Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[Free]

All I'm saying is that no determination of orthodoxy has placed sin in Jesus Christ.

The statement from John needs no 'interpretation.'

If you read it, you interpreted it. That's what reading is.

 

[smaller]

If you read it, you interpreted it. That's what reading is.

John: 'in Him is no sin'

Drew: 'sin was in Jesus'

Read or interpret however you please. Only one of the statements can be true.

s

 

[Free]

John: 'in Him is no sin'

Drew: 'sin was in Jesus'

Read or interpret however you please. Only one of the statements can be true.

s

John: "in Him is no sin" could mean Jesus did not sin.

Drew: "sin was in Jesus's flesh" but "Am I therefore saying that Jesus sinned? Of course not!"

And of course, if we want to get specific about it, John's statement is present tense, in which case your interpretation of it is correct but still does nothing to nullify Drew's argument based on what Paul said in the past tense.

Again, my only point is you are basing your argument on one interpretation of John's statement.

 

[smaller]

John: "in Him is no sin" could mean Jesus did not sin.

Drew: "sin was in Jesus's flesh" but "Am I therefore saying that Jesus sinned? Of course not!"

Drew is certainly welcome to establish that 'passive' sin was 'in' Jesus. I for one do not believe it is justified to say that Jesus ever had 'a sin thought.' The Mind of God is 'free' of 'all sin' period. And again, this is an orthodox position. I am not talking out of my hat here.

And of course, if we want to get specific about it, John's statement is present tense,

Glad you picked up on that fact as well. The fact remains that John's statement must stand as is, and one can not logically place 'sin' in Him who has 'no sin.' The point of doing that brings in a veritable avalanche of theological difficulties, which the early 'orthodox' church, I believe, did a valiant job and most accurate job in making their determinations.

in which case your interpretation of it is correct

Again, orthodoxy has not placed any form of sin in Thought, Word or Deed of Jesus Christ. That is the end of this matter from the position of orthodoxy. Speculations can abound all they want, but I'm just sayin'...facts is facts.

but still does nothing to nullify Drew's argument based on what Paul said in the past tense.

I am not aware that Paul placed any sin in the Thoughts, Words or Deeds of Jesus Christ. To do such a thing is quite bizarre. Why would one heed anyone inclusive of God in Christ if such a case can be made?

Logic away!

s

 

[Drew]

Your statement above puts you clearly in the heresy camp and your view does not contain one vital piece of scriptural fact about the difference between God in the flesh and everyone else:

1 John 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

To make this easier, God can, did, in the form of Jesus Christ, swallow every sin and remained Perfect regardless....

s

In Romans 8:3, he makes a clear statement that, on the cross, sin was condemned in, yes, the flesh of Jesus.

This does not, of course, mean that Paul believes that Jesus was a sinner. Instead, in light of many other passages, it means that Jesus "contained" or "bore" the sins of the entire world.

I suggest the 1 John passage is really a statement that Jesus did commit sin Himself.

Here's the problem you face. I suggest I can legitimately say that the 1 John text could read either of the following two ways:

1. Jesus never, in any sense, "contained" sin in Himself - this is how you are reading the text;

2. Jesus never committed sin - this is how I am reading the text. My reading does not exclude the possibility that the sins of other people were somehow "laid upon" Jesus.

To be fair, you could try to argue for another reading of the phrase "condemned sin in the flesh", namely a reading that does not force us to see sin as being "in" Jesus. I am not sure you can do this, but please try to make the relevant case.

I suggest that from the broad sweep of the Bible, especially of course, the New Testament, it is clear that, on the cross, the "sins" of the world were somehow "borne" by Jesus in a real "bodily" sense. But this is just an assertion of mine for now, but I think I can make the relevant case.

This is, to be fair to both of us, a massively complex issue - one that better minds than yours and mine have struggled with for about 2000 years.

 

[Drew]

No orthodox determination of the Godhead arrived at that conclusion, and those who made such claims have been termed heretics by every form of orthodoxy that I am aware of.

Well-respected British theologian NT Wright ascribes to the view that I am supporting.

 

[Drew]

This has something to do with the "New Perspective on Paul" interpretation, right?

