Is Jesus considered to be God?

[Yahoshea]

On the contrary it is all about context. Testing doctrine by virtue of it's fruit is testing it within the entire context of scripture. That context (scripture) being the record of the plan and purpose of God. If a doctrine does not fit within the plan and purposes of God then it does not fit within the record (scripture) of that plan and purpose. If a doctrine contradicts the plan of God then it cannot be true regardless of what a person claims to be able to prove from scripture. God's plan is more important then the questionable personal interpretations of man.
If you are willing to believe and promote a doctrine that contradicts God's plans then beware you do not find yourself working against God.

You previously argued: "In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it."

Yet, you just argued that "If a doctrine contradicts the plan of God [Scripture] then it cannot be true." Your only method for determining if a doctrine is true is if it bears good fruit. Your whole method utterly ignores the "proper hermeneutical principles" that you claim others are disregarding.

Wrong again ---
Testing a scriptural interpretation by comparing it with the overall intent of scripture is one of the primary hermaneutical principles. I did not say it was my only method of interpretation. I said it was the final test. Interpretation is not a perfect science. Error can be made very easily. Testing within the plan of God is far less questionable. (That is assuming two can agree on the plan of God)

I use testing against the plan of God on this venue because no one agrees on a proper method of interpretation. All that is accomplished is my opinion against yours. With my method it is yours and my conclussions against the overall plan of God.

Following your method it becomes my opinion against yours. Nothing is accomplished. If we can agree that all doctrine should fit within the plan of God then we can test each of our conclusions to see if they fit.

 

[Yahoshea]

In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it. Not understanding the culture or definitions of words. Using ambiguous scriptures that are misinterpreted to contradict very clear scriptures. With this type of “scholarship†a person can prove just about anything from scripture.

And yet, your test for doctrine will do considerably worse by not considering context at all.

Yours is a utilitarian theology, which is not at all a good way to go about theology or understanding Scripture.

On the contrary it is all about context. Testing doctrine by virtue of it's fruit is testing it within the entire context of scripture. That context (scripture) being the record of the plan and purpose of God. If a doctrine does not fit within the plan and purposes of God then it does not fit within the record (scripture) of that plan and purpose. If a doctrine contradicts the plan of God then it cannot be true regardless of what a person claims to be able to prove from scripture. God's plan is more important then the questionable personal interpretations of man.
If you are willing to believe and promote a doctrine that contradicts God's plans then beware you do not find yourself working against God.

If you are willing to follow the hermaneutical principles I have produced then I will be happy to prove my point via only scripture. If not then it becomes again one opinion against another. If you have other principles you would like to submit I am willing to consider them.

 

[TheCatholic]

Are you serious. You ignore any form of proper interpretation processes to support your doctrine.........

"Proper" in who's opinion. Yours?

Well finally you get the point. I was wondering how long it would take. As I have pointed out numerous times it is my opinion against yours on interpretation.........

Well thats the big differernce between us.

We Catholics don't do personal "interpretation". We believe that the Church is the doctinal authority established by Jesus. The Church is the ultimate teaching authority. Everything I put forth is Church teaching, not my personal "interpretation" of the Bible.

 

[wavy]

There is no linguistic reason to interpret Logos in John 1 as Jesus.

Unfortunately this is not a 'linguistic' question. It's a contextual question and the context is very clear that the Logos is Jesus. If not anything else, verse 14 is conclusive because the subject is still the Logos and the author states: and we have seen his [a reference to the Logos at the beginning of the verse] glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Here he equates the unique son of God, dispensing grace and full of truth, with the Logos.

No literature of the time uses logos in that way or to denote a personage of any kind. In over 350 times logos is used in scripture it is only defined (by some) Jesus 6 or 8 times. The overwhelming evidence in both Greek literature of the time and the overwhelming evidence in scripture itself points to a definition as statement speech or idea.

I would contend the evidence from Philo might contradict this, but it's ambiguous so I'll leave it alone. But it's noted that there is a conflict in your argument. You speak of 'evidence in Greek literature' when the fundamental basis of your argument is that Greek expression is irrelevant.

Even though John wrote in Greek he still thought and perceived his world and his God from a purely Hebrew way. John and the others had the unenviable task of expressing Hebrew concepts and understandings to a Greek thinking world.

