Could Jesus have sinned?

[LucyJr]

If Jesus was unable to sin because he did not have the sin nature, then how was it possible for Adam to sin? Is he not also supposed to be without a sin nature before his fall?

It rather undermines Paul's comparison of The First Adam with The Second Adam if Jesus never had any capacity to sin as Adam had, but strengthens it if he had equal capacity yet never sinned.


The doctrine that God would not force salvation on those who choose to reject this grace does not make God a sinner. Doing otherwise would be tantamount to rape.

It is the Calvinist doctrine of predestination that makes God a sinner, which makes him responsible for ever sin that any man has ever committed and which damns the majority of humanity to eternal torment without ever giving them any opportunity to repent.

The Calvinist conception of God is not one worthy of any man's respect, much less worship.

Fortunately, such an insane doctrine has very little to do with the holy scripture or how they have been interpreted for most of the history of the church. Calvinism is utterly at variance with the teachings of the earliest church fathers, who endorsed libertarian free will. Foreshadowings of Calvin first appear with certain errors that Augustine made due to relying entirely on Latin translations of the scripture. This "doctor of the church" never tried to learn any Hebrew and gave up on Greek after badly flunking his introductory course. Some of his beliefs may also have been tainted by the many years he spent as a Manichean.

Well said.
I will add that there are some passages in Bible who explicitly proclaim that Christ died for all people, not just for the elects. Yet Calvinists cut the single hair in four or even six pieces. They start from the pre-idealised doctrine, and then they find explanations for every verse that contradict their doctrine.

 

[j654dgj7]

None of the people who wrote the Bible - even decades after the crucifixion and ascension - saw that Christ was ever capable of sin. In fact, that point is expressed both explicitly and indirectly. "Like us in all things but sin"; and the numerous examples of those who rejected Christ by accusing him of sin.

It seems that the authors of the Bible - and all Christians since - make the point that if you think Christ was a sinner, you just don't get him.

I completely agree with what you're saying. The Bible is very specific about Jesus being without sin. What interests me, as a Christian, is that period where he wasn't under the direct influence of God. Before he started his good ministry to share the message of God's love and how we should strive to live our lives, he was a guy working as a carpenter.

 

[LucyJr]

PRECISELY.

And despite any claims that you are a Christian, if you think he was capable of sin, then you don't know him.

Your problem is that you don't understand the power of will. Jesus was not a robot. What worth is there in being sinless if He could not potentialy sin?

 

[Elis]

I'm not trying to save anyone. I know for a fact that no one will believe what i'm saying unless God himself plants it in to their conscience.

I must have misunderstood you when you said

You might think I'm against you, but I'm very much for you. My heart's desire is to help you.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yeah but Jesus was true God AND true man, he wasnt true God and resembled man or true God in the shape of man, you know?

Yes, but being FLESH and BLOOD does NOT NECESSITATE being a SINNER.

In the case of CHRIST, he was real flesh and blood, but he was BORN of GOD. Without sin, and without the POSSIBILITY of SIN.

Even the "new spirit" that dwells in the regenerated (spiritually re-born) sinner is incapable of sin, because that spirit is "born of God".

And that spirit is of CHRIST, who is born of God, who, AGAIN, is INCAPABLE of SIN.

Read 1 John 3:9 :

Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Your problem is that you don't understand the power of will. Jesus was not a robot. What worth is there in being sinless if He could not potentialy sin?

Christ is GOD.

His WILL, as the Son of God, is ALWAYS in perfect harmony with the Father and the Spirit.

GOD is ONE.

At NO TIME WHATSOEVER, did the WILL of CHRIST go AGAINST the will of God, NOR COULD it.

This is VASTLY IMPORTANT to understand. What you're saying is nothing but BLASPHEMY.

To SUGGEST, for ONE SECOND, that CHRIST COULD sin, is to DENY he's the SON of GOD. End of story.

You've GOT to get this straight, if you claim you're a Christian.

You CANNOT be on the fence about this. It's not possible.

Either say he is GOD, or say he's a SINNER. But you CANNOT say he's BOTH GOD AND a SINNER.

 

[just me]

Your problem is that you don't understand the power of will. Jesus was not a robot. What worth is there in being sinless if He could not potentialy sin?

Jesus was on a mission, foretold and watched for by the wise.
He did not come here to deviate from his mission.
The worth? How about a perfect sacrifice; holy and acceptable to God? It was the only thing could do away with the first, and bring about the second.

Technically, potentially, and all those words really do not matter in this case. The song says He could have called ten thousand angels. He did not.

I do understand what you are saying, though. Sticking to the plan and fulfilling His purpose has to count for something with all the sin in the world.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well said.
I will add that there are some passages in Bible who explicitly proclaim that Christ died for all people, not just for the elects. Yet Calvinists cut the single hair in four or even six pieces. They start from the pre-idealised doctrine, and then they find explanations for every verse that contradict their doctrine.