Yes, although the New Perspective movement is sufficiently heteregeneous to require further clarification.

My view is based substantively on my interpretation of what I believe theologian NT Wright argues for.

What according to your interpretation are we going to give account for on judgment day? What does God judge on that day?

I believe that Paul means what he says in Romans 2:6-7. On judgement day, the content of our lives - our "deeds" if you will - will be judged with eternal life in the balance. However, I also believe that those who are truly "in Christ" are guaranteed to "pass" that "deeds" judgement.

I will try to answer your other questions later and expand on what I have said later......

Thanks for your interest.

 

[Drew]

John: 'in Him is no sin'

Drew: 'sin was in Jesus'

Read or interpret however you please. Only one of the statements can be true.

s

No. You are begging the question as to what it fundamentally means to say "in Him was no sin". As Free has pointed out, this statement could mean "Jesus never sinned personally". We need to remember the Scriptures are not a "technical" document, devoid of literary device.

 

[smaller]

In Romans 8:3, he makes a clear statement that, on the cross, sin was condemned in, yes, the flesh of Jesus.

It may seem to a reasonable mind that God can take the sin of others and not have it Himself in Thought, Word or Deed.

This does not, of course, mean that Paul believes that Jesus was a sinner. Instead, in light of many other passages, it means that Jesus "contained" or "bore" the sins of the entire world.

I will certainly attribute that action as being quite the mystery. However when one says that Jesus Christ, God in Flesh, had or has sin in thought, word or deed, that is a problem, is it not?

So then, if that is 'not' your conclusion, you remain on safe theological ground. If not, then you have in fact made God subject to sin, and every Word He has spoken, every action taken, every thought had, is subject to that potential poisoning. If for example you say that it is OK for God to sin in any way, that to me imposes a severe risk on His legitimate credulity...dig?

I suggest the 1 John passage is really a statement that Jesus did commit sin Himself.

And that my friend is a heresy. Sorry. Moderators are free to step in and side with you if they want to. Orthodoxy without any question has branded such views as outright heretical and unsupportable, for obvious logical reasonings.

Here's the problem you face. I suggest I can legitimately say that the 1 John text could read either of the following two ways:

1. Jesus never, in any sense, "contained" sin in Himself - this is how you are reading the text;

2. Jesus never committed sin - this is how I am reading the text. My reading does not exclude the possibility that the sins of other people were somehow "laid upon" Jesus.

Is the underlined now your view?

John seems abundantly clear about the statement 'in Him is no sin.'

John did not say 'was' but 'is' This categorically eliminates any sin from ever being 'in Him' as the present tense "is" is a statement of Gods "Is" existence.

The instant you place 'sin' in God, you have now toppled the entirety of same and I for one would certainly not have any interest in anything such a being has to offer. Why you would I do not know. I question the logic of trying to do such a thing even outside the heresy mark.

To be fair, you could try to argue for another reading of the phrase "condemned sin in the flesh", namely a reading that does not force us to see sin as being "in" Jesus. I am not sure you can do this, but please try to make the relevant case.

It is a very simple observation. God Himself is greater than the sum of all sin, and therefore is not tainted whatsoever in any way by same, and even more importantly, it was not 'in Him' in any form whatsoever.

The instant one makes God a sinner in thought, word or deed, they have in fact, fallen.

So, I would say to Drew, prove that God sinned in thought, word or deed. That is the measure.

Taking on the sin of the world in His Own dead flesh does not make God have sin "in Him." As I said prior, Gods capabilities of taking away in whatever form one cares to observe makes Him The Greater and none of those actions changed His Nature one single iota.

I suggest that from the broad sweep of the Bible, especially of course, the New Testament, it is clear that, on the cross, the "sins" of the world were somehow "borne" by Jesus in a real "bodily" sense. But this is just an assertion of mine for now, but I think I can make the relevant case.

Now that is an even deeper subject...

Obviously sin still exists. So what was taken away?

I can only say 'attribution.'

This is, to be fair to both of us, a massively complex issue - one that better minds than yours and mine have struggled with for about 2000 years.

I don't believe orthodoxy was off in their determinations of God in Christ being sinless in Thought, Word or Deed.

I can not however say that sin does not transpire 'in God' as far as sin being committed within Omnipresence (which view I accept.)

So, again, does commitment of sin by any of Gods creations within Omnipresence make God have 'sin' in Him? Perhaps a little larger view rather than some 'tangible thing' in Gods prior and temporary body? And I do consider your attempts to be valid. I have also read that statement and pondered it myself many many times.

It is truly a great mystery:

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Perhaps the distinction of what 'sin' was in His Body would be 'ours' not 'His.' The fact that it was placed 'in death' speaks volumes to me.

s

 

[Elijah674]

Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

Scripture says that ...
Jesus was NOT going around being "fully God" and able to do everything himself.

Even though Jesus, the man, had God * within him,
He still was a man and needed a lot of help from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
* It's my understanding that he had the Second Person of the Triune God within Him.
​

John, your post is faulty because you do not understand the forfeit of earths' domain from fallen Adam to satan. (see Gen. 1:26 + Matt. 4:8-9) Christ had to work under these agreed temp. conditions until He [CHRIST] won back the earth's domain. But you can rest assured that Christ was God in the flesh!

What more do you want from Christ God than what HE did Himself in the O.T.? Other than being central located as discribed above?? And this was before the PLAN was consumated. (Son/God/Second/Adam)

--Elijah



​

 

[Hitch]

Well-respected British theologian NT Wright ascribes to the view that I am supporting.

Wright should be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

 

[John Zain]

John, your post is faulty because you do not understand the forfeit of earths' domain from fallen Adam to satan. (see Gen. 1:26 + Matt. 4:8-9) Christ had to work under these agreed temp. conditions until He [CHRIST] won back the earth's domain. But you can rest assured that Christ was God in the flesh!
What more do you want from Christ God than what HE did Himself in the O.T.?
Other than being central located as discribed above??
And this was before the PLAN was consumated. (Son/God/Second/Adam)

Thank you, I do understand that Jesus had to work under Satan's temporary dominion.
And I understand that Christ was God in the flesh, as stated in my Post 36.
But, I don't understand what you're saying after that.
And what does it have to do with ...

Jesus had to depend on the Holy Spirit because ...
The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.
God the Father never performs any miracles.
God the Son never performs any miracles.
God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.
The Father and the Son have different functions.

 

[warhorse]

Thank you, I do understand that Jesus had to work under Satan's temporary dominion.
And I understand that Christ was God in the flesh, as stated in my Post 36.
But, I don't understand what you're saying after that.
And what does it have to do with ...

Jesus had to depend on the Holy Spirit because ...
The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.
God the Father never performs any miracles.
God the Son never performs any miracles.
God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.
The Father and the Son have different functions.

Col 2v8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

 

[Elijah674]

Thank you, I do understand that Jesus had to work under Satan's temporary dominion.
And I understand that Christ was God in the flesh, as stated in my Post 36.
But, I don't understand what you're saying after that.
And what does it have to do with ...

Jesus had to depend on the Holy Spirit because ...
The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.
God the Father never performs any miracles.
God the Son never performs any miracles.
God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.
The Father and the Son have different functions.

I do not see it that way. Holy Spirit God/Holy Ghost God/ (same Godhead but seperate individual) was to uplift Christ omnipresent & was sent back for that purpose. (says Christ!)

And you are saying that all of the miracles in the OT were done only by who?? Do you not see that Christ was as if Cain was sinning against the Holy Ghost in MATURE communication with Christ alone in Gen. 4:7 . (but still Godhead unity)

--Elijah

 

[Free]

Moderators are free to step in and side with you if they want to.

Please, read what I actually wrote.

John seems abundantly clear about the statement 'in Him is no sin.'

John did not say 'was' but 'is' This categorically eliminates any sin from ever being 'in Him' as the present tense "is" is a statement of Gods "Is" existence.

Incorrect. You are continuing to beg the question. "Is" most often refers to the current state of affairs, hence, present tense, which says nothing of what "was" or "may have been," which is past tense.

For John to say "in Him is no sin," is a statement of the current state of Jesus, if one were to accept your understanding of John, but this says nothing of nature of Jesus prior to his death and resurrection. It is equally acceptable to understand John as saying Jesus didn't sin.

 

[John Zain]

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

War horses can always be counted on to help God's army.
They've even been known to throw a monkey wrench or two.

If Jesus was fully God, He must have had all of God's power, and many etc.'s.
So, what's the point of verses such as those below?
Could it be that Jesus, Luke, and Paul are just preaching "Trinity"?

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed (by demons)

Luke 5:17
Now it happened on a certain day, as He (Jesus) was teaching,
that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by,
who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem.
And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

Hebrews 10:38
... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,
who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God was with Him.

 

[John Zain]

I do not see it that way. Holy Spirit God/Holy Ghost God/ (same Godhead but seperate individual) was to uplift Christ omnipresent & was sent back for that purpose. (says Christ!)
And you are saying that all of the miracles in the OT were done only by who?? Do you not see that Christ was as if Cain was sinning against the Holy Ghost in MATURE communication with Christ alone in Gen. 4:7 . (but still Godhead unity)

You've lost me totally, except that the Holy Spirit easily could have done all of the OT miracles.
The 3 are so much ONE that when we say "the Lord did it", it could be any 1 of the 3 who did it.
Yes? Da? Oui?

 

[Drew]

It may seem to a reasonable mind that God can take the sin of others and not have it Himself in Thought, Word or Deed.

This is not really a response to my post. Paul says that, on the cross, God condemned sin "in the flesh".

Well, who was on the cross? You? Me? No. Jesus was on the cross. So it really does seem to be clear that Paul thinks that "sin" was in Jesus's flesh.

The real issue is not what we think God might have done, it is what the Scriptures tell us that He did, in point of fact, do.

 

[Drew]

I will certainly attribute that action as being quite the mystery. However when one says that Jesus Christ, God in Flesh, had or has sin in thought, word or deed, that is a problem, is it not?

I never posted anything that would lead one to conclude that Jesus, in any sense "committed sin in though, word, or deed".

The problem is that what Paul means here by "sin" needs to be examined - we cannot simply make assumptions. I will argue later for the plausibility that, here in Romans 8, Paul uses the word "sin" to denote some combination of the following:

1. "Sin" understood as some evil force or power;
2. "Sin" understood as a stain, or contamination.

The point being this: for me to assert that Jesus "contained" sin on the cross does not mean, in any sense at all, that Jesus committed any violations of God's principles. On my view, it is you and I who committed such violations and the stain that results has been "injected" into Jesus on the cross.

I will expand on this soon.

 

[smaller]

I never posted anything that would lead one to conclude that Jesus, in any sense "committed sin in though, word, or deed".

Glad you thought that one through as the red letter bolded statements from you I put up prior gave nothing indicating that was your case. The exact opposite case 'seemed' to be being made.

The problem is that what Paul means here by "sin" needs to be examined - we cannot simply make assumptions. I will argue later for the plausibility that, here in Romans 8, Paul uses the word "sin" to denote some combination of the following:

1. "Sin" understood as some evil force or power;
2. "Sin" understood as a stain, or contamination.

Keeping it simple, scriptures provide the following disclosures about sin, summarized as:

A. Violation of the Law
B. Anything not of faith
C. Of the devil

Beyond that is speculation if not supported by text. The workings of same I believe we've hashed out prior from Romans 7, a brilliant decipher of the hows of that working in mankind.

The point being this: for me to assert that Jesus "contained" sin on the cross does not mean, in any sense at all, that Jesus committed any violations of God's principles. On my view, it is you and I who committed such violations and the stain that results has been "injected" into Jesus on the cross.

I will expand on this soon.

And I accept that premise, as it is written.

My own conclusions about that matter is that God in Christ was fully able to in effect swallow, contain, overcome, whatever action verb one cares to insert about the entirety of sin and it's various workings, and to Gloriously Overcome the entirety of same in behalf of mankind.

I believe scripture makes a case that when all of this if finished, we will see that God is much much Greater than the sum of all evil, and that in fact evil served Gods Purposes, to show His Superiority over same, to demonstate 'eternal mercy' to us, and in the present, to find the tangible life of Hope in Him.

enjoy!

s