SIN & the SDA

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
then it became more than just a thought, i didnt reject the first one. we seem to understand this differently.



no, the verse says
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lustafter her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
the person has the intention of lusting. the opposite of caring and respect.

Yes, the verse says that and means,

NIV said:
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery

NAB said:
everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery

Message said:
Your heart can be corrupted by lust even quicker than your body. Those leering looks you think nobody notices—they also corrupt.

ESV said:
everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Young's Literal Translation said:
but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

The intention of lusting happens before you realize you are even doing it Teresaq. That's what being a child of Adam means - we are rotten to the core out of the gate and it's our "works" Co-operating with God's Grace that pulls off Salvation.

You can't sit there and tell me that because you catch yourself lusting after a man then stop that you've not sinned. This is a direct violation of what Christ said "you've already gifted wrapped the sin".

Remember, Colossians 3, 5 tells us to put to death evil desires. This is not a one time thing, we fight always to stay on the right path. So, you still believe that Jesus was tempted like King David with Bathsheba?


teresaq said:
noticing an attractive person is not sin, any more than noticing an attractive house, car, etc. lusting/coveting is wanting something that is not ours or is not in our best interest to have, unhealthful practices.

Who would not agree with that? This isn't what I'm saying.


teresaq said:
i can admire my neighbors house, or car, or whatever but when i begin to have feelings of envy and want it then i start sinning, unless i firmly reject them through Christ and turn it into rejoicing for my neighbor.

We are not talking about that teresaq, "evil concupiscence" is separate from covetousness according to the list of "sins" in Colossians 3. That is what we are talking about.


teresaq said:
but that is a philosophical man-made concept using those texts to back it up. in other words i dont see "original sin" in those two verses or any others. i dont see anything "original" at all about being born into sin. it stopped being "original" a long, long time ago.

How do you figure that? Given,

Romans 5 said:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

And V. 19

Scripture said:
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

One is a consequence of the other. How is that not Biblical?
 
Upvote 0

teresaq

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2008
78
1
✟15,208.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
The intention of lusting happens before you realize you are even doing it Teresaq.

it becomes "subconscious" if we have given into the conscious thought enough times that it becomes part of us. the reverse can happen as we surrender to the Lord.

That's what being a child of Adam means - we are rotten to the core out of the gate and it's our "works" Co-operating with God's Grace that pulls off Salvation.

we are agreed that in and of ourselves we have no righteousness. we are all selfish and self-centered. the 10 commandments are about loving God and our neighbor and we fall short in that area. we do love but it is tainted with selfishness.

Jesus, also, on His human side was a child of adam, of abraham, of david, etc.

So, you still believe that Jesus was tempted like King David with Bathsheba?

Jesus had never given into any thoughts that came to Him from babyhood up so they never became "subconscious". they were always conscious and abhorrent.

as for david, it appears to have been a weak moment, possibly from drifting from communion with the Lord. if it was an on-going problem with him more instances would have been recorded, as with abraham and claiming sarah as just his sister out of fear for his life.

as for the rest im not sure we are going to come to an understanding. in other words you dont make sense to me and i dont seem to make sense to you.
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
it becomes "subconscious" if we have given into the conscious thought enough times that it becomes part of us. the reverse can happen as we surrender to the Lord.

To the point of not sinning any longer?



teresaq said:
we are agreed that in and of ourselves we have no righteousness. we are all selfish and self-centered. the 10 commandments are about loving God and our neighbor and we fall short in that area. we do love but it is tainted with selfishness.

I think I know what you mean.

teresaq said:
Jesus, also, on His human side was a child of adam, of abraham, of david, etc.

Mary was the Mother of a Person, not a nature.


teresaq said:
Jesus had never given into any thoughts that came to Him from babyhood up so they never became "subconscious". they were always conscious and abhorrent.

"Given into any thoughts" is saying Jesus had those thoughts teresaq. I'm in the negative that Jesus never had those kinds of thoughts to give into.

teresaq said:
as for david, it appears to have been a weak moment, possibly from drifting from communion with the Lord. if it was an on-going problem with him more instances would have been recorded, as with abraham and claiming sarah as just his sister out of fear for his life.

David first had to "think" about it before he did it. According to Jesus, David had commited adultery with Bathsheba long prior to touching her. This is what temptation is. David didn't resist his temptation. If I read you right you are saying David didn't commit a sin until he slept with Bathsheba - I'm saying that's not right according to what I'm reading the Bible say. Therefore, Jesus never had any evil desires.

teresaq said:
as for the rest im not sure we are going to come to an understanding. in other words you dont make sense to me and i dont seem to make sense to you.

I understand you believe that Jesus was tempted like David and was drawn by His desire. If you resist a thing whatever the thing is, IS PULLING YOU TOWARD IT otherwise you wouldn't need to resist the thing (temptation).