Of course, this begs the question that the Greek culture and thought forms had no impact upon the Jews of the Hellenistic-Roman era, which any study of this period will show is absolutely false. In fact, the very concept of an intermediary logos is borrowed from Greek philosophy, first attested in the 5th century B.C. (i.e. before we find this concept among the Jews)

All the previous verse are talking about God and not about Jesus.

Nonsense, as is virtually everything else you've written. You have not cited a single study of the history of the period, which partially explains why, nor do you appear to be in contact with any modern scholarship. Most of your claims are completely made up and naive. You even tried to appeal to the Greek, when it is evident you probably couldn't conjugate a Greek verb if your life depended upon it.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

This time it is YOU who failed one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation: DON'T MAKE UP STUFF THAT ISN'T THERE.

Thomas did not look at Christ and say, "My lord and also the God that dwells in you". LOL. Thomas said "M y Lord and my God."

Very simple. You are just reading stuff into the text that isn't there to suit your own purpose.

Jesus is God. The scriptures prove it time and again, and he says it from his own mouth

I just noticed your screen name. I assume you are catholic. that explains why you believe what you do. Here is a little actual history of your church's doctrine.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

[bulk of plagiarism snipped]

Punching a few lines into Google, one can easily see that you plagiarized most or all (I don't have the time or inclination to check them all) of your quotes from a patchwork of different incredible online sources, mostly the random articles of anti-Trinitarian nobodies. If requested, I can post a few of the links and even show where you subtly altered some of the sources for your own presentation in order to pass them off as your own words. For proof, I invite anyone to check the quote I left alone in the quote above with the same quote found here. Funny that as far as I cared to look, you didn't cite any of the page numbers in your quotes or supply us all with the usual courtesies of documentation accompanying quotes. (e.g. page #, edition, publisher, volume, etc.) The obvious reason for this is that you don't know them...owing to you having plagiarized them unashamedly.

That is supremely dishonest, and all your credibility in this matter, despite all your hoopla and phony presentation to appear like you actually know something about what you speak of, is totally shattered at this point. I wish I had entered this thread long ago. You would have been exposed earlier.

I shudder at the thought of the extent of sciolism, dishonesty, and critical error I would find if I cared to examine the rest of your contributions to this thread.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Free]

Following your method it becomes my opinion against yours. Nothing is accomplished. If we can agree that all doctrine should fit within the plan of God then we can test each of our conclusions to see if they fit.

And yet, it is subjective as to whether or not our doctrine fits into the overall context; it again becomes opinion vs opinion. Even as it stands, I am firm in my belief that the Trinity makes not only the most sense in regards to all that Scripture reveals about God, but that it best "fits within the plan of God." I can easily show how your view neither fits within the context of a given passage nor takes into account all that Scripture reveals about God, and therefore fails to fit within the plan of God.

Round and round we go....

 

[Yahoshea]

Following your method it becomes my opinion against yours. Nothing is accomplished. If we can agree that all doctrine should fit within the plan of God then we can test each of our conclusions to see if they fit.

And yet, it is subjective as to whether or not our doctrine fits into the overall context; it again becomes opinion vs opinion. Even as it stands, I am firm in my belief that the Trinity makes not only the most sense in regards to all that Scripture reveals about God, but that it best "fits within the plan of God." I can easily show how your view neither fits within the context of a given passage nor takes into account all that Scripture reveals about God, and therefore fails to fit within the plan of God.

Round and round we go....

Do we agree on what the plan of God is?

I believe it is the plan of God to raise up children unto Himself that will mature and grow into adults that have the character of God.
the messiahs mission to free us from sin is the beginning point. It allows us to again have fellowship with our Father and begin the process of maturation.
The question remains how does the doctrine of the Trinity help me to achieve maturity?

 

[Yahoshea]

Well thats the big differernce between us.

We Catholics don't do personal "interpretation". We believe that the Church is the doctinal authority established by Jesus. The Church is the ultimate teaching authority. Everything I put forth is Church teaching, not my personal "interpretation" of the Bible.[/quote]

Unfortunately the reputation of the catholic Church is in great question.
You posted that my sources are bad. I reply your source with the inquisition and Dark ages philosophy is just as bad.
Why does your church not teach you to seek truth for yourself instead of just having you mouth the party line. Why are you not taught to study the bible on your own. Could it be that if you did you would see the errors in their dogma?

 

[Yahoshea]

This time it is YOU who failed one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation: DON'T MAKE UP STUFF THAT ISN'T THERE.

Thomas did not look at Christ and say, "My lord and also the God that dwells in you". LOL. Thomas said "M y Lord and my God."

Very simple. You are just reading stuff into the text that isn't there to suit your own purpose.

Jesus is God. The scriptures prove it time and again, and he says it from his own mouth

I just noticed your screen name. I assume you are catholic. that explains why you believe what you do. Here is a little actual history of your church's doctrine.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

[bulk of plagiarism snipped]

Punching a few lines into Google, one can easily see that you plagiarized most or all (I don't have the time or inclination to check them all) of your quotes from a patchwork of different incredible online sources, mostly the random articles of anti-Trinitarian nobodies. If requested, I can post a few of the links and even show where you subtly altered some of the sources for your own presentation in order to pass them off as your own words. For proof, I invite anyone to check the quote I left alone in the quote above with the same quote found here. Funny that as far as I cared to look, you didn't cite any of the page numbers in your quotes or supply us all with the usual courtesies of documentation accompanying quotes. (e.g. page #, edition, publisher, volume, etc.) The obvious reason for this is that you don't know them...owing to you having plagiarized them unashamedly.

That is supremely dishonest, and all your credibility in this matter, despite all your hoopla and phony presentation to appear like you actually know something about what you speak of, is totally shattered at this point. I wish I had entered this thread long ago. You would have been exposed earlier.

I shudder at the thought of the extent of sciolism, dishonesty, and critical error I would find if I cared to examine the rest of your contributions to this thread.


Finis,
Eric

I admit that I posted and researched from the web. That is no sin. I did find out however that one of the quotes was not complete. It was not changed by me and it was in error. For that you have my apology.
However the quotes from the encyclopedias are correct and the history of Constantine and the Nicean council is correct.

 

[Yahoshea]

Following your method it becomes my opinion against yours. Nothing is accomplished. If we can agree that all doctrine should fit within the plan of God then we can test each of our conclusions to see if they fit.

And yet, it is subjective as to whether or not our doctrine fits into the overall context; it again becomes opinion vs opinion. Even as it stands, I am firm in my belief that the Trinity makes not only the most sense in regards to all that Scripture reveals about God, but that it best "fits within the plan of God." I can easily show how your view neither fits within the context of a given passage nor takes into account all that Scripture reveals about God, and therefore fails to fit within the plan of God.

Round and round we go....

Part of what I consider to be the overall context of scripture is an understanding of the nature of God.
If I understand your position you believe that God can become a man? Or do you believe that which appeared to the Jews was an empty shell of flesh inhabited by YHWH?
Just exactly what/who do you believe Jesus was?

 

[Free]

Do we agree on what the plan of God is?

I believe it is the plan of God to raise up children unto Himself that will mature and grow into adults that have the character of God.

I believe that is part of the plan but not the complete plan nor the end purpose of his plan.

The question remains how does the doctrine of the Trinity help me to achieve maturity?

The question does not remain. That question is not all the way to determine the truth of the nature of God.

If I understand your position you believe that God can become a man? Or do you believe that which appeared to the Jews was an empty shell of flesh inhabited by YHWH?
Just exactly what/who do you believe Jesus was?

Jesus was the Word who became flesh. He is the God-man; truly God and truly man. That is what Scripture tells us.

I admit that I posted and researched from the web. That is no sin.

Just a note to post a link to your source otherwise it is plagiarism, by definition.

 

[Yahoshea]

Jesus was the Word who became flesh. He is the God-man; truly God and truly man. That is what Scripture tells us.

According to you scripture says that.
Do you believe that scripture reveals nonsense?
the concept of a God/man is an abstract philosophy that cannot be said without causing contradictions.
To be tempted one must have the ability to commit sin. One being cannot be both unable to be tempted and able to be tempted at the same time. One being cannot be able to sin and unable to sin at the same time. It is outside of reason.
The judeo christian God cannot change His character to become a person capable of sin.

I believe that Jesus was fully human. Although it is not clear how the conception of christ came about I believe that God created a human sperm to mix with Mary's egg. I do believe that the dominant genes were created by God and that more likely all Mary gave was some physical characteristics.
Jesus is called the second Adam. This is a direct comparison of man to man. God started the clock over with Christ. Jesus had the same possibilities as Adam. Phil 4 compares the first Adam with the second. The first Adam equated himself equal with God by seeking the knowledge of Good and Evil. Jesus never sought to be equal with God.

To fulfill the "example" part of Christ ministry Jesus must be totally human with no advantage of deity. Otherwise the example is invalid.