All of that is irrelevant.

The fact is, if anyone is to be saved at all, it must be by GRACE and not by the sinner's own choice.

If the sinner ELECTS HIMSELF to salvation, then GOD is a mere puppet of the SINNER'S WILL.

And if God WANTS to save everyone, but FAILS, that ALSO means God's will is subject to the sinner's will.

You wouldn't DARE suggest that YOUR WILL is more powerful than GOD'S, would you?

God saves whom he will, and the rest go to Hell.

That's just the facts. And if you don't know that, it's because you are lost.

 

[the]

What complicates things is that the wolves that cause the dissonance come often dressed in sheeps clothing

An interesting example in modern popular culture would be the figure of 'batman'. This will become even more pertinant as a new series called 'gotham' beginning soon that will sweep many people into the batman franchise

batman on the surface is a very seductive figure. He is mysterious, strong, stands up for himself and has lots of cool gadgets. However are things as simple as they appear on the surface?

Batman is often called 'the dark knight' or the 'caped crusader' which conjure up strong images within the mind of a person raised in christian culture of a chivalrous defender fighting to protect something holy and sacred

Batman is always fighting criminals often beating them up and threatening them to dissuade them from a life of crime; this is all carried out in retribution for the murder of his own parents by a psychopathic criminal

The almost superpowered, demi-god Batman is of course the alter ego of the man Bruce Wayne who must play the martyr, sacrificing his own safety and even personal life to be the messiah leading people from out of the shadow of lawlessness that threatens to engulf them at any moment

However Bruce Wayne is a multi-billionaire. We are asked to believe by Hollywood that the best course of action for a multi-billionaire is to use his wealth to build weapons of war which he can then unleash on the criminal underclass of gotham city, whilst of course himself operating outwith and above the law and completely subverting the justice system, acting as he does as unelected judge, jury and executioner dishing out unilateral vigilante justice

However a far more productive use of Bruce's wealth would be to share it with the poor of Gotham and to improve education standards, health and also boost job opportunities and self reliance because a population that has an income over a certain amount has no need to turn to a life of crime

Bruce's wealth could be used to boost the quality of life for millions, thereby alleviating poverty and all the social ills that are a product of poverty such as crime and drug dependancy.

This approach however would fly in the face of the current religion in the US which is the religion of the strong...and by the 'strong' i really mean the most ruthless. The most ruthless people are rewarded and never penalised by the law for example corporate crimes going unpunished or recieving light fines whilst regular people are penalised for minor offenses.

Batman is the messiah of the super rich protecting them from the desperate who might seek redress for the inequalities of society through crime whilst hiding from people the best option, which would be for the wealthy to share their wealth to create a fairer, safer, more stable, equal and healthy society

While people are focussing on an icon from 2000 years ago they are not noticing how new icons are being created to tap into their psyche on subconscious levels to affect the way they think and feel about the world

Not only does batman not forgive, but he upholds inequality and punishes those that fall through the net of society for stealing a wallet or a watch when the biggest criminals are the corporate criminals that destroy entire communities and rainforests

Who are these people in Hollywood pushing these perceptual distortions onto the public and making them love their own enslavers? Perhaps they are the same people behind the distortions of the teachings of jesus

Do you believe people are inherently good or inherently evil?

Do you believe that where we are today that if you give the poor enough money that theyd act in a "Good" manner and that simply handing out equal money to all would solve the problem?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do you believe people are inherently good or inherently evil?

Do you believe that where we are today that if you give the poor enough money that theyd act in a "Good" manner and that simply handing out equal money to all would solve the problem?

That's a good question for everyone here, and probably justifies a new thread.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Yeah but Jesus was true God AND true man, he wasnt true God and resembled man or true God in the shape of man, you know?

A camel can travel through the eye of a needle without a burden upon its back, the "eye of the needle" was an arch way that traders used in Jesus day, through which camels with no or little burden could pass easily but through which a heavily burdened camel could not. It is not as supernatural a suggestion as it appears when you know what it means.

I think the passage you are referring to is about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. Both things would seem impossible, except for the miraculous.

As for Jesus being true man: does a real man rape women? Does a real man tell lies to cover himself? Does a real man sin against God?
I think that Jesus was indeed true God and true man.

He is different to us in respect of his manner of life because we are not true men.

 

[the]

That's a good question for everyone here, and probably justifies a new thread.

If you think so you should start one.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I think the passage you are referring to is about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. Both things would seem impossible, except for the miraculous.

As for Jesus being true man: does a real man rape women? Does a real man tell lies to cover himself? Does a real man sin against God?
I think that Jesus was indeed true God and true man.

He is different to us in respect of his manner of life because we are not true men.

Well said.

