Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT "fully God"

[smaller]

Re: Scriptural proof that Jesus is The Son of GOd

Was Jesus hungry? The Bible says he was.

Was he tempted?

John 4:
32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

 

[jasoncran]

and jesus brake bread with them and said this is my body..

hmm did he eat that bread or did it magically disappear? he was celebrating the last time on earth before his death the passover while instatuting the communion.

he also was accused of eating with sinners. that wasnt a lie for so he did. think of zacheus.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Scriptural proof that Jesus is The Son of GOd

John 4:
32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

If you're trying to say that Jesus wasn't hungry - do so without equivocation. Speak plainly. The bible clearly states he was. Who should I believe?

 

[smaller]

Re: Scriptural proof that Jesus is The Son of GOd

If you're trying to say that Jesus wasn't hungry - do so without equivocation. Speak plainly. The bible clearly states he was. Who should I believe?

Physical hunger is not a sin that I'm aware of. Not saying He wasn't physically hungry.

I would point out that spiritual food appears to be in view as well, as in Living Bread, which Jesus obviously had:

John 6:48
I am that bread of life.

From knowing your posts, we probably agree that Jesus was not a 'sinner' in Thought, Word or Deed.

The 'first' temptation to Christ was to turn stones into bread. That was a temptation of the flesh, to use His Power to satiate same, not to just eat.

Jesus had other food. Words of Life, which He deployed 'in Truth, as Truth' to the tempter.

Similarities can be deployed in the remaining two temptations, which again progress to lust of the eyes...(all the kingdoms of the world) and the pride of life (cast yourself down and the angels will hold/carry you up.)

Main point being, Jesus recognized exactly what the course of those temptations were, and addressed them accordingly and Perfectly according to Gods Word, HIS Word.

In these Perfect Measures, He remained steadfast, not only in the temptation accounts, but in all his dealings with 'satan.'

enjoy!

s

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Scriptural proof: Jesus IS the Son of God

Physical hunger is not a sin that I'm aware of. Not saying He wasn't physically hungry.

I would point out that spiritual food appears to be in view as well, as in Living Bread, which Jesus obviously had:

John 6:48
I am that bread of life.

From knowing your posts, we probably agree that Jesus was not a 'sinner' in Thought, Word or Deed.

The 'first' temptation to Christ was to turn stones into bread. That was a temptation of the flesh, to use His Power to satiate same, not to just eat.

Jesus had other food. Words of Life, which He deployed 'in Truth, as Truth' to the tempter.

Similarities can be deployed in the remaining two temptations, which again progress to lust of the eyes...(all the kingdoms of the world) and the pride of life (cast yourself down and the angels will hold/carry you up.)

Main point being, Jesus recognized exactly what the course of those temptations were, and addressed them accordingly and Perfectly according to Gods Word, HIS Word.

In these Perfect Measures, He remained steadfast, not only in the temptation accounts, but in all his dealings with 'satan.'

enjoy!

s

Thanks, smaller. I have no problem with what you said in this, your last post here. Jesus was indeed hungry because he was born in the flesh and subject to the needs of the flesh. He was indeed tempted and had been led by the Holy Spirit (who IS altogether holy and within there can be NO sin) expressly for that purpose: to be tempted. It is as you have declared, Jesus did not sin. Neither in thought, word nor deed. That does not mean that he was not sorely tempted.

It is as Paul has stated:

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." (Hbr 4:15 NIV)
​

And again,

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hbr 2:16-18 KJV)
​

 

[smaller]

Re: Scriptural proof: Jesus IS the Son of God

Thanks, smaller. I have no problem with what you said in this, your last post here. Jesus was indeed hungry because he was born in the flesh and subject to the needs of the flesh. He was indeed tempted and had been led by the Holy Spirit (who IS altogether holy and within there can be NO sin) expressly for that purpose: to be tempted. It is as you have declared, Jesus did not sin. Neither in thought, word nor deed. That does not mean that he was not sorely tempted.

It is as Paul has stated:

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." (Hbr 4:15 NIV)
​

And again,

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hbr 2:16-18 KJV)
​

Jesus had One Phenomenal Difference as compared to any other 'man.'

John 3:34
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

The UnLimited Spirit of God overcomes 'all things.'

That is not available by a persons choice, it is from God and a gift of same, to us, by measure, to Him without.

More importantly in these patterns very specific methodologies of our enemies are shown. These are not external enemies for us, but internal. Our temptations are 'internal' and THAT is where our enemies of The Spirit reside.

