--that Jesus' spirit remained within him is to say nothing unusual for any human, though Jesus did somewhat unusually in the consciousness of man explicitly give up his spirit on the cross.

HF

39 posted on 10/31/2013 12:52:03 PM PDT by holden (Alter or abolish it yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Hence my use of the term “killing” and not “murder”. Similar to killing in self defense and war.


40 posted on 10/31/2013 12:52:50 PM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: holden

Drop the pretense ... the Spirit within Jesus IS The Holy Spirit. THAT seed cannot sin.


41 posted on 10/31/2013 12:55:22 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I didn't presume to read your mind, though twice now, you have so presumed about me, while being wrong. You may stop with that.

HF

42 posted on 10/31/2013 12:57:54 PM PDT by holden (Alter or abolish it yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Got it.


43 posted on 10/31/2013 1:08:28 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Maybe you should have capitalized “seed”..just sayin...
44 posted on 10/31/2013 1:11:11 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
“Thou shalt not kill”?

Even in self-defense, in war as a soldier, the death penalty, the battles that God commanded the Israelites to do, the animal sacrifices they made, the animals they ate?

I think that passage needs a little subtlety to its interpretation. What about English peas? Can we kill them? I like the “thou shalt not murder” interpretation

Gospel of Thomas? Well if it is Gnostic, then yeah, it is wrong. And in any event, it is not in the Bible, and so is not authoritative.

45 posted on 10/31/2013 1:22:52 PM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Gospel of Thomas? Well if it is Gnostic, then yeah, it is wrong.
You don't KNOW that it's wrong.
46 posted on 10/31/2013 1:47:55 PM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
My point was, if he couldn't sin, then he couldn't be tempted.

The very fact that he was able to be tempted, means that as a human, he could sin.

47 posted on 10/31/2013 3:36:08 PM PDT by mountn man (The Pleasure You Get From Life Is Equal To The Attitude You Put Into It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Yup, that might have worked. I meant no disrespect. The word is not capitalized in The Bible ...


48 posted on 10/31/2013 4:16:03 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

Yeah, I think I do.

It’s not biblical, so no sound theology can be built on it.

It may be factually correct in points, but is not inspired.

But say I’m wrong. How do you think this will change the Christian orthodoxy? And if it won’t, what use is it to our moral understanding?


49 posted on 10/31/2013 5:22:01 PM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Being human, He could be tempted as if He could sin, but being Divine, He resisted that temptation. The more filled we are with Jesus the less we sin, but that does not mean we cannot be tempted no matter how filled with Christ.

However, the point is that He did not, and which is thrice confirmed, and it is the manner of the Holy Spirit to make known notable deviations from the norm among its characters:

From the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the diet of John the Baptist, to the notable chaste holiness of Anna, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, etc., etc.

In contrast is the sinlessness of Mary and perpetual virginity, departures from the norm among a quite important figure. But Roman Tradition does not need actually Scriptural evidence.

50 posted on 10/31/2013 6:13:59 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson