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.
Definition of sin: doing something God doesn't want you to do. Could God do something he didn't want himself to do? Isn't that pretty much why you guys don't let me say it was "sin" to kill babies n stuff?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
If you are going to use Roams 7that is what you are talking about. Please explain to me what you are talking about because I cannot see the difference between a sin nature and a flesh nature.
if Romans 7 teaches by you admission a sin nature then Paul is saying he still possesses one.
I used Rom 7 to show that believes dont get ontologically changed. We remain human with our human weaknesses.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
I agree in chapter seven he still had and struggled with a sin nature but in chapter 8 and verse 2 he said he was freed from it.
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
So does that verse also mean that Paul didn't die a physical death?
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Nope take the term law of sin and death in context and it is speaking of an entirely spiritual law . Notice Paul calls the sin nature a body of death in chapter 7 death has already passed upon all mankind aside for the rapture there is no escape from a physical death. Death is the consequence of sin and that we must all face. We can be creed from the power and the penalty of sin this the gospel offers.
Nope take the term law of sin and death in context and it is speaking of an entirely spiritual law . Notice Paul calls the sin nature a body of death in chapter 7 death has already passed upon all mankind aside for the rapture there is no escape from a physical death. Death is the consequence of sin and that we must all face. We can be creed from the power and the penalty of sin this the gospel offers.
Being freed from the penalty of sin is not the same as being freed from the desire (or temptation) to sin. In practical application (and in life), scripture points out that God will give us a way of ESCAPE from sin, "that we may be able to bear it"; we will not, however, be free from temptation (else why would we need a way of escape so that we might be able to bear anything?). Temptation cannot be temptation unless there is an inherent desire. The idea that we can be free of the desire for sin isn't supported scripturally.
To narrow the conversation down further, you are saying that you not only do not sin, but that you never even desire to sin. Correct?
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Being freed from the penalty of sin is not the same as being freed from the desire (or temptation) to sin. In practical application (and in life), scripture points out that God will give us a way of ESCAPE from sin, "that we may be able to bear it"; we will not, however, be free from temptation (else why would we need a way of escape so that we might be able to bear anything?). Temptation cannot be temptation unless there is an inherent desire. The idea that we can be free of the desire for sin isn't supported scripturally.
To narrow the conversation down further, you are saying that you not only do not sin, but that you never even desire to sin. Correct?
BINGO!
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
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.
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.
The conversation should have probably had it's own thread. 
Linear Mode
