Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[Drew]

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.

I suspect you are indeed properly interpreting the sense of "logizomai". When our sins are imputed to Jesus, they really do "belong" to Jesus, or are 'in' Him. And this does not mean, of course, that Jesus committed any sins.

 

[jasoncran]

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

ok what was the purpose of the test by satan and also God leading him to that test.for in matther 4 and he was lead by the HOLY SPIRIT to the wilderness! hmm

God knew that would happen and let it happen for his glory. adam was tested and failed jesus was tested and passed.the difference is jesus could resist the devil and did.

 

[smaller]

ok what was the purpose of the test by satan and also God leading him to that test.for in matther 4 and he was lead by the HOLY SPIRIT to the wilderness! hmm

God knew that would happen and let it happen for his glory. adam was tested and failed jesus was tested and passed.the difference is jesus could resist the devil and did.

To say that God could have sinned is to also imply 'He thought about it.'

All such things are non-existing notions.

So, do you think God thought about sinning??? Like you or I? I don't.

God Was, Is and will forever remain Perfect.

s

 

[Drew]

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.

You are right, this is indeed what I am asserting.

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.

Not entirely sure what you are saying here. I believe that our sins were indeed imputed to Jesus, and therefore were in some sense 'in' Him, or 'on' Him - whatever term you want to use.

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

I agree - my position that it one aspect of what is going on at the atonement is that our sin, understood as a stain, not as a moral judgement, was placed 'on' or 'in' Jesus. And then God "cleansed" that stain, with Jesus' dying in violence of that interaction.

This is not the same view as the "legal transaction" view - where Jesus takes our "penalty" - which I think is not really correct. Things get really complicated because I believe Paul uses the lawcourt model as a metaphor for what is really happening on the cross. I do not think the cross is really about "justice", it is more about "cleansing of something damaging to creation" and the defeat of a real force or power.

I think that we need to be charitable to ourselves and to each other. My view is that the nature of the atonement is both subtle and multi-dimensional (multi-dimensional in the sense that at least two fundamental things are going on during the atonement. It will no doubt take some time for me to clearly express my position on this, for any who are interested.

 

[jasoncran]

To say that God could have sinned is to also imply 'He thought about it.'

All such things are non-existing notions.

So, do you think God thought about sinning??? Like you or I? I don't.

God Was, Is and will forever remain Perfect.

s

if he wast tempted what was the point? God defines what is sin. so at one point he to consider what is sin. you cant just poof and say sin is sin without thinking what sin is to be called.

be tempted isnt a sin see james for that. lust is a sin. jesus never lusted but was tempted. he heard the thought and rejected that lie from the devil. is that so hard to believe? surely he heard the devil speak to him.

so God didnt have a flesh on the earth? he didnt a hunger? he didnt bleed, he was a mere specter?

 

[smaller]

You are right, this is indeed what I am asserting.


Not entirely sure what you are saying here. I believe that our sins were indeed imputed to Jesus, and therefore were in some sense 'in' Him, or 'on' Him - whatever term you want to use.


I agree - my position that it one aspect of what is going on at the atonement is that our sin, understood as a stain, not as a moral judgement, was placed 'on' or 'in' Jesus. And then God "cleansed" that stain, with Jesus' dying in violence of that interaction.

This is not the same view as the "legal transaction" view - where Jesus takes our "penalty" - which I think is not really correct. Things get really complicated because I believe Paul uses the lawcourt model as a metaphor for what is really happening on the cross. I do not think the cross is really about "justice", it is more about "cleansing of something damaging to creation" and the defeat of a real force or power.

I think that we need to be charitable to ourselves and to each other. My view is that the nature of the atonement is both subtle and multi-dimensional (multi-dimensional in the sense that at least two fundamental things are going on during the atonement. It will no doubt take some time for me to clearly express my position on this, for any who are interested.

Ultimately, in the expression of God in Christ, the cross, the placement or whatever terms one cares to attach is an expression of how God chose to see the matters. There is no requirement to physically place 'sin in God.'

God expressed how "He" Himself would deal with same as it pertains to mankind. To make that a physical matter of sin somehow tangibly being in God remains a somewhat simplistic non-requirement. The event was without any doubting, SPIRITUAL in nature and performance, and as such it was not merely a physicality.

In some spiritual sense, that cleansing transpired, even before the cross:

John 15:3
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

It will remain somewhat futile to observe any physicality of God in Christ apart from His Spiritual workings and we simply do not have an complete insiders view to those matters.

s

 

[smaller]

if he wast tempted what was the point?

Because if you say God in Christ did think about sinning, that again makes God a sinner and that cannot be done. What is 'temptation' to Perfection? Nothing.

God defines what is sin. so at one point he to consider what is sin. you cant just poof and say sin is sin without thinking what sin is to be called.

Scriptures have defined what sin is:

A.) transgression of law
B.) anything not of faith
C.) of the devil

None of these things can be implied or attributed to God in Christ via the scriptures. Were the 'sacrifice tainted' it would be rejected. The requirement of God was Perfection, and God Himself 'was that' in Jesus Christ.

be tempted isnt a sin see james for that. lust is a sin. jesus never lusted but was tempted. he heard the thought and rejected that lie from the devil. is that so hard to believe? surely he heard the devil speak to him.

There still remains one crucial difference between God in Christ and all other people, that being He as God. There is no changing Gods Perfection.

You can claim that because God put Himself under the power of death, that made Him less than God. In reality it serves to prove His Transcendence over 'all things' and 'all matters' and He hasn't changed, ever.

so God didnt have a flesh on the earth? he didnt a hunger? he didnt bleed, he was a mere specter?

God took upon Himself the role of a servant. That too is an expression of His Divine Nature. God 'subjected' Himself. That still doesn't mean He changed.

Eternal Love contains many delicacies.

Long Suffering
Keeping no record of wrongs
Doing no ill
Vaunting not Himself

etc etc

All of those eternal matters are expressed In Him and a part of His Eternal Nature and also how He expresses Himself. To say He must have had legitimate 'sin thoughts' in order to be 'tempted' is just not the case. His Eternal Attributes prevent that from transpiring.

s

 

[Oats]

Of course.. because He hath made Him to be sin for us.. and He bore OUR SINS (not His) in His own body on the tree. And of course it is a scriptural fact that He did no sin, knew no sin, and that there was NO SIN IN Him.



That's right, but the fact that Satan tempted Him does not mean that He COULD be tempted.. and it teaches us that He could NOT be tempted.. How do you temp somebody like God manifest in the flesh when He created all things.. was He in need of something.. did He WANT anything..?

He was tempted by sin, not into sin

 

[Drew]

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.

This statement was made in response to my challenge to you to support your position that sin was never imputed to Jesus in a sense that place sin 'in' Jesus.

I do not see how your statements here constitute a response to that challenge. Can you please clarify?

Do you stand by your assertion that sin was never 'in' Jesus in any sense?" If you do, please explain how you deal with the concept of sin being imputed to Jesus.

I have posted nothing, I think, that would lead you to conclude that Jesus "died for devils".

But I would vigourously defend the notion that Jesus' death indeed has relevance for "objects":

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven...

And there are other Biblical arguments that can be marshalled. One of the biggest errors that is prevalent in our day is the belief that the atonement is "all about human beings" to the exclusion of the rest of creation.

 

[smaller]

This statement was made in response to my challenge to you to support your position that sin was never imputed to Jesus in a sense that place sin 'in' Jesus. I do not see how your statements here constitute a response to that challenge. Can you please clarify?

The attempt defies logic by trying to make that event purely physical in nature. I can say for a certainty that is the entirety 'not' the case. There remains 'matters unseen' in that event and I have stated such repeatedly.

Do you stand by your assertion that sin was never 'in' Jesus in any sense?" If you do, please explain how you deal with the concept of sin being imputed to Jesus.

What is it you are trying to achieve by physically placing sin as a tangible object in a body? Is that what you think the entirety of that event is and consists of?

I have posted nothing, I think, that would lead you to conclude that Jesus "died for devils".

I pointed to that as one factor of limitation, scope and extent of the event, among many.

But I would vigourously defend the notion that Jesus' death indeed has relevance for "objects"

For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven...

And there are other Biblical arguments that can be marshalled. One of the biggest errors that is prevalent in our day is the belief that the atonement is "all about human beings" to the exclusion of the rest of creation.

And to that I would also agree, but fail to see the requirement for salvation of a physical chair for example. That's all I was trying to point out.

s

 

[Drew]

The attempt defies logic by trying to make that event purely physical in nature.

This obviously begs the very question at issue. One of the open issues in this discussion is the nature of the imputation. You cannot, legitimately anyway, pre-emptively assume that this imputation does not have a "physical" dimension to it.

 

[Drew]

What is it you are trying to achieve by physically placing sin as a tangible object in a body? Is that what you think the entirety of that event is and consists of?

I am in the process of mounting an argument that one of the dimensions of "atonement" activity on the cross is that of the expiation (wiping away) of "sin" seen as some kind of "real" thing.

And I am not "trying to achieve" something as if I have a goal in mind and am looking for texts to back it up after the fact. I have approached this the other ways around - allowing the texts to "tell me" what I think they are trying to tell me.

The bottom line: I see no evidence at all that the notion that the atonement involves the "wiping away" or "cleansing" of some problematic "thing" called "sin" is not part of what atonement involves. And I do not mean this in the abstract sense that "Jesus paid a debt that I owe". Instead, I mean it in the more concrete sense that the very real "stain" of your sin and mine was "placed in or on" Jesus and then wiped away.

 

[smaller]

This obviously begs the very question at issue. One of the open issues in this discussion is the nature of the imputation. You cannot, legitimately anyway, pre-emptively assume that this imputation does not have a "physical" dimension to it.

Implying physical nature imposes a term on imputation that it may not mean to contain. I would maintain that the workings of God in Christ were first and foremost, spiritual workings that defy such impositions.

 

[jasoncran]

Because if you say God in Christ did think about sinning, that again makes God a sinner and that cannot be done. What is 'temptation' to Perfection? Nothing.



Scriptures have defined what sin is:

A.) transgression of law
B.) anything not of faith
C.) of the devil

None of these things can be implied or attributed to God in Christ via the scriptures. Were the 'sacrifice tainted' it would be rejected. The requirement of God was Perfection, and God Himself 'was that' in Jesus Christ.



There still remains one crucial difference between God in Christ and all other people, that being He as God. There is no changing Gods Perfection.

You can claim that because God put Himself under the power of death, that made Him less than God. In reality it serves to prove His Transcendence over 'all things' and 'all matters' and He hasn't changed, ever.


God took upon Himself the role of a servant. That too is an expression of His Divine Nature. God 'subjected' Himself. That still doesn't mean He changed.

Eternal Love contains many delicacies.

Long Suffering
Keeping no record of wrongs
Doing no ill
Vaunting not Himself

etc etc

All of those eternal matters are expressed In Him and a part of His Eternal Nature and also how He expresses Himself. To say He must have had legitimate 'sin thoughts' in order to be 'tempted' is just not the case. His Eternal Attributes prevent that from transpiring.

s

he left his immortality to die. God the father raise him up.
ok let me ask you this. do you think that christ didnt go through puberty? did he have male hormones or not. did he have a need to eat . so therefore the the idea of him HAVING TO PRAY AND REBUKE OR CONTROL AT LEAST NATURAL GOD GIVEN DESIRES TO MATE AND TO LOVE THE MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX MUST BE CONSIDERED. as God created women for the man and the man's desire to alone was also address in adam and God put that in us for a purpose. Now then do you want to argue that nature of looking at my wife as a beautiful woman is sin and me wanting to please as sin. please so that in scripture.

when single i had to control them urges but sheesh how does one meet a girl to talk? you have to take notice. jesus wasnt here to marry but to serve God therefore he choose to deny the urges, i'm sure he prayed to God the father to get the strenght. yet you say that he was fully God if so while in the flesh why then did he have to pray? he laid aside his Godhood for us.

 

[Drew]

Implying physical nature imposes a term on imputation that it may not mean to contain. I would maintain that the workings of God in Christ were first and foremost, spiritual workings that defy such impositions.

Well that is a possibility, but I suggest it is not likely correct. I suggest the possibility that you have imposed a "spirit vs physical" dualism that is not supported by the Scriptures.

I suggest it is a mistake to carve up the world into "spiritual" and "physical" dimensions. It is easy for we 21st century westerners to do so, heirs that we are of Greek ideas about the reality of such a dualism.

 

[smaller]

he left his immortality to die. God the father raise him up.
ok let me ask you this. do you think that christ didnt go through puberty?

The difficulty in any view of Christ is trying to segment same away from God and parcel 'some' of His attributes as not being of and from God. The orthodox presentation on this is that He was fully both, undivided with one crucial difference, that being without sin.

Though it may give you personal comfort for thinking God in Christ had sexual inclinations in the ways that the balance of us do is not possible in the 'no sin' condition.

did he have male hormones or not.

I don't believe his physiology was any different than any mans except again for the 1 very large and crucial difference, being without sin.

did he have a need to eat . so therefore the the idea of him HAVING TO PRAY AND REBUKE OR CONTROL AT LEAST NATURAL GOD GIVEN DESIRES TO MATE AND TO LOVE THE MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITE SEX MUST BE CONSIDERED.

