Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[smaller]

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

That is puritanical nonsense.

Really? Get convicted didja? heh heh

Here's a postcard from Jesus in case you didn't read the last one:

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

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

Really? Prove it from the scriptures.

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".

That in no way proves anything resembling sin in mind. I might think it was Spiritually Natural for Jesus to 'resist death' being The Bread of Life and all.

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.

Of course there is the ONE big caveat...being without sin.

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).

Ah, so one should leap to your conclusion that God in Christ had lust and evil in His Heart?

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.

That really doesn't match up very well with your conclusion above though does it?

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.

Ah, so one must 'entertain' the matter. The thought itself, however fleeting, really doesn't count? At what point of the thought does it become a sin?

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

You are certainly welcome to that unorthodox position. If you are a believer, I would suggest that heeding the Words of Life could very well be tainted by the presence of sin and evil, and I would take great cautions listening because, well, you know, in that case one would never be quite sure for 'accuracy' sake.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Asyncritus]

Really? Get convicted didja? heh heh

Here's a postcard from Jesus in case you didn't read the last one:

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

You have a little problem here smaller. Perhaps you can help me resolve it.

Jesus was IN ALL POINTS tempted like as we are. Here's the proof:

Heb 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Are we agreed on that?

Therefore He certainly thought about these things. Therefore, the thought itself is not sin. It cannot be.

If He wasn't tempted by women, then He certainly wasn't tempted 'like as I am', and presumably 'like you are'.

Was He? What's your opinion on that point?

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

Really? Prove it from the scriptures.

Are you being silly, or what? Have you never read Matthew 4, and Luke 4? Go have a look. Then come and talk to me about it.

Ah, so one should leap to your conclusion that God in Christ had lust and evil in His Heart?

Yes Christ certainly did. Have you never read Matt 4 and Luke 4? If you haven't, then have a look and let me know what you think.

If He didn't, then that makes a complete nonsense of His 'overcoming' sin, doesn't it?

And haven't you read Hebrews 4.15? Here it is again:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are ,yet without sin.

How are we tempted? James tells us:

1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then the next step follows:

15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

That's what happens to us. Did it happen to Jesus? Only up to the end of v14.

Ah, so one must 'entertain' the matter. The thought itself, however fleeting, really doesn't count? At what point of the thought does it become a sin?

It only becomes sin when a course of action on it is irrevocably decided.

To go back to your quote above, David looked, lusted and then decided to indulge himself. AT THAT POINT the sin was committed.

Joseph, on the other hand, looked, lusted, but turned tail and ran out of there. He did not sin.

Jesus looked, lusted, and refused point blank to indulge Himself - several times, as in Matt 4 and Luke 4. It is worth noting that if He didn'tlust, then there was no temptation at all.

Which of course, is the great trinitarian stumbling block.

 

[smaller]

You have a little problem here smaller. Perhaps you can help me resolve it.

Jesus was IN ALL POINTS tempted like as we are. Here's the proof:

Heb 4.15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Are we agreed on that?

Certainly and especially if one pays attention to the bold blue fact.

Therefore He certainly thought about these things. Therefore, the thought itself is not sin. It cannot be.

There is no therefore on either count. Thought of sin is sin which progresses to word and ultimately to deed. You are welcome to deny it, but it remains a fact, scripturally speaking, unless of course we are not dealing with scriptural facts?

If He wasn't tempted by women, then He certainly wasn't tempted 'like as I am', and presumably 'like you are'.

Temptation to God in the flesh without sin and temptation to any of the balance of us are two entirely different matters.

Was He? What's your opinion on that point?

NOPE.

Are you being silly, or what? Have you never read Matthew 4, and Luke 4? Go have a look. Then come and talk to me about it. Yes Christ certainly did. Have you never read Matt 4 and Luke 4? If you haven't, then have a look and let me know what you think.

If you think you see Jesus sinning therein, by all means elaborate. If it's there, I will acknowledge it.

More than likely you just have a skewered understanding to derive at that conclusion.

If He didn't, then that makes a complete nonsense of His 'overcoming' sin, doesn't it?

I see nowhere where Jesus overcame 'HIS' supposed 'SIN' therein. Sorry.

And haven't you read Hebrews 4.15? Here it is again:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are ,yet without sin.

Yeah, if we could just strike out the part that disagrees with you eh? lol

How are we tempted? James tells us:

1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then the next step follows:

There is no next step or a voila that magically put 'sin' where there was none. Ungodly lust, even the mere thought of same is certainly SIN, as Jesus taught. But being without sin has its advantages eh?

That's what happens to us. Did it happen to Jesus? Only up to the end of v14.

Your insistence that Jesus was wrong about adultery 'in heart' via mere looking would have to be stricken from the text as well.

It only becomes sin when a course of action on it is irrevocably decided.

Sins are via thought, progressing to word and it finalizes in 'deed.'

