Question

[pat34lee]

Jesus was 100% human, but somehow people feel they are allowed to remove him from solidarity with the first man, from whom extends solidarity with all other humans. What I’d need to be at all moved by this argument is some place in Scripture that creates a divide between the incarnate deity-human and other humans.

This was the reason that the virgin birth was necessary. The pattern of the bible is that inheritance passes from the father's line. Our sinful tendency then, is inherited from our fathers, not our mothers. This chain was broken in Yeshua. So, while he was fully human and capable of being tempted, he did not inheret our rebellious nature.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

He didn't have to die to offer the healing.

If going by what the Word says, one must think otherwise. For of course healing occurred throughout the OT---but it was not something where the power of sin (the root behind sickness/living in a fallen world) was broken PERMANTLEY. If there was going to be freedom in delivering the world from the power of sin/all of its effects, death was necesssary. Ultimately all sickness is a result of sin, in that Adam's fall introduced corruption and death into the human race. But that does not mean that every time we get sick it is because of some specific sin we have committed. It does mean that had Adam not sinned, there would be no sickness. Sickness is the effect of sin (just like tornadoes, weeds, and sadness). But that is altogether different from saying that sickness is sin. We do not repent for having kidney stones, nor do we come under conviction for catching the measles. I don't rebuke my seven-year-old daughter for coming down with the chicken pox, and I certainly didn't ask my 3yr neice to ask for forgiveness when she caught it from someone else.

Nevertheless, sickeness would NOT be around if sin was not in the picture...and the scriptures are clear that Yeshua came to destory that.

Hebrews 2:13-15 / Hebrews 2
“I will put my trust in him.”[]
And again he says,
“Here am I, and the children God has given me.”[ 14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

​

With Matthew 8:17 where it references Jesus's healing of others as fulfillment of His Messianic purpose in Isaiah 53:4-6, the purpose of Matthew quoting Isa 53:4 is in using the prophecy as a sign to authenticate Jesus' Messiahship.
Verse 17 said "That is might be fulfilled." What was to be fulfilled? How about the rest of 17: "[Jesus] took our infirmities [spiritual sins] and bare our sicknesses [physical ailments]." The whole of chapter 8 is all contextually about physically healing people..and this showed Jesus to be the coming Messiah. But what was the healing touch that was provided in fulfillment of Isaiah 53? Physical as well as spiritual healing. By no means does healing always occur, nor was it meant to do so once Messiah came...but the reality is that much of it which is available today is because of what Jesus did through His life/death and resurrection. Some of my friends within what's known as the Word of Faith Movement have often had some sharp debates on the subject--and for more, one can go here to a thread entitled If God makes you sick....




Messianic Jew Sid Roth of "Its Supernatural" actually had some excellent discussions on the matter, as it concerned the subject of what the Word notes when it comes to the supernatural roots of diseases and how there is healing found within the person of Yeshua. For more, one can go here...and for more, one can go here as well at Divine Healing: Another Perspective. A messianic study. Faith ...

As one of my brothers in the Lord said best:

What is being said is that Christ bore our sicknesses in the very same way that He bore our sins. Gordon says that just as God made Jesus to be sin for us he also 'made him to be sick for us.' Again, he writes that 'Christ endured vicariously our diseases as well as our iniquities.'


We know what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf." He was declaring that the guilt of our sins was imputed to Christ and that it was because of that guilt that he was punished in our place. But what can it possibly mean to say God made him 'to be sick' on our behalf? Kenneth Hagin says that God 'made him [Jesus] sick with your diseases that you might be perfectly well in Christ.'


But there is no guilt in disease or sickness. Having diabetes or a head cold is not sinful. The Bible tells us to pray 'forgive us our trespasses' and urges us 'to confess our sins', but nowhere does it say that we should pray 'forgive us our arthritis' or 'Lord, I confess that I have the flu.' Sickness is not sin. The Bible never issues the command, 'Thou shalt not commit cancer', or 'Flee the flu'. Nevertheless, many insist that Jesus 'bore the penalty for our sins and sicknesses'. But if sickness is not a sin, how can it incur a penalty? ....



Jesus was not punished for our diseases. Rather, he endured the wrath of God that was provoked by our willful disobedience of the truth.


So what does it mean in Isaiah 53 when it says that he bore our sicknesses and carried our pains and that by his stripes we are healed? I believe we have in this passage an example of a figure of speech frequently found in Scripture and in everyday conversation. It is called a metonomy. For example, we read in Luke 16:29, 'but Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them.'? What is meant is that they have the Scriptures written by Moses and the prophets. Moses and the prophets themselves, obviously, have long since died. The author has put the cause (Moses and the prophets) in place of the effect (the Scriptures), and this is called a metonomy of cause for effect. Had the figure of speech not been used the passage would have read, 'But Abraham said, 'They have the Old Testament Scriptures [of which Moses and the prophets are the cause or authors]; let them hear them.'?


In l Peter 2:24 the apostle writes, 'And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross.' This is another example of metonomy where the cause (our sin) is put in place of the effect (penal judgment). Christ 'bore our sins' in the sense that he bore the wrath of God of which our sins were the cause. We use this figure of speech all the time without ever knowing it. Have you ever said to someone, 'Don't give me any of your lip!'? What you really meant was, 'Don't use your lip(s) (or mouth) to give me any backtalk.' Dozens of other examples from both Scripture and everyday speech could be cited (see especially Col. 3:5; 1 These. 5:19).


Then there is the flip side, as it were, in which the effect is put in place of the cause. After having seen the baby Jesus, Simeon declared, 'For my eyes have seen Thy salvation' (Luke 2:30). That is, in seeing the cause of salvation (Jesus), Simeon had seen the effect (salvation). Or again, Jesus said to Martha, 'I am the resurrection and the life' (John 11:25). The effects (resurrection and life) are put in place of the cause (Jesus' work and ministry).


In the case of Isaiah 53 we have an example of this latter form of metonomy in which the effect is put for the cause. Sin is the ultimate cause of which illness is one among many effects. Jesus bore our sicknesses in the sense that he was punished for the sin that causes sickness. He carried our pains, not in the sense of personally experiencing stomach viruses and ulcers and earaches and gallstones as he hung on Calvary's tree, but by enduring the wrath of God against that willful human wickedness which is ultimately the reason there are such things as pain and infirmity. By his death at his first coming he has laid the foundation for the ultimate over-throw and annihilation of all physical disease, which will occur with the resurrection of the body at his second coming. Thus it is theologically misleading to say that Jesus bore our sicknesses in the same way he bore our sins. Rather he paid the price of the latter (sin) in order that one day, when he returns to glorify his people, he may wholly do away with the former (sickness).


May we conclude that there is healing in the atonement? Of course! Were it not for Jesus making atonement for sin, we would have no hope of healing in any form, either now or later. The redemptive suffering of Jesus at Calvary is the foundation and source of every blessing, whether spiritual or physical.


Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is healing through the atonement rather than in the atonement, insofar as the atoning death of Jesus is the basis for God healing us. In this way we avoid suggesting that because of Jesus' death we are guaranteed healing in this life.


To ask, 'Is there healing in the atonement?' is like asking, 'Is there forgiveness of sins in the atonement?' or, 'Is there fellowship with God in the atonement?' There is even a sense in which we may say that the Holy Spirit is in the atonement! We are told in John 14:16-17,26; 15:26; and especially 16:7-15, that the Holy Spirit's present ministry is a result of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus.

Everything we receive from God finds its ultimate source in what Christ did for us on the cross. Therefore, the question is not whether our bodies receive healing because of the atonement of Christ, but when. We are forgiven of our sins now because of Christ's atoning death, but we await the consummation of our deliverance from the presence of sin when Christ returns. We experience fellowship with God now because of Christ's atoning death, but we await the consummation of that blessed relationship when Christ returns. We profit immensely now from the Spirit's work in our hearts, but who would dare suggest that what the Holy Spirit is doing in this age is all that he will ever do? There is a glorious harvest reserved in heaven for us of which the present ministry of the Holy Spirit is merely the first fruits!


In other words, it is a serious mistake for us to think that every blessing Christ secured through his redemptive suffering will be ours now in its consummate form. All such blessings shall indeed be ours, let there be no mistake about that. But let us not expect, far less demand, that we now experience fully those blessings which God has clearly reserved for heaven in the age to come.


Life for the believer in this present age is a life of tension between the already and the not yet. We already have so very, very much. But we have not yet experienced it all. There is much yet to come. One of the 'not yets' in Christian experience is the complete redemption and glorification of the body. 'For our citizenship is in heaven', says Paul, 'from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior the Lord Jesus Christ who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself' (Phil. 3:20-21).


Paul tells us in Romans 8:18-25 that the consummation of our adoption as God's children, which he defines as the redemption of our bodies, is something we eagerly and anxiously await; it is a future experience for which we in the present 'groan' (Rom. 8:23) in holy expectation. To insist that this physical blessing is future is not to detract from the efficacy or value of Christ's atoning work, nor to deny that God often heals (at times partially, at times wholly) now. It is simply to recognize, as Scripture does, that God's timing is often different from ours.


We must now take note of Matthew 8:16-17. We are told that Jesus 'healed all who were ill in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled', saying, 'He Himself took our infirmities, and carried away our diseases'. Are these healings, performed by Jesus, 'in the atonement' Yes. To whatever degree we experience healing in this life, it is the fruit of Christ's atoning death. But it does not necessarily follow that where there is atonement there is always an immediate healing. This passage in Matthew affirms that whatever healing does occur comes as a result of Christ's redemptive work. But it does not necessarily mean that healing will always occur now as a result of that work.


In the case of l Peter 2:24 we have something different. As we saw earlier, frequently in Scripture the sinful condition of the soul is portrayed as analogous to a body suffering from various wounds. Forgiveness and restoration are therefore described in terms of a bodily healing. The apostle portrays us in our sin as if we were a wounded body in need of physical healing. By his atoning death the great Physician has truly 'healed' our hearts. We were continually straying like sheep, but by the redemptive grace of Jesus we have been enabled to return to the shepherd and guardian of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Thus the context of 1 Peter 2:24 clearly tells us that it is primarily spiritual healing from the disease of sin, not physical restoration of the body, that the apostle has in mind.



Conclusion:


Let us never cease to pray now for the sick to be healed. Let us continually give thanks that there is bodily healing for us in the atonement of Jesus Christ. Let us forever acknowledge that whatever healing and health we experience now is a blessing that flows from Calvary's tree. But let us also remember that there are certain blessings that God intends to bestow in their consummate fullness only when the Lord Jesus returns. Until then we weep, suffer, and die.

​

 

[visionary]

This was the reason that the virgin birth was necessary. The pattern of the bible is that inheritance passes from the father's line. Our sinful tendency then, is inherited from our fathers, not our mothers. This chain was broken in Yeshua. So, while he was fully human and capable of being tempted, he did not inheret our rebellious nature.

Wheeeeww... and here I thought I saw my inclinations showing up in my children.. now I know that it is not my fault... ,, NOT

 

[Gxg (G²)]

pattern of the bible is that inheritance passes from the father's line. Our sinful tendency then, is inherited from our fathers, not our mothers. This chain was broken in Yeshua. So, while he was fully human and capable of being tempted, he did not inheret our rebellious nature.

Would disagree...and on the issue, again, I think Michael Heiser had some excellent thoughts on the subject that many should consider....and as seen in his series on the issue . In his words:

I’m still getting replies that amount to no more than a defense of the traditional Romans 5:12 view without answering my question: show me how you exempt Jesus from the guilt of Adam. Without that, the traditional view is worthless and, theologically aberrant when it comes to Christology. But, there was a good item for discussion: this thing we call the sin nature. I think it gets filed in the “things Christians all say they believe in but leave unexamined” file. I’ll be getting into this topic in depth at some point in the future, so I’ll just set the table for now.

The traditional view of the sin nature goes hand-in-glove with the traditional view of Romans 5:12. “Sin nature” = “the Adamic guilt we are all born with, and so we are born in a guilty condition before God, without ever havign sinned.” Let’s look at this.

If you’re following, you know my first response is, “That’s nice–did Jesus have a sin nature?” You can’t say “no” and retain the traditional view of Romans 5:12. Again, Jesus is 100% man, and he is explicitly called a son of Adam. Avoiding these facts isn’t a response.

Where is the “sin nature” in Scripture? Here’s where things get interesting. People usually refer to a verse like Ephesians 2:1-3, where Paul writes:

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (ESV)
​

It’s the “by nature children of wrath” part that the traditional view points to in defense of their view of Romans 5:12 and an original sin nature-the idea that we are condemned at the very moment of our existence by Adam’s guilt, transferred to us by God. Is that really what these verses SAY? It’s certainly the way they’ve been interpreted. Well, it’s not very complicated if you just look at the TEXT, rather than get the citation from a theology book.

Verse 1 says explicitly, “YOU were dead in the trespasses and sins…” In other words, your spiritual deadness is the result of YOUR sins and trespasses (I’m just repeating the text, look it up). And, of course, these are trespasses and sins the Ephesians actually COMMITTED in real time. The verse does NOT say, “you were dead in the trespass and sin of Adam.” In fact, the idea of INHERITED GUILT is nowhere in the passage. We have to put it there or read the text through that preconceived filter to get that. It just isn’t there.


Verse two continues the idea. “YOU were dead in our trespasses and sins IN WHICH YOU ONCE WALKED…” These are real sins that have been committed by YOU, not a sin committed by someone else (like Adam). Sins committed in real time are not a “condition” you were born with before you committed those sins. The text very plainly says we were dead in our own trespasses and sins. Adam isn’t in the text. Adam’s guilt isn’t in the text. The only condition in the text is the condition we’re in (“dead&#8221. Now, the “spiritual death” view comes up. As I have detailed in the past, “spiritually dead” to someone who hold the traditional Romans 5:12 view means “condemned by Adam’s guilt before we are born,” or perhaps some notion of Adam’s “separateness” from God after being driven from Eden.

As a sidebar: Isn’t it curious how Adam is driven from the garden (Gen 3:24) AFTER God makes atonement for them (Gen 3:21)? His separation was a punishment, it was not a spiritual condition, else we have someone who was atoned for still “spiritually dead” (separated from God). Just a thought there about how Genesis 3 is used (poorly, in my mind). Now, aside from the traditionalist idea, we can say that human beings are alienated from God. But they are alienated not because of Adam’s sin, but because of their own. They are under sentence of death if they do not believe in Christ-that is, they will suffer what Scripture calls “the second death”-an eternity under punishment outside of God’s presence (or annihilation). None of that has anything to do with Adamic guilt according to Ephesians 2 (or Romans 5:12). We can get there without the traditional view of Romans 5:12. (We just did).
Now we get to verse 3. Note that verses 1 and 2 lead up to verse 3 (I know that sounds a bit insulting). Note also that verses 1 and 2 therefore DEFINE what is meant in verse 3. Note thirdly that the words Adam, garden, Eve, are not in verse 3.


Here is verse 3: “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” What does it mean to be “by nature children of wrath”? What prompts Paul to label us this way? Is it Adam’s guilt? No-he’s already told us-it’s OUR trespasses and sins, behavior that was not godly, but which fell in line with the rest of the lost world, and with the spiritual enemies of God. These trespasses and sins were the result of evil desires in “our body and mind.”


OUR body and mind, not Adam’s. In verse 3, then the “nature” Paul speaks about involves our sinning-our inability to not sin, as I have said many times before on this topic. Further, ANY creature who is not God himself will have the inner propensity to sin-to act in defiance of the will of the Creator. Even angels are witness to this. We are born not with Adam’s guilt, but as inevitable and invariable sinners. We WILL sin after we are born into this world. We cannot do other, if allowed to live.


That is our curse, condition, and “nature” that condemns us. It isn’t Adam’s fault, and it isn’t God’s fault for transferring the guilt of another to us. It’s OUR fault.


An interesting side note. The Greek word for “nature” in Ephesians 2:3 is phusis. If you search for the phrase “sin nature” in your English Bible, you may find it (not in the ESV). Typically, though, it is a theologically driven translation of Greek that says “old man” (as opposed to the “new man” Paul talks about). The word phusis does not occur in any verse with the word “sin” in the NT (hamartano or its noun counterparts). Likewise the Greek word most often translated “guilt” does not appear with the hamartano or its noun counterparts.1 The *real* biblical teaching about a sin “nature” involves at least two things: our “non God” nature described above (which has nothing to do with Adamic guilt transferred to us-we’ll sin without Adam just fine, thank you) and the “flesh” we live in (for Christians, that part of the human that is yet unredeemed). We’ll get to that topic at some point.


Lastly, if the traditionalist on Romans 5:12 is likewise trapped to get Jesus off the hook of a sin nature in Ephesians 2:1-3, what about my view? I’ve explained in earlier posts how Jesus DOES inherit the affect of what Adam did, in terms of mortality. Jesus also inherited a human nature that, left to itself, would sin. But Jesus’ human nature wasn’t left to itself. Ours is, because that is all we are: humans. Jesus was also 100% God.


Let’s think of this analogically before we go any further. As Christians, we are essentially inferior versions of the incarnate Christ. We have the Spirit within us, but our bodies are mortal – the “flesh” as Paul calls it, actively seeking the its natural desires in less-than-holy ways. We are conflicted since we have no divine immaterial nature in us-just the deposit (Paul’s term) of the Spirit) and, as Peter says, our fleshly desires are at war with that internal Spirit. Jesus was not conflicted.

He had, as Paul tells us, “the fullness of the Godhead” inside his human body, which = full deity. He was the incarnated GOD. Nothing is superior in power or force to GOD, and so his deity overwhelmed any “less than holy” force exerted by his true human flesh. He was perfectly responsive to his deity. We are anything but perfectly responsive to the Spirit while in our flesh. But when the “internal us” (the “new creation” of 2 Cor 5:17) is finally married to our redeemed, transformed, glorified BODY, we will be whole. Still not full deity in flesh, but “like him” as sons of God, as John wrote in I John. Jesus gets off the hook in my view because he is God. I don’t need to exempt him from Romans 5:12.


