Something interesting about gays.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

WHat do you think having a human nature means? You don't seem to know from that statement

You are a human being BECAUSE you have a human nature

The word nature simple refers to a set of qualities and or attributes that makes you whatever kind of being you are. ALL things have nature and nature defines what kind of being anything is

So because God has the Divine nature we know He is the Divine being...God

You have a human nature so you are a human being.

The issue wasn't whether or not Jesus was a human being but that you seem to make of His two natures two persons (Nestorianism)

Lol, seems we are talking in circles, Prax, which we usually do. And, once again, I do sincerely appreciate you educating me, since I must not know what being human is.

Ok, so we agree that Jesus was human. Apparently, He was a different type of human than us, however, since if I understand you correctly, he could not sin.

So.....now, I'm on the horns of a dilemma.

Jesus had a human nature, which made him human. Humans were born into sin from their mother's wombs, according to the scriptures. Yet, Jesus "knew no sin", but became sin for us.

He was "tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin".

So, the question remains - could Jesus have sinned? If so, He was truly human.

Was it impossible for him to sin? If so, he wasn't truly human.

That's all I'll say on the subject, label me however you want.

To be honest, anything that any of us say is pure speculation........if we make it to heaven, maybe we can ask Him when we get there!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Lol, seems we are talking in circles, Prax, which we usually do. And, once again, I do sincerely appreciate you educating me, since I must not know what being human is.

Ok, so we agree that Jesus was human. Apparently, He was a different type of human than us, however, since if I understand you correctly, he could not sin.

So.....now, I'm on the horns of a dilemma.

Jesus had a human nature, which made him human. Humans were born into sin from their mother's wombs, according to the scriptures. Yet, Jesus "knew no sin", but became sin for us.

He was "tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin".

So, the question remains - could Jesus have sinned? If so, He was truly human.

Was it impossible for him to sin? If so, he wasn't truly human.

That's all I'll say on the subject, label me however you want.

To be honest, anything that any of us say is pure speculation........if we make it to heaven, maybe we can ask Him when we get there!

He was truly human and God. He could not sin because Sinning is what persons do and His person is God

Second he had a human nature but not a correupted one (see article)

[MissBrattified]

I think it's inaccurate to say that Jesus "could not sin." Otherwise, how could anything actually tempt Him?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Luke

Correct and if you would care to go back over the thread you would see that scripture clearly bears out that a person can be tempted to sin while not desireing to sin.

I have read the thread and didn't see any scriptures that differentiate between a "desire" to sin and a "temptation" to sin. What is the difference and which scriptures clarify that difference?

Also it should be pointed out that scripture says that God will give us a way to escape temptation so that we can bear it not sin.

Yes, obviously. The line between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that you are calling the "desire" to sin sin. I am saying that the desire to sin is temptation and is part of the human struggle whether you are Christian or not.

James 1:13-15 says, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:...But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin...."

James seems to differentiate between even being "drawn away of his own lust and enticed" and actual sin. A person is tempted when he is enticed...but it isn't "sin" until lust "hath conceived." In that verse, "conceived" is the Greek word syllambano and means to "clasp, seize, catch", or to "take one as prisoner." Also, "metaphorically of lust whose impulses a man indulges" and "to seize for one's self." Again, these meanings all mark a difference between the ENTICEMENT or TEMPTATION and the acting upon or indulging of one's desires. Simply being tempted isn't sin; it is when lust takes hold of someone or someone takes hold of lust and indulges themselves--that's when it becomes sin.

Also, when you answered "Correct", you were agreeing with my statement:

"To narrow the conversation down further, you are saying that you not only do not sin, but that you never even desire to sin."

Right? I just want to be sure.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What about this scripture? Was He doing this the three days?

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Good scripture reference, very interesting.......so, the deity that resided in Jesus went to prison (hell? And, if so, what level?) while the human body rested in the tomb?

Great discussion!