When the tempter, that would be SATAN, steals GODS WORDS from the heart of a person, that is a SIN as it is THEFT...yet one did not observe how quickly it happened on the outside, did they?

Here is what Jesus again taught about 'evil' which of course is SIN.

Matthew 15:
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


Mark 7:
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Seems abundantly clear to me.

To go back to your quote above, David looked, lusted and then decided to indulge himself. AT THAT POINT the sin was committed.

NOT according to Jesus, sorry.

Joseph, on the other hand, looked, lusted, but turned tail and ran out of there. He did not sin.

Joseph reacted to the sin being promoted by another. Certainly not the same deal. But I'm not saying Joseph didn't 'think' about it. We have no way to know from the scriptures. If Joseph 'thought' about it, even for 1 brief nano second, it was still 'a sin in mind.'

Jesus looked, lusted, and refused point blank to indulge Himself - several times, as in Matt 4 and Luke 4. It is worth noting that if He didn'tlust, then there was no temptation at all.

Jesus faced an entirely different set of temptation equations that largely revolve around the typical temptations of the devil which would be 'lust' of the following progressions...lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

Which of course, is the great trinitarian stumbling block.

I'm afraid you have erected a dead end street. There is not one whit of text indicating internal tainting of GODS MIND. If you think there is I might suggest you have simply erected an idol that doesn't exist in the scriptures.

Were it so, there would be no way to determine if Jesus' Words were accurate or not as they could potentially have been faulted in and by the progressive workings of sin.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Asyncritus]

Certainly and especially if one pays attention to the bold blue fact.
There is no therefore on either count. Thought of sin is sin which progresses to word and ultimately to deed. You are welcome to deny it, but it remains a fact, scripturally speaking, unless of course we are not dealing with scriptural facts?

Just answer this one question.

Was Jesus ever tempted to do wrong/ sin?

 

[Eventide]

For some reason, those who read that Jesus was tempted automatically think that this means that HE COULD be tempted with evil... although imo it teaches us just the opposite.. that He COULD NOT be tempted with evil.. and we know that God can not be tempted with evil.. that's what the bible says plainly.

Think about it.. how could Satan tempt the Lord with the kingdoms of the world when the LORD created ALL THINGS ? This would be like me trying to tempt Steve Jobs with a $100 bill..

And furthermore, we KNOW that God can't sin because the bible tells us that plainly..

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

This doesn't mean that a Christian can't be carnal and live in the flesh, although it does show us that the life of Christ in us can't sin..

If you believe that Jesus can sin, then what makes you trust in Him.. what if He sins today or tomorrow.. ? Then what.. ?

 

[Sparkey]

The 5 year old boy was in the candy store but didn't have any money. The candy looked good to his eye and he was tempted. Did he sin? Huh? Well, did he?

That answer depends on his subsequent actions doesn't it? If he stole the candy, certainly he sinned. The boy that was tempted to steal and did indeed steal, that boy did sin. If, on the other hand, he resisted the temptation and kept his hands in his pockets? Could it be said that the boy was tempted? Certainly he was. Did he sin?

As far as adultery goes -- consider the marriage contract and the heart of the good Groom who makes the promise of fidelity to his Bride. When we speak of these things we are no longer thinking about a candy store. Anybody who has even so much as heard of porn understands that it is not necessary to be physically with another person to violate a marriage vow. I personally think that Jesus was speaking of our obligation to God and the holiness of the unity of marriage -- but in any case, and even if he were not speaking about sacred secrets -- but only in the most base sense, lust in the heart is sin.

But now if we go back to the little boy in the candy store and try to stretch our imaginations such that there could be sin even when there was no theft, it's possible but not as likely as it would be 12 years later when that same boy was tempted by sexual sin. Perhaps he started drooling at the thought of the candy and went home and schemed to do all in his power to get him some. Lust (even for candy) when concieved brings forth sin --and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

Jesus was tempted but he did not lust. The little boy was tempted but he did not steal. As far as the recent speculation about "What if Jesus sinned today or tomorrow?" -- well, what do you think? Is he eating Milky Way candy bars while in heaven? Or is it possible that his incorruptible body no longer has the same needs?

 

[smaller]

Just answer this one question.

Was Jesus ever tempted to do wrong/ sin?

As stated, being tempted in the case of God in Christ was a 'no sin in Him' position.

Perfection is not changed by temptation whatsoever.

 

[Asyncritus]

As stated, being tempted in the case of God in Christ was a 'no sin in Him' position.

Perfection is not changed by temptation whatsoever.

You haven't answered the question.

Was Jesus ever tempted to sin/ do wrong?

That's a yes or no answer, by the way. No dodging, please.

 

[Free]

You haven't answered the question.

Was Jesus ever tempted to sin/ do wrong?

That's a yes or no answer, by the way. No dodging, please.

Yes, of course he was. But that in no way whatsoever means that he is not God.

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus was tempted but he did not lust.

