• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

It Was Impossible for Jesus to Sin

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Tragic.

God's Law cannot be kept by fallen man. Jesus was not a fallen man and could thus keep the Law.

Romans 8 describes a group that "does not and indeed CAN NOT submit to the Law of God" and contrast them with the saints.

Rom 8
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

your choice.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,252
✟55,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I use to believe that, but know I now that Jesus was able to sin, but he chose not too. He would have had to be able to be tempted in every way and over come it in order to die for the world. He was born with the same sin nature as Adam.

Heresy! If Jesus had a sin nature then he could not have been a perfect sacrifice. Neither could he have been God.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,252
✟55,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Romans 8 describes a group that "does not and indeed CAN NOT submit to the Law of God" and contrast them with the saints.

Rom 8
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

your choice.

Those who are regenerated by the Spirit have new abilities to keep God's Law, although not perfectly. But even "the saints" were sinners, unable to keep God's Law before God regenerated them and gave them new hearts.
 
Upvote 0

Childofgodharrison

Active Member
Aug 27, 2018
279
66
60
Abilene
✟41,563.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Heresy! If Jesus had a sin nature then he could not have been a perfect sacrifice. Neither could he have been God.
He was born of the seed of Mary. A virgin birth that would stand out from all other births. If he would not have had the sin nature in him he would have not been able to die for mankind. And he was an example to us that we can do the same thing. Live this life without intentional sin.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Theo Book
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,252
✟55,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
He was born of the seed of Mary. A virgin birth that would stand out from all other births. If he would not have had the sin nature in him he would have not been able to die for mankind. And he was an example to us that we can do the same thing. Live this life without intentional sin.

Friend, you cannot believe that Jesus had a sin nature and still be saved. You need to repent of this false teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Childofgodharrison

Active Member
Aug 27, 2018
279
66
60
Abilene
✟41,563.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Friend, you cannot believe that Jesus had a sin nature and still be saved. You need to repent of this false teaching.
I use to believe that two, until I saw this scripture. Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.
He was born of Mary's seed. Mary is of the seed of Adam. Jesus also had to die for Mary. It was not no miraculous implant. He was the seed of Mary in the lineage of David.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,252
✟55,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I use to believe that two, until I saw this scripture. Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.
He was born of Mary's seed. Mary is of the seed of Adam. Jesus also had to die for Mary. It was not no miraculous implant. He was the seed of Mary in the lineage of David.

I agree that Jesus was a human being. He was 100% a human being. But he was not a fallen human being. He did not have a sin nature. Adam in the garden did not have a sin nature until he sinned.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Those who are regenerated by the Spirit have new abilities to keep God's Law, although not perfectly. But even "the saints" were sinners, unable to keep God's Law before God regenerated them and gave them new hearts.

As Romans 8 points out the lost do not and cannot obey God's Word. so then "all have sinned".

But that does not mean that saved saints also cannot do that.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,252
✟55,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
As Romans 8 points out the lost do not and cannot obey God's Word. so then "all have sinned".

But that does not mean that saved saints also cannot do that.

Saved saints have the power to be holy. But you must admit that it's still a struggle for saved saints because they have both the Spirit and the flesh. As Paul says in Galatians 5:16-17:

16
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

Saved saints still have the residue of the fallen nature within them. They still have desires of the flesh. So though it is possible for them to be righteous, it will always be a fight.

It wasn't a fight for Jesus! He did not have a fallen, sinful nature to fight against! He is God!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Childofgodharrison

Active Member
Aug 27, 2018
279
66
60
Abilene
✟41,563.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that Jesus was a human being. He was 100% a human being. But he was not a fallen human being. He did not have a sin nature. Adam in the garden did not have a sin nature until he sinned.
Why did satan go and tempt Jesus three different times. He tried to make him fall just as he did Adam. He failed because Jesus did not give in to him, but Adam did. He did what Adam did not. So he did have the sin nature, but he did not sin.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Theo Book

Active Member
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
216
76
91
Central Florida
✟104,258.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So many problems with that line of thinking. Above all that though. To say God has no ability to choose to sin or to choose to be benevolent? That defies reason.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Since Sin is the transgression of God's law, how could God possibly create a world built upon laws if He breaks them? He could not, for if He did, no law, even natural law, could withstand the nature of failing.