It is an interesting discussion, and I am picking my way through it slowly. More slowly as I come to this part.

When you look at I Peter 3:19 "By which he also went..." and I Peter 3:21 "Who is gone into heaven...", we see that "went" and "gone" are both in the Hebrew, "poreuomai : travel"

So, He went somewhere. That means that all through his human life, his divine nature was always present. At the end of His life, He leaves His body in the tomb. It seems His body is not of any importance any longer.

He goes to Prison (cage/hold/ward/watch) - the root coming from the meaning of isolation and makes some proclamation.

This is going further than the discussion of his human and divine nature, but I find it interesting that, and I should have studied this more before posting, in Hebrews 9:26-27, it says, "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

It lends the idea that it is death, resurrection, ascension and judgment. I think I've been taught the White Throne judgment comes some time later. But, the passage in Hebrews is calling his suffering and death the end of the world. I guess that is looking like Preterism.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think it's inaccurate to say that Jesus "could not sin." Otherwise, how could anything actually tempt Him?

Satan challenged God in Heaven and was cast out. Was God tempted by Satan's power?

Same scenario in the Gospels, IMO. What was Satan offering "God manifest in flesh" that He didn't already possess?

Was Satan challenging the power of God's Spirit in Heaven and His Spirit dwelling in flesh on the Earth?

He was certainly going to come up empty handed both times, which he did.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Satan challenged God in Heaven and was cast out. Was God tempted by Satan's power?

Same scenario in the Gospels, IMO. What was Satan offering "God manifest in flesh" that He didn't already possess?

Was Satan challenging the power of God's Spirit in Heaven and His Spirit dwelling in flesh on the Earth?

He was certainly going to come up empty handed both times, which he did.

I'm not sure I understand your question. In the first example, the human component was missing; God was purely divine. However, "testing" God from the human perspective implies doubt on the part of the human, rather than faith. E.g., we aren't to test God; it illustrates our lack of faith in Him. On the flip side, a human being "enticed" or "drawn away" of their own lusts and enticed to sin is an entirely different concept.

God isn't tempted to sin, because He cannot sin; however, humans CAN sin and are tempted to sin. Jesus was not only divine; He was both God and man; scripture says that He was "tempted in all points like as we are." That last phrase is an important clarification.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not sure I understand your question. In the first example, the human component was missing; God was purely divine. However, "testing" God from the human perspective implies doubt on the part of the human, rather than faith. E.g., we aren't to test God; it illustrates our lack of faith in Him. On the flip side, a human being "enticed" or "drawn away" of their own lusts and enticed to sin is an entirely different concept.

God isn't tempted to sin, because He cannot sin; however, humans CAN sin and are tempted to sin. Jesus was not only divine; He was both God and man; scripture says that He was "tempted in all points like as we are." That last phrase is an important clarification.

It is an important clarification, but so is, "...yet WITHOUT sin."

As I've said before, in order to sin, you have to be deceived either by yourself or another.

If God cannot lie, he cannot be deceived by anyone nor can He deceive Himself. If on the human side, Jesus didn't have to have anyone tell Him what was in man, he already knew (John 2:25), man could not deceive Him.

I believe He could be tested and tried, such as we are, but being both human and divine and not being born of man, it is not possible He could succumb to sin. It was not in His nature to do it. He was not like us.

I have an earthly father, with all of His attributes. Mary could never say that about her son.

I view His temptation on the same level I do His baptism - He fulfilled all righteous by being baptized. He experienced our pain and suffering in this life. He identified with us on the level of intense emotion, but He could never be like Adam.

[Hoovie]

The important thing is that he DID NOT sin. Him being God had a lot to do with that...

I think it's pretty much a moot point to argue shoulda coulda woulda... He didn't - He was the Only Begotten.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The important thing is that he DID NOT sin. Him being God had a lot to do with that...

I think it's pretty much a moot point to argue shoulda coulda woulda... He didn't - He was the Only Begotten.

Okay, we can close the thread now.