But cannot the traditionalist argue the same? Cannot the traditionalist argue that Jesus was exempt from Adam’s guilt just because he’s God? No, he or she cannot. Here’s why.


My view has the power of deity overcoming any impulse to sin that comes from our humanness (“all those who are human will sin, and when they do, they become guilty before God&#8221. What needs to be defeated is the impulse of the flesh. That isn’t the problem with the traditional view. The traditional view transfers the guilt of Adam to every human, thereby placing them in a CATEGORY (“those guilty before God because they are human&#8221. They do nothing to be put into that category except exist. Even if incarnated-deity-Jesus never sinned (and he didn’t), in the traditional view, he’d still be in that CATEGORY because he’s human. In my view, one’s own sins produce guilt before God. In the traditional view, existing as a human means you’re guilty before God. Jesus existed. He was human. He is therefore guilty (and cannot be anything but guilty) before God.
​

.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This was the reason that the virgin birth was necessary. The pattern of the bible is that inheritance passes from the father's line. Our sinful tendency then, is inherited from our fathers, not our mothers. This chain was broken in Yeshua. So, while he was fully human and capable of being tempted, he did not inheret our rebellious nature.

A question that comes to my mind, in light of the view that Christ would not be ABLE to sin:

• Why did he RELY on the Holy Spirit so often in ministry?

If Jesus didn't need the Holy Spirit to do the ministry He did and fight, then what was the purpose of it all?


Moreover, if he could not be tempted, what was the purpose of temptation in the first place?

The story in Matthew 4 in the temptation process is one which has intriguued many for ages---seeing that every one of the Devil's temptations came in the form of questioning who Christ was and made to test Christ to see if He was truly the "Son of God"--as He had just been baptized/shown to others from the Father that He was God's Son. But that's not all that was required to be known as the Son of God since many others had come at the time doing the same.

Christ was fully God--but He was also fully HUMAN.....and in His Human Nature, did He have potential/capacity to sin against the Lord?

For I've heard of the argument before that a God who cannot be tempted to sin means that CHrist was not able to be tempted by sin as He was God--and there've been many intriguing points on many sides. Adam, however, was PERFECT and yet he sinned greatly against the Lord...and so it makes any of the arguments seem a bit distracting when people say "Well, Christ didn't have a SIN NATURE...so of course He was PERFECT!!!" as it takes away from the main issue of addressing whether or not Christ had the capacity to sin as a man since He was the Second Adam.

Some good articles I remember researching were the following ones anyone can look up online:

• Reasonable Faith: Question 73 - Could Christ Have Sinned? ( )

Also, As said best by another in one of the questions from the articles I referenced:

Since Christ is divine, he must be omniscient and so must have known that he could not have succumbed to Satan's temptations.

Yes, but here I think we want to say that a genuine incarnation implies that Jesus had an ordinary human consciousness and therefore could grow in wisdom and maturity from infancy to manhood. One way to understand this is by differentiating levels of consciousness in Jesus' person. If much of his superhuman knowledge was subliminal, then he was not aware of all he knew, just as we are often unaware of knowledge that lies in our subconscious. Perhaps he was unaware of his impeccability, or if he knew it, perhaps his other cognitive limitations were such that he still had to fight against temptation, just as he had to struggle against anxiety, fear, and fatigue. Having an ordinary human consciousness, Jesus could feel the lure of temptation even though he was divine and so incapable of yielding to it

The other interesting question that arises is this: if Jesus was incapable of sinning, then did he freely resist sin? If not, then of what moral significance is his victory? If so, then how is this compatible with our ordinary understanding of freedom as the ability to choose between opposites?
​

I think those are all things worth considering.....and additionally, on the verses showing where Christ had to GROW IN KNOWLEDE, it does get interesting when seeing what the Word says on Christ even having to be perfected

Hebrews 2:7

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. .


Hebrews 5:8
8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and,once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.



/Hebrews 7:27

27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

​

Was Christ already "PERFECT" in all things when He came to the Earth according to the following Scriptures? And if so, how do you address point blank the scriptural truth that the Son of Man needed to be "perfected" in order to qualify for what the Father Had in store for Him? Moreover, Could Jesus at ANY POINT have done anything apart from relying on the Spirit of God as a man if He was ALL-POWERFUL in/of His own accord?

I think that when the issue of His being sinless is equated to mean that He cannot GROW/DIdn't need to do so, that's a matter of mixing categories.

Does one being sinless mean that he or she needs nothing?

Does one being sinless mean that he or she knows all things?

When Jesus was tempted, if He was perfect/sufficient in and of himself, why did He need to rely on God's Word and the Holy Spirit? Was it as some say a matter of His choosing to do simply for the sake of identification/sentiment? Or was it due to his also being a MAN who choose to live life fully as we do and therefore choose to know what it's like to rely on the HS and be FULL OF THE WORD?



Brother Matt Slick even addressed the issue concering how one can be DEITY and yet still have to GROW/LEARN as with Christ---as seen here in his series entitled "Jesus' humbled state and what it means | Christian Apologetics" ( )

And as he said best on the issue when the issue came up in another camp (though for them, they believed that Jesus wasn't God due to His being able to be tempted):

In the one person of Christ, there dwells two natures: God and man (Col. 2:9). As God, Jesus could stand without the danger of sinning. As man, He could be tempted. Exactly how these two natures relate to each other in one person is not clarified in scripture. But, as you can see, it is possible that Jesus be divine and be tempted at the same time because He was both God and man. To say that Jesus had to have a sin nature in order to be tempted is incorrect. Rather, in order to be tempted, Jesus had to be human.

In addition, all that Jesus did, He did by looking to the Father. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner," (John 5:19). Also, Jesus said, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 5:30).

In Matt. 12:22-32, Jesus was casting out demons. The Pharisees accused Jesus of doing this by the power of the devil. Jesus replied to them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven. Why did he say this? I believe that it is because Jesus did none of his miracles out of his own divine nature but did them as a man working through and by the Holy Spirit who indwelt Him. Therefore, Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. We see that Jesus' miracles began after his baptism and that is when the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

Jesus came as a man in order to fulfill the law of God and to be the sacrifice for sin. He did this as a man. When He resisted the temptations of the devil, He quoted scripture -- as a man. He did not at that time rely on His divine nature when going about His earthly ministry in Israel. As a man, He was tempted and as a man He resisted temptation by relying on God's word. He cast out demons by the Holy Spirit and not by His own divine nature. Therefore, Jesus was tempted in His human nature, not in His divine. He did not rely on His divine "side" to help Him out. Instead, He completely relied on the Father, the Holy Spirit, and God's word to successfully resist the temptations that came to Him.

Therefore, I conclude that Jesus could not have sinned, but that He could be tempted; that is, He could have a sinful option presented to Him -- as was presented to God in the wilderness -- yet Jesus would not have sinned.

​

Something else to consider:

Hebrews 5:5




“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”;


7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
​

Jesus's human life was not a script that he passively followed. It was alife that he chose freely (John 10:17-18). It was a continuous process of making the Will of God the Father his own. Hebrews 5:9 makes clear that Christ was always morally perfect. By obeying, he demonstrated his perfection to us, not to God or to Himself. But in the Bible, perfection usually means completeness or maturity. By sharing our experience or suffering, Christ shared our human experience completely...and now able to offer eternal salvation to all who seek to love Him. Philippians 2:5-11 goes into more depth about that...


One is not going to be made perfect through suffering if they are already perfect..and this is not to say that Jesus was imperfect. He was always perfect when he was in the flesh, but he had to be perfected in character. And in order for God to understand and properly judge man, Jesus had to live a life in the flesh with man's nature.

As said best by Neil Cole in his book "Organic Leadership"

The apostle John writes about the Enemy's tatics as "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life" (I John 2:15-17). You do not have to go far in the Bible to find these strategies at work. Three chapters in and there they are. Even in a perfect paradise while tempting unblemished people who do not have a sinful nature, Satan starts with these same three temptations and hits a home run with his first at bat.

The Bible says that the fruit Adam and Eve were forbiddento eat was delicious (lust of the flesh), a delight to the eyes (lust of the eyes) and would make one wise (boastful pride of life). Eve took, ate, and gave it to her husband, who also ate (Genesis 3:6). We've been biting the same bait ever since. This is the same tatic Satan used to tempt another pefect presentation of man. Before Jesus started his public ministry, he was out into the wilderness alone to face the Enemy (Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus is called the Second Adam (Romans 5:15-17, I Corinthians 15:45-49) because he represents us all. There are some striking similarities, and equally striking differences, between the two men. Both were perfect men without sin. Both were representatives of all of humanity. Both spent time in the company of animals and angels (Genesis 2:19-20, Genesis 3:24, Matthew 4:11, Mark 1:12-13). Both faced Satan head-to-head.

Jesus was tempted in the same ways Adam had been---"the lust of the flesh" ("command that these stones become bread", v 3 of Matthew 4), "the lust of the eyes" ("all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory...I will give you,", v 8), and "the boastful pride of life" ("throw yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple", vv.5-6). Both were tempted at their points of weaknes----Adam and Even were innocent, pure and physically perfect but lacked maturity and wisdom; Jesus was perfect but had been fasting for forty days....and was hungry and alone.

This is where the similarities end and the differences begin. Adam was in a garden paradise; Jesus was in a desert wilderness. Adam had companionship, and Jesus was alone. Adam had all the food he could eat with only one restriction. Jesus lived under many restrictions and spent forty days fasting. With Adam, the animals were friendly and the angels hostile (Genesis 2:19-20, Genesis 3:24).

​

Jesus is the SECOND Adam---and the scriptures go out of the way to show that Jesus came in the image of what Adam did as one who was PERFECT/Flawless and had a choice just as all of us do. Its one of the basic concepts concerning the Incarnation/Theophanies and why Jesus chose to live and experience life as a man, including tracing his bloodline back to Adam (Luke 3:37, Romans 5:12-20, etc). Just because it was God in the Flesh going through the process of being Human does not mean necessarily that there was not an ability to be tempted and an inclianation present to sin.....for it he had to be made like us in every way in order to legitimately relate to/redeem us.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This was the reason that the virgin birth was necessary. The pattern of the bible is that inheritance passes from the father's line. Our sinful tendency then, is inherited from our fathers, not our mothers. This chain was broken in Yeshua. So, while he was fully human and capable of being tempted, he did not inheret our rebellious nature.

If one suscribes to the view of Federal Headship, then it'd be natural to think that all sin flows from the Fathers genetically as opposed to the mothers. That being said, I think that there are many other views besides Federal Headship that better explain the curse of sin. I don't see how the theory of sin through the fathers explains in any way the fact that the Lord placed a curse on both MAN and WOMAN...with the man's curse affecting the males and the woman's curse of desiring her husband affecting women...as it concerns the unique struggles of both sexes.



Moreover, if one claims that the tendency to crave sin comes only from the man, that seems to go counter to what Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 4 and Matthew 4 make clear when it comes to noting that Yeshua shared in ALL facets of the Human experience...including the struggle with sin. Doesn't mean that he did--but he could not be tempted at all points and have a genunie temptation if he was UNABLE to be tempted at any points---and to be clear, WOMEN also have the tendency to sin/pass it on to their children. There's no purpose in a temptation when one's unable to be tempted in any way...and Jesus would have disqualifed Himself from coming to redeem man when he truly could not identify with them fully in being able to be tempted. .The Virgin Birth does not explain Jesus being able to NOT sin against the Lord....for its a modern assumption to conclude that sin was only passed through the father---as goes the concept of Headship/others saying Jesus was able to be without sin due to being born of Mary. For the woman/females are still with sin.

And as it concerns Jesus being human/able to sin, it should be noted that the ability to sin does not equate to CHOOSING to sin---as Jesus in His humanity (frail as it was) was capable of giving into sin/failing God. That's part of the process of being human...and why the scriptures already make clear that his being human was apart of his being made like us in EVERY way....yet being without sin. For just as it was not a matter of sin to be perfect in the Garden (Adam/Eve) and yet given the option to either resist sin or give into it, so it was not a matter of sin to geuninely be tempted in areas of weakness and yet exercise the will to choose the Will of God.

There's no purpose in a temptation when one's unable to be tempted in any way...and Jesus would have disqualifed Himself from coming to redeem man when he truly could not identify with them fully in being able to be tempted.


If it was impossible for Jesus to have sinned, what value was the temptation? How could he be tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15)? If the temptation had no effect, because there wasn’t the remotest chance the Jesus could have sinned, there would be, in effect, no temptation.

Something else that's interesting to consider is how often people say Jesus was "fully God and fully man." But, at the same time, they claim Jesus did not have man's nature. However, if Jesus did not have man's nature, then it would be innacurate to say Jesus was "fully man." To be "fully man" must mean that one has all the characteristics and qualities that a full man has...otherwise, the phrase "fully man" would not be accurate. Did Jesus have such a different nature, that he was, essentially, not a man?

John 1:1-3,14-17,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

​

The nature of Jesus was different in that he was full of grace and truth. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that his nature was different to the extent that he did not have man's nature. For can you be so filled with the Holy Spirit that your natural tendencies is not going to control you? Of course...


Other scripture..

Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
​

Hebrews 2:14-18,
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 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. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

Luke 2:51-52
51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
​

If there was no possibility of sinning, how could you tempt him? You cannot. To use an analogy, if you have something that is completely, 100% impossible to burn, what good would it do to put fire to it to try to burn it? You couldn’t burn it since its impossible. Likewise, if Jesus could not have sinned because it was impossible to sin, why tempt him? But he was tempted because there was that possibility that he could sin, and it would be by choice. That is the key thing to why Jesus never sinned, because of choice. Not because of impossibility, but because he always chose to do God's Will. Therefore, it was improbable that he would ever sin, but the possibility was always there, because he had man's nature, just like we do



There was more to Jesus being sinless than being born of a woman. With the "Immaculate conception" and concept of the Virgin Birth, its a beautiful concept with much merit that many often do not consider. Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:18-25). Of course, that does not mean that I'm automatically for the mindset that one has to believe in a literal virgin birth in order to believe that God could ever become a man/be sinless on our behalf....but it makes logical sense as to why others would argue for the concept of Jesus being born of a Virgin.



Additionally, as it concerns the issue of inheritance passing from the father's line and basing the necessity of a Virgin Birth on that, I'd say its not the best correlation with sin since the scriptures already show where women also got inheritances. The story of the five daughters of Zelophehad ( Numbers 26:32-34 Numbers 27 Joshua 17:2-4 /Joshua 17 )provides legitimation of a limited right of Israelite women to inherit land. It also places specific marriage restrictions upon any women who inherit under this right. ..and the story celebrates women’s boldness and at the same time offers comfort for men who have the misfortune (from the Bible’s androcentric point of view) to have no sons. According to God’s decree, the promised land is to be apportioned according to the “number of names” of members of the second generation counted in the census recorded in Numbers 26 (see 26:5z-56). Since only men were counted in the census, however, Zelophehad’s daughters would be left without an inheritance.... But the Lord clearly was prepared for that since He ensured provision for them to be made..as seen in Numbers 36


As it concerns the Virgin Birth, there are many good places for debate/discsussion on the subject...and some examples of such would be places like the following:

• Virgin Birth « Glory & Grace
• The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ - Ken Collins
• Response to the Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah
• The Virgin Birth and the Messiah: Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

I'm not saying the Virgin Birth is not important--but in all honesty, it does seem that often more importance is placed upon it than necessary when it comes to examining what the scriptures say. The Lord didn't need to be born of a virgin in order to fellowship with Abraham Himself. The Messianic Jewish Rap group known as Hazakim did an excellent video on the issue examining Genesis 18 where the Lord took on flesh/ate with Abraham...as seen here:

Hazakim - Theophanies ​

And for more on that subject, known as Theophanies:​

• Theophany Texts
• When God is One of Us​
• The Preincarnate Christ​
• Theophany - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology ...​

Again, long before John declared in John 1 that the divine Word became flesh and dwelt among us, the Spirit inspired writers of the Hebrew Bible (Old Covenant Scriptures) documented numerous accounts in which men received visitations from a divine messenger... an angel or man who bore the very Name and attributes of the God of Israel. Thus, for those saying that God becoming Man ONLY happened in the person of Christ and it was because of his being born of a Virgin that it occurred, I get skeptical​

Some things will always be Mystery---and thus, whether or not the Virgin Birth was necessary for Christ to have been born as He was, what remains the same is that He did.

1 Timothy 3:15-16
16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:



He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wheeeeww... and here I thought I saw my inclinations showing up in my children.. now I know that it is not my fault... ,, NOT

Can't blame everything on the baby daddy --as is often the case when kids act bad in many households and the mothers blame the fathers saying "This would never have happened on MY SIDE of the family"

 

[yedida]

Can't blame everything on the baby daddy --as is often the case when kids act bad in many households and the mothers blame the fathers saying "This would never have happened on MY SIDE of the family"

Yeshua, to have divinity, had to be born of the Spirit.
If God was determined to specifically use Mary, and it could have been that a human man fathered the Messiah, it could not have been Joseph. If I'm not mistaken and you follow Joseph's lineage, he comes from the line of David that God claimed would never have a king ruling over Israel.

 

[visionary]

Yeshua, to have divinity, had to be born of the Spirit.
If God was determined to specifically use Mary, and it could have been that a human man fathered the Messiah, it could not have been Joseph. If I'm not mistaken and you follow Joseph's lineage, he comes from the line of David that God claimed would never have a king ruling over Israel.

I think it is God declaring that David's line is where you will find the Messiah.. The King of the Jews.

 

[yedida]

I think it is God declaring that David's line is where you will find the Messiah.. The King of the Jews.

Yes, David's line for sure, but it branches off, and from one of those branches there was a man/king(?) that God claimed would never again have a ruler on the throne. Joseph was from that particular branch of David's descendants. (Again, if I'm not mistaken, though I'm 98% sure.)

 

[Lulav]

You didn't didn't state any facts that educated and unbiased people would accept as such. What you stated was pure and utter opinion. If you cannot recognize the difference between stated opinions from so-called academics and sourced and recognizable facts then I can easily understand the recent spate of absurd claims you have made- and which Heber and others have called you on. If you stop with the harsh, bitter and severe opinions guised as facts we will all get along a lot better. Not every "fact" one chooses to believe should be splatted on the forum, out of respect for others.

:o Excuse me???

 

[Lulav]

Yes, David's line for sure, but it branches off, and from one of those branches there was a man/king(?) that God claimed would never again have a ruler on the throne. Joseph was from that particular branch of David's descendants. (Again, if I'm not mistaken, though I'm 98% sure.)

i think you are referring to Jeconiah?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeshua, to have divinity, had to be born of the Spirit.

If God was determined to specifically use Mary, and it could have been that a human man fathered the Messiah, it could not have been Joseph. If I'm not mistaken and you follow Joseph's lineage, he comes from the line of David that God claimed would never have a king ruling over Israel.

Not exactly certain where the ideology came from that David's line would not rule over Israel...for after Israel and Judah split in I Kings 11-13, there were dual dynasties---but the rule over both tribes was always meant to come from the Tribe of Judah, whom Joseph was from. For that is the line David was from and that God always promised He'd send a priest/king in the future to sit on David's throne for both nations when they were united. Again, the Word states that David’s throne shall exist for ever:"…David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel."(JEREMIAH 33:17)."…and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever."(2 SAMUEL 7:13).

There were some kings from the line of Judah whom the Lord promised would never again have descendants----and the ones I think you're thinking of are found in II Chronicles 36:5-10. ..as the Lord warned King Jeconiah to listen to Jeremiah and yet he didn't. Therefore, the Lord sent him into exile and promised that NONE of HIS sons would rule the throne...and consequently, all of them were killed by the King of Babylon.

According to the concluding passage in Kings (and its parallel at the end of Jeremiah), King Jeconiah was released from prison after many decades and lives out the rest of his live comfortably as a member of the Babylonian royal court. Chronicles also reports that the former king merits to have a grandson who is the most prominent leader of his generation, Zerubbabel, the governor of Judea in the Book of Ezra.


As there were often many sons to one father/ruler, just because one was corrupt didn't mean that all of the other sons were corrupt by nature...and the same goes for those who were connected to the Tribe of Judah and yet were righteous compared to whoever was from the tribe of Judah on the throne.

Concerning the lineage of CHrist, something that seems interesting to consider is that there's a lot of beauty in seeing how the lineages of Christ document the King line (Judah) and the Priest line (Levi) of Jesus Christ. For the King line (Judah) comes Joseph....whereas the Priest line (Levi) would comes through Mary's mother.

As one ministry said best:

We find this in Luke 1:5, as scripture shows that Mary's Cousin Elizabeth is a Levite. Mary and Elizabeth's mothers were sisters. Below we see that Elizabeth was of the genealogy of Aaron. Aaron was a Levite (of Levi) and thus Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi. Elisabeth's mother and Mary's mother were sisters and both Levites, thus Mary was of the tribe of Levi. Below we see that Zacharias (Elisabeth's husband) was a Levitical priest, and a Levitical Priest could only marry a full blood Levite woman if he was to perform duties in the Temple of God. In verse 8 below we see that Elisabeth's husband was indeed a practicing priest, therefore Elisabeth would have to have been a full blood Levite. And for Elizabeth to be a full blood Levite the her mother had to be a full blood Levite. Elizabeth's mother is the sister of Mary's mother and thus was also a full blood Levite. This documents that Mary was born of a full blood Levite woman......

Luke 1:5-9
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. 8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, 9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. (KJV)


NOTE: Elizabeth and Zacharias were the mother and father of John The Baptist..

​

I was under the impression that the line of Levi and the line of Judah would've met together with Christ simply by family dynamics. For the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist, was of the Levitical line since his father was a priest. Many say that John's line was the true line of the Levitical priesthood whereas others were either hijacked/corrupt or false due to a loss of data. But with Christ, his background was from the tribe of Judah---whom Jacob promised in Gensis 49 that kings would come forth from and the Messiah would come. Thus, John the Baptist would have been akin to the priest who ordained the king...with Jesus fitting the role as ruler. This would have run parallel to the way that the priesthood was set up that was corrupt in their sacrifices and worship of the temple....and thus, the priesthood persecuting John and Jesus as "false" were really in error for missing the true KING and PRIEST to come.

If there was a Levitical background in Christ's history through Mary, that's cool to see..and there are other solid organizations that support the theory from logic. One can go here for more info on the matter, as they show how Mary's mother was the sister of Elizibeth, who was descended from Levi. The Levitical side of Mary's lineage probaby would've taken a backseat to the fact that lineage was often determined by the Father's background.

 

[yedida]

i think you are referring to Jeconiah?

The name rings a bell. But I must admit that I cannot remember the name off the top of my head, just that there was one line of descendants from David that was told would never again have a king on the throne. (My information is in a notebook that is full and stored in a closet in my bedroom where my daughter is right now asleep so I cannot go in to find it. Sorry.)

P.S.
Your knowledge of the history is far better than mine! If you think that's who it is, you're probably right.

 

[yedida]

Not exactly certain where the ideology came from that David's line would not rule over Israel...for after Israel and Judah split in I Kings 11-13, there were dual dynasties---but the rule over both tribes was always meant to come from the Tribe of Judah, whom Joseph was from. For that is the line David was from and that God always promised He'd send a priest/king in the future to sit on David's throne for both nations when they were united.

There were some kings from the line of Judah whom the Lord promised would never again have descendants--but as there were often many sons to one father/ruler, just because one was corrupt didn't mean that all of the other sons were corrupt by nature...and the same goes for those who were connected to the Tribe of Judah and yet were righteous compared to whoever was from the tribe of Judah on the throne.

Concerning the lineage of CHrist, something that seems interesting to consider is that there's a lot of beauty in seeing how the lineages of Christ document the King line (Judah) and the Priest line (Levi) of Jesus Christ. For the King line (Judah) comes Joseph....whereas the Priest line (Levi) would comes through Mary's mother.

As one ministry said best:

We find this in Luke 1:5, as scripture shows that Mary's Cousin Elizabeth is a Levite. Mary and Elizabeth's mothers were sisters. Below we see that Elizabeth was of the genealogy of Aaron. Aaron was a Levite (of Levi) and thus Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi. Elisabeth's mother and Mary's mother were sisters and both Levites, thus Mary was of the tribe of Levi. Below we see that Zacharias (Elisabeth's husband) was a Levitical priest, and a Levitical Priest could only marry a full blood Levite woman if he was to perform duties in the Temple of God. In verse 8 below we see that Elisabeth's husband was indeed a practicing priest, therefore Elisabeth would have to have been a full blood Levite. And for Elizabeth to be a full blood Levite the her mother had to be a full blood Levite. Elizabeth's mother is the sister of Mary's mother and thus was also a full blood Levite. This documents that Mary was born of a full blood Levite woman......

Luke 1:5-9
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. 8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, 9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. (KJV)


NOTE: Elizabeth and Zacharias were the mother and father of John The Baptist..
​

I was under the impression that the line of Levi and the line of Judah would've met together with Christ simply by family dynamics. For the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist, was of the Levitical line since his father was a priest. Many say that John's line was the true line of the Levitical priesthood whereas others were either hijacked/corrupt or false due to a loss of data. But with Christ, his background was from the tribe of Judah---whom Jacob promised in Gensis 49 that kings would come forth from and the Messiah would come. Thus, John the Baptist would have been akin to the priest who ordained the king...with Jesus fitting the role as ruler. This would have run parallel to the way that the priesthood was set up that was corrupt in their sacrifices and worship of the temple....and thus, the priesthood persecuting John and Jesus as "false" were really in error for missing the true KING and PRIEST to come.

If there was a Levitical background in Christ's history through Mary, that's cool to see..and there are other solid organizations that support the theory from logic. One can go here for more info on the matter, as they show how Mary's mother was the sister of Elizibeth, who was descended from Levi. The Levitical side of Mary's lineage probaby would've taken a backseat to the fact that lineage was often determined by the Father's background.

Aaah, okay! It's the line of Judah part that I was thinking of and perhaps not David proper. But somehow, in my foggy memory, it seems that it was from one of the branches of David's descendants. I'll try to find my "tree" that I worked up, but I won't be able to do that till sometime tomorrow.

 

[ContraMundum]

Don't misrepresent me. ...

Original sin is not "merely" a term to describe the effect of the fall of Adam in the Garden... There are two ways we can look at original sin. Original sin may be taken to mean:

(1) the sin that Adam committed and/or

(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

I can go for Yeshua dying on the cross for the first sin. But for him to die for the consequence... it would be like saying he died for cancer, yellow fever, the flu, and bad eye sight. Nahhh.... the thoughts, words, and deeds of the repentant sinner, He died for.

The propensity to sin has always been there.. it is called free will.

The inclination to go against God first came about by deception, deceit,and delusion. Yeshua did inherit the weakened flesh of man through Mary or He couldn't have been tempted like us. Sweating blood to resist the temptation to pack the bags and not go through with His ordained destination is toooooo incredible to contemplate.

No Vis. No. This is your own spin, and is essentially Pelagian. This would be condemned as heresy by any knowledgeable Christian.

 

[SGM4HIM]

Plain and simple,


Original sin is a doctrine, used by the church to control the people. This is to give them control over not just your life but your money too.

Funny how they developed this original sin doctrine and then it created problems with the virgins virgin birth doctrine so Mary's mother had to immaculately conceive her as well.

Lulav,
I think you have been picked on lately, but some things you say are provocative. Then throwing in opinion on one denominations view of virgins, vrigins birth- throws more "stuff" in the mix......

What would folks think if I inserted "Orthodox Judaism" instead of "the church" and discussed how much limited tickets sell for to attend major Jewish holidays, etc. and then made comments over using applicances with timers being ok on Shabbat. Would I received any flack posting this in an Orthodox Judaism forum?

Why not stick with discussing the topic, using your knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures? I think this area is your strong point and adds a lot of depth to discussions.

 

[visionary]

No Vis. No. This is your own spin, and is essentially Pelagian. This would be condemned as heresy by any knowledgeable Christian.

pro·pen·si·ty/prəˈpensətē/
Noun:
An inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

The devil could not have tempted Adam or Eve to sin if there was no way to instill in them an inclination ..

 

[ContraMundum]

pro·pen·si·ty/prəˈpensətē/
Noun:
An inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

The devil could not have tempted Adam or Eve to sin if there was no way to instill in them an inclination ..

No Vis. You can't get a theological understanding of a term from a dictionary.

This is the Faith: mankind was given free choice, but his heart was not at emnity with God until after the fall. His heart was inclined towards and open to God. Since the fall, man has a propensity towards sin, and not towards God. It's not a two-way street after the fall- it's one way, and that's towards sin. His choice is no longer entirely free, because the propensity to sin is his master and motivator. This deep rooted depravity is the effect of what we call Original Sin. Only God's grace can change him. All the good things that man can do in this world- even before he is converted- comes from the grace of God, whether commonly given (common grace) or whether it is from the prevenient of God calling us to the Cross.

 

[visionary]

No Vis. You can't get a theological understanding of a term from a dictionary.

This is the Faith: mankind was given free choice, but his heart was not at emnity with God until after the fall. His heart was inclined towards and open to God. Since the fall, man has a propensity towards sin, and not towards God. It's not a two-way street after the fall- it's one way, and that's towards sin. His choice is no longer entirely free, because the propensity to sin is his master and motivator. This deep rooted depravity is the effect of what we call Original Sin. Only God's grace can change him. All the good things that man can do in this world- even before he is converted- comes from the grace of God, whether commonly given (common grace) or whether it is from the prevenient of God calling us to the Cross.

The fall always happen first in the spirit before it happens in the flesh..