Jesus had no such issues, as The Spirit without measure was upon Him.

enjoy!

s

 

[Asyncritus]

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.

And this is where you make a complete nonsense of what Jesus achieved. See below.

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

Nope.

This is even worse.

I grant you this: you are at least consistent, but your consistency leads you to flatly contradict scripture.

If Jesus was 'fully' God, there was no way He could possibly be tempted to do wrong. Scripture says so extremely clearly, as I have pointed out, and will now remind you:

James 1.13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man...

That statement is only common sense, really.

But you have led yourself completely up the creek, because what you've just said flatly contradicts what a great chunk of scripture says ever so plainly:

Matt 4 and Luke 4 describe the 'temptations' in the wilderness. 'To be tempted of the devil' it says.

'Nope' you say.

I think you're in very deep mud just about there.

Hebrews says:

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.

You say:

Nope. JESUS never gave it a thought.

Or in other words, COULD Jesus have sinned?


Nope.

I don't think you could be in deeper trouble than that.

Something's gotta give. How are you going to resolve your problem, smaller?

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.

With all due respect, smaller, you haven't. You said words to the effect that Jesus didn't 'lust'.

Yet, in the wilderness, He was TEMPTED to turn stones into bread, to satisfy His hunger. It says so. That is the lust of the flesh.

He was TEMPTED to take all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. It says so. That is the lust of the eyes.

He was TEMPTED to jump off the pinnacle of the temple. It says so. That is the pride of life.

They are all there. AND HE CONQUERED THEM. If He wasn't tempted to do these things, if He didn't feel the force of the evil that He was contemplating, that was seeking to drag Him down, then there was no CONQUEST. There was nothing to overcome.

Surely you can see that.

But if you do see that, then there are dire consequences.

So what are you going to do? Dig your heels in, or face the force of fact?

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.

Smaller, that is a terrible thing to say. My earnest desire is to go where scripture leads me, wherever that may be. I'm very much like Sherlock Holmes - I go docilely where the facts may lead, without fear or favour.

Surely from the facts I've listed above, you can see the truth of what I'm saying? That He was "...was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

You have a decision to make. Was He?

 

[savedbygrace57]

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.

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.

It is also my understanding that Jesus was NOT "fully man"
because since he was "without sin", he did not have man's sin nature.

Which one of those verses said anything about Christ not being fully God ? I do not see that statement !

 

[smaller]

And this is where you make a complete nonsense of what Jesus achieved. See below.

This is even worse.

I grant you this: you are at least consistent, but your consistency leads you to flatly contradict scripture.

The assumption you put in play is that Jesus somehow sinned in thought, word or deed. The fact is that none of those things are presented in the scriptures. Temptation in the case of Jesus did not = sin or sinning. Why? Because in Him there is no sin. That cannot be said for anyone else. We've gone over it repeatedly, but you insist that you 'must' for some reason make Jesus at a minimum, a sinner in 'mind.' Why, I do not know. One might think they need just a tad more evidence to make that case.

If Jesus was 'fully' God, there was no way He could possibly be tempted to do wrong.

Your claim is again, that the temptation in order to be legitimate includes actions of mind, ,word or deed, and that didn't happen. Again a false assumption on your part to legitimize the 'effect' of temptation to equal 'sin' when that isn't the case whatsoever.

Scripture says so extremely clearly, as I have pointed out, and will now remind you:

James 1.13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man...

That statement is only common sense, really.

But you have led yourself completely up the creek, because what you've just said flatly contradicts what a great chunk of scripture says ever so plainly:

Matt 4 and Luke 4 describe the 'temptations' in the wilderness. 'To be tempted of the devil' it says.

You can chase your tail all the day long. The temptation does not have to have 'effect' to be temptation nor does it have to be sin in thought, word or deed. It was still temptation and it had ZERO effect.

'Nope' you say.

I think you're in very deep mud just about there.

Only because you have a little program in your head that says temptation means Jesus sinned. That is not logical whatsoever. But just so you know, I have ran across a handful of people in my life that believe Jesus was a sinner, and it is impossible to sway such people regardless of reasoning. They get an idea in their heads and then it captures them and they can't stop playing the program in their minds. They then become 'enslaved' to that program and they can't get out. You will perhaps spend the balance of your life running that program in your mind.

The bottom line however is that Jesus has no sin, did no sin. That won't change because of the program in your head and temptation does not = sin when one has 'no sin' in them. Having no sin is the differentiating factor between God in the flesh and everyone else.