If you understand me in that I'm saying Christ was "never tempted" within Himself to do what He shouldn't do then I'm at peace with that Sister.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,351
10,607
Georgia
✟911,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Jesus had a fallen nature - but not a sinful nature. No inclination - no propensity to sin.

In 2Cor 10:4 we have the promise about taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

It is a real promise.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus had a fallen nature - but not a sinful nature. No inclination - no propensity to sin.

In 2Cor 10:4 we have the promise about taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

It is a real promise.

in Christ,

Bob

With all respect, where do you get that Jesus had a fallen nature from 2 Cor 10, 4?

Just checked out the contextual meaning of "imaginations" in that text and according to Strong's it means, "reasoning or thoughts hostile to the Christian Faith". This has nothing to do with "Concupiscence" unless word meaning means nothing.

G-3053 / Imaginations / Strong's said:
1) a reckoning, computation
2) a reasoning: such as is hostile to the Christian faith
3) a judgment, decision: such as conscience passes


Vs

G-1939 / Concupiscence / Strong's said:
1) desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust

I'm in the Negative that Jesus never had a desire, craving, longing or lust for that which was forbidden. Teresaq (in keeping with SDA doctrine) is in the positive that Jesus had desires for what was forbidden but Jesus "resisted" His temptation and provided us an example of how we to can resist our own urge to sin. If I may post an example,

Ellen White said:
A Mr. - professed to be a devoted follower of Christ. He was in very feeble health. Our feelings of sympathy were called out in his behalf. He could not hold his head steady. His eyes had a glassy appearance, his hands trembled, and when he walked, his knees shook; he staggered like a drunken man, and often seemed ready to fall. He was obliged to fix his eyes upon an object in the distance before him, and then make for that object. He would thus gain force enough to reach the place he desired. His case was shown me in vision. I saw that he was deceived in regard to himself, that he was not in favor with God. He had practiced self-abuse until he was a mere wreck of humanity. This vice was shown me as an abomination in the sight of God. No matter how high a person's profession, those who are willing to be employed in gratifying the lust of the flesh, cannot be Christians. As servants of Christ, their employment, and meditations, and pleasure, should consist in things more excellent.

The man Ellen details above was paying the price as a man for the touching yourself of his youth. The man yearned or was pulled by the desire to engage in secret vice, unfortunately he did not resist his temptation to engage in such activities. I for one find it impossible to imagine that Christ resisted or fought the urge to touch because as Sacred Scripture attests,

John 8 said:
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

If Christ was tempted to engage in secret vice (suffered from concupiscence) it could not be said He always pleased The Father. If Christ had to resist the evil desire to do stuff at that point He certainly would not be pleasing the Father (when He was thinking how fun it would be to do such and such). If I remember we had this discussion previously. Jesus wasn't drawn to sin, ever. If He was tempted within sin like you and I are He wasn't God.



Perhaps you had another Scripture in mind to demonstrate that Christ had a fallen Nature?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,351
10,607
Georgia
✟911,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
2Cor 10:4 is the promise of victory at the thought level. Simply addressing another point raised on the thread.

Christ had a fallen nature -- but not a sinful nature. I looked nothing like Adam in the Garden of Eden who even after he was forced to leave the Garden of Eden -- lived for almost 1000 years.

The Bible says Jesus was "TEMTPED in all points as we are yet without sin" -- there is only so far you can go in denying that -

In Matt 4 "we see him being tempted" by Satan. It is interesting the "kinds of temptation" that are presented there - by this once unfallen angel who knew even better than we the biology chemistry and science of what had happened.

Adam and Eve were not created "wanting to rebell against God".

Lucifer was not created "wanting to lead a rebellion against God".

There is something called "free will".

in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
2Cor 10:4 is the promise of victory at the thought level. Simply addressing another point raised on the thread.

Christ had a fallen nature -- but not a sinful nature. I looked nothing like Adam in the Garden of Eden who even after he was forced to leave the Garden of Eden -- lived for almost 1000 years.

Christ had a human nature that was subject to "infirmities". Has nothing to do with concupiscence.


BobRyan said:
The Bible says Jesus was "TEMTPED in all points as we are yet without sin" -- there is only so far you can go in denying that -

Let's take a look at that from a Bible Only point of view.

Matthew 8 said:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

Luke 5 said:
But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

Luke 7 said:
And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.

Luke 8 said:
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits AND infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Romans 15 said:
We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

1 Tim 5 said:
Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

And here we arrive at Hebrews 4,15,

Infirmities not the desire to sin said:
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was not the sort of high priest who was beyond feeling sick, tired, pain, thirst and hunger because He was fully human, in fact He was tempted (TESTED) in everything like we are yet He was without sin.

Seriously Bob, can you point out any Christian denomination aside from the Adventist ones (SDA's, Christadelpians, JW's, WWCOG) that go on record saying that Christ was peccable, was tempted to sin yet resisted His temptation to do so?