To fulfill the sacrifice portion of Christ ministry he must also be human. There is no scripture that states a God must die for our sins. In fact the whole concept of YHWH being able to die is outside of the nature of the judeo Christian God.
I have posted numerous scriptures that point out that it was the Man Christ Jesus through whom came righteousness and that a man was appointed by God. It was the blood of a human that paid the price. An infinite immortal spirit does not have blood or flesh in which the stripes healed us.

There are things that God cannot do. God cannot become a being capable of sin. He cannot change His character to accomplish that.

I believe that Christ was a man filled with the breath (spirit) of God like no other. He was taught specifically by His heavenly Father and had no sin to separate him from the same. He never sought the knowledge of Good and Evil even though he was tempted even unto death.
Because of christ's humanity I have a brother and high priest that endured the temptations of this world in the same manner as I do. I have a mediator that completely understands me and at the same time understand YHWH to all the extant possible for a human being. (more so since his ressurection) I have an example to follow that is accurate and non biased.

 

[Free]

Jesus was the Word who became flesh. He is the God-man; truly God and truly man. That is what Scripture tells us.

According to you scripture says that.

Yes, from my searching and studying the Scriptures, that is what they say. There is a reason that what I believe also is accepted as an orthodox Christian teaching by Christians--because the Bible says that that is the case.

the concept of a God/man is an abstract philosophy that cannot be said without causing contradictions.

There is only contradiction when you split the mystery of the Incarnation. As a prof of mine said, "when you split the mystery, heresy is around the corner."

To be tempted one must have the ability to commit sin. One being cannot be both unable to be tempted and able to be tempted at the same time. One being cannot be able to sin and unable to sin at the same time. It is outside of reason.

It is above our understanding which does not mean that it is outside of reason. You are splitting the mystery by asking "Could Jesus have sinned?" But that is the wrong question. The question is "Did Jesus feel the full force of evil?"

To fulfill the "example" part of Christ ministry Jesus must be totally human with no advantage of deity. Otherwise the example is invalid.

Non-sequitur.

To fulfill the sacrifice portion of Christ ministry he must also be human.

And I have shown the implications of such a belief, which you still have not addressed. I will re-post my argument here:

The belief that Jesus was a mere human is no different than the way of the Law and sacrificing perfect lambs, mere creatures, which were insufficient as evidenced by the continual need for sacrificing them. This makes Jesus' death and resurrection only efficacious only for himself. The logical conclusion then is that we have to save ourselves either by living perfectly and sacrificing ourselves for our own sins or, using your arguments about being like Jesus and following his example, we ought to be sacrificing perfect people every Passover.

I have posted numerous scriptures that point out that it was the Man Christ Jesus through whom came righteousness and that a man was appointed by God.

And here you are arguing to Scripture all the while ignoring the numerous Scriptures showing that Jesus is God, equal to the Father yet not the Father or another god. So I will use your own arguments and conclude that that is only your opinion of what those passages say.

I believe that Christ was a man filled with the breath (spirit) of God like no other. He was taught specifically by His heavenly Father and had no sin to separate him from the same.

So you deny that man is born fallen?

 

[Drew]

Do we agree on what the plan of God is?

I believe it is the plan of God to raise up children unto Himself that will mature and grow into adults that have the character of God.

This is only one part of the plan of God.

The plan of God includes many things: the defeat of evil, the return of God to His people, and the rescue of humanity from death and sin, to name just a few.

 

[Yahoshea]

Do we agree on what the plan of God is?

I believe it is the plan of God to raise up children unto Himself that will mature and grow into adults that have the character of God.

This is only one part of the plan of God.

The plan of God includes many things: the defeat of evil, the return of God to His people, and the rescue of humanity from death and sin, to name just a few.

All of the things you mention are either part of the plan to raise up sons and daughters of God or they are natural outflowings of that process.
the defeat of Evil is a natural outcome of Jesus completing the plan set for all mankind and overcoming death and sin. We too are to overcome sin and death.
The return of God to his people is a natural outcome of God's people being prepared to have that kind of communion with him. In fact God cannot fully return to his people until his character is developed in them enough to allow fellowship. Though I believe that Jesus will return to the earth, I believe that a good part of God returning to His people is not a physical return so much as it is a return through and in his people. the breath/holy spirit in us. the more we overcome and exercise His character in us the more of His spirit can indwell us. In Eph. it states that we are to be filled to the fulness of God.

