Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[Drew]

This post is specifically in relation to the "sub-theme" of the nature of the atonement that some of us are discussing:

One central dimension of the atonement question is how we conceive of “sin†- what ‘category of thing’ sin is, at least in the atonement context (the term “sinâ€, like many others, almost certainly has other meanings in other contexts). I suggest that most 21st century western evangelicals think of sin in the atonement context as a somewhat abstract “legal†construct: when a person does something that violates Christian principles (such as cheat on a spouse), then some abstract judgement is rendered to the effect that this person is “in the wrongâ€. The important point is that sin, thus conceived, is really an entirely abstract determination, decoupled from the “physicality†of the person in question. On this view, sin is like the concept of “winning a tennis game†– when one wins a tennis game, some judgment is made, based on some observations of what happened in the game, to the effect that the person has meet the specified criteria for winning a tennis game. By contrast, there is no sense at all in which the winner personally manifests the fact of winning a tennis game. The fact of winning the tennis game is highly de-coupled from the “personhood†of the winner – it is not really a part of “who the person is†in any reasonable sense. Instead it is a judgement whereby the results of that person’s actions are categorized – and such categorical judgement are by their nature purely abstract.

I suggest a different option for how we think of sin in the atonement context, one where “sin†is much more “physical†and far less abstract. More specifically, I suggest that sin (in the atonement context) should be conceived in terms of the following complementary aspects, or dimensions:

1. An evil force or power;
2. A stain, or contamination.

.....more shortly.

 

[Drew]

Once more, this post is specifically in relation to the "sub-theme" of the nature of the atonement that some of us are discussing:

In defence of the plausibility of the view that, in Romans 8:3, Paul sees “sin†as a “force, consider how he treats “sin†just a few sentences back in Romans 7:

8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

One must allow the possibility that Paul is to be understood “literally†to the effect that sin is indeed a power or force that can do the things described here. Now it is, of course, possible that Paul is speaking metaphorically here but the overall shape of Paul’s argument in Romans speaks strongly against a metaphorical reading. This text is even more telling:

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

It is not really possible to reconcile this description of sin with the view that the term “sin†must always denote a category into which human actions can be placed in accordance with some criteria (i.e. a ‘law’). Note that in the above, Paul is drawing a clear distinction between himself and sin. This really only makes sense if sin is conceived to be a real force, fundamentally distinct from Paul. In this text, the metaphorical reading falls apart. Paul clearly ascribes responsibility for the evil he does to a separate agency – sin living in him. He is not saying that “the sinful part of me†is doing this evil. No, he has clearly stated that agency who does this sin is not the “I†- how much clearer could he be than a claim “it is no longer I who do itâ€.

Note that in this present post, I have only addressed one of the two aspects of the model for “sin†that I suggest is on the table in Romans 8:3. I hope to talk about sin as “stain†in a later post.

Finally, I point out that just because the term “sin†sometimes means “law-breaking†(i.e. the abstract categorization of actions against some stated criteria), this does not mean it must always mean this. By analogy, consider the term “Israel†– sometimes Paul uses this term to refer to the Jewish nation, other times (e.g. Galatians 6), he uses the term to refer to the church. So it is simply not correct to apply a “rule†that the term “sin†must always mean the same thing. It is clear that Paul uses the term in very different ways in his letters.

 

[Drew]

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

This is not really an argument - it is a statement of your position. To be fair, I have not yet had the time to fully defend my own position. But let's be clear - we both need to defend our respective positions Biblically. You cannot simply assume that sin was not 'in Jesus' on the cross. Likewise, I cannot expect readers to simply accept, without Biblical argument, that sin was indeed "in Jesus' flesh' on the cross.

But let's remember: When Paul says that "sin in the flesh" was condemned on the cross, it seems hard to imagine how this statement can work with the view that sin was in no way in Jesus' flesh.

 

[Drew]

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.

You are making the debating error of "appeal to authority" - you cannot simply claim that a certain position is incorrect simply because some other people have judged it to be heresy.

Scripture is scripture. The views of those you term "orthodox" do not have this same authority.

 

[smaller]

This is not really an argument - it is a statement of your position. To be fair, I have not yet had the time to fully defend my own position. But let's be clear - we both need to defend our respective positions Biblically. You cannot simply assume that sin was not 'in Jesus' on the cross. Likewise, I cannot expect readers to simply accept, without Biblical argument, that sin was indeed "in Jesus' flesh' on the cross.

I do not believe that Jesus Christ was 'in' His Dead Body at that time, so make of that what you will or can. His body died on the cross. God in Christ 'subjected' Himself to the power of death, and the intrumentations that brought it to Him by Divine Directions and Decrees, down to the very last detail. In effect, God exercised His Own Death at the hands of wicked sinners and 'allowed' the power of death to be tasted by His Own Self therein.

But let's remember: When Paul says that "sin in the flesh" was condemned on the cross, it seems hard to imagine how this statement can work with the view that sin was in no way in Jesus' flesh.

I will chalk it up to a complex subject, not easily grasped. Not really interested in making a case that God in Christ was a sinner or had sin in thought, word or deed. I might suggest that to obsess about it, the point in time to obsess is at the point of the death of His Physical Body and see what you can dig out.

For me, it will remain that the sum of all sin was put there, in His Dead Body, and that He was not therein. Yet God did not suffer to allow His Body to see corruption, and was therefore raised and glorified for eternity in that same body.

Did the sin then remain therein? I doubt it.

So what really happened to it? If you want to place it there, then you will also have to find a way to 'get it out' or again, you are back to a similar notion, that God still has sin in His glorified body.

Such questions to me are really quite stupid. Why? Because they revolve around physical matters when 'sin' is really an anti-spiritual anti-Christ spiritual working. None of us really 'know' how any of those things work 'in full' because we are simply not equipped in total to see or understand in that 'realm' and 'environment.' Jesus obviously saw many things that man did not then or prior, and do not see now.

My view on the cross is that 'attribution' for sins against 'all men' were taken away by that action of God in Christ, but the final destruction remains on the table for sin, all it's workings and all it's ways. And that is a final confrontation with the spirit of the anti-Christ. Again many believers want to turn those types of matters into physical things, when that may not be the case whatsoever.

Most matters of scripture are pitting the Workings of Gods Spirit against the workings of anti-Christ spirits. Few are accustomed to reading or understanding in that direction, and obsess on the physical because that is what they can 'see' with their flesh eyes. To me it is a form of blindness from the start.

enjoy!

s

 

[smaller]

You are making the debating error of "appeal to authority" - you cannot simply claim that a certain position is incorrect simply because some other people have judged it to be heresy.

Scripture is scripture. The views of those you term "orthodox" do not have this same authority.

And I can assure you that to say Jesus had sin, as you did, is a largely unorthodox position.

There are a few short rules for heresies of this nature. To divide Christ and God in any way is a basic foul of heresy. To say God sinned or had sin in Thought, Word or Deed is another. Those are simple and short 'litmus tests.' The impetus to do so should immediately be questioned. Such avenues often lead to other types of more vicious heresies. And there are vast numbers of sects that entertain these various things for profit.

enjoy!

s

 

[jasoncran]

funny the man smaller believes in eternal security a position in which God the father sees the saved man as fully righteous as he sees the blood of christ atonement yet doenstn see the sin of that man as that is under grace. yet, also refuses to see that God the father when he looked at jesus on the cross saw sin and had to judge that sin on the cross as jesus took the sin of the world yet he himself didnt sin.

go figure. that is what drew and free are trying to say.

 

[smaller]

funny the man smaller believes in eternal security a position in which God the father sees the saved man as fully righteous as he sees the blood of christ atonement yet doenstn see the sin of that man as that is under grace.

Uh, Jason, Grace has not authorized or OK'd sin. That never happened and never will.

yet, also refuses to see that God the father when he looked at jesus on the cross saw sin and had to judge that sin on the cross as jesus took the sin of the world yet he himself didnt sin.

I accept that premise. As pointed out to Drew in my second to last post, looking at sin in some sort of physical sense being placed in the body of Jesus is just kind of a lame attempt to view sin in a physical manner when it is a spiritual vs. anti-Christ spirit matter. We know for example that sin is still here, still in operation. So how then could it have been 'physically' placed anywhere? That's kinda the point.

s

 

[Drew]

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.

This is the problem with atomistic exegesis - examining one verse in isolation.

Yes, if all we had was the 1 John text, we might conclude that Jesus never contained "sin" in any sense. But things are not simple. For starters, we have Romans 8:3 which clearly states that, on the cross, sin was condemned "in the flesh".

Whose flesh was this, if not Jesus's?

And what about this text from 2 Corinthians 5:

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

This statement goes even further - it suggests that Jesus "becomes sin". And yet you are using the 1 John text to suggest that this is impossible.

We need to deal with the ambiguity and open-endedness of the texts - so our task is not an easy one. I have only begun to argue the case, but I suggest that the overall shape of the Biblical narrative forces us to see the 1 John text as a statement about the fact that Jesus was not a sinner personally.

You have appealed to orthodoxy to critique my position. And yet your claim that Jesus never "contained" sin is highly unorthodox. One of the central tenets of orthodox reformed theology is that our sin gets imputed to Jesus. How do you square this with your position that sin was never 'in' Jesus? I cannot imagine how this would work - for Jesus to "imputed" with our sin means that, in some sense at least, our "sin" is deemed to "belong" to Jesus.

 

[Drew]

And I can assure you that to say Jesus had sin, as you did, is a largely unorthodox position.

Again, what other people believe to be true is interesting, but it is not the final word - we need to be open to the possiblity that some "mainstream" view is, in fact, unBiblical. And again, if our sin is imputed to Jesus as I am pretty sure an "orthodox" reformed view, I do not see how we can avoid saying that Jesus in some sense "had sin in Him".

There are a few short rules for heresies of this nature. To divide Christ and God in any way is a basic foul of heresy. To say God sinned or had sin in Thought, Word or Deed is another.

I have never said anything like this and I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I understand that it is easy to assume what others are thinking, but there is nothing in any of my posts that would support concluding that I believe that God has, in any sense, sinned.

 

[smaller]

This is the problem with atomistic exegesis - examining one verse in isolation.

Yes, if all we had was the 1 John text, we might conclude that Jesus never contained "sin" in any sense. But things are not simple. For starters, we have Romans 8:3 which clearly states that, on the cross, sin was condemned "in the flesh".

As also stated prior, the existence of sin within the context of Perfect God is the essence of theodicy seeking to understand same. There are reasoned matters to apply to that subject. ALL sin transpires 'within' Gods Omnipresence. So this categorically places 'all' sin within Gods Omnipresence regardless.

The point of 'sin' being in Gods flesh body or within His Omnipresence is probably not a lot of difference, seeing the difficulties of dividing any portion of God from another or making portions whatsoever. That is quite an impossible task.

There are many baseline observations. The existence of God in the flesh is and will remain somewhat of a mystery that students and theologians have grappled with from the beginning. For example, we can say that God can make a thing, ANY thing, and not be 'that' thing which He created.

Yet God had a 'thing.' A body, an Image, A Son. In view of the light of that mystery, and the nature of being God, I have a hard time placing God in the flesh in the category of a 'thing.' There will always remain that unique and over riding characteristic of Gods Surpassing Greatness over all things, even while simultaneously being within His Own creation. That will rightfully and still remain as Paul noted, a great mystery.

Whose flesh was this, if not Jesus's?

And what about this text from 2 Corinthians 5:

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

This statement goes even further - it suggests that Jesus "becomes sin". And yet you are using the 1 John text to suggest that this is impossible.

It will remain both a heresy from an orthodox perspective to make God a sinner in any way. That 'seems' to be your intent.

I would say that any 'imperfection' is 'allowed' by God, even created by same as a lesser category than the fullness of The Creator Himself, and that any particular 'thing' of creation, whatever 'thing' that may be logically remains as 'less than' The Creator Himself in Total as God has no total, no equal when compared to any particular thing.

God chose to 'express' Himself into His Creation through His Son, His Image, HimSelf. That is simply a mystery. And one I do not seek to impose limits upon.

We need to deal with the ambiguity and open-endedness of the texts - so our task is not an easy one. I have only begun to argue the case, but I suggest that the overall shape of the Biblical narrative forces us to see the 1 John text as a statement about the fact that Jesus was not a sinner personally.

Many 'things' exist within God. Orthodoxy sought to describe the fantastic event of God 'being within' His Own creation as a hypostatic union. That is again probably about the best that orthodoxy has to offer on the subject. They concluded that God in Christ was fully God and fully man in union with each others. As such that observation does contain again, the mystery of that event.