Bob said:
In Matt 4 "we see him being tempted" by Satan. It is interesting the "kinds of temptation" that are presented there - by this once unfallen angel who knew even better than we the biology chemistry and science of what had happened.

Adam and Eve were not created "wanting to rebell against God".

Lucifer was not created "wanting to lead a rebellion against God".

There is something called "free will".

in Christ,

Bob

Satan tempted or tested Christ outside of sin Bob, we've been over this before. If someone comes up to you and asks for your help holding up a bank, performing a homosexual act or whatever else that person who came up to you has indeed tempted you with those things, would you seriously have to RESIST the temptation (feel the urge or longing to rob a bank)? If you don't want to do something you are not tempted within yourself to do it.

James 1 said:
But every man is tempted, WHEN he is drawn away OF HIS OWN LUST, and enticed.

Yeah, right! Jesus was really kicking the idea around in His head of bowing down to Satan, He lusted for it and was enticed yet resisted His temptation to do so. Come on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

teresaq

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2008
78
1
✟15,208.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
p: So, you still believe that Jesus was tempted like King David with Bathsheba?
t: Jesus had never given into any thoughts that came to Him from babyhood up so they never became "subconscious". they were always conscious and abhorrent.

as for david, it appears to have been a weak moment, possibly from drifting from communion with the Lord. if it was an on-going problem with him more instances would have been recorded, as with abraham and claiming sarah as just his sister out of fear for his life.

Originally Posted by teresaq
as for david, it appears to have been a weak moment, possibly from drifting from communion with the Lord. if it was an on-going problem with him more instances would have been recorded, as with abraham and claiming sarah as just his sister out of fear for his life.​


David first had to "think" about it before he did it. According to Jesus, David had commited adultery with Bathsheba long prior to touching her. This is what temptation is. David didn't resist his temptation. If I read you right you are saying David didn't commit a sin until he slept with Bathsheba - I'm saying that's not right according to what I'm reading the Bible say. Therefore, Jesus never had any evil desires.

how did you read that i was denying that david had to consider it first? my point was that it was not something david did on a regular basis, he did not give into lustful thoughts on a regular basis.

and no i do not believe Jesus had any evil desires. a temptation starts as a thought, one thought. that thought, that temptation can be accepted and become a desire or rejected and die.


I understand you believe that Jesus was tempted like David and was drawn by His desire.
i dont know where you understand that from.
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
t: Jesus had never given into any thoughts that came to Him from babyhood up so they never became "subconscious". they were always conscious and abhorrent.




"Given into any of 'His' thoughts of evil desires"? With my understanding of the Trinity I can't fathom your paragraph.


teresaq said:
as for david, it appears to have been a weak moment, possibly from drifting from communion with the Lord. if it was an on-going problem with him more instances would have been recorded, as with abraham and claiming sarah as just his sister out of fear for his life.

This details the difference between our two denominations teachings. To give into an evil thought you first must have an evil thought. Catholicism maintains that Jesus never had any evil thoughts. "A man is ONLY tempted when he is drawn away by his own lustful thoughts" (James 1 )

teresaq said:
how did you read that i was denying that david had to consider it first? my point was that it was not something david did on a regular basis, he did not give into lustful thoughts on a regular basis.

I wanted you to admit that David first "thought about it" prior to "giving into his "evil desire for the woman". Had David not had an evil desire for the woman David would not have been drawn away by his own lust. Bathsheba could have been all over him ( Bathsheba could have tempted David) and David would not have been tempted UNLESS he (David) was drawn away (pulled) by his own lust.

If we switch the people around it should become obvious very rapidly. Let's say that Bathsheba is taking a nude bath and Christ comes around the corner and can see what David looked at. In your view Christ desires the woman, wants to breed her but does not GIVE INTO "His" thoughts, it is then understood that Christ resisted His Temptation and didn't act out the X-rated scenario in His own mind. I mean no insult to SDAism or any of it's members when I say this is perhaps the most disasterious thing I've ever heard.


teresaq said:
and no i do not believe Jesus had any evil desires. a temptation starts as a thought, one thought. that thought, that temptation can be accepted and become a desire or rejected and die.

Ok, how do you square that off with what you said above about Christ,

"never giving into any thoughts that came to Him from babyhood up"?


i dont know where you understand that from.[/quote]


It seemed to be what you said and in keeping with what Ellen White wrote on the matter.

Ellen White said:
God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

Man-ofGod

Giving glory to the most high.
May 23, 2008
242
3
✟15,716.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
"Given into any of 'His' thoughts of evil desires"? With my understanding of the Trinity I can't fathom your paragraph.




