Something interesting about gays.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The only simple answer I know to be true (to follow the Law of His Word, as He does nothing outside of His Word) is found in Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him."

No one could have redeemed us, He had to come Himself.

Why couldn't God have just done that from heaven?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Why couldn't God have just done that from heaven?

We only know Him through His Word. Everything He has written, must come to pass.

Isiah 9:6 " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

We can talk about the Kinsman Redeemer in His Word - it must be done.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

We only know Him through His Word. Everything He was written, must come to pass.

Isiah 9:6 " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

I know I'm asking rhetorical questions, but my understanding was the God took on the robe of flesh to conquer sin once and for all. Not to obliterate it, but to be the "first fruits" of humanity that could break thru the sin barrier......i.e., as the first man Adam introduced sin, the second man (Jesus) conquered sin.

He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

The real question is - how far did His humanity go? Was he able to sin but avoided sinning? Was he unable to sin?

My guess is that he was fully human, and as I mentioned earlier, he asked that the cup be taken from him on Golgotha, he despaired "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (doesn't sound like the words of a fully convinced deified being), and he actually died..........

So, from all of this, I draw the conclusion that Jesus was fully God, yet fully man. I believe the humanity HAD to be able to sin in order to defeat sin....otherwise, he was nothing more than a robot....

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I know I'm asking rhetorical questions, but my understanding was the God took on the robe of flesh to conquer sin once and for all. Not to obliterate it, but to be the "first fruits" of humanity that could break thru the sin barrier......i.e., as the first man Adam introduced sin, the second man (Jesus) conquered sin.

He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

The real question is - how far did His humanity go? Was he able to sin but avoided sinning? Was he unable to sin?

My guess is that he was fully human, and as I mentioned earlier, he asked that the cup be taken from him on Golgotha, he despaired "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (doesn't sound like the words of a fully convinced deified being), and he actually died..........

So, from all of this, I draw the conclusion that Jesus was fully God, yet fully man. I believe the humanity HAD to be able to sin in order to defeat sin....otherwise, he was nothing more than a robot....

I believe that if you take any of the diety away from Jesus Christ, you do damage to the scriptures and His work in redemption.

I believe, as we saw throughout the Gospels, He was aware of everything - every sickness, devil possession, wicked thoughts and tempting words leveled at Him.

He was not unaware of the pain He suffered, the sin that He bore, and the plan He fulfulled. That doesn't make him capable of sinning, it makes Him capable of feeling, understanding, and knowing.

In order to sin He must be someone who could lie. The Word says He cannot lie. He would have to be capable of being deceived. He knew what was in man, that makes him incapable of being deceived. And because He cannot lie, He cannot deceive Himself.

I can only conclude from my experience with Him, that His feelings are very deep. We shouldn't mistake that as Him capable of being a sinner. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

The real question is - how far did His humanity go? Was he able to sin but avoided sinning? Was he unable to sin?

My guess is that he was fully human, and as I mentioned earlier, he asked that the cup be taken from him on Golgotha, he despaired "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (doesn't sound like the words of a fully convinced deified being), and he actually died..........

So, from all of this, I draw the conclusion that Jesus was fully God, yet fully man. I believe the humanity HAD to be able to sin in order to defeat sin....otherwise, he was nothing more than a robot....

I have been thinking of this passage and read this in Adam Clark's Bible Commentary. Thought it was interesting. It is rather lengthy so I highlighted the parts of interest to me to help with your ADHD. The conversation should have probably had it's own thread.

Matthew 27:46

My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me! - These words are quoted by our Lord from Psa_22:1; they are of very great importance, and should be carefully considered.

Some suppose “that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins.” But this is by no means to be admitted, as it would deprive his sacrifice of its infinite merit, and consequently leave the sin of the world without an atonement. Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined.

Others imagine that our Lord spoke these words to the Jews only, to prove to them that he was the Messiah. “The Jews,” say they, “believed this psalm to speak of the Messiah: they quoted the eighth verse of it against Christ - He trusted in God that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. (See Mat_27:43). To which our Lord immediately answers, My God! my God! etc , thus showing that he was the person of whom the psalmist prophesied.” I have doubts concerning the propriety of this interpretation.

It has been asked, What language is it that our Lord spoke? Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. Some say it is Hebrew - others Syriac. I say, as the evangelists quote it, it is neither. St. Matthew comes nearest the Hebrew, אלי אלי למה עזבתני Eli, Eli, lamah azabthani, in the words, Ηλι, Ηλι, λαμα σαβαχθανι, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.

And St. Mark comes nearest the Syriac, Mar_15:34, Alohi, Alohi, l'mono shebachtheni, in the words Ελωΐ, Ελωΐ, λαμμα σαβαχθανι, Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani. It is worthy of note, that a Hebrew MS. of the twelfth century, instead of עזבתני azabthani, forsaken me, reads שכחתני shechachthani, Forgotten me. This word makes a very good sense, and comes nearer to the sabachthani of the evangelists. It may be observed also, that the words, Why hast thou Forgotten me? are often used by David and others, in times of oppression and distress. See Psa_42:9.

Some have taken occasion from these words to depreciate the character of our blessed Lord. “They are unworthy,” say they, “of a man who suffers, conscious of his innocence, and argue imbecility, impatience, and despair.”

This is by no means fairly deducible from the passage. However, some think that the words, as they stand in the Hebrew and Syriac, are capable of a translation which destroys all objections, and obviates every difficulty. The particle למה lamah, may be translated, to what - to whom - to what kind or sort - to what purpose or profit: Gen_25:32; Gen_32:29; Gen_33:15; Job_9:29; Jer_6:20; Jer_20:18; Amo_5:18; and the verb עזב azab signifies to leave - to deposit - to commit to the care of. See Gen_39:6; Job_39:11; Psa_10:14, and Jer_49:11. The words, taken in this way, might be thus translated: My God! my God! to what sort of persons hast thou left me? The words thus understood are rather to be referred to the wicked Jews than to our Lord, and are an exclamation indicative of the obstinate wickedness of his crucifiers, who steeled their hearts against every operation of the Spirit and power of God. See Ling. Brit. Reform. by B. Martin, p. 36.

Through the whole of the Sacred Writings, God is represented as doing those things which, in the course of his providence, he only permits to be done; therefore, the words, to whom hast thou left or given me up, are only a form of expression for, “How astonishing is the wickedness of those persons into whose hands I am fallen!”

If this interpretation be admitted, it will free this celebrated passage from much embarrassment, and make it speak a sense consistent with itself, and with the dignity of the Son of God.

The words of St. Mark, Mar_15:34, agree pretty nearly with this translation of the Hebrew: Εις τι με εγκατιλεπες; To what [sort of persons, understood] hast thou left me? A literal translation of the passage in the Syriac Testament gives a similar sense: Ad quid dereliquisti me? “To what hast thou abandoned me?” And an ancient copy of the old Itala version, a Latin translation before the time of St. Jerome, renders the words thus: Quare me in opprobrium dedisti? “Why hast thou abandoned me to reproach?”

It may he objected, that this can never agree with the ἱνατι, why, of Matthew. To this it is answered, that ἱνατι must have here the same meaning as εις τι - as the translation of למה lama; and that, if the meaning be at all different, we must follow that evangelist who expresses most literally the meaning of the original: and let it be observed, that the Septuagint often translate למה by ἱνατι instead of εις τι, which evidently proves that it often had the same meaning.

Of this criticism I say, Valet quod valet, Let it pass for no more than it is worth: the subject is difficult. But whatever may be thought of the above mode of interpretation, one thing is certain, viz. That the words could not be used by our Lord in the sense in which they are generally understood. This is sufficiently evident; for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

The Deity, however, might restrain so much of its consolatory support as to leave the human nature fully sensible of all its sufferings, so that the consolations might not take off any part of the keen edge of his passion; and this was necessary to make his sufferings meritorious. And it is probable that this is all that is intended by our Lord’s quotation from the twenty-second Psalm. Taken in this view, the words convey an unexceptionable sense, even in the common translation.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I have been thinking of this passage and read this in Adam Clark's Bible Commentary. Thought it was interesting. It is rather lengthy so I highlighted the parts of interest to me to help with your ADHD. The conversation should have probably had it's own thread.

Matthew 27:46

My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me! - These words are quoted by our Lord from Psa_22:1; they are of very great importance, and should be carefully considered.

Some suppose “that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins.” But this is by no means to be admitted, as it would deprive his sacrifice of its infinite merit, and consequently leave the sin of the world without an atonement. Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined.

Others imagine that our Lord spoke these words to the Jews only, to prove to them that he was the Messiah. “The Jews,” say they, “believed this psalm to speak of the Messiah: they quoted the eighth verse of it against Christ - He trusted in God that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. (See Mat_27:43). To which our Lord immediately answers, My God! my God! etc , thus showing that he was the person of whom the psalmist prophesied.” I have doubts concerning the propriety of this interpretation.

It has been asked, What language is it that our Lord spoke? Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. Some say it is Hebrew - others Syriac. I say, as the evangelists quote it, it is neither. St. Matthew comes nearest the Hebrew, אלי אלי למה עזבתני Eli, Eli, lamah azabthani, in the words, Ηλι, Ηλι, λαμα σαβαχθανι, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.

And St. Mark comes nearest the Syriac, Mar_15:34, Alohi, Alohi, l'mono shebachtheni, in the words Ελωΐ, Ελωΐ, λαμμα σαβαχθανι, Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani. It is worthy of note, that a Hebrew MS. of the twelfth century, instead of עזבתני azabthani, forsaken me, reads שכחתני shechachthani, Forgotten me. This word makes a very good sense, and comes nearer to the sabachthani of the evangelists. It may be observed also, that the words, Why hast thou Forgotten me? are often used by David and others, in times of oppression and distress. See Psa_42:9.

Some have taken occasion from these words to depreciate the character of our blessed Lord. “They are unworthy,” say they, “of a man who suffers, conscious of his innocence, and argue imbecility, impatience, and despair.”

This is by no means fairly deducible from the passage. However, some think that the words, as they stand in the Hebrew and Syriac, are capable of a translation which destroys all objections, and obviates every difficulty. The particle למה lamah, may be translated, to what - to whom - to what kind or sort - to what purpose or profit: Gen_25:32; Gen_32:29; Gen_33:15; Job_9:29; Jer_6:20; Jer_20:18; Amo_5:18; and the verb עזב azab signifies to leave - to deposit - to commit to the care of. See Gen_39:6; Job_39:11; Psa_10:14, and Jer_49:11. The words, taken in this way, might be thus translated: My God! my God! to what sort of persons hast thou left me? The words thus understood are rather to be referred to the wicked Jews than to our Lord, and are an exclamation indicative of the obstinate wickedness of his crucifiers, who steeled their hearts against every operation of the Spirit and power of God. See Ling. Brit. Reform. by B. Martin, p. 36.

Through the whole of the Sacred Writings, God is represented as doing those things which, in the course of his providence, he only permits to be done; therefore, the words, to whom hast thou left or given me up, are only a form of expression for, “How astonishing is the wickedness of those persons into whose hands I am fallen!”

If this interpretation be admitted, it will free this celebrated passage from much embarrassment, and make it speak a sense consistent with itself, and with the dignity of the Son of God.

The words of St. Mark, Mar_15:34, agree pretty nearly with this translation of the Hebrew: Εις τι με εγκατιλεπες; To what [sort of persons, understood] hast thou left me? A literal translation of the passage in the Syriac Testament gives a similar sense: Ad quid dereliquisti me? “To what hast thou abandoned me?” And an ancient copy of the old Itala version, a Latin translation before the time of St. Jerome, renders the words thus: Quare me in opprobrium dedisti? “Why hast thou abandoned me to reproach?”

It may he objected, that this can never agree with the ἱνατι, why, of Matthew. To this it is answered, that ἱνατι must have here the same meaning as εις τι - as the translation of למה lama; and that, if the meaning be at all different, we must follow that evangelist who expresses most literally the meaning of the original: and let it be observed, that the Septuagint often translate למה by ἱνατι instead of εις τι, which evidently proves that it often had the same meaning.

Of this criticism I say, Valet quod valet, Let it pass for no more than it is worth: the subject is difficult. But whatever may be thought of the above mode of interpretation, one thing is certain, viz. That the words could not be used by our Lord in the sense in which they are generally understood. This is sufficiently evident; for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

The Deity, however, might restrain so much of its consolatory support as to leave the human nature fully sensible of all its sufferings, so that the consolations might not take off any part of the keen edge of his passion; and this was necessary to make his sufferings meritorious. And it is probable that this is all that is intended by our Lord’s quotation from the twenty-second Psalm. Taken in this view, the words convey an unexceptionable sense, even in the common translation.

I kind of zoned out after the third paragraph.......can you summarize?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I kind of zoned out after the third paragraph.......can you summarize?

I knew it. You probably subscribe to Reader's Digest.

I am glad you brought up this passage, as it is interesting.

Summary: His humanity was not left unsupported by diety, as it would leave the sin of the world without proper atonement.

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani is not actually Hebrew nor Syriac. The closest the interpretation can come near to either language would render the interpretation capable of saying , "My God! my God! to what sort of persons hast thou left me?", "To what [sort of persons, understood] hast thou left me?", “To what hast thou abandoned me?”

Not rendering the passage as God forsaking Him, which is complicated as He knew very well why He had come and what hour He had come.

Anyways, food for thought. I file commentaries in the back of my mind - they are simply an opinion.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I knew it. You probably subscribe to Reader's Digest.

I am glad you brought up this passage, as it is interesting.

Summary: His humanity was not left unsupported by diety, as it would leave the sin of the world without proper atonement.

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani is not actually Hebrew nor Syriac. The closest the interpretation can come near to either language would render the interpretation capable of saying , "My God! my God! to what sort of persons hast thou left me?", "To what [sort of persons, understood] hast thou left me?", “To what hast thou abandoned me?”

Not rendering the passage as God forsaking Him, which is complicated as He knew very well why He had come and what hour He had come.

Anyways, food for thought. I file commentaries in the back of my mind - they are simply an opinion.

I know, I was just kidding.......but, I do love Reader's Digest!

Ok, here's another dilemma......at some point, deity had to leave the human body in order for it to die, or at least that's my assumption.

So, during the three days the body of Jesus lay lifeless in the tomb, where did the deity go? And, did deity re-energize the body just before Jesus rose again?

The reason I ask this question is this - if deity never left the human body unsupported on the cross, did the human side of Jesus momentarily overtake the divine knowledge, and He felt the despair of being forsaken?

It's an interesting conundrum.........

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I know I'm asking rhetorical questions, but my understanding was the God took on the robe of flesh to conquer sin once and for all. Not to obliterate it, but to be the "first fruits" of humanity that could break thru the sin barrier......i.e., as the first man Adam introduced sin, the second man (Jesus) conquered sin.

He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.

The real question is - how far did His humanity go? Was he able to sin but avoided sinning? Was he unable to sin?

My guess is that he was fully human, and as I mentioned earlier, he asked that the cup be taken from him on Golgotha, he despaired "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (doesn't sound like the words of a fully convinced deified being), and he actually died..........

So, from all of this, I draw the conclusion that Jesus was fully God, yet fully man. I believe the humanity HAD to be able to sin in order to defeat sin....otherwise, he was nothing more than a robot....

Can God sin? If no, is God nothing more than a robot? Humanity does not sin. Human persons sin. They sin due to fallen humanity.

You have a Nestorian view of Christ

[Praxeas]

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/te...onofchrist.htm

Could Jesus Have Sinned?

Human beings are capable of experiencing temptation, as well as committing sin. If Jesus was fully human, and if Jesus experienced temptation, wouldn't He be capable of sin as well? On the one hand, denying that Christ was peccable seems to entail a denial of the completeness or genuineness of His human existence. .After all, if He could not sin, and yet humans can, how could He be fully human? One might even question the meaningfulness of His temptations. How could Christ be tempted in any meaningful sense of the word, if it was not possible for Him to succumb to that temptation? What point would there be in subjecting Jesus to Satan's temptations? What victory was gained by overcoming those temptations, if overcoming was the only possible outcome?

On the other hand, denying Christ's impeccability has disastrous Christological and soteriological implications: it destroys the unity of Christ's person, and undermines His ability to atone for our sins. Let me explain. If God is not capable of sin, and yet Jesus was capable of sin, then Christ must be two persons--the divine person, and a separate human person--only the latter of whom was capable of sin. But in postulating such a Christ, Jesus ceases to be God. He becomes an ordinary man who is indwelt by the Spirit of God, differing from us only in a quantitative sense (He possesses a greater measure of the Spirit), not a qualitative sense. Such an individual is not God, but a mere man who happens to be in a very close relationship with God. And if Jesus is not God, He cannot make atonement for the sins of mankind (for an explanation of why this is so, read the section titled A Denial of Christ's Essential Deity and of a True Incarnation in my article, "Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism: The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between Father and Son").

The incarnation was not a mere indwelling of God in a man, but God's coming to be man.1 He took on human existence by bringing human nature into union with His divine person, not by uniting Himself to, or simply indwelling an existing and separate human person. Because He assumed a human nature and not a human person, Jesus' humanity is not a person in itself. There is only one person in Christ: the divine person. God is the lone personal subject in Christ; the solitary active agent. Understanding a nature as a "what," and a person as a "who," we would say Christ is one who (the divine person) subsisting in two whats (divine nature, human nature).2 Christ differs from us in that He has two natures, not in that He has two persons. Whereas we are human persons with a human nature, Jesus is the divine person with a divine and human nature. Just as we are the subject of all our acts, likewise God is the subject of all Christ's acts. There is, then, no separate human person in Christ who is capable of sin.
Some, recognizing that Christ is one person in two natures rather than two persons in two natures, argue that Jesus could have sinned in His human nature. This solution will not do, however. While human nature has the property of peccability, natures themselves lack volitional power; i.e. they cannot act. Only persons possess volitional power, and thus an act of sin must originate with the person to whom the nature belongs, not the nature itself.3 While Jesus possessed human nature, and human nature has the property of peccability, without the presence of a peccable person to actualize such a property, the act of sin is impossible. To be peccable, Jesus' nature and person must be capable of sin. Seeing that Christ's person is the divine person, and the divine person is not capable of sin, then it follows logically that Christ was not capable of sin. So the mere fact that Jesus possessed a complete human nature does not, in itself, make Him peccable.

It is Christ's personal identity, then, that necessitates His impeccability. Who he is dictates what He has the potential to do. This is made clear when we ask the question, If Jesus would have sinned, who would have sinned? Since natures cannot act/sin, and since the divine person is the lone personal subject of Christ, it would be the divine person who sinned. And yet it is impossible for God to sin, ergo it was ultimately impossible for Jesus to sin. Jesus' divine identity requires that He be impeccable.4

Was God Tempted?

If God is the lone personal subject in Christ, and only persons can be tempted, would it not follow that God was tempted? No. Because God came to exist and be conscious as man, Jesus' temptations are not God being tempted as God, but God being tempted as man through His human mode of existence. God was tempted insofar as he is man, not insofar as He is God, for God is the subject of Christ's acts only insofar as He is man, not insofar as He is God.5

Because God came to exist as man, complete with a genuine human consciousness/ mind, He had the ability to experience temptation. He experienced the same kind of temptations all men experience (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus was not tempted because He was God, but because He was man. If it was not for Christ's genuine human existence He could not have experienced temptation, because God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). In His divine mode of existence God cannot be tempted, but in His human mode of existence He can be, and was tempted. So in a human way, and in a genuine human existence, Jesus was tempted as are all men.
While God cannot be tempted as He exists in Himself as God, God can be tempted in His human mode of existence as man. If God can be tempted in His human mode of existence could He also sin in His human mode of existence? No. God cannot sin in His existence as God or in His existence as man because of His holy nature.

This might be compared to a righteous man who is so opposed to a certain sin that, though he may be tempted by it from time to time, he will never submit to that temptation because it goes against his holy spirit. In the same manner, Jesus' divine nature was holy, and thus He would not submit to sin. His temptations were real, but ultimately He overcame them because of His holy hatred for sin, and complete reliance on the Holy Spirit. Had Jesus ever reached the point where He was willing to succumb to temptation and commit sin, His divine nature would have intervened, not permitting Him to do so.

Would such an intervention undermine Jesus' free will, and hence the genuineness of His choice of the good? I do not think so. William Lane Craig offers an insightful thought experiment demonstrating that one's inability to choose B does not make his choice of A determined and meaningless:

Imagine a man with electrodes secretly implanted in his brain who is presented with a choice of doing either A or B. The electrodes are inactive so long as the man chooses A; but if he were going to choose B, then the electrodes would switch on and force him to choose A. If the electrodes fire, causing him to choose A, his choice of A is clearly not a free choice. But supposed that the man really wants to do A and chooses it of his own volition. In that case his choosing A is entirely free, even though the man is literally unable to choose B, since the electrodes do not function at all and have no effect on his choice of A. What makes his choice free is the absence of any causally determining factors of his choosing A. This conception of libertarian freedom has the advantage of explaining how it is that God's choosing to do good is free, even though it is impossible for God to choose sin, namely, His choosing is undetermined by causal constraints. Thus, libertarian freedom of the will does not require the ability to choose other than as one chooses.6

What matters is not that Jesus was ultimately incapable of choosing evil, but that He was tempted to do evil, and yet freely chose the good.

Part 1