 

[Yahoshea]

Jesus was the Word who became flesh. He is the God-man; truly God and truly man. That is what Scripture tells us.

According to you scripture says that.

Yes, from my searching and studying the Scriptures, that is what they say. There is a reason that what I believe also is accepted as an orthodox Christian teaching by Christians--because the Bible says that that is the case.

Reply --
You know the majority of Christians believe that sprinkling babies is real baptism. This in spite of the fact that even the word Baptizo (gr) means to immerse or to submerge.In fact the translators of the KJV were told by King James to translate nothing that would contradict the teachings of the church of England. When the translators came upon the Greek word "baptizo" they discovered the meaning of immerse but instead of translating it they did a transliteration and moved the word from greek to English and kept the true meaning hidden. All done to preserve the status quo. The doctrine of the Trinity has been the traditional teaching of the church since 325 AD. It has been forced on many by edict and threat of the church and others just refused to think for themselves on the subject.
Claiming proof on the basis of the church believe it is really no proof at all.

the concept of a God/man is an abstract philosophy that cannot be said without causing contradictions.

There is only contradiction when you split the mystery of the Incarnation. As a prof of mine said, "when you split the mystery, heresy is around the corner."


REply ---
It always ends up here. When pressed the Trinitarians pull up the mystery card as some kind of proof. I am sorry that your God's natue is a mystery to you, mine is not.

To be tempted one must have the ability to commit sin. One being cannot be both unable to be tempted and able to be tempted at the same time. One being cannot be able to sin and unable to sin at the same time. It is outside of reason.

It is above our understanding which does not mean that it is outside of reason. You are splitting the mystery by asking "Could Jesus have sinned?" But that is the wrong question. The question is "Did Jesus feel the full force of evil?"

To fulfill the "example" part of Christ ministry Jesus must be totally human with no advantage of deity. Otherwise the example is invalid.

Non-sequitur.

To fulfill the sacrifice portion of Christ ministry he must also be human.

And I have shown the implications of such a belief, which you still have not addressed. I will re-post my argument here:

The belief that Jesus was a mere human is no different than the way of the Law and sacrificing perfect lambs, mere creatures, which were insufficient as evidenced by the continual need for sacrificing them. This makes Jesus' death and resurrection only efficacious only for himself. The logical conclusion then is that we have to save ourselves either by living perfectly and sacrificing ourselves for our own sins or, using your arguments about being like Jesus and following his example, we ought to be sacrificing perfect people every Passover.

Reply--
It is true that the blood of lambs could not pay for sin. That does not mean that the blood of the first perfected man could not. You are making a great mistake equating the two as the same "mere beasts."

I have posted numerous scriptures that point out that it was the Man Christ Jesus through whom came righteousness and that a man was appointed by God.

And here you are arguing to Scripture all the while ignoring the numerous Scriptures showing that Jesus is God, equal to the Father yet not the Father or another god. So I will use your own arguments and conclude that that is only your opinion of what those passages say.

Reply --
I have yet to see you react or respond to any of the scriptures I have posted. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. I may be confusing the threads but I believe that I have countered many of your scriptures by showing that you do not use good principles of hermaneutics in your interpretations.

I believe that Christ was a man filled with the breath (spirit) of God like no other. He was taught specifically by His heavenly Father and had no sin to separate him from the same.

 

[Yahoshea]

Yehoshea wrote:
To fulfill the "example" part of Christ ministry Jesus must be totally human with no advantage of deity. Otherwise the example is invalid.

Non-sequitur.

Reply -
The definition of non-sequitur is a statement that is non relevant to what was said before. It is my contention that Christ must be human to be a complete example for us. Are you saying that Christ as our example is not relevant? You have agreed in the past that Christ as our example is a part of Christ ministry, Are you now saying that part of Christ ministry is not relevant?

 

[Yahoshea]

Jesus was the Word who became flesh. He is the God-man; truly God and truly man. That is what Scripture tells us.

According to you scripture says that.

Yes, from my searching and studying the Scriptures, that is what they say. There is a reason that what I believe also is accepted as an orthodox Christian teaching by Christians--because the Bible says that that is the case.

the concept of a God/man is an abstract philosophy that cannot be said without causing contradictions.

There is only contradiction when you split the mystery of the Incarnation. As a prof of mine said, "when you split the mystery, heresy is around the corner."