This details the difference between our two denominations teachings. To give into an evil thought you first must have an evil thought. Catholicism maintains that Jesus never had any evil thoughts. "A man is ONLY tempted when he is drawn away by his own lustful thoughts" (James 1 )

[/INDENT]

I wanted you to admit that David first "thought about it" prior to "giving into his "evil desire for the woman". Had David not had an evil desire for the woman David would not have been drawn away by his own lust. Bathsheba could have been all over him ( Bathsheba could have tempted David) and David would not have been tempted UNLESS he (David) was drawn away (pulled) by his own lust.

If we switch the people around it should become obvious very rapidly. Let's say that Bathsheba is taking a nude bath and Christ comes around the corner and can see what David looked at. In your view Christ desires the woman, wants to breed her but does not GIVE INTO "His" thoughts, it is then understood that Christ resisted His Temptation and didn't act out the X-rated scenario in His own mind. I mean no insult to SDAism or any of it's members when I say this is perhaps the most disasterious thing I've ever heard.




Ok, how do you square that off with what you said above about Christ,

"never giving into any thoughts that came to Him from babyhood up"?


i dont know where you understand that from.


It seemed to be what you said and in keeping with what Ellen White wrote on the matter.

[/I][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]


Your looking to deep into it. What do you think it means when it says

15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. ? Hebrews 4:15
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

teresaq

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2008
78
1
✟15,208.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
Pythons;51336768 If we switch the people around it should become obvious very rapidly. Let's say that Bathsheba is taking a nude bath and Christ comes around the corner and can see what David looked at. In your view Christ desires the woman said:
resisted[/u]
His Temptation and didn't act out the X-rated scenario in His own mind. I mean no insult to SDAism or any of it's members when I say this is perhaps the most disasterious thing I've ever heard.


i said a thought, you have a whole movie going on! a thought, one thought, a fraction-of-a-second thought. you put the desire before the thought. the thought comes first and has to be entertained, then it becomes desire.

lets say its your daughter, sister, daughter-in-law, something like that. an unfortunate circumstance happens where you see more than you should. for a fraction of an instant a thought may come to you but you would kill it immediately. some dont. they let one thought lead to another.....

david let one thought lead to another which became a desire.....

job didnt. when we read the book of job he never let his thoughts become desires. he resisted/killed the first thought:

Job 31:7 If my step hath turned out of the way, and mine heart walked after mine eyes, and if any blot hath cleaved to mine hands; Job 31:8 Then let me sow, and let another eat; yea, let my offspring be rooted out.
Job 31:9 If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbour's door; Job 31:10 Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her.
Job 31:11 For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.
Job 31:12 For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase.

and back to your points
you are substituting "desire" for "thought". first comes the thought, if indulged it becomes a desire.

Teresaq (in keeping with SDA doctrine) is in the positive that Jesus had desires for what was forbidden but Jesus "resisted" His temptation and provided us an example of how we to can resist our own urge to sin.

this is not what i have said. it may be your understanding of how it works, but it isnt mine, nor what i said.

Originally Posted by G-1939 / Concupiscence / Strong's

1) desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust

Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
evil concupiscence,
and covetousness, which is idolatry:

here paul prefaces concupiscence with "evil" which would strongly imply that he did not see concupiscence, or longing and desire, itself, as evil, at least not here.

then,

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

notice when it becomes sin. it has to be thought about - more than one thought.....
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
i said a thought, you have a whole movie going on! a thought, one thought, a fraction-of-a-second thought.

We are not conscious of our subconscious thoughts. I can tell you this, if Jesus didn't "give into" the thoughts He had from when He was a Baby to the cross, the thoughts were most certainly conscious otherwise there would not have been anything for Him to "give into". Do you agree with that?

teresaq said:
lets say its your daughter, sister, daughter-in-law, something like that. an unfortunate circumstance happens where you see more than you should. for a fraction of an instant a thought may come to you but you would kill it immediately. some dont. they let one thought lead to another.....

I can assure you that the shortest chain of a thought of you or I would have would look nothing like Jesus' thoughts. Jesus was always pleasing the Father. Do you or I always please the Father? I have fallen down countless times in that area.

teresaq said:
david let one thought lead to another which became a desire.....

David was "tempted", he was drawn away by his own lust.

teresaq said:
job didnt. when we read the book of job he never let his thoughts become desires. he resisted/killed the first thought:

If Job resisted thoughts they were conscious thoughts teresaq otherwise there would have been nothiing for Job to have resisted. You have to have something pulling or pushing you prior to saying you are resisting the pushing or pulling.

teresaq said:
and back to your points
you are substituting "desire" for "thought". first comes the thought, if indulged it becomes a desire.

Here you go,

Matthew 15 said:
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

Rest assured, we are conscious of our thoughts.


teresaq said:
this is not what i have said. it may be your understanding of how it works, but it isnt mine, nor what i said.

You have claimed that Jesus was tempted within Himself. Ellen White has claimed Christ was tempted within Himself and resisted His temptations. I have been saying all along that Jesus was never tempted within Himself and that He was only tempted of / by the Devil.