And one "born of God" cannot sin BECAUSE HE IS BORN OF GOD."
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

This does not mean a Christian is not capable of sinning, it means the same thing as when a Mother tells her toddler "No, you cannot ride your tricycle through the flower bed;" Not impossible, but inconsistent with what you are allowed to do with impunity.

The real test comes from understanding what sin really is. It is succumbing to our desires; desires that are unrighteous by their nature.

Look at the GREEK word epithumia in two opposing verses, one which references righteous strong desire; and one which references unrighteous strong desire-


James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own (1)(epiqumias) lust, and enticed. 15 Then when (2)(epithumia)lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

(1)epiqumias = genitive feminine singular form of noun [UBS] epiqumia = desire, longing; lust, passion; covetousness

(2) epiqumia = nominative feminine singular form of noun [UBS] epiqumia desire, longing; lust, passion;


Luke 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.15 And he said unto them,
With (2)(epithumia)desire (3)(epithumhsa)I have
desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

(2)epiqumia = dative feminine singular form of noun [UBS] epiqumia = desire, longing; lust, passion;

(3)epequmhsa verb indicative aorist active 1st person singular form of verb [UBS] epiqumew = long for, desire; lust for

There is noting inherently bad about strongly desiring for example, forgiveness for hurting someone; or desiring to be with someone in a Godly association, like a church gathering, or a family reunion.

And Jesus had the same depth of desire for communing with the saints, which is a righteous form of the verb epithumew.

But when we, for example, have a lustful dream, and upon waking seek out a means of fulfilling that dream, that seeking itself is sin; but if we come to our sense of righteousness, and abandon that desire, pray God to overlook the sin and forgive us, that sin will not be counted against us, it is a sin "not unto death."

The best example of which I am aware, is found in the old Testament with Abraham and Sarah traveling through the country of Gerar -


KJV Genesis 20:1 And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. 4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine. 8 Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.

9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. 10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?

11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.

14 And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. 15 And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee.

16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

17 So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. 18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.

Abimelech had sinned a sin not unto death, because he did not fulfill that desire for something to which he had no right; but the fact of the desire itself, had to be "covered" is what brought it to the light of scripture.

This is the category of sin that was covered by Hebrews 7:26-27 -
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Jesus had no sin imputed to him, but he had unimputed sin which was covered when he sacrificed Himself upon the cross of Calvary
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,991
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟523,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Since Sin is the transgression of God's law, how could God possibly create a world built upon laws if He breaks them? He could not, for if He did, no law, even natural law, could withstand the nature of failing.QUOTE]
How did you that giant leap from what I said of God being a moral agent and can sin, violate his own law if he so chose to: I said God sins?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
He would be the example that flesh =/= sin.

"I'm only human, born to make mistakes." No. Sin is not an inevitable result of being flesh. Being flesh does not even create a vulnerability to sin--that's what Jesus proved. Jesus--although flesh--was invulnerable to sin the way Superman is invulnerable to bullets.

You, however, seem to be falling into the heresy of denying that Jesus is God and denying the holiness of Jesus.

Either that or you're not handling the term "tempt" correctly.

In Hebrews 4:15, the word is peirazo, which means "assayed" or "tested." The word means the action of determining whether something meets a standard, such as assaying a sample of gold to determine its purity.

Important to understand that being assayed does not denote impurity. It denotes that purity is being questioned. "Being tested" is not an indication of impurity, it's an indication that the purity is under dispute.

In James 1:13, the word applied to God is apeirastos, which means "cannot be tested." God's purity is beyond question, and un-assayable. James 1:13 says that not only is God's purity beyond being assayed, but that God Himself does not assay our purity.

The fact that Jesus--God Incarnate--was tested for sin by Satan does not imply in any way whatsoever that Jesus was actually vulnerable to sin, any more than a gangster shooting bullets at Superman implies that Superman is actually vulnerable to bullets.

Jesus did not struggle against sin. Like Superman facing a hail of bullets, Jesus did not flinch, He did not wince, He didn't get knocked down and have to struggle to get back to His feet. There was no fight to remain pure, Jesus was assayed by Satan and Satan found Him to be pure.

What Jesus proved--what makes Him our standard-- is that being made of flesh does not make us inherently vulnerable to sin. Jesus was of flesh, yet was invulnerable to sin. It's not the flesh itself that makes us vulnerable to sin.

:oldthumbsup: Love the references to Superman, big fan from the time I was around three or four years old, throwing my Mego Superman doll in the air while playing in the yard. Think he might have got stuck in a tree though. Spider-Man and the Hulk though were favorites too, Saturday morning cartoons like "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" kindled the interest. Mom took me and my brother to local grocery stores, and I always went straight to the comics, loved the comic racks. One of the first comics I remember mom buying for me was an issue of "Spidey Super Stories". Anyway, sorry to go away from the topic. Reminiscing.
 
Upvote 0

AFrazier

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 1, 2016
1,343
388
53
Mauldin, South Carolina
✟267,288.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Heresy! If Jesus had a sin nature then he could not have been a perfect sacrifice. Neither could he have been God.
Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, I haven't seen much scripture from you. You just name-call and strut. You need to learn some humility.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tree of Life
Upvote 0

Theo Book

Active Member
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
216
76
91
Central Florida
✟104,258.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How did you that giant leap from what I said of God being a moral agent and can sin, violate his own law if he so chose to: I said God sins?

I am in agreement with your assessment that God does NOT sin, Can NOT sin. He is not a moral agent, He is morality personified, and cannot be immoral.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,154
22,747
US
✟1,733,654.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am in agreement with your assessment that God does NOT sin, Can NOT sin. He is not a moral agent, He is morality personified, and cannot be immoral.

Yes. Morality is the will of God. The will of God is morality.

There is no uber-God moral law that God is required to obey. If that were the case, the uber-God moral law would be God.

God is morality. What God does is moral by the fact of God doing it. What God commands is moral by the fact of God commanding it.

God's actions define morality, God's actions define "good."

And Jesus is God.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,154
22,747
US
✟1,733,654.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus, the last Adam, was just as capable of yielding to sin/disobedience as was the first Adam. Jesus did not lay aside His Deity, but the privileges of His Deity and became fully human capable of being tempted in all points even as we. He overcame all temptation through the scriptures and prayer just as we need to.

I can't stand black licorice. You cannot tempt me with what is not at all appealing to me or something that I am not capable of succumbing to. The bible is crystal clear however, that Jesus was tempted in all points that we are. If He were "invulernable" to sin as you say, then it would be impossible for Satan to tempt Him. Remember God CANNOT be tempted with evil, yet Jesus WAS tempted in ALL points as we are.

In the wilderness, He afterwards was hunger. then came the tempter at the point of His weakness telling Him to command the stone to be turned to bread.

Jesus is God and He is holy, never having committed sin, but on earth was just as capable of committing it as any of us. This is what makes Him a faithful and merciful High Priest on our behalf. Because of His being tempted, He is able to be our "prompt succour".

Hebrews 2:17-18 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Notice, Jesus SUFFERED being tempted. Doesn't seem like Superman and bullets to me.

PastorJoey, thank you very much for providing me with a much better example to prove my point!

You said:

I can't stand black licorice. You cannot tempt me with what is not at all appealing to me or something that I am not capable of succumbing to.

So you confirm that you hate black licorice. So do I!

Would you agree that Jesus hates sin at least as much as you hate black licorice? Would you agree that Jesus can resist sin at least as well as you can resist black licorice?

Or are you saying that whereas you would never even contemplate eating licorice, that Jesus did in fact contemplate sin? Are you saying that Jesus is weaker than you are in resisting what you hate?

What you mishandle is the verb "tempt" as scripture uses it. You are using it in a modern way, like this:

"I made a New Year's Resolution not to eat chocolate cake, but when I passed by that bakery and smelled chocolate cake fresh from the oven, oh, man was I tempted to buy some!"

That's how we use "tempt" in today's parlance. But what we mean by "temptation" is that we actually contemplated the act. We thought about it. We imagined ourselves doing it. We considered how good it would feel. But, in the end, we rejected it...with a bit of regret.

That's why we call "temptation" a struggle--because we actually submited in to it within our own minds. We allow the temptation to conceive the sin within our minds. We abort it--and we actually grieve having to abort the sin in order to remain "righteous." That's what we call "temptation"--our grief over having aborted a sin.

But that's not how "temptation" is used in scripture. In scripture, "to tempt" means "to test" or "to assay."

So you say that you hate black licorice. I'm not so sure you hate it as much as you say, so when I know you're hungry, I wave a handful of licorice strips under your nose.

That is temptation. I am tempting you as scripture handles the word. I am testing your claim that you hate licorice.

The fact that the temptation utterly fails does not mean I did not tempt you.

When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, scripture does not record any struggle whatsoever within Jesus. Jesus' rebuke is immediate, without any consideration whatsoever of anything Satan suggests.

Jesus did not struggle with sin. Not for a moment. That was never a fight.

Any more than you fight not to eat licorice.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Tree of Life
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,991
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟523,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am in agreement with your assessment that God does NOT sin, Can NOT sin. He is not a moral agent, He is morality personified, and cannot be immoral.
So since you are ignoring the whole spectrum of the scripture on the subject and resort to philosophical statements. ( Nothing wrong with philosophy.) Whom then or what is a greater God? The God who cannot sin because of some unknowable to man nature or the God that can yet has always and will always refuse to? Which of the two is the most worthy of praise?
Along the same lines. Which of the two Gods is justified in sending man to hell for eternity? The one who sends them to hell because of what their ancestor did. Because their ancestor gave his descendants some kind of unknowable to mankind sin nature that makes it impossible for them to do anything but sin. Or the God who personally reaches out to every individual and calls them to himself and reproves them for their sin and not heeding the call. Who expects them to heed which is in their power to do and to repent of the evil deeds they are voluntarily involved in? In other words the God who understands the circumstances mankind finds themselves in but sends men to hell who voluntarily choose the path of Adam rather than the path God provides for them.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,991
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟523,700.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PastorJoey, thank you very much for providing me with a much better example to prove my point!

You said:



So you confirm that you hate black licorice. So do I!

Would you agree that Jesus hates sin at least as much as you hate black licorice? Would you agree that Jesus can resist sin at least as well as you can resist black licorice?

Or are you saying that whereas you would never even contemplate eating licorice, that Jesus did in fact contemplate sin? Are you saying that Jesus is weaker than you are in resisting what you hate?

What you mishandle is the verb "tempt" as scripture uses it. You are using it in a modern way, like this:

"I made a New Year's Resolution not to eat chocolate cake, but when I passed by that bakery and smelled chocolate cake fresh from the oven, oh, man was I tempted to buy some!"

That's how we use "tempt" in today's parlance. But what we mean by "temptation" is that we actually contemplated the act. We thought about it. We imagined ourselves doing it. We considered how good it would feel. But, in the end, we rejected it...with a bit of regret.

That's why we call "temptation" a struggle--because we actually submited in to it within our own minds. We allow the temptation to conceive the sin within our minds. We abort it--and we actually grieve having to abort the sin in order to remain "righteous." That's what we call "temptation"--our grief over having aborted a sin.

But that's not how "temptation" is used in scripture. In scripture, "to tempt" means "to test" or "to assay."

So you say that you hate black licorice. I'm not so sure you hate it as much as you say, so when I know you're hungry, I wave a handful of licorice strips under your nose.

That is temptation. I am tempting you as scripture handles the word. I am testing your claim that you hate licorice.

The fact that the temptation utterly fails does not mean I did not tempt you.

When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, scripture does not record any struggle whatsoever within Jesus. Jesus' rebuke is immediate, without any consideration whatsoever of anything Satan suggests.

Jesus did not struggle with sin. Not for a moment. That was never a fight.

Any more than you fight not to eat licorice.
Looks like a struggle to me. Worse than anything I have struggled with.
Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.


The Apostle speaks of that this way.
Hebrews 5: 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hebrews 4:15 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.

I think the Apostles use of certain words and phrases is markedly differant than your words.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,154
22,747
US
✟1,733,654.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So since you are ignoring the whole spectrum of the scripture on the subject and resort to philosophical statements. ( Nothing wrong with philosophy.) Whom then or what is a greater God? The God who cannot sin because of some unknowable to man nature or the God that can yet has always and will always refuse to? Which of the two is the most worthy of praise?

It's not relevant to God what you concoct in your own mind as what is more or less worthy of praise.
 
Upvote 0