When one tries to impose the limits of all other things upon one side of the equation, placing 'sin' in the Body of Jesus for example, under the limits of all other things the logic of Limitless God is not taken into view.

The entire notion that 'sin' is a physical item that was placed in that body, I'm afraid is quite a limited view in and of itself. Sin is just not an item we can walk down the street and pick up like some kind of a dog turd. There are many 'items' within creation that defy such physical notions.

You have appealed to orthodoxy to critique my position.

I believe orthodox positions on these matters are the best to offer. I would also say that such also contain the limits of the observers, logically speaking. Pondering these matters for me in an open ended fashion appeals to my innards. I really don't seek to place 'any' limits upon The Greater.

And yet your claim that Jesus never "contained" sin is highly unorthodox.

As stated prior, we know sin still exists, still carries on. So what then really happened? It obviously was not contained therein as anyone with half a wit can still see it in action.

One of the central tenets of orthodox reformed theology is that our sin gets imputed to Jesus. How do you square this with your position that sin was never 'in' Jesus?

That is what I stated prior. That the question settled at the cross was 'imputation against mankind.' That does NOT mean that the imputation question is yet settled in TOTAL, for example, against 'devils' and the resulting final and permanent penalty that will be imposed upon THEM.

I cannot imagine how this would work - for Jesus to "imputed" with our sin means that, in some sense at least, our "sin" is deemed to "belong" to Jesus.

Yes, I do believe that it is only in Gods Hands to clean up the mess in total. But that obviously has NOT yet transpired. To physically place all sin in the physical body of Jesus implies it was destroyed at the cross, and that defies common sense as it is still in operation.

We could say that the imputation question and the sum of all sins 'counted against mankind' was settled in the death of Gods Body, but the final clean up process is still in operation, and even more, that it has been allowed to fester and grow prior to that final cleanup.

s

 

[Drew]

Such questions to me are really quite stupid. Why? Because they revolve around physical matters when 'sin' is really an anti-spiritual anti-Christ spiritual working.

I will challenge this claim that "sin" is in no sense something that belongs to the "physical" domain. Can you defend your position? From Genesis 3, we have the result of sin being damage to the very fabric of the physical world. This is perhaps not a "proof" that sin is a "physical" thing, but it clearly suggests at least a strong link between the concept of sin and the realm of the "physical".

I politely suggest that, like many, you are buying into a "spirit" vs "physicality" duality that is not really supported in the Scriptures.

 

[smaller]

I will challenge this claim that "sin" is in no sense something that belongs to the "physical" domain.

I never stated that, but the claim that it is purely a physical matter doesn't work either. One can not 'bottle' a sinful thought, to capture it in a physical way.

Can you defend your position? From Genesis 3, we have the result of sin being damage to the very fabric of the physical world.

I don't question the physical nature of the action of sin, but that does not imply that it is purely and only that.

This is perhaps not a "proof" that sin is a "physical" thing, but it clearly suggests at least a strong link between the concept of sin and the realm of the "physical".

Never said otherwise, but that does not capture what 'sin' is.

We know that sin is a progression from thought to word to ultimately, deed in the external realm.

I politely suggest that, like many, you are buying into a "spirit" vs "physicality" duality that is not really supported in the Scriptures.

There are many things that defy 'only physical' capture. One might be able to observe 'external physical actions,' but that is only a view of the external, and explains nothing about 'how' it got there and how it operates where 'we can't see it.'

Ultimately sin is a working of anti-Christ spirits. And again, we can't 'see' them.

s

 

[Drew]

As also stated prior, the existence of sin within the context of Perfect God is the essence of theodicy seeking to understand same. There are reasoned matters to apply to that subject. ALL sin transpires 'within' Gods Omnipresence. So this categorically places 'all' sin within Gods Omnipresence regardless.

I do not understand what you are saying here. Can you please rephrase. I will re-state again: nothing I have posted can be legitimately taken to suggest that God (or Jesus) has in any sense committed a sin.

The point of 'sin' being in Gods flesh body or within His Omnipresence is probably not a lot of difference, seeing the difficulties of dividing any portion of God from another or making portions whatsoever. That is quite an impossible task.

Again, I cannot understand your point here. I am looking for actual Biblical arguments to support your apparent position that "sin" was never, in any sense, 'in' Jesus. I would expect this to be a difficult position to support, given the clear Biblical case that our sin gets imputed to, that is ascribed to, Jesus.