Originally Posted by G-1939 / Concupiscence / Strong's

1) desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust


teresaq said:
here paul prefaces concupiscence with "evil" which would strongly imply that he did not see concupiscence, or longing and desire, itself, as evil, at least not here.

Yes, "evil concupiscence" is the desire or lust for things that have been identified as "evil". You can lust or desire for good things but we are not talking about those things here.


teresaq said:
then,



notice when it becomes sin. it has to be thought about - more than one thought.....

Seriously, is evil desire not really evil until you satisfy it by action?
 
Upvote 0

teresaq

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2008
78
1
✟15,208.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
im finding your thoughts/understanding confusing. first there is something about thoughts being subconscious.
teresaq http://www.christianforums.com/t5427999-4/#post51340835
i said a thought, you have a whole movie going on! a thought, one thought, a fraction-of-a-second thought.
pythons: We are not conscious of our subconscious thoughts. I can tell you this, if Jesus didn't "give into" the thoughts He had from when He was a Baby to the cross, the thoughts were most certainly conscious otherwise there would not have been anything for Him to "give into". Do you agree with that?


then you state that thoughts are conscious.

teresaq: job didnt. when we read the book of job he never let his thoughts become desires. he resisted/killed the first thought:
pythons: If Job resisted thoughts they were conscious thoughts teresaq otherwise there would have been nothiing for Job to have resisted. You have to have something pulling or pushing you prior to saying you are resisting the pushing or pulling.

and here.
Matthew 15,19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies
pythons: Rest assured, we are conscious of our thoughts.



i didnt claim that Jesus was "tempted within Himself". that thinking is something you have put together in your mind.

teresa: this is not what i have said. it may be your understanding of how it works, but it isnt mine, nor what i said.
pythons: You have claimed that Jesus was tempted within Himself. Ellen White has claimed Christ was tempted within Himself and resisted His temptations. I have been saying all along that Jesus was never tempted within Himself and that He was only tempted of / by the Devil.

can you show where ellen white claims Jesus was tempted within Himself? i dont remember seeing such.

i dont see that we are getting anywhere. perhaps coming at this from a different direction might help.
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
im finding your thoughts/understanding confusing. first there is something about thoughts being subconscious.

Now we are getting somewhere! For a thought to be a thought necessates that it's conscious ( otherwise it's not a thought ). You don't know you are thinking about it.


teresaq said:
then you state that thoughts are conscious.

I've said that all along. I've been to the Pacific Inst 4 times due to my job and it deals with the power of positive self talk, affirmations, etc. When Christ says that if a man looks at a woman with lust (desire) he has commited a sin already in his heart. Scripture describes that "man is only tempted" when he is drawn away by HIS OWN LUST or desire.

You maintain that Christ was "tempted" like all of us are tempted and according to the Bible that would require that Christ would have had to be drawn by His own lust or desire for that which was sin! Do you see the logical end to that speculation?



and here.



teresaq said:
i didnt claim that Jesus was "tempted within Himself". that thinking is something you have put together in your mind.

If you don't think Jesus was tempted within Himself then you would agree with me that Jesus was impeccable. I was under the understanding from Bob Ryan, Ellen White and several other SDA's I've talked to that SDA's believed that Christ was indeed peccable.

The Book of James states that the only way for a man to be tempted is for that person to be pulled toward the act by their own lust or desire.

If I'm a drunk I will have conscious thoughts about drinking, if I'm a theif I will have conscious thoughts about stealing, if I'm a pervert or just a regular guy who notices a woman I think is very attractive I could have some thoughts, if they were put onto paper, that would be inappropriate contentographic in nature. Point being that if a man is only tempted when he is drawn away by a desire within himself then that desire or lust is providing the pull or push toward whatever sin there is (my sin may not be your sin).

If you are claiming Christ is impeccable then I owe you a massive apology teresaq. I'm sorry. If you claim that Christ was peccable then obviously I'm still sorry and hope you look at the Biblical reasons I must reject that line of thinking. Back to James,

If the only way a person can be tempted is from their own lust or desire then how could Christ be "tempted" within Himself?

teresaq said:
can you show where ellen white claims Jesus was tempted within Himself? i dont remember seeing such.

Here is a few examples out of many I can offer.

Ellen White said:
To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.

Ellen White Desire of Ages said:
The enticements which Christ RESISTED were those that we find it so difficult to withstand. They were urged upon Him in as much greater degree as His character is superior to ours. With the terrible weight of the sins of the world upon Him, Christ withstood the test upon appetite, upon the love of the world, and upon that love of display which leads to presumption.

Ellen White 16 MR 183.1 said:
But the facts of this history are not fable, but a living, acting, experience. [To deny this] would rob Jesus of His greatest glory--allegiance to God--which enshrouded Him as a garment in this world on the field of battle with the relentless foe, and He is not reckoned with the transgressor.