The 3 temptations of mankind are these (1 John 2.16):

1 The lust of the flesh

2 The lust of the eyes

3 The pride of life

Each of these is a form of lust.

Now, did Jesus have any/all of these?

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes, of course he was. But that in no way whatsoever means that he is not God.

Hang on Free. Let smaller answer the question. I suspect he may say no.

I'll get back to your answer when he has replied.

Async

 

[smaller]

You haven't answered the question.

Was Jesus ever tempted to sin/ do wrong?

That's a yes or no answer, by the way. No dodging, please.

Define 'tempting.'

Did the tempter tempt? Yes

Did either the tempter or the tempt have an effect on Perfection?

No.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

Define 'tempting.'

Did the tempter tempt? Yes

Did either the tempter or the tempt have an effect on Perfection?

No.

s

You've got to be joking: define 'tempting'?

All right - as in the wilderness. He was 'tempted' of the devil.

Does that mean He wanted to do wrong? (A simple yes or no will do).

Remember, we're not talking about whether He did wrong or not. We're talking about whether He was tempted to do wrong or not.

To use your words:COULD the tempter 'have an effect on Perfection?'

Or in other words, COULD Jesus have sinned?

You've ignored the second post about the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (which simply means the lust for power).

How about an answer?

 

[Free]

Define 'tempting.'

Did the tempter tempt? Yes

Did either the tempter or the tempt have an effect on Perfection?

No.

s

Is there more than one way to define "tempting"? Can we not just stick with the standard definition?

It looks like a 'yes' in answer to the question.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let him stew in his own juice, Free.

I will get back to you. Promise.

 

[childeye]

Is there more than one way to define "tempting"? Can we not just stick with the standard definition?

It looks like a 'yes' in answer to the question.

There are semantics. Jesus was definitely tempted by Satan yet he probably did not doubt God because He was the Word so he was never tempted as in he wouldn't budge. He endured such carnal things for our sake including the cross where he sweat blood saying not my carnal will but Your will be done.

To get to the point of this thread Christ is the True Image of God seen as a man from a man's point of view. His submission to death on the cross is testimony of his faithfulness, not only to God but to man. So was he fully God? Who here is God's judge? Maybe we're all just judging ourselves by how we answer and we all are naked. I suddenly feel like blushing.

 

[Free]

To get to the point of this thread Christ is the True Image of God seen as a man from a man's point of view. His submission to death on the cross is testimony of his faithfulness, not only to God but to man. So was he fully God? Who here is God's judge? Maybe we're all just judging ourselves by how we answer and we all are naked. I suddenly feel like blushing.

Jesus was truly God because the Bible says so. It isn't a matter of judging God.

 

[childeye]

Jesus was truly God because the Bible says so. It isn't a matter of judging God.

Of course Jesus was truly God but I just Got finished reading about how he as God was either tempted to sin or he was not. To me since sin is relative to God this appears as if we're judging God by sin relative to man.

 

[smaller]

You've got to be joking: define 'tempting'?

All right - as in the wilderness. He was 'tempted' of the devil.

I'm taking that you consider temptation as illegitimate unless one 'thinks' about doing same. I'd submit that didn't happen 'in' Jesus. It does 'in' everyone else.

Being tempted by Satan could just as well equate to being tempted by a sock puppet in Jesus' case.

Does that mean He wanted to do wrong? (A simple yes or no will do).

Nope.

Remember, we're not talking about whether He did wrong or not. We're talking about whether He was tempted to do wrong or not.

To use your words:COULD the tempter 'have an effect on Perfection?'

Nope. JESUS never gave it a thought.

Or in other words, COULD Jesus have sinned?

Nope.

You've ignored the second post about the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (which simply means the lust for power).

How about an answer?

The temptation certainly contained that methodology, which I addressed prior. That is the common methodology of the devil.

If you are a believer I have no idea 'why' you'd want to make Jesus a 'sinner in mind.' There doesn't seem to be much of a point to that, particularly so when there is no record for us to look to for that particular view.

I will presume there is an undisclosed agenda on your part to try and make a case that can't be made from scriptures.

enjoy!

s

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Scriptural proof that Jesus is The Son of GOd

Jesus was very clear about who he was. Being formed in flesh; he was subject to the needs of flesh.

NARRATOR:
Now when all the people had been baptized and while Jesus after his own baptism had come up from the water and was at prayer, the heavens were suddenly opened and torn apart and John saw the Spirit of God descending in bodily shape like a dove and coming down on Jesus. And a voice spoke from heaven:

'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'
​

NARRATOR:
Immediately after his baptism; Jesus, filled with Holy Spirit; left the Jordan and was driven out into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted there by the devil and he was with the wild beasts. For forty days and forty nights he ate nothing and fasted, after which he was very hungry. The tempter then came to him and said:

SATAN:
If you are the Son of God, command that these stones be turned into loaves of bread.

JESUS:
Scripture says: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'
​

Was Jesus hungry? The Bible says he was.

Was he tempted?