And that brings you back to imposing the potential of sin upon Him, lusting after women as a natural course of events, perhaps pondering the entire myriad of physical sexual deviations. Martin Scorsese tried to make the same case (in the Last Temptation,) when that is simply not the case. There is sinful lust and there is spiritual desire. The two are not the same. I do believe Jesus was always set apart for the Higher Calling and fulfillment of the Spiritual Nature of God Himself expressed 'in man.'

as God created women for the man and the man's desire to alone was also address in adam and God put that in us for a purpose. Now then do you want to argue that nature of looking at my wife as a beautiful woman is sin and me wanting to please as sin. please so that in scripture.

I cannot equate your situation with His Jason. They are not the same things when arriving at the category of 'sin' Him having none and the rest of us having plenty.

God 'made man' subject to disobedience. God did not make Himself in that way.

when single i had to control them urges but sheesh how does one meet a girl to talk? you have to take notice. jesus wasnt here to marry but to serve God therefore he choose to deny the urges, i'm sure he prayed to God the father to get the strenght. yet you say that he was fully God if so while in the flesh why then did he have to pray? he laid aside his Godhood for us.

That didn't happen Jason. Again, an unorthodox position being expressed there. Jesus was not just yer normal lusting buddy pal. I think He may have been a very unique, even strange child to the observers by not falling into the myraid of pits of all other children.

Being conceived by God does have it's advantages.

s

 

[smaller]

Well that is a possibility, but I suggest it is not likely correct. I suggest the possibility that you have imposed a "spirit vs physical" dualism that is not supported by the Scriptures.

And again trying to segment any working of God into 'this is physical' and this is 'spiritual' is not the case being made here. I don't think either can be separated from the other, but The Spiritual does have the predominant hand here.

I suggest it is a mistake to carve up the world into "spiritual" and "physical" dimensions. It is easy for we 21st century westerners to do so, heirs that we are of Greek ideas about the reality of such a dualism.

Not a dualism feature whatsoever. In the order of God, the natural comes before the Spiritual. The implications of dualism (as in pitting one against the other) doesn't play out with God in Christ.

He Was/Is and always Will be One, the entirety of whatever workings He Did, His to define and determine.

s

 

[jasoncran]

The difficulty in any view of Christ is trying to segment same away from God and parcel 'some' of His attributes as not being of and from God. The orthodox presentation on this is that He was fully both, undivided with one crucial difference, that being without sin.

Though it may give you personal comfort for thinking God in Christ had sexual inclinations in the ways that the balance of us do is not possible in the 'no sin' condition.



I don't believe his physiology was any different than any mans except again for the 1 very large and crucial difference, being without sin.



And that brings you back to imposing the potential of sin upon Him, lusting after women as a natural course of events, perhaps pondering the entire myriad of physical sexual deviations. Martin Scorsese tried to make the same case (in the Last Temptation,) when that is simply not the case. There is sinful lust and there is spiritual desire. The two are not the same. I do believe Jesus was always set apart for the Higher Calling and fulfillment of the Spiritual Nature of God Himself expressed 'in man.'



I cannot equate your situation with His Jason. They are not the same things when arriving at the category of 'sin' Him having none and the rest of us having plenty.

God 'made man' subject to disobedience. God did not make Himself in that way.



That didn't happen Jason. Again, an unorthodox position being expressed there. Jesus was not just yer normal lusting buddy pal. I think He may have been a very unique, even strange child to the observers by not falling into the myraid of pits of all other children.

Being conceived by God does have it's advantages.

s

so god fakes his death? jesus being God lied when he said oh god why has thou forsaken me? he talked to himself? God wasnt human eh at all? he didnt a hunger and wasnt tempted in the wilderness to eat?why then did satan bother tempting God if he knows that God wasnt able to be a hungered.

he made himself of no report. what does that mean? If god wasnt TOUCHED by our infirmities what then does that concept convey? he just shrugged it off. or this one learned he obedience by the things which he suffered? hmm so he learned something how can that be? he was both God and man at the same time. this meant that he didnt use his almighty nature to overcome thingd but had to things as a mere man would. if not why did he bleed? or eat or laugh or cry?

or love or hurt? ad nauseum and infinitum. you paint our lord as some force that
cant empathise with us at all. so loving a woman that is your wife is lust eh? i never said that he lusted just it went like this. he would know where the possible pitfalls would be and avoided them. he never would sit there and be weak and let thoughts of lust come in. rather that he knew if i dwell on that sin its a sin and i will fail so he rebuked the thought. that is what we do when we cast down thoughts!

 

[smaller]

so god fakes his death?

The Spiritual Speaking and Actions of God 'prompts' the adverse reactions of 'evil' into 'action.' That 'action' resulted in Gods unjustified murder. God knew exactly how the respondents would react down to the last detail and long before the event ever transpired.

jesus being God lied when he said oh god why has thou forsaken me? he talked to himself?

The Image and The Spirit commune.

God wasnt human eh at all? he didnt a hunger and wasnt tempted in the wilderness to eat?why then did satan bother tempting God if he knows that God wasnt able to be a hungered.

There are different types of hunger, physical and spiritual. Jesus certainly wasn't spiritual starved of Living Bread.

Being physically hungry isn't a sin the last time I checked.

And the temptation sequences are not the subject matter here.

he made himself of no report. what does that mean? If god wasnt TOUCHED by our infirmities what then does that concept convey?

Already addressed this Jason. He was 'tempted' as we are with the one very large caveat, that being without sin. God subjecting Himself to suffering and death is no sin either.

he just shrugged it off.

After the fact? Perhaps so given this statement:

Luke 24:
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things?

Don't you think that a rather odd statement from God considering that He was just a short time ago crucified?

Perhaps He had this fact firmly in hand:

Romans 8:18
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

or this one learned he obedience by the things which he suffered? hmm so he learned something how can that be? he was both God and man at the same time. this meant that he didnt use his almighty nature to overcome thingd but had to things as a mere man would. if not why did he bleed? or eat or laugh or cry?

I do not denigrate Gods very real suffering, but in the light of the final result, I might want to focus on the end result.

I'm sure a seed planted in the ground takes no delight in it's own death, but the result going forward is vastly more productive. God had and has greater things in mind. The present environ serves His Purposes, and not all of them are necessarily 'pretty.'

or love or hurt? ad nauseum and infinitum.

Likening the life of God in the flesh does not equate to a man being a sinner. There remains the large caveat of His Existence then, that being without sin.

you paint our lord as some force that
cant empathise with us at all.

What? Pain and death are not enough for you? You feel the need to make God a sinner as well so you have sin empathy from Him as a co-sinner? Why would you need that? One may as well pick a random saviour off the street instead.

so loving a woman that is your wife is lust eh?

I certainly believe that the element of lust is contained in that type of physical relationship, yes.
1 Corinthians 7

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

i never said that he lusted just it went like this. he would know where the possible pitfalls would be and avoided them.

I sincerely don't believe God in Christ had lustful thoughts. Sorry. When you say He knew the pitfalls that may still imply that He thought about it and said no.

he never would sit there and be weak and let thoughts of lust come in.

I don't think Jesus had to deal with issues such as that. Lust is instilled by temptation of the tempter, and the tempter had nothing in Him.

rather that he knew if i dwell on that sin its a sin and i will fail so he rebuked the thought. that is what we do when we cast down thoughts!

I don't consider that is a fair comparison, Jesus without sin and the balance of us with same. They just are not the same situations.


God in Christ was a totally pre-planned event, down to the last detail. It was not a random reactionary event.



s

 

[Asyncritus]

To say that God could have sinned is to also imply 'He thought about it.'

There is this strange view that thinking about a sin equals doing it.

That is puritanical nonsense.

We have the statement 'who DID no sin' (1 Pet.2.22). Why the emphasis on the DID? Because Jesus certainly thought about sinning.

We know that because of the 3 temptations in the wilderness, His own statement (Lk 22.28 You are they which have continued with me in my temptations) and not least because of Gethsemane "...not my will, but thine be done".

Also 'He was in all points tempted LIKE AS WE ARE' - which carries the plainest indication possible that just as we are tempted and can certainly sin, and so often do, so was Jesus tempted and could have certainly sinned.

Therefore, the thought of sin is not sin. The real identification of sin is that

1. it it thought about (every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed)

2. an irrevocable course of evil action is decided (lust has conceived).

That is what Jesus means when He says that to 'look upon a woman to lust after her' is equivalent to doing the evil deed. It's not the admiration of the woman - it's the decision that come what may, you're going to have her, and this is how you're going to go about doing it.

So, do you think God thought about sinning??? Like you or I? I don't.

God Was, Is and will forever remain Perfect.

Since Jesus was not God, but the Son of God as He says so many times, this syllogism you make above is invalidated completely.