Y'shua could NOT have chosen to sin

[Lebesgue]

So, you were wrong in saying that His temptations were different to ours?


And I'm still waiting for Scripture to be produced. Even RC is quoting tidbits in some round-about way.


Jon

I don't know the Bible like you who were raised in Christian homes.

I was raised in a SECULAR home, my parents were good people and taught my brother and I morals but they did not give a rip about religion or church.

I wound up in Eastern religions from the time I was in my teens until age 33(I found the L-rd after I was married but it still took me a year after I was married).

I spent 14 years in very traditional SDA churches that Taught Ellen rather than the Word.

SO I am just learning.

But I know that G-d CANNOT sin.

I will admit I am ignorant but it's not my fault that I had a secular upbringing now is it?

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[Jon0388g]

I don't know the Bible like you who were raised in Christian homes.

I was raised in a SECULAR home, my parents were good people and taught my brother and I morals but they did not give a rip about religion or church.

I wound up in Eastern religions from the time I was in my teens until age 33(I found the L-rd after I was married but it still took me a year after I was married).

I spent 14 years in very traditional SDA churches that Taught Ellen rather than the Word.

SO I am just learning.

But I know that G-d CANNOT sin.

I will admit I am ignorant but it's not my fault that I had a secular upbringing now is it?

Shalom,

Lebesgue

Lebesgue, you give off very confusing signals.

Whether or not you were raised in a secular home, you were in the Adventist church for 14 years, yet you do not know Scripture?


How can you go storming around the forum preaching how wrong we are on things pertaining to the Scriptures, when you are not well learned in them? You are playing a very dangerous game in applauding other posters who fit your own likings, rather than matching Scripture to Scripture and showing your own self approved. This is what the Bible calls wanting to have your ears tickled.


Perhaps the church you attended really did put Mrs White on a pedestal and you did not get the spiritual teaching you needed. That is no excuse not to study the Scriptures for yourself. Just like Daniel 8 which you are so sure we are incorrect on, not because you've studied it for yourself or found Scripture to support your conclusion, but because your rabbi or whoever has come up with an explanation you like more.


I'm sorry but the more we dialogue the less water you hold. Until you produce Scripture to back up your rants, as I've said it is all vain babbling.



Jon

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So, you were wrong in saying that His temptations were different to ours?


And I'm still waiting for Scripture to be produced. Even RC is quoting tidbits in some round-about way.


Jon

I have not been round about, but in any case here is what James says about temptation:

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. [/SIZE][/SIZE]

Now are you telling me that that is how you believe Jesus was tempted?

Are saying Jesus had a sinful nature which was as our with selfish desires which can be given into or was Jesus God who is perfect in His nature i.e other directed...unselfish by nature.

This is what it comes down to and this is why this is all bound up in last generation perfection. Not because of what the Bible says but because of the assumptions about the future which have taken hold of certain people.

 

[Lebesgue]

Lebesgue, you give off very confusing signals.

Whether or not you were raised in a secular home, you were in the Adventist church for 14 years, yet you do not know Scripture?


How can you go storming around the forum preaching how wrong we are on things pertaining to the Scriptures, when you are not well learned in them? You are playing a very dangerous game in applauding other posters who fit your own likings, rather than matching Scripture to Scripture and showing your own self approved. This is what the Bible calls wanting to have your ears tickled.


Perhaps the church you attended really did put Mrs White on a pedestal and you did not get the spiritual teaching you needed. That is no excuse not to study the Scriptures for yourself. Just like Daniel 8 which you are so sure we are incorrect on, not because you've studied it for yourself or found Scripture to support your conclusion, but because your rabbi or whoever has come up with an explanation you like more.


I'm sorry but the more we dialogue the less water you hold. Until you produce Scripture to back up your rants, as I've said it is all vain babbling.



Jon

I am studying Scripture for myself at this point. I'm TRYING to learn and I am learning more since I have been away from Ellen White's influence.

I am not going to lie and pretend to be a Bible scholar when I am not. I was raised in a secular home, spent 14 years in Eastern religions, spent another 14 in SDA churches that put Ellen White on a MAJOR pedestal.

I am now finally learning the Scripture by itself but that can't be done overnight.

 

[Lebesgue]

I have not been round about, but in any case here is what James says about temptation:



Now are you telling me that that is how you believe Jesus was tempted?

Are saying Jesus had a sinful nature which was as our with selfish desires which can be given into or was Jesus God who is perfect in His nature i.e other directed...unselfish by nature.

This is what it comes down to and this is why this is all bound up in last generation perfection. Not because of what the Bible says but because of the assumptions about the future which have taken hold of certain people.

You nailed it again, RC!

 

[NightEternal]

Yup, he sure did.

Don't let anyone kid you. This issue is ALL about sinless, last-generation perfection in the style of M.L. Andreason. Everything else we are seeing discussed here, including the nature of Christ and righteousness by faith, is just window dressing that brings it all back to that one premise: Sinless perfection.

Since we have already hashed out the perfection issue ad-nauseum on this forum on countless other threads and I have already fully expressed my disdain for that doctrine elsewhere in here, it is not necessary to get into it again.

Besides, the spite-reporters are waiting in the wings with raised fingers poised to strike. And they would just love for me to get into that issue again, wouldn't they?

 

[Lebesgue]

Yup, he sure did.

Don't let anyone kid you. This issue is ALL about sinless, last-generation perfection in the style of M.L. Andreason. Everything else we are seeing discussed here, including the nature of Christ and righteousness by faith, is just window dressing that brings it all back to that one premise: Sinless perfection.

Since we have already hashed out the perfection issue ad-nauseum on this forum on countless other threads and I have already fully expressed my disdain for that doctrine elsewhere in here, it is not necessary to get into it again.

Besides, the spite-reporters are waiting in the wings with raised fingers poised to strike. And they would just love for me to get into that issue again, wouldn't they?

Yep. Sinless perfection is the whole reason why they believe Y'shua could have chosen to sin. That makes Him more an example than a Saviour, if it were true.

IF it were true that Y'shua could have chosen to sin that ultimately means that we would have to be sinless in order to be saved so why then did He even die on the Cross?

But, thankfully, Y'shua being G-d, COULD NOT have chosen to sin and I think the scripture RC gave in his post above hammers that point home.

I tried the Trad SDA route and I despaired for my salvation to the point I nearly gave up and became an atheist. Don't wanna go there again.

I will believe in a SAVOIUR who is ALL G-d ALL THE TIME and could NOT have chosen to sin EVER.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[Jon0388g]

I have not been round about, but in any case here is what James says about temptation:



Now are you telling me that that is how you believe Jesus was tempted?

Are saying Jesus had a sinful nature which was as our with selfish desires which can be given into or was Jesus God who is perfect in His nature i.e other directed...unselfish by nature.

Did satan tempt Eve in the garden? Wasn't here nature perfect/sinless?


The sinless/sinful nature is another topic - start a new thread if you wish. This thread is a discussion on whether it was possible for Christ to have sinned. Strawman fallacies are not becoming of you Ron.

Christ said "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 14:30

Christ was tempted by the devil, but the devil could not find anything in Christ to draw Him away, and entice Him. Could Christ have given in to the devil? Yes.


Please respond to my other post from earlier.



Jon

 

[Jon0388g]

I am studying Scripture for myself at this point. I'm TRYING to learn and I am learning more since I have been away from Ellen White's influence.

I am not going to lie and pretend to be a Bible scholar when I am not. I was raised in a secular home, spent 14 years in Eastern religions, spent another 14 in SDA churches that put Ellen White on a MAJOR pedestal.

I am now finally learning the Scripture by itself but that can't be done overnight.

Yet you still prefer to praise those amongst us who tickle your ears rather than studying the Scriptures for yourself.


I've provided enough passages in this thread for a six year old to come to a Biblical conclusion. If you decide to listen to every wind of doctrine instead of Bible truth than your blood will not be on my hands, your ex-pastors, Ellen White's, or the other posters on this forum.




Jon

 

[Lebesgue]

Did satan tempt Eve in the garden? Wasn't here nature perfect/sinless?


The sinless/sinful nature is another topic - start a new thread if you wish. This thread is a discussion on whether it was possible for Christ to have sinned. Strawman fallacies are not becoming of you Ron.

Christ said "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 14:30

Christ was tempted by the devil, but the devil could not find anything in Christ to draw Him away, and entice Him. Could Christ have given in to the devil? Yes.


Please respond to my other post from earlier.



Jon

Difference here is Eve was NOT G-d.

Y'shua IS G-d.

G-d CANNOT give in to the devil, Y'shua could NOT have, period.

He is the CREATOR, the TORAH made Flesh. Please Read John 1:1.

Eve was a CREATED BEING.

BIG difference here.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Did satan tempt Eve in the garden? Wasn't here nature perfect/sinless?


The sinless/sinful nature is another topic - start a new thread if you wish. This thread is a discussion on whether it was possible for Christ to have sinned. Strawman fallacies are not becoming of you Ron.

Christ said "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 14:30

Christ was tempted by the devil, but the devil could not find anything in Christ to draw Him away, and entice Him. Could Christ have given in to the devil? Yes.


Please respond to my other post from earlier.

Jon

Le answered it well. We have no Biblical information that said Adam or Eve could not sin. Well we have nothing that even says they were perfect. They were pronounced good just as the rest of creation. Everything else is interpretation into the story. In the story she saw that the food was good and desirable to make one wise she ate. So her reason was that she did not trust God. Now how does that equate to God does God not trust God? There is no comparison.

Sinless nature is exactly what you are talking about it is hardly a straw man though I understand you don't want to evaluate why you believe the way you do.

Certainly Satan had nothing on Christ. In fact Satan did not even have anything to give Christ in the Wilderness but it did not stop him from telling his lies. I wonder how many people are tempted to buy the golden gate bridge from the homeless guy at the park. What the test in the wilderness showed however is that Jesus was not self centered but other centered. And that is the lesson to take away from all this. God can't be tempted to sin because He is other centered. We are who He is reaching to not because He will punish us if we don't but because He is the source of life and there is nothing apart from Him.

The idea that people argue over this and say Jesus did not sin to which we all agree but say that Jesus could have sinned. Should tell us that the argument is based upon something else. And we have already mentioned what it is. It is rather like the old saying could God make a rock so big that He could not move it? It is an argument made to limit God. By the way the best answer to that is yes He could build a rock so big that He couldn't move it and He could move it.

Knowing the reason why someone makes an argument, question or statement is often half of the battle.

I don't know which other post you are referring to.

 

[Jon0388g]

Le answered it well. We have no Biblical information that said Adam or Eve could not sin. Well we have nothing that even says they were perfect. They were pronounced good just as the rest of creation. Everything else is interpretation into the story. In the story she saw that the food was good and desirable to make one wise she ate. So her reason was that she did not trust God. Now how does that equate to God does God not trust God? There is no comparison.

So, instead of accepting a point which would imply you are incorrect, you choose to infer that Adam and Eve were not created as perfect beings. This is becoming tiresome.

Sinless nature is exactly what you are talking about it is hardly a straw man though I understand you don't want to evaluate why you believe the way you do.

Certainly Satan had nothing on Christ. In fact Satan did not even have anything to give Christ in the Wilderness but it did not stop him from telling his lies. I wonder how many people are tempted to buy the golden gate bridge from the homeless guy at the park. What the test in the wilderness showed however is that Jesus was not self centered but other centered. And that is the lesson to take away from all this. God can't be tempted to sin because He is other centered. We are who He is reaching to not because He will punish us if we don't but because He is the source of life and there is nothing apart from Him.

The idea that people argue over this and say Jesus did not sin to which we all agree but say that Jesus could have sinned. Should tell us that the argument is based upon something else. And we have already mentioned what it is. It is rather like the old saying could God make a rock so big that He could not move it? It is an argument made to limit God. By the way the best answer to that is yes He could build a rock so big that He couldn't move it and He could move it.

Knowing the reason why someone makes an argument, question or statement is often half of the battle.

I don't know which other post you are referring to.

I disagree that this question is designed to limit God. I believe that it is essential because, as you and others have acutely noted, the real issue here is whether or not we can overcome sin. If it was impossible for Christ to have slipped, then we need not follow His example and strive to be like Him, because He is God, and we are not. So, as usual, sin is given free license to reign.


The Bible says to reject a factious man after a first and second warning, and I think this is about the sixth. So, on that note, adios Ron




Jon

 

[Lebesgue]

So, instead of accepting a point which would imply you are incorrect, you choose to infer that Adam and Eve were not created as perfect beings. This is becoming tiresome.





I disagree that this question is designed to limit God. I believe that it is essential because, as you and others have acutely noted, the real issue here is whether or not we can overcome sin. If it was impossible for Christ to have slipped, then we need not follow His example and strive to be like Him, because He is God, and we are not. So, as usual, sin is given free license to reign.


The Bible says to reject a factious man after a first and second warning, and I think this is about the sixth. So, on that note, adios Ron




Jon

See it is the "setup" for that PERFECT "last" generation of SDAs that "vindicate" G-d's Character.

NEWS FLASH: G-d is SOVEREIGN and does not NEED to have His character vindicated before anyone or anything.

As much as I would LIKE to be like Y'shua. I CAN'T. He is G-d and I am NOT.

Yes, we TRY to live a G-dly life but it is our nature to sin.

Paul wrote, "I do that which I do not want to do and do not do that which I want to do".

That's why there is GRACE. Y'shua did for us what we CANNOT do for ourselves.

I subscribed to this type of perfectionism when I was an SDA and it drove me to such despair for my salvation I almost gave up and became an atheist. And I wonder how many people have become atheists when they find they CANNOT achieve that type of perfection no matter what they do?

 

[Eila]

For me it comes down to this:

Perfection is required to stand before God. Perfect righteousness is required. Yet, the Bible says that no man is righteous.

And Jesus said that only God is good. "8A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 19And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."



He later said in that same discourse in Luke 18 "26They who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?"
27But He said, "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God."



It is impossible for a person to stand before God on his own righteousness. The Bible even warns of having our own righteousness in Phil 3 "8More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;"



Praise God! Jesus is our righteousness. We stand before God as perfect because He is our righteousness. We can't earn this righteousness/perfection, but it is a gift received by faith in Christ.


1 Cor 1 "30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
31so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

Can you act righteously? Yes. Should you act righteously? Yes. But what is the purpose of acting righteously? Are you acting righteously to be righteous or because you are already righteous? Big difference!

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So, instead of accepting a point which would imply you are incorrect, you choose to infer that Adam and Eve were not created as perfect beings. This is becoming tiresome.

...
The Bible says to reject a factious man after a first and second warning, and I think this is about the sixth. So, on that note, adios Ron
Jon

Now of course there is a difference here in that I don't think the Adam and Eve story is literal. But even if a person thinks it is literal it is an addition to the story to assert their perfection. As that is an assumption placed into the story as with many other assumptions placed into the story which are needed to make the story seem to be literal.

But even if you assume they were perfect the central problem remains are they perfect like God or is their perfection different then that of God? As the story said God already knew the difference between good and evil. Adam and Eve did not. So you are left even with the idea of perfection at a different type of perfection then God. As the often used analogy is that a corn seedling can be perfect yet it is no where near the maturity of a corn plant that bears its ears of corn. That analogy is particularly useful because in the Greek perfection is the same as mature or complete.

Originally Posted by Jon0388g
Did satan tempt Eve in the garden? Wasn't here nature perfect/sinless?

So you are still left with a faulty analogy of Jesus Christ with Eve for it is said of Christ that in Him was the fullness of the divinity of the Godhead. And that is very different from Eve whether you look at the story as literal or not.

Then again I disagree that a person who argues in favor of Christian doctrines is "factious", but understanding the nature of the TSDA mindset I have learned that their judgments are often incorrect.

 

[freeindeed2]

G-d CANNOT sin, period. Y'shua IS G-d.

Do you believe He is G-d or not? IF He is G-d(I believe so) than He CANNOT sin.

Yes, He was "tempted" but He could NOT fail, He could NOT give in to sin.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

That is exactly right, Lebesgue. Either Jesus is God, or he isn't. They can't swing both ways. They cannot take the God out of Christ through opinion and misuse of Scripture. Jesus IS GOD! He COULD NOT fail!

In CHRIST alone...

 

[Jon0388g]

Now of course there is a difference here in that I don't think the Adam and Eve story is literal.

Let's end on that note, RC.



Jon

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Let's end on that note, RC.



Jon

Perhaps or you could end by saying that you have to believe that Eve was deceived by a talking serpent. Rather like the way the old man down the road carries on conversations with squirrels and you must believe that the squirrels are thinking intelligent communicators.

It is the issues that matter and you have consistently avoided the issues and that is the only really good reason to end the discussion.

 

[reddogs]

My son, who like me is an ex-Adventist decided to go back to SDA school for High School because he missed his friends and did not like the Public school in our neighbourhood.

When I saw his textbooks for the SDA school which for Religion class included "Messiah" which is a paraphrase for teens of EGW's "Desire of Ages" and read where it said, when He was tempted, Y'shua could have chosen to Sin and chosen to rebel against G-d, I became angered that they would teach something like that.

I explained to my son that Y'shua IS G-d and G-d CANNOT sin and CANNOT rebel against Himself. Yes, Y'shua was tempted but He is G-d and His temptations were DIFFERENT from ours.

I can't believe that they teach that Y'shua could have failed. NO HE COULD NOT HAVE HE IS G-D!!!!!!

Shalom,

Lebesgue

You forget that He became flesh as we are..

 

[David Conklin]

You forget that He became flesh as we are..

Amen; He condemned sin "in the flesh."