He descended in His humiliation to be tempted as man would be tempted, and His nature was that of man, capable of yielding to temptation.

His very purity and holiness were assailed by a fallen foe, the very one that became corrupted and then was ejected from heaven. How deeply and keenly must Christ have felt this humiliation.

"His nature" was that of man, CAPABLE OF YIELDING TO TEMPTATION."


Stands to reason if Christ was capable of yielding to temptation "like a man" then the way in which He would yeld to temptation would be like a man, no? The Bible says the only way a man is tempted is when he is drawn away or pulled toward sin by his own lust or desire. How else could I calculate it?

In Ellen's view Christ was the result of the two natures being "blended" NOT united. Therefore, if Jesus needed to resist His desires that would equate to God lusting to do evil.

Ellen White said:
Wonderful opportunities are opened before the human agent to understand the unsearchable riches of the wisdom of God. In this work, which nothing less than divine power can accomplish, nothing can be perfected without the cooperation of the human agent. Then the divine and the human are blended, as in the life of the Son of God. . .

Ellen White said:
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No, the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the Man Christ Jesus

The human and Divine natures were mysteriously "blended" together so that the human nature fouled the Divine nature causing it to go putrid up to the point the blended person needed to resist temptation. This is hard for me to even think about.





teresaq said:
i dont see that we are getting anywhere. perhaps coming at this from a different direction might help.

As long as there is life there is hope is what my Mom always says so let's stick at it until we reach a finding one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

teresaq

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2008
78
1
✟15,208.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
i guess it depends on how one reads the egw quotes you posted. i didnt get what you are getting.

pythons wrote:
If you don't think Jesus was tempted within Himself then you would agree with me that Jesus was impeccable. I was under the understanding from Bob Ryan, Ellen White and several other SDA's I've talked to that SDA's believed that Christ was indeed peccable.

The Book of James states that the only way for a man to be tempted is for that person to be pulled toward the act by their own lust or desire.

If I'm a drunk I will have conscious thoughts about drinking, if I'm a theif I will have conscious thoughts about stealing, if I'm a pervert or just a regular guy who notices a woman I think is very attractive I could have some thoughts, if they were put onto paper, that would be inappropriate contentographic in nature. Point being that if a man is only tempted when he is drawn away by a desire within himself then that desire or lust is providing the pull or push toward whatever sin there is (my sin may not be your sin).

If the only way a person can be tempted is from their own lust or desire then how could Christ be "tempted" within Himself?

as you point out here james is referring to a lust or sin that has been previously given into. i think it goes deeper than that but well start here. james is writing to converted people. Jesus started out "converted". job is a good example of a person apparently doing right from childhood. job did not give into "temptations" yet he had the same sinful nature as the rest of us. we can assume the same of daniel because no "sin" was recorded in him, or enoch. moses had come to the point of complete trust in God yet he did fall one more time just before canaan.

a child is not born drinking, drugging or whatever such type sins. at some point they become "tempted" and decide to try it. then it may or may not become a problem.

man of God posted this text and it has to be dealt with. it is bible.
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

so how do we put this text with the james text? do we need to rethink our understanding? im having to study and pray, also, here.....

pythons wrote:If the only way a person can be tempted is from their own lust or desire then how could Christ be "tempted" within Himself?
that "tempted within Himself" seems to be the problem. i dont see Jesus as having been tempted within Himself anymore than a child when first encountering drinking/drugging, or whatever else he might be tempted with.

we also have another verse where Christ claims to be "tempted":
Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

then we have the scene in the garden of gethsemane. how can we read that account and say that Jesus was not going through some of kind of temptation and that one certainly "within Himself"!!

personally, i believe the devil has won a major victory with this pre/post lapse "war". it takes our attention from the important issues, mainly the above.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
i guess it depends on how one reads the egw quotes you posted. i didnt get what you are getting.

You would agree that the nature of man is "sinful" and rotten would you not?

Psalm 51 said:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Here is iniquity,

Strong's H-771 said:
1) perversity, depravity, iniquity, guilt or punishment of iniquity
a) iniquity
b) guilt of iniquity, guilt (as great), guilt (of condition)
c) consequence of or punishment for iniquity

Here is "sin",

Strong's H-2399 said:
1) sin
a) sin
b) guilt for sin
c) punishment for sin

The Ellen G White quote I gave has her explicitly declairing that Christ's Nature was that of a man, CAPABLE OF SINNING. Would you agree that if a person "yeids to temptation" the person is guilty of sin? I'm saying that if a person is tempted within himself THAT person is as guilty of sin as a person who thinks about doing the sin.


teresaq said:
as you point out here james is referring to a lust or sin that has been previously given into.