 

[EFabricio]

I completely skipped over your post in all the other non-sense going on in this thread, I'm sorry about that. So your a non-trinitartian, are you a Jehovah's witness? we don't get many of them on this forum?

It's alright... Jehovah's Witnesses don't usually debate over the web, we're more of door-to-door debaters ...
We are very different from most Christendom churches and the reason is because we don't follow theology, we base our beliefs in the Bible only. That's not to say we make no mistakes, but we try to do the best we can

Anyway, what I believe might be quite different from what you believe... But if you think about it for a moment, and consider that Jesus is the Son of God and not God himself, then you may come to the conclusion that it was and it is possible for Jesus to sin. That is in agreement with the scriptures, consider this...

Hebrews 4: 15: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tested in all respects as we have, but without sin." This scripture says that Jesus was tested as we have been tested, it's just that in his case he didn't fail, he passed the test. Jesus was tested by Satan as you can read in Luke 4: 5-13, verse 13 says: "So the Devil, having finished all the temptation, departed from him until another convenient time"... Therefore we can understand that Jesus was tested more times. What was the point of Jesus being tested? If he didn't have the capability of sinning at least, why bother testing him? Or if Jesus was in reality God the Almighty... How could God have even considered Satan's offer? It would be like trying to tempt Bill Gates with a million dollars, not likely is it?

So even Satan knew Jesus could give in to temptation, that's why he tested him, I mean Satan is evil but he is definetely not stupid so as to try to tempt God. But when you realize that Jesus was an inferior being to Jehovah, and not Jehovah himself, then it is easier to understand everything else.

Let me know what you think.

 

[j654dgj7]

Either say he is GOD, or say he's a SINNER. But you CANNOT say he's BOTH GOD AND a SINNER.

Sure I can, check it out:

Jesus was both God and a sinner.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sure I can, check it out:

Jesus was both God and a sinner.

Yes, you just exercised your free-will. And in doing so, blasphemed God.

That's an excellent illustration of how a person's free-will is their own worst enemy.

 

[say what]

Yes, you just exercised your free-will. And in doing so, blasphemed God.

That's an excellent illustration of how a person's free-will is their own worst enemy.

If god created man, who he controlled their path in life, with the purpose of solely worshipping him...then why has man been created? Wouldn't that be very egotistical of him?

 

[j654dgj7]

Yes, you just exercised your free-will. And in doing so, blasphemed God.

That's an excellent illustration of how a person's free-will is their own worst enemy.

Great talk! Check out this cute picture of a baby turtle on a SKATEBOARD! I mean, how rambunctious:

 

[Barnabas]

It's alright... Jehovah's Witnesses don't usually debate over the web, we're more of door-to-door debaters ...
We are very different from most Christendom churches and the reason is because we don't follow theology, we base our beliefs in the Bible only. That's not to say we make no mistakes, but we try to do the best we can

Anyway, what I believe might be quite different from what you believe... But if you think about it for a moment, and consider that Jesus is the Son of God and not God himself, then you may come to the conclusion that it was and it is possible for Jesus to sin. That is in agreement with the scriptures, consider this...

Hebrews 4: 15: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tested in all respects as we have, but without sin." This scripture says that Jesus was tested as we have been tested, it's just that in his case he didn't fail, he passed the test. Jesus was tested by Satan as you can read in Luke 4: 5-13, verse 13 says: "So the Devil, having finished all the temptation, departed from him until another convenient time"... Therefore we can understand that Jesus was tested more times. What was the point of Jesus being tested? If he didn't have the capability of sinning at least, why bother testing him? Or if Jesus was in reality God the Almighty... How could God have even considered Satan's offer? It would be like trying to tempt Bill Gates with a million dollars, not likely is it?

So even Satan knew Jesus could give in to temptation, that's why he tested him, I mean Satan is evil but he is definetely not stupid so as to try to tempt God. But when you realize that Jesus was an inferior being to Jehovah, and not Jehovah himself, then it is easier to understand everything else.

Let me know what you think.

My friend I've heard that line about basing your beliefs on the bible a hundred times before, even in this thread, everyone hear claims that there theology is biblicaly based. And I'm sure you have a theology as a Jehovah's witness as well, since theology is just the systematized beliefs of the church at large.

I believe That Jesus did not Sin,

Sovereign Grace Believes that Jesus could not sin,

You believe that Jesus was not God,

That's all theology whether correct or not. I tend to agree with your point about Satan tempting Jesus, I'd also like to point out that part of Jesus ministry was to lead an sinless example for us, if were inherently sinful then what's the point of this sense we could never possibly live up to that example.

I however find it key that we recognize the Jesus, Is as much a part of YHWY, it makes his death a moot point if he's not God

Also do you believe in the person hood of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Eventhorizon]

45, 000 different denominations of Christianity, which ones do you belong to?