Why didn't Jesus sin? How did He keep from sinning?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

His genetic makeup was not from Adam, but from Yhwh, as Yhwh conceived Yeshua, not man.

 

[mva1985]

His genetic makeup was not from Adam, but from Yhwh, as Yhwh conceived Yeshua, not man.

Genetics 101. Half from the mother half from the father.

 

[mva1985]

Some food for thought:

Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal. (Desire of Ages, p. 112)

By thus taking humanity, he honored humanity. Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision he has made for it, and by becoming partaker of the divine nature. (Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office, p. 13)

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man. (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 39)

 

[NightEternal]

Reddogs, why do you insist on agitating this controversial topic? I have been to other forums where you are posting the same topic and not much good ever comes from it. Here is where you brought it up before:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5353111

There were about two other times where you opened it up for debate, but I can't find the threads right now. The labryinth is too large.

It was also discussed here when Tall presented it:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5043010

Christ did not rely on His own power to live a sinless life. That's the whole point. He trusted in the Father completely - to show us how we are suppose to do it. Trust in the Father completely.

If Christ would have used any of His own power to live a sinless life then His mission would have been a failure. He had our fallen nature and showed that we can live a sinless life by completely relying on the Father.

Most here know where I stand on this and that I do not at all agree with the above position, so I don't feel it necessary to get into this mess again:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34847641&postcount=26

Why don't we just let the nature of Christ/sinless perfection thing die already?

 

[reddogs]

I agree.

JM

If Jesus could not sin, would not then His whole life and death at the cross just be one big farce, as if He could not sin there was nothing to prove, or tempt Jesus with. And we all know He was tempted....

 

[NightEternal]

Absolutely Not. Nowhere is it written that Yeshua had or received a fallen nature - that is demon or man's teaching solely, not Yhwh's Truth.

 

[JonMiller]

If Jesus could not sin, would not then His whole life and death at the cross just be one big farce, as if He could not sin there was nothing to prove, or tempt Jesus with. And we all know He was tempted....

If Jesus sinned, it would be the end of the universe.

JM

 

[NightEternal]

Some food for thought:

Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal. (Desire of Ages, p. 112)

By thus taking humanity, he honored humanity. Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision he has made for it, and by becoming partaker of the divine nature. (Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office, p. 13)

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man. (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 39)

We could go round and round and round with this, as this topic always follows the same pattern. I would then counter your quotes with other quotes where she explicitly says the exact opposite and confirms His sinless nature. Then we would get into a big to-do about wether 'sinful nature' is only speaking about inoccent infirmities such as physical decay (aging) and prone to sickness. Then I would proceed to pit my pre-lapsarian position against your post-lapsarian position, in which you would most likely quote from Ralph Larson's book The Word Mas Made Flesh and I would counter with some quotes from George Knight's book A Pharisee's Guide To Perfect Holiness.

It's just not worth expending my mental energy to get into this again for the 1000th time in my life, both online and in the church.

We agree to disagree.

 

[NightEternal]

Better yet, why don't we just have one already existing thread on this topic and keep adding to it instead of starting five different ones dealing with the same issue? It would save us having to explain our positions all over again repeatedly.

 

[sentipente]

If Christ would have used any of His own power to live a sinless life then His mission would have been a failure. He had our fallen nature and showed that we can live a sinless life by completely relying on the Father.

Jesus came here to rescue the human race. Where do we get the idea that He came to do anything else. It is impossible for God to sin so what's this talk about living a sinless life? Some sermons have done more harm to the gospel than I care to know about.

 

[sentipente]

His genetic makeup was not from Adam, but from Yhwh, as Yhwh conceived Yeshua, not man.

Jesus is the Creator so Adam got his DNA from Jesus.

 

[sentipente]

If Jesus could not sin, would not then His whole life and death at the cross just be one big farce, as if He could not sin there was nothing to prove, or tempt Jesus with. And we all know He was tempted....

It is not Jesus' fault that we insist on misconstruing what His mission was. He came to be the Savior of the world by revealing the character of the Father. The Father cannot sin so how can you teach that to reveal the character of the Father He had to be able to sin? Can we for one moment forget our sectarian doctrines and take a look at the facts? It is about the Creator, not about you or your church.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Christ took on the human nature as it was BEFORE the fall. This is why he is called the Second Adam. He proved to the universe that Adam in his pre-fall state--could have resisted satan, just as Jesus did on several occasions.

When EGW refered to His 'fallen nature'-she was not referring to the nature of SINFUL man, but to the condition of man's status thru some 6,000 yrs of degradation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus is the Creator so Adam got his DNA from Jesus.

and ?

 

[NightEternal]

Christ took on the human nature as it was BEFORE the fall. This is why he is called the Second Adam. He proved to the universe that Adam in his pre-fall state--could have resisted satan, just as Jesus did on several occasions.

When EGW refered to His 'fallen nature'-she was not referring to the nature of SINFUL man, but to the condition of man's status thru some 6,000 yrs of degradation.

Will wonders never cease! I actually agree with this explanation.

But where it goes from there could get heady...

 

[sentipente]

Christ took on the human nature as it was BEFORE the fall. This is why he is called the Second Adam. He proved to the universe that Adam in his pre-fall state--could have resisted satan, just as Jesus did on several occasions.

Adam resisting was never an issue. The evidence is clear that A&E were deceived. Jesus is incapable of being deceived. He did not come here to prove anything about A&E. He came here to reveal the truth about the character of the Creator.

 

[reddogs]

Reddogs, why do you insist on agitating this controversial topic? I have been to other forums where you are posting the same topic and not much good ever comes from it. Here is where you brought it up before:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5353111

There were about two other times where you opened it up for debate, but I can't find the threads right now. The labryinth is too large.

It was also discussed here when Tall presented it:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5043010



Most here know where I stand on this and that I do not at all agree with the above position, so I don't feel it necessary to get into this mess again:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34847641&postcount=26

Why don't we just let the nature of Christ/sinless perfection thing die already?

My question is why He didnt sin, I've never asked that in any of threads I wasnt even thinking about His nature, I just want to know why He didnt sin, was it prayer, resisting temptation conciously, Angels keeping the devil at arms lenght.......what?, and my 'Can sinning be overcome' is a complete different question about can man overcoming sin....

 

[reddogs]

If Jesus sinned, it would be the end of the universe.

JM

Thus there had to be the possibility of Jesus sinning or it was just nothing but a game of 'lets pretend'.......

 

[TrustAndObey]

LOL Red, I agree.

Night, I don't think Honor can see your posts.

 

[sentipente]

Thus there had to be the possibility of Jesus sinning or it was just nothing but a game of 'lets pretend'.......

Prove that His ability to sin had anything to do with His mission. The question before the heavenly court was whether the enemy had a just claim to the earth and its inhabitants.