If, as Ellen White says, Jesus had the nature of fallen man, which was capable of yeilding to temptation THEN Jesus would first have to be tempted PRIOR to yeilding to the temptation. If you say that James is talking about evil lusts that had been previously given into to we are right back to the premise that Christ, if He was tempted as we are, fought evil desires within Himself. How else would it be said that Jesus didn't yeild to all the temptations you and I have if there wasn't something there to resist or yeild into? If you answer that I think I may have a better radar fix on where you are coming from.


teresaq said:
i think it goes deeper than that but well start here. james is writing to converted people. Jesus started out "converted". job is a good example of a person apparently doing right from childhood. job did not give into "temptations" yet he had the same sinful nature as the rest of us. we can assume the same of daniel because no "sin" was recorded in him, or enoch.

Job lusted for evil teresaq,

Job 7 said:
I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?

Job 13 said:
For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

Job is saying he had "INIQUITIES" in his youth, the following is the plural,

Strong's H5771 said:
1) perversity, depravity, iniquity, guilt or punishment of iniquity
a) iniquity
b) guilt of iniquity, guilt (as great), guilt (of condition)
c) consequence of or punishment for iniquity

It works out the same way with Enoch. Both were clearly Titan saints in Scripture however attempting to push them into the category of sinless is fantastic speculation and against what the Bible says about them.

teresaq said:
moses had come to the point of complete trust in God yet he did fall one more time just before canaan.

Moses was a long way from sinless teresaq.

teresaq said:
a child is not born drinking, drugging or whatever such type sins. at some point they become "tempted" and decide to try it. then it may or may not become a problem.

A child does not have to be born drinking or drugging. Sin is in our DNA so we desire to sin w/out "any" outside pushing or pulling. This is what Original Sin means teresaq, out of sin and iniquity did our mothers conceive us.

teresaq said:
man of God posted this text and it has to be dealt with. it is bible.

You would deal with it by reading that Scripture again, especially the part that identifies the tempting in the context of INFIRMITIES.

Hewbrews 4 said:
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Young's Literal Translation said:
for we have not a chief priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but [one] tempted in all things in like manner -- apart from sin;

Latin Vulgate said:
infirmitatibus

In the Greek it means the native weakness and fraility of the human body, such as being sick, tired, hungry etc. The Scripture is saying that our High Priest even though He was, sick, tired, hurting and had all the same infirmities we had was TOTALLY WITHOUT SIN. The text does not even come close to saying that Jesus had to resist sexual lusts, rage and every other urge you and I fight.

teresaq said:
so how do we put this text with the james text? do we need to rethink our understanding? im having to study and pray, also, here.....

Yes.

teresaq said:
that "tempted within Himself" seems to be the problem. i dont see Jesus as having been tempted within Himself anymore than a child when first encountering drinking/drugging, or whatever else he might be tempted with.

It's a massive problem IMHO. Saying Jesus wasn't tempted within Himself ANYMORE then a child is the same thing as saying Jesus as a child wasn't tempted any less! Are you tempted to crush your hand? You are not tempted to crush your hand - we are not tempted to do things we don't want to do teresaq and we all have our secret desires from gossip to murder. What temptations you as a person must resist may not be the same ones I fight. Sin works this way.

teresaq said:
we also have another verse where Christ claims to be "tempted":
Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Whytempt ye me, ye hypocrites?


then we have the scene in the garden of gethsemane. how can we read that account and say that Jesus was not going through some of kind of temptation and that one certainly "within Himself"!!


personally, i believe the devil has won a major victory with this pre/post lapse "war". it takes our attention from the important issues, mainly the above.

Saing the same thing here that all the others say. Jesus was tempted of the Devil / of the Pharisees OUTSIDE OF SIN exactly the same way as you could be said to be tempted if someone asked you to do something wrong that had zero interest to you at all. If an overweight homosexual that smelled so bad to you, you had to resist the urge to puke asked you to do a homosexual act with them would you have to RESIST the temptation to do it or would you walk away disgusted. I'm willing to bet that you would not be "tempted" because the Bible says that you are ONLY tempted when you have a desire within yourself to do a thing.
 
Upvote 0

Xenon

Regular Member
Aug 11, 2007
430
21
40
Schaumburg, Illinois
✟15,675.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Butting in for a moment...

In the Greek it means the native weakness and fraility of the human body, such as being sick, tired, hungry etc. The Scripture is saying that our High Priest even though He was, sick, tired, hurting and had all the same infirmities we had was TOTALLY WITHOUT SIN. The text does not even come close to saying that Jesus had to resist sexual lusts, rage and every other urge you and I fight.
That is completely against the context of that verse.

Hebrews 4:11-16 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

It is clearly talking about "thoughts and intents of the heart", not physical infirmities. All of chapter 4 is about running the race to enter His rest. Later on, it says, Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. (Hebrews 12:1) He is clearly talking about running the race against sin, not against physical infirmity.

Furthermore, since we're using Strong's Numbers here...

