Jesus Had The Ability To Sin But Didn't

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Jesus came in the form of sinful flesh. He had the same temptations that is common to man. He had illnesses like the common cold and flu like everyone else. And he suffered greatly in his body when he was crucified, it's so important to know just how much he suffered for our sins even though he was innocent, that's why we preach Christ crucified. He had immense suffering. But he never sinned his entire life. The word "flesh" to describe how Jesus came is the exact same word to describe our flesh. And if someone denies this they are actually believing in anti-christ teachings whether knowingly or not (I was guilty of this myself, but then God woke me up), just read the verse below:

1 John 4:3
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

EDIT: Sorry I accidently posted this in the wrong category. If a mod can move it I would appreciate it.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, that passage reads like a response to Docetism. Do you suppose there are many that hold that view today? I would think today's prevalence would be the other way around, i.e. a rejection of his divinity.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Yes, that passage reads like a response to Docetism. Do you suppose there are many that hold that view today? I would think today's prevalence would be the other way around, i.e. a rejection if his divinity.

I spoke to a lot of people who do have this view. I think Catholics and Gnostics believe it and some others. A lot of people think it's just semantics, as long as you believe he didn't sin and that he is divine it doesn't matter, but to me the scripture is clear that it is an important issue that needs correction and clarification.

 

[disciple Clint]

I spoke to a lot of people who do have this view. I think Catholics and Gnostics believe it and some others. A lot of people think it's just semantics, as long as you believe he didn't sin and that he is divine it doesn't matter, but to me the scripture is clear that it is an important issue that needs correction and clarification.

He cannot sin because he is divine. He is impeccable. 7. The Impeccability of Christ | Bible.org

 

[honey badger]

A vessel full of sour wine had been set there. So having put on a stalk of hyssop a sponge filled with sour wine, they brought it to the mouth. Therefore when Jesus took the sour wine, He said "It has been finished." And having bowed the head, He yielded up the spirit.

Jesus when his hour came drank of the cup of fornication ... which is to say he ate of the tree of two fruits ... as in he broke the commandment of His Father by the words he cried out ....

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

He cannot sin because he is divine. He is impeccable. 7. The Impeccability of Christ | Bible.org

He didn't sin because he is divine. He could have sinned because he was also fully human. I know it sounds like semantics, but it's important to understand the difference.

 

[Albion]

He didn't sin because he is divine. He could have sinned because he was also fully human.

Wrong. That would have been to deny or contradict his divine nature, and the two natures were inseparable. To sin would have been impossible.

He could suffer temptation, however, but not sin.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Wrong. That would have been to deny or contradict his divine nature, and the two natures were inseparable. To sin would have been impossible.

He could suffer temptation, however, but not sin.

He came in the form of sinful flesh like all of us do... That would not deny his divine nature. His divine nature is proven because he didn't sin. Because he was God himself in the flesh. He suffered temptation because of this. He chose not to sin, sin is a choice.

You need to be careful because you are unknowingly believing in anti-christ doctrine. He had the ability to sin like all of us. He suffered in the same flesh we have for our sins and yet he himself was innocent. The message changes when you say he did not come in the same form of flesh as all of us. That's why we preach Christ crucified. Flesh itself is not sin. The consequences of sin such as death and suffering are found in it, not sin in itself.

1 John 4:3
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

 

[Albion]

He came in the form of sinful flesh like all of us do...

"in the form."
Yes, he was a complete human except for sin.

That would not deny his divine nature.

Yes, it would. Sin and the perfection that is God are incompatible. This, by the way, is also the view of all the traditional, historic Christian churches; I am not just talking off the top of my head by passing the information along.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

"in the form."
traditional, historic Christian churches; I am not just talking off the top of my head by passing the information along.

Well the traditional, historic Christian churches lied to you and I was also decieved by their teachings.

"In the form", yes in the form. Meaning Christ has come in the flesh as 1 John states. That word for flesh is the same word that describes our flesh. And it is simply unbiblical to say it was a different kind of flesh. That also diminishes the suffering he went through for our sins... It is quite sneaky but it is anti-christ doctrine.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

"in the form."
he was a complete human except for sin.
.

He was a complete human like everyone else. What do you mean except for sin? Sin is a choice, he did not sin because he is the messiah. He still carried the SAME flesh as everyone else. He was tempted, he had illnesses, he suffered on the cross, all of those things. The flesh is ugly because of the curse from the original sin, but the flesh itself IS NOT SIN.

 

[Albion]

Well the traditional, historic Christian churches lied to you and I was also decieved by their teachings.

Okay.

 

[disciple Clint]

He didn't sin because he is divine. He could have sinned because he was also fully human. I know it sounds like semantics, but it's important to understand the difference.

He is one person with two natures not two people as you are trying to assert. It is the person who sins and a person who is 100% man and 100% God can not sin.

 

[ebedmelech]

It would be my view that Jesus came in the flesh to prove HE COULD NOT SIN!!!