To be tempted one must have the ability to commit sin. One being cannot be both unable to be tempted and able to be tempted at the same time. One being cannot be able to sin and unable to sin at the same time. It is outside of reason.

It is above our understanding which does not mean that it is outside of reason. You are splitting the mystery by asking "Could Jesus have sinned?" But that is the wrong question. The question is "Did Jesus feel the full force of evil?"

To fulfill the "example" part of Christ ministry Jesus must be totally human with no advantage of deity. Otherwise the example is invalid.

Non-sequitur.

To fulfill the sacrifice portion of Christ ministry he must also be human.

And I have shown the implications of such a belief, which you still have not addressed. I will re-post my argument here:

The belief that Jesus was a mere human is no different than the way of the Law and sacrificing perfect lambs, mere creatures, which were insufficient as evidenced by the continual need for sacrificing them. This makes Jesus' death and resurrection only efficacious only for himself. The logical conclusion then is that we have to save ourselves either by living perfectly and sacrificing ourselves for our own sins or, using your arguments about being like Jesus and following his example, we ought to be sacrificing perfect people every Passover.

I have posted numerous scriptures that point out that it was the Man Christ Jesus through whom came righteousness and that a man was appointed by God.

And here you are arguing to Scripture all the while ignoring the numerous Scriptures showing that Jesus is God, equal to the Father yet not the Father or another god. So I will use your own arguments and conclude that that is only your opinion of what those passages say.

I believe that Christ was a man filled with the breath (spirit) of God like no other. He was taught specifically by His heavenly Father and had no sin to separate him from the same.

So you deny that man is born fallen?

It is above our understanding which does not mean that it is outside of reason. You are splitting the mystery by asking "Could Jesus have sinned?" But that is the wrong question. The question is "Did Jesus feel the full force of evil?"

A prof of mine once said “A turd on the floor smells just as badâ€.
What relevance does what your professor said make.
The question is accurate. If Jesus could not sin then he could not be tempted. He certainly could not be tempted in the same manner as us. That would be a direct contradiction of clear scripture.
Do you believe that Christ was tempted in all ways like us?
Trying to escape into the mysticism of the doctrine is no proof of validity.

 

[wavy]

I admit that I posted and researched from the web. That is no sin.

So deception isn't a sin anymore?

Finis,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

To be tempted one must have the ability to commit sin. One being cannot be both unable to be tempted and able to be tempted at the same time. One being cannot be able to sin and unable to sin at the same time. It is outside of reason.

You are missing the point of Free's discussion on mystery. You are attempting to use logic when only speculation is in order. The Bible does not speak on "could Jesus have sinned?". It is a mystery on how the Divine and Human will of Jesus interacted. Clearly, this is the realm of speculation, the realm of mystery, the realm of NOT telling us "to be tempted one must have the ability to sin". We know Jesus did NOT sin. Scriptures points this out. Scriptures tell us all men have sinned, yet Christ did not. Even Paul points out that unique example.

So although we do not know how exactly the human and divine will interacted, we DO know the result. It is speculation, an affront to the concept of "mystery" to make statements such as yours. Mystery is beyond human logic. Mystery often is paradoxical. It is not contradictory, but logic cannot fully explain it.

The point of mystery is that it is paradoxical and NOT fully explained by logic... There appears to be contradictory opinions or attributes that we hold to. The Semetic mind was not averse to holding two different, seemingly contradictory, ideas in tension. For example, that God is good and that God allows evil. Or God is merciful and God is just. We hold to both, although logically, we cannot explain the fullness and complete interaction. This is where "faith" comes into play, here.

The question is accurate. If Jesus could not sin then he could not be tempted.

It does not follow... First, the idea that "jesus could not sin" presumes that Jesus' humanity already KNEW that He could not possibly sin. We don't know how much Jesus knew about this possibility. We know the end result - NOT the mystery that led to it.

Secondly, temptation does not always lead to sin. It is feasible that a sinless Person can be tempted and will ALWAYS still say "no". Temptation can be from external sources - the devil, for example. The action of an external source - "eat this bread" - can always be a temptation for a hungry man, regardless of whether this man could not sin or not. The temptation is still presented by the devil, who was oblivious to the intent of Jesus Christ and the Father. Christ's humanity hungered for bread, even if He knew He could not sin. Jesus' divinity effects Jesus' humanity so He does not sin, but it did not prevent Him from experiencing all that man experienced - according to the bible - to include death, the wages of sin. Thus, Jesus humanity was allowed to experience hunger.

Regards