G769
From G772; feebleness (of body or mind); by implication malady; moral frailty: - disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.
 
Upvote 0

teresaq

Junior Member
Jan 12, 2008
78
1
✟15,208.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
He took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to endure that He has not endured. . . . Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.--Ms. 113, 1902, pp. 1, 2 (See DA 117).

i believe this says best what i understand the bible to be saying of Christs human nature, the "fallen" nature that He took. (needing to balance your egw quotes)

t: then we have the scene in the garden of gethsemane. how can we read that account and say that Jesus was not going through some of kind of temptation and that one certainly "within Himself"!!

p: Saing the same thing here that all the others say. Jesus was tempted of the Devil / of the Pharisees OUTSIDE OF SIN exactly the same way as you could be said to be tempted if someone asked you to do something wrong that had zero interest to you at all. If an overweight homosexual that smelled so bad to you, you had to resist the urge to puke asked you to do a homosexual act with them would you have to RESIST the temptation to do it or would you walk away disgusted. I'm willing to bet that you would not be "tempted" because the Bible says that you are ONLY tempted when you have a desire within yourself to do a thing.

what was Christ struggling with in the garden of gethsemane?
 
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Butting in for a moment...

I'm glad you jumped in. The more the better.

xenon said:
That is completely against the context of that verse.

I'm afraid not, proof following the Scripture you quoted and comment.

Hebrews 4:11-16 said:
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.


xenon said:
It is clearly talking about "thoughts and intents of the heart", not physical infirmities. All of chapter 4 is about running the race to enter His rest. Later on, it says, Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. (Hebrews 12:1) He is clearly talking about running the race against sin, not against physical infirmity.

Furthermore, since we're using Strong's Numbers here...

G769
From G772; feebleness (of body or mind); by implication malady; moral frailty: - disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.


Ok, let's discuss your use of Strong's as it relates to Hebrews 4, 15.

1st)
Infirmities, Strong's # G769 has, as it's primary meaning "Feebleness of BODY or mind. As you said above by impl MALADY; moral fraility; - disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness. It comes from G-772

2nd)
G-772 has as it's ONLY meaning, "weak, infirm or feeble".

The Greek word "asthenia" is a NEGATIVE exactly as G-772 openly states. Crack open your Strong's and look right at it.

Now, the word at issue here is translated 24 times as INFIRMITY (7 times) , INFIRMITIES ( 10 times ) , SICKNESS ( 1 time ) , DISEASE ( 1 time ) & WEAKNESS ( 5 times ).

3rd)
The word "SIN" and the word "TEMPTED" must be interpreted with "INFIRMITIES" because that is the CONTEXT.

Work out the following Scripture using your unique method.

2nd Corinthians 12 said:
and He said to me, `Sufficient for thee is My grace, for My power in infirmity is perfected;' most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of the Christ may rest on me:

wherefore I am well pleased in infirmities, in damages, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses -- for Christ; for whenever I am INFIRM, then I am powerful;

Saint Paul is well pleased with his "moral fraility"????

Hebrews 4 is talking about the failure of those who lived before Christ in their attempts to enter the rest of God (they didn't) V. 7 begs Christians to not "harden their hearts" and listen to that call TODAY.

V. 15 explicitly says that Jesus sympathises with our INFIRMITIES because,

Section in question said:
but [one] tempted in all things IN LIKE MANNER -- apart from sin;

In like manner of what? "Infirmities" is the ONLY thing there Xenon. Jesus has sympathy for our INFIRMITIES because Jesus was tempted (tested) in EVERY INFIRMITY we are, ONLY JESUS was tempted APART FROM SIN (outside of sin).

James 1 said:
Let no one say, being tempted -- `From God I am tempted,' for God is not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one,


and EACH ONE is tempted, by HIS OWN desires being led away and enticed,
afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin

having been perfected, doth bring forth death.

A) God is not tempted of evil

B) "A PERSON" is tempted by THEIR OWN DESIRES

C) "SIN" having BEEN perfected, doth bring forth death.

Being tempted within ones self IS SIN, it's just not PERFECTED SIN. I've been saying all along that it is blasphemy to say Jesus was tempted within sin exactly as you and I are because that is the same thing as saying Jesus had the ability to mutate (sin).


teresaq quotes EGW said:
He took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to endure that He has not endured. . . . Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.--Ms. 113, 1902, pp. 1, 2 (See DA 117).

Not going to work as Xenon, Ellen G White and SDA theology have identified infirmities mentioned in Hebrews 4:15 as 'moral fraility'. If Jesus was fully human the only way He would have been "tempted" is if it was something He wanted to do.

Ellen White said it was fully possible for Christ to "yeild to temptation" because, "His nature was that of man, capable of yeilding to temptation".

If it were possible for Christ to "give into" His temptation it means he wanted to do it and He was a SINNER because as James puts it, temptation within ones self is UNperfected sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums