Y'shua could NOT have chosen to sin

[RC_NewProtestants]

Because "I" say??

"But made himself of no reputation[kenoo - to empty, make empty], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:7-8

Yes I said because as you say because the verse does not say He emptied Himself of divinity. That is something you are reading into the verse. He emptied Himself of the rights and prerogatives of God to become a servant a person in a physical body. Which by the way is what it is talking about when it says he was made a little lower then the angels. That is like man.

I will use some quotes from the Expositor's Bible Commentary to explain.

7 The description then moves to Christ's incarnate state. Two clauses carry the main thoughts: "[he] made himself nothing" and "he humbled himself" (v. 8). The first clause is literally "but himself he emptied"; it uses a verb (ekenosen) that has lent its name to the so-called "kenosis" theories that probe the nature of Christ's "emptying" himself. Although the text does not directly state that Christ emptied himself "of something," such would be the natural understanding when this verb is used. Furthermore, the context has most assuredly prepared the reader for understanding that Christ divested himself of something. What it was the following phrases imply.
The one who was existing in the form of God took on the form of a servant. The word "taking" (labon) does not imply an exchange, but rather an addition. The "form of God" could not be relinquished, for God cannot cease to be God; but our Lord could and did take on the very form of a lowly servant when he entered human life by the Incarnation. It is sometimes suggested that the term "servant" refers to the exalted Servant of Jehovah, but this passage seems intended to emphasize his condescension and humble station. What an example our Lord provides of the spirit of humility (cf. 2:3-5)! Inasmuch as angels also are servants, the statement makes it clear that Christ became part of humanity: "being made in human likeness." The word "likeness" (homoiomati) does not bear the connotation of exactness as does eikon, or of intrinsic form as does morphe. It stresses similarity but leaves room for differences. Thus Paul implies that even though Christ became a genuine man, there were certain respects in which he was not absolutely like the other men. (He may have had in mind the unique union of the divine and human natures in Jesus, or the absence of a sinful nature.)
In summation, Christ did not empty himself of the form of God (i.e., his deity), but of the manner of existence as equal to God. He did not lay aside the divine attributes, but "the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot, p. 112). Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper, describing a son of Henry VIII who temporarily changed positions with a poor boy in London, provides an illustration. Christ's action has been described as the laying aside during the incarnation of the independent use of his divine attributes (A.J. McClain, "The Doctrine of the Kenosis in Philippians 2:5-8," Grace Journal, vol. 8, no. 2; reprinted from The Biblical Review Quarterly, October, 1928). This is consistent with other NT passages that reveal Jesus as using his divine powers and displaying his glories upon occasion (e.g., miracles, the Transfiguration), but always under the direction of the Father and the Spirit (Luke 4:14; John 5:19; 8:28; 14:10).

Christendom, and Adventist Fundamental alike, all I care about is: what saith the Lord?

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me." John 5:30

"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." John 8:28


Christ plainly taught that all He did, He did through the power of the Father, and not of Himself. Thus, He was our example, whereby we also are partakers of the divine nature.

Yes, but you divide the two which is your error. Jesus is God there is no division they are One as when Jesus said I and the Father are One or when Philip asks show us the Father and Jesus says if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Jesus never acted any other way then as God because He is God

30 Verse 30 marks a transition from self-affirmation to testimony. Jesus spoke with the confidence of being commissioned by the Father, not with the arrogance of self-assertion. Twenty-five times in this Gospel he asserts that he was sent by the Father. Two different words are used: pempo, which means to "send" in a broad or general sense, and apostello, which has the additional connotation of "equip," "commission," or "delegate." In many of the occurrences in John these words seem to be used interchangeably since both are applied to the person of Christ. The former, however, is generally used descriptively in a participial form, "he who sent"; the latter is used as a finite verb in making an assertion of action. Apostello is used exclusively in Jesus' prayer of John 17, where he speaks directly to the Father. Both appear in the last instance in John 20:21: "As the Father has sent (apestalken) me, I am sending (pempo) you." If any real difference can be detected, Jesus is saying, "In the same way that the Father commissioned me, so am I dispatching you on my errand." Perhaps it is better not to strain a point but merely to say that wherever either of these verbs is used concerning Jesus, it refers to his commission for the ministry, which distinguishes him as the Son of God.

Did you miss the two Scriptures plainly stating Christ was made a little lower than the angels? Please explain this.

Also, please notice in my post I already stated "and Christ was, and always is God Himself." Immanuel translated means "God with us" as I'm sure you know.

This by no means takes away from the fact that, as a man, Christ was very much susceptible to sin. He learned obedience, and no guile was found in His spirit.

Jon

Lower than the angels means in human form, i.e. the incarnation. You conclusion does in fact take away the susceptible to sin if you mean that He could sin by His choices. If you mean that He was susceptible to sin as the consequences of sin such as having people hurt and kill Him then I would agree. But of course if He had not emptied Himself and retained the prerogatives of God then no one could have hurt or killed Him and possibly not even stood in His presence.

 

[catmommy]

There seems to be one assumption that is running through this thread that has no biblical backing. There have been no scriptures presented showing that Jesus on earth was God/Man. That assumption is actually incompatable with the plan of salvation. Through one man (Adam) sin entered, and by one man (Jesus) salvation was restored. If it is a man to man substitute, Jesus' perfect life for Adams sinful one, Jesus being God on earth would invalidate the substitution.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

There seems to be one assumption that is running through this thread that has no biblical backing. There have been no scriptures presented showing that Jesus on earth was God/Man. That assumption is actually incompatable with the plan of salvation. Through one man (Adam) sin entered, and by one man (Jesus) salvation was restored. If it is a man to man substitute, Jesus' perfect life for Adams sinful one, Jesus being God on earth would invalidate the substitution.

Well actually it has been shown, it is found in the first chapter of John. The Word Became Flesh. It is found in the term used in Matthew, Immanuel which means God with us. In fact every time you see the Son of God you are dealing with that idea as the son carries the authority and character of the father in ancient culture. Then it is also found in the writings of Paul. It is very strongly presented in the New Testament which is why it is very widely accepted in Christianity and why it defeated Arianism.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by catmommy
There seems to be one assumption that is running through this thread that has no biblical backing. There have been no scriptures presented showing that Jesus on earth was God/Man. That assumption is actually incompatable with the plan of salvation. Through one man (Adam) sin entered, and by one man (Jesus) salvation was restored. If it is a man to man substitute, Jesus' perfect life for Adams sinful one, Jesus being God on earth would invalidate the substitution.

Well actually it has been shown, it is found in the first chapter of John. The Word Became Flesh. It is found in the term used in Matthew, Immanuel which means God with us. In fact every time you see the Son of God you are dealing with that idea as the son carries the authority and character of the father in ancient culture. Then it is also found in the writings of Paul. It is very strongly presented in the New Testament which is why it is very widely accepted in Christianity and why it defeated Arianism.

We can also add to that the biblical texts that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh--which means he was fully man. And that He said that not only would He lay down His life, but that He would raise it back up again. Only God incarnate could do that.

 

[catmommy]

Well actually it has been shown, it is found in the first chapter of John. The Word Became Flesh. It is found in the term used in Matthew, Immanuel which means God with us. In fact every time you see the Son of God you are dealing with that idea as the son carries the authority and character of the father in ancient culture. Then it is also found in the writings of Paul. It is very strongly presented in the New Testament which is why it is very widely accepted in Christianity and why it defeated Arianism.

This does not mean that Jesus was God on earth. Actually that text proves that he became a man. He did not loose his position as God's Son, however. If he became flesh, he could not have his divinity. Jesus layed down his life when he became Man. He knew he would die. It was part of his plan. When he completed his task, his divinity was restored and he was raised from the dead. On the cross, Jesus cried that the Father had forsaken him as he bore the sin of the world. If he was not man at that point, you would have to say that divinity bore sin. Jesus left divinity to become a perfect man, sinless, who had to rely on the Father for power. Jesus stood in the place of Adam. Again, how could he be the substitue for the perfect man Adam if he retained his divinity throughout his time on earth? That would be like cheating and the point would be proven that mankind could have never obeyed God even in a sinless state. What does that mean for the new earth and heaven then?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This does not mean that Jesus was God on earth. Actually that text proves that he became a man. He did not loose his position as God's Son, however. If he became flesh, he could not have his divinity. Jesus layed down his life when he became Man. He knew he would die. It was part of his plan. When he completed his task, his divinity was restored and he was raised from the dead. On the cross, Jesus cried that the Father had forsaken him as he bore the sin of the world. If he was not man at that point, you would have to say that divinity bore sin. Jesus left divinity to become a perfect man, sinless, who had to rely on the Father for power. Jesus stood in the place of Adam. Again, how could he be the substitue for the perfect man Adam if he retained his divinity throughout his time on earth? That would be like cheating and the point would be proven that mankind could have never obeyed God even in a sinless state. What does that mean for the new earth and heaven then?

The problem is you deny what the New testament says in order to make a theory which the Bible does not support believable. Not totally your fault because the Christian church has taught some pretty poor things such as Jesus was separated from God on the Cross or that Jesus had sins placed upon Him and then He paid the penalty. You don't find those teaching in the New Testament unless you pull texts out of context and then it is pretty hard. The meaning of the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world or that bore sins is that He removed sin as in forgiveness not that sin which is the attitude and action of people past present and future were magically transferred to Jesus.

(Col 2:8 NIV) See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

(Col 2:9 NIV) For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

 

[Lebesgue]

The problem is you deny what the New testament says in order to make a theory which the Bible does not support believable. Not totally your fault because the Christian church has taught some pretty poor things such as Jesus was separated from God on the Cross or that Jesus had sins placed upon Him and then He paid the penalty. You don't find those teaching in the New Testament unless you pull texts out of context and then it is pretty hard. The meaning of the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world or that bore sins is that He removed sin as in forgiveness not that sin which is the attitude and action of people past present and future were magically transferred to Jesus.

RC, you seem to be really grounded in the Word.

I love to read your posts as I really learn a lot from them.

Your blog is also excellent too!

Keep up the good work!

G-d Bless You.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[catmommy]

Jesus did feel a separation from God on the cross-Matt 46. There have still been no scriptures provided to support the Jesus retained his divinity on earth. Most scriptures support the fact he retained his position, the son of God, not his divinity. It has also not been addressed how justification could take place (Jesus' life for Adam's) if Jesus was still God during his time on earth. Those cannot be rectified with this theory. Also, if only Man/God can be sinless, what we are striving for is impossible, even though we are instructed to be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Sinless Man cannot achieve it, how much more can we as those born in sin and shapped in sin? What of the new earth? According to the theory that Jesus retained divinity during his stay on earth, even when we become sinless upon his return, we still will not be capable of living a sinless life. Adam could not, and Jesus would not have been fully human when he lived a sinless life. We have no divinity so we would never able to resist sin and be sinless with that line of thining. God bless, though.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Sinless Man cannot achieve it, how much more can we as those born in sin and shapped in sin? What of the new earth? According to the theory that Jesus retained divinity during his stay on earth, even when we become sinless upon his return, we still will not be capable of living a sinless life.

Yes I rather figured your issue was going to come down to perfectionism. When you think about it all this perfectionism has naturally developed into what Adventist call "last generation Perfection" the reason of course is that they know they though they have been Christians even good faithful Adventists for years and years yet they still are not sinless they have to push the perfection to some amazing last generation event. As if thousands of generations of non achieved perfection will somehow be disproved by this last generation who it is predicted with be sinless.

It is reminiscent of the 1700's utopianism, it ignores the reality of life now in favor of a fantasy in the future. Worse of all it nullifies the good news of the Gospel even denying clear assertions such as when Paul says that the fullness of divinity was in Jesus Christ.

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0]Col. 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; NASB [/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Lebesgue]

Yes I rather figured your issue was going to come down to perfectionism. When you think about it all this perfectionism has naturally developed into what Adventist call "last generation Perfection" the reason of course is that they know they though they have been Christians even good faithful Adventists for years and years yet they still are not sinless they have to push the perfection to some amazing last generation event. As if thousands of generations of non achieved perfection will somehow be disproved by this last generation who it is predicted with be sinless.

It is reminiscent of the 1700's utopianism, it ignores the reality of life now in favor of a fantasy in the future. Worse of all it nullifies the good news of the Gospel even denying clear assertions such as when Paul says that the fullness of divinity was in Jesus Christ.

You nailed it again, RC. When I was an SDA I got so caught up in this "perfectionism" idea that when I realised I COULDN'T I was ready to give up on G-d and become an athiest because I figured I couldn't be saved anyway.

Praise G-d that He didn't give up on me.

I wouldn't wish the despair I felt for my salvation during my final days of believeing in Adventism on anyone, it was truly horrible.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[Jon0388g]

Yes I said because as you say because the verse does not say He emptied Himself of divinity. That is something you are reading into the verse. He emptied Himself of the rights and prerogatives of God to become a servant a person in a physical body. Which by the way is what it is talking about when it says he was made a little lower then the angels. That is like man.

Define what you mean by "rights and prerogatives".

You still have not addressed the fact that Christ said on numerous occasions that He did nothing of Himself. "I can of mine own self do nothing..." does not imply that He used His own divinity in order to resist sin, temptation, and all other trials of life. He did this only through the Father, leaving us an example.

Yes, but you divide the two which is your error. Jesus is God there is no division they are One as when Jesus said I and the Father are One or when Philip asks show us the Father and Jesus says if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Jesus never acted any other way then as God because He is God

I assume you mean I divide the two natures of Christ.

Is it really an error? The Bible calls Christ the "Son of Man" and also the "Son of God." He is also called "Man" on various instances, and "God" or similar on others.

This comes down to rightly dividing the word of truth. I think it is pretty plain that Christ did not in anyway rely on His own power to overcome sin.

Lower than the angels means in human form, i.e. the incarnation.

Is this not another case, by your definition, of "reading into the text"?

You conclusion does in fact take away the susceptible to sin if you mean that He could sin by His choices. If you mean that He was susceptible to sin as the consequences of sin such as having people hurt and kill Him then I would agree. But of course if He had not emptied Himself and retained the prerogatives of God then no one could have hurt or killed Him and possibly not even stood in His presence.

I'm not quite sure I follow you here.


Jon

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Define what you mean by "rights and prerogatives".

What are the rights and prerogatives of God? What are the powers of someone who is all powerful. Those rights and prerogatives are huge look at the things written about God. Our God is a consuming power. People like Moses could not even see God or it would destroy them. Ministered to by thousands upon thousands of angels. That was I think a really silly question.

You still have not addressed the fact that Christ said on numerous occasions that He did nothing of Himself. "I can of mine own self do nothing..." does not imply that He used His own divinity in order to resist sin, temptation, and all other trials of life. He did this only through the Father, leaving us an example.

Yes I did address it in http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44166632&postcount=81
Jesus was pointing to His unity with God. It was not simply a man that forgave sin but God who could forgive sin and yet it was something that Jesus did. Jesus raised Himself from the dead, he said He would raise Himself up and He did, but that resurrection was also attributed to an act of God. Everything He did was an act of God because He was God.

I assume you mean I divide the two natures of Christ.

By dividing the natures I am referring to the tri theistic tendency to divide the Godhead. There is no point in dividing the natures of Christ Human vs. Divine unless of course someone claims there is no divine nature. with the formula of 100% man and 100% God the winning power will be God because God is the all powerful one, human is never identified as all powerful.

You keep dividing God .

s it really an error? The Bible calls Christ the "Son of Man" and also the "Son of God." He is also called "Man" on various instances, and "God" or similar on others.

This comes down to rightly dividing the word of truth. I think it is pretty plain that Christ did not in anyway rely on His own power to overcome sin.

You are trying to say that God incarnate is different from God in heaven...that God incarnate did not have any power only God in heaven had power...the are the same God. As when Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I and the Father are one. Before Abraham was I AM.

As for the quote from Psalms about man being made a little lower then the angels. To use that about Jesus in the incarnation seems pretty clear, I don't know of anyone who tries to use it differently at least until you.

Quote:
You conclusion does in fact take away the susceptible to sin if you mean that He could sin by His choices. If you mean that He was susceptible to sin as the consequences of sin such as having people hurt and kill Him then I would agree. But of course if He had not emptied Himself and retained the prerogatives of God then no one could have hurt or killed Him and possibly not even stood in His presence.
I'm not quite sure I follow you here.

This seems plain to me. Say you were a sinner who hated God is there anyway you could go ascend to be where God is and inflict anything upon God let alone kill Him.

God cannot sin. That is what the Bible says and if He can sin then He is not the kind of God that deserves worship except for the kind of worship that comes from fear.

 

[Lebesgue]

What are the rights and prerogatives of God? What are the powers of someone who is all powerful. Those rights and prerogatives are huge look at the things written about God. Our God is a consuming power. People like Moses could not even see God or it would destroy them. Ministered to by thousands upon thousands of angels. That was I think a really silly question.


Yes I did address it in http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44166632&postcount=81
Jesus was pointing to His unity with God. It was not simply a man that forgave sin but God who could forgive sin and yet it was something that Jesus did. Jesus raised Himself from the dead, he said He would raise Himself up and He did, but that resurrection was also attributed to an act of God. Everything He did was an act of God because He was God.

By dividing the natures I am referring to the tri theistic tendency to divide the Godhead. There is no point in dividing the natures of Christ Human vs. Divine unless of course someone claims there is no divine nature. with the formula of 100% man and 100% God the winning power will be God because God is the all powerful one, human is never identified as all powerful.

You keep dividing God .

You are trying to say that God incarnate is different from God in heaven...that God incarnate did not have any power only God in heaven had power...the are the same God. As when Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I and the Father are one. Before Abraham was I AM.

As for the quote from Psalms about man being made a little lower then the angels. To use that about Jesus in the incarnation seems pretty clear, I don't know of anyone who tries to use it differently at least until you.

This seems plain to me. Say you were a sinner who hated God is there anyway you could go ascend to be where God is and inflict anything upon God let alone kill Him.

God cannot sin. That is what the Bible says and if He can sin then He is not the kind of God that deserves worship except for the kind of worship that comes from fear.

Amen, Amen, Amen!!!!

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[freeindeed2]

Not to make light of this (because saying that God could sin in ANY form is not funny), but it is somewhat amusing to read this thread. I don't know about all of you but here's my take on who God is:

God is holy
God is sovereign
God is never-changing
God is eternal (always has been, always will be, or Who was and is and is to come)
Jesus is God (and ALWAYS has been and ALWAYS will be)
GOD CANNOT SIN
JESUS IS GOD
GOD CANNOT SIN
JESUS CANNOT SIN
JESUS IS GOD

Any questions? There was NEVER any doubt that GOD(JESUS) would succeed in the plan of redemption/atoning for sin/death on the cross/resurrection from the dead/conquering sin and death...etc., etc., etc.

Unless you believe that Jesus was 'less-than-God', you should share the same view. If you believe that God/Jesus was somehow had a limited divinity in his humanity, then you don't worship the same God/Jesus as I do. All power in heaven and earth are contained in the name of Jesus Christ, whether before the earth was created, while the earth was created, after sin entered the earth, while God/Christ was on earth, or after God/Christ succeeded in his divine plans of redeeming sinful human flesh! Either God/Jesus is SOVEREIGN or he is limited.

Which God/Jesus are you all serving?...

In CHRIST/GOD alone...

 

[NightEternal]

BINGO. Free nails it again.

 

[Jon0388g]

What are the rights and prerogatives of God? What are the powers of someone who is all powerful. Those rights and prerogatives are huge look at the things written about God. Our God is a consuming power. People like Moses could not even see God or it would destroy them. Ministered to by thousands upon thousands of angels. That was I think a really silly question.

There is no such thing as a silly question Ron. And I think you meant to say our God is a consuming "fire".


If that is what you define as "rights and prerogatives" then I agree. Yet I find it interesting that these "prerogatives" do not include everything that makes God God. So, some things He emptied Himself of, some things not?

Yes I did address it in http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44166632&postcount=81
Jesus was pointing to His unity with God. It was not simply a man that forgave sin but God who could forgive sin and yet it was something that Jesus did. Jesus raised Himself from the dead, he said He would raise Himself up and He did, but that resurrection was also attributed to an act of God. Everything He did was an act of God because He was God.

Yes, you're on to something. It is important to note that Jesus did forgive sin, which is something only God can do. Have I ever denied that Jesus Christ was God on earth? I think you'll find I've stressed that point in all of my posts, if I haven't been clear enough then I apologise.


Perhaps it would be better to say that Christ did not forfeit His position as God when He descended to earth. But Scriptures are clear that He came to earth as a human, fully man, the second Adam. If Christ did not empty Himself of everything that was infinite power then He could not have died on the cross. Just as God cannot sin, He cannot die either.

By dividing the natures I am referring to the tri theistic tendency to divide the Godhead. There is no point in dividing the natures of Christ Human vs. Divine unless of course someone claims there is no divine nature. with the formula of 100% man and 100% God the winning power will be God because God is the all powerful one, human is never identified as all powerful.

You keep dividing God .

You are trying to say that God incarnate is different from God in heaven...that God incarnate did not have any power only God in heaven had power...the are the same God. As when Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. I and the Father are one. Before Abraham was I AM.

Bingo. That is the key issue. You are intimating the only difference is in physical being, whereas I see from the Scriptures something much greater. You are in grave danger of lessening the sacrifice God made for us on Calvary. Again, I would like you to explain the I AM died on the Cross if He did not lay aside His divine power. God cannot die.

As for the quote from Psalms about man being made a little lower then the angels. To use that about Jesus in the incarnation seems pretty clear, I don't know of anyone who tries to use it differently at least until you.

You said I was "reading into" the passage that Christ emptied Himself of divine nature. You then said that being made "lower than the angels" means only His physical form. Please demonstrate how that is not a case of "reading into" the passage just as you've accused me of.

This seems plain to me. Say you were a sinner who hated God is there anyway you could go ascend to be where God is and inflict anything upon God let alone kill Him.

God cannot sin. That is what the Bible says and if He can sin then He is not the kind of God that deserves worship except for the kind of worship that comes from fear.

For the last time: Jesus Christ was a human being, the Second Adam. His position as God was not forfeited when He came to earth; He forgave sins, even the demons "knew who He was." Satan tempted Christ in the wilderness, Christ did not say "do not tempt Me I am God and I cannot sin", rather His only strength was "it is written". Lastly, Scripture is crystal clear,

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." Phillipians 2:5-7



Jon

 

[Lebesgue]

There is no such thing as a silly question Ron. And I think you meant to say our God is a consuming "fire".


If that is what you define as "rights and prerogatives" then I agree. Yet I find it interesting that these "prerogatives" do not include everything that makes God God. So, some things He emptied Himself of, some things not?






Yes, you're on to something. It is important to note that Jesus did forgive sin, which is something only God can do. Have I ever denied that Jesus Christ was God on earth? I think you'll find I've stressed that point in all of my posts, if I haven't been clear enough then I apologise.


Perhaps it would be better to say that Christ did not forfeit His position as God when He descended to earth. But Scriptures are clear that He came to earth as a human, fully man, the second Adam. If Christ did not empty Himself of everything that was infinite power then He could not have died on the cross. Just as God cannot sin, He cannot die either.





Bingo. That is the key issue. You are intimating the only difference is in physical being, whereas I see from the Scriptures something much greater. You are in grave danger of lessening the sacrifice God made for us on Calvary. Again, I would like you to explain the I AM died on the Cross if He did not lay aside His divine power. God cannot die.




You said I was "reading into" the passage that Christ emptied Himself of divine nature. You then said that being made "lower than the angels" means only His physical form. Please demonstrate how that is not a case of "reading into" the passage just as you've accused me of.





For the last time: Jesus Christ was a human being, the Second Adam. His position as God was not forfeited when He came to earth; He forgave sins, even the demons "knew who He was." Satan tempted Christ in the wilderness, Christ did not say "do not tempt Me I am God and I cannot sin", rather His only strength was "it is written". Lastly, Scripture is crystal clear,

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." Phillipians 2:5-7



Jon

BUT even in His earthly Body He was still G-d and COULD NOT SIN. Y'shua is ALL G-d ALL THE TIME.

Free nailed it in his post above.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[Jon0388g]

Amen, Amen, Amen!!!!

Shalom,

Lebesgue

Lebesgue,


Are you unable to defend your position yourself from Scripture? I see a lot of congratulating other posters but not a lot of argument from your corner.


It is interesting that you are yet to show from Scripture the bolded part of your statement,

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.

especially when I've repeatedly shown you,

"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." Hebrews 4:15


I guess it is a prophecy fulfilled,

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desire, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4




Jon

 

[Lebesgue]

Lebesgue,


Are you unable to defend your position yourself from Scripture? I see a lot of congratulating other posters but not a lot of argument from your corner.


It is interesting that you are yet to show from Scripture the bolded part of your statement,



especially when I've repeatedly shown you,

"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." Hebrews 4:15


I guess it is a prophecy fulfilled,

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desire, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4




Jon

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

 

[Jon0388g]

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

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