There are many baseline observations. The existence of God in the flesh is and will remain somewhat of a mystery that students and theologians have grappled with from the beginning. For example, we can say that God can make a thing, ANY thing, and not be 'that' thing which He created.

True, but how does this constitute any kind of an argument that 'sin' was not imputed to, and therefore 'in' Jesus?

Yet God had a 'thing.' A body, an Image, A Son. In view of the light of that mystery, and the nature of being God, I have a hard time placing God in the flesh in the category of a 'thing.' There will always remain that unique and over riding characteristic of Gods Surpassing Greatness over all things, even while simultaneously being within His Own creation. That will rightfully and still remain as Paul noted, a great mystery.

I do not understand the relevance of this to the matter at issue.

 

[Sparkey]

Back in Bible College (too many years ago) during a intro to Greek class I found my nemesis. Greek prepositions. Such small words that convey such large difference in concept. What is the difference between "in" and "on"?

I'll leave those definitions to the more scholarly amongst us but wanted to point to a problem that used to occupy my thoughts so often.

Consider the word logizomai which is translated "imputed" in IICor 5. It can be translated "recokoned" as easily. This word deals with reality. If I reckon (logizomai) that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers more to fact than supposition or opinion. He who knew no sin, the Christ, became sin so that we might be made (ginomai) the righteousness of God. None will accuse God of wrong doing.

It may be difficult to understand how Jesus had our sins imputed (reckoned) but not nearly as difficult as what the Lord is doing for us -- when His followers are seen to have been made into His image.

~Sparrow

 

[smaller]

I do not understand what you are saying here. Can you please rephrase. I will re-state again: nothing I have posted can be legitimately taken to suggest that God (or Jesus) has in any sense committed a sin.

Your claim, and one that could technically be read in a limited sense of the word is that sin was placed in Jesus, therefore your conclusion was that sin was in Jesus. I might say that it was placed there as far as 'mans committment of same' and it ceased to be seen or exist as far as Gods sights of same to 'man.' The term 'washed away' comes to mind.

But there remains sin and it's activity. So therein remains 'splainin' to do.

Again, I cannot understand your point here. I am looking for actual Biblical arguments to support your apparent position that "sin" was never, in any sense, 'in' Jesus. I would expect this to be a difficult position to support, given the clear Biblical case that our sin gets imputed to, that is ascribed to, Jesus.

I do not think it was a totally encompassing action. In that sense the atonement, the placing, the entirety was 'limited' in it's scope and intention.

God had no intention of 'dying for devils' or atonement for an object such as a physical chair.

Limitations, scope and intentions are the real questions.

True, but how does this constitute any kind of an argument that 'sin' was not imputed to, and therefore 'in' Jesus?

Let's say they do not exist therein as it pertains to Gods View of same 'towards' mankind. But that is not the sum of the view and actions of God as it pertains to sin and it's workings and the hows and whys of Gods Final Dealings with same.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

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

The statement from John needs no 'interpretation.'

Drew is grappling with Paul's very clear statement on the subject, and to some extent I sympathise with his view:

2 Cor 5. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Paul says explicitly that he knew no sin. So Drew cannot be saying that Jesus sinned. Your point about heresy is dismissed right there.

So the real question before us is, what does:

God...made him to be sin for us really mean?

I would like your thoughts on that question.

We have an indication in the context, though. Paul says:

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

What does that mean? It means that Paul and the other 'ambassadors' represent Christ, and are speaking to you Corinthians on His behalf.

It doesn't mean that they are Christ! Not at all.

Just as an ambassador represents his king or his govenrment, and speaks on their behalf, and in their stead, so Paul and the other apostles were speaking to the Corinthians in Christ's stead.

In exactly the same way, Christ is our representative, and in the sight of God who sees our sins on His back, he is made sin on our behalf.

Perhaps a simple way of saying it is to say He is made to look like sinon our behalf. Maybe that only complicates it, I don't know.

Just as the scapegoat bore the sins of Israel into the wilderness, just so Jesus 'taketh away the sins of the world' as John the Baptist said.

 

[smaller]

Drew is grappling with Paul's very clear statement on the subject, and to some extent I sympathise with his view:

2 Cor 5. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Paul says explicitly that he knew no sin. So Drew cannot be saying that Jesus sinned. Your point about heresy is dismissed right there.

So the real question before us is, what does:

God...made him to be sin for us really mean?
I would like your thoughts on that question.

As stated prior, sin still exists and functions. So what was placed there and what changed?

Simply stated, Gods 'view' of same, but only as it pertains to 'mankind.'

That action was limited in scope and intent. This by no means states that sin disappeared as it obviously has not, but how God Views same as it pertains to mankind DID disappear. This requires 'no existence of sin' in God. Evaporation, disappearance, washing away in the limited sense (applicable to man) does exist.

This does also not require 'sin' to be 'in Gods Physical Body' if in that sense evaporation of sins as it pertains to man is in view.

The sins of mankind were placed in the DEAD BODY of Christ, never to be seen again. In that sense, they are LONG LONG GONE and there is no other sacrifice necessary or available.

I would point out that in this subject of scripture, as in many, 'simultaneous truths' can and do exist that appear to be quite contradictory.

There are however 'explanations.'

We have an indication in the context, though. Paul says:

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

What does that mean? It means that Paul and the other 'ambassadors' represent Christ, and are speaking to you Corinthians on His behalf.

It doesn't mean that they are Christ! Not at all.

I see Paul's statement as a plea to reconcile ones mind to a existing fact. Continuing to scurry to the cross for repeated pleas of sacrifice are not a requirement. That deal is done, again, as it pertains to mankind.

Just as an ambassador represents his king or his govenrment, and speaks on their behalf, and in their stead, so Paul and the other apostles were speaking to the Corinthians in Christ's stead.

In exactly the same way, Christ is our representative, and in the sight of God who sees our sins on His back, he is made sin on our behalf.

Perhaps a simple way of saying it is to say He is made to look like sinon our behalf. Maybe that only complicates it, I don't know.

Just as the scapegoat bore the sins of Israel into the wilderness, just so Jesus 'taketh away the sins of the world' as John the Baptist said.

I do not see only a physical world in the text. While John's statement is unequivocally true, there are 'other worlds.' Here is a word picture of same:

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

There is, in short, a world presented in the scriptures that is 'not physically viewable' in a 'fleshly eyes' view of these matters.

God loves for example, 'our world.' The one we can see and touch. But God has also imposed certain powers and principalities over this present world that also do operate and which we cannot openly see. We only have 'glimpses' and 'word pictures' of how to find and to sense those other things. That is called by Paul the 'mystery of iniquity.' There is, factually a 'world' of principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness that remains functioning in a limited sense over and in our visible world. This is a very difficult subject to grasp as it is subject matter that is largely intangible until we see the final results of that activity, which is external sin.

But we do know that there are for example, the devil and minions of his family who 'do operate' presently. We simply cannot see them with physical eyes.

Many clues are provided in the text as to 'how' these operate and how to tell 'when they' are 'in play.'

s

 

[jasoncran]

Uh, Jason, Grace has not authorized or OK'd sin. That never happened and never will.

I accept that premise. As pointed out to Drew in my second to last post, looking at sin in some sort of physical sense being placed in the body of Jesus is just kind of a lame attempt to view sin in a physical manner when it is a spiritual vs. anti-Christ spirit matter. We know for example that sin is still here, still in operation. So how then could it have been 'physically' placed anywhere? That's kinda the point.

s

it wasnt in that way when i worded grace but the point was that man being imperfect cant be perfect yet god sees the blood, with christ who was perfect and was imputed with sin and yet didnt sin. do you see the comparison.

that is what drew is saying, jesus could have sinned as he had the freewill to sin but didnt. likewise in all points as we he was tempted. if he couldnt be tempted to sin then what was the point? God put him here on earth so that he could fulfill all the law in the torah so that God could then be satisfied with holiness dying for unholy man.

 

[smaller]

it wasnt in that way when i worded grace but the point was that man being imperfect cant be perfect yet god sees the blood, with christ who was perfect and was imputed with sin and yet didnt sin. do you see the comparison.

that is what drew is saying, jesus could have sinned as he had the freewill to sin but didnt. likewise in all points as we he was tempted. if he couldnt be tempted to sin then what was the point? God put him here on earth so that he could fulfill all the law in the torah so that God could then be satisfied with holiness dying for unholy man.

It is a presumption to say that God could have sinned. I do not consider that a possibility nor is it a presentation in the scriptures.

s