Hebrews says:

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.

You say:

I don't think you could be in deeper trouble than that.

Well, as the little program in your head keeps saying, but also keeps totally bypassing the BIG BLUE BOLD above. If we could only just slash that from the text, then we could make Jesus A SINNER couldn't we? Why you wanna do that, as I said prior, is subject to question. Point 2 in this discussion is that some people who think as you do, desiring to make God in Christ a sinner, really have a form of megalomania and their logic and reason functions stop working.

Something's gotta give. How are you going to resolve your problem, smaller?

Just prove from a single line in text that Jesus sinned in thought, word or deed. And for the record I could make a MUCH better case for your position than your program. I have done this exercise many times with myself and others. IF you wanna know where my reasoning landed, it landed on the fact that God is Greater than the sum of all evil, and that evil serves His Purposes because He Is Able to make that happen on the basis of His Overwhelming Superiority over 'all things.'

Part of the difficulty in people who do not fully accept the Fully God Nature of GOD in Christ is that they want to discount that side of the ledger and make Jesus different than God, and that is and remains a basic foul of reasoning. One cannot discount GOD in Christ in any way or DIVIDE Jesus from God, which is what you are trying to perform. That action was deemed a heresy many centuries ago, and I agree with that determination.

With all due respect, smaller, you haven't. You said words to the effect that Jesus didn't 'lust'.

Sinful lust, yes. I do believe there is righteous and Godly Lust, which is VERY JEALOUS btw. God has a tremendous amount of passion for His creation. I do not consider that type of 'desire' a sin, and that is His Nature in play at all times, never swayed and NEVER sinning.

Yet, in the wilderness, He was TEMPTED to turn stones into bread, to satisfy His hunger. It says so. That is the lust of the flesh.

Again, your little head case keeps trying to turn that 'external temptation' from 'another entity' into SIN in Jesus. That does not logic out. We are able to 'tell' what is in a persons mind by what they speak. The LIPS are a doorway to the MIND. Jesus responded with THE TRUTH, and that TRUTH WAS IN HIS MIND, FULLY AS GOD THEREIN.

I doubt at this time you will be able to find a release from that little program in your head. But if you put that aside and use reason apart from that program, maybe even pray about it a little, God in Christ will grant you release from that program that has captured your thinking. You have my prayers for same anyway.

He was TEMPTED to take all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. It says so. That is the lust of the eyes.

He was TEMPTED to jump off the pinnacle of the temple. It says so. That is the pride of life.

They are all there. AND HE CONQUERED THEM. If He wasn't tempted to do these things, if He didn't feel the force of the evil that He was contemplating, that was seeking to drag Him down, then there was no CONQUEST. There was nothing to overcome.

Surely you can see that.

But you see, you keep equating that Jesus had to SIN in MIND in order to conquer, and logically that doesn't have to be the case whatsoever. Being externally tempted and having that temptation turn into even a thought of sin in God in Christ simply did not happen, nor is there any record of such a consequence. If you had a basis other than that little program in your head, such as a 'written' account of Jesus sinning in mind, you could have yer brownie points.

But if you do see that, then there are dire consequences.

So what are you going to do? Dig your heels in, or face the force of fact?

Smaller, that is a terrible thing to say. My earnest desire is to go where scripture leads me, wherever that may be. I'm very much like Sherlock Holmes - I go docilely where the facts may lead, without fear or favour.

Surely from the facts I've listed above, you can see the truth of what I'm saying? That He was "...was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

You have a decision to make. Was He?

Yeah, if we could only eliminate those words we don't like that don't fit the little program in our heads.

I prefer to use those Words as my basis of reasoning. If they can't be logically eliminated, which there is no way to do as they are already written, then the fault in logic and reasoning is on the part of the one trying to do the same. That is where you are, and that is probably where you will remain captive. There is one guy in particular that I ran across, oh, about 11 years ago, and the man was a great Bible student, but he too got the same little idea in his own head, and he too remains there to this day. One cannot move him from that little program. And he is also passionate in trying to get recruits for his little program.

My logic and reasoning did not land me there, because it is subservient to the facts that are written. You simply can't insert those facts into your program because it makes your construct or as I call it, your IDOL in MIND, to fall. And the little program won't let that happen will it?

Well, anyway, good luck with that. I think we've pretty well exhausted this subject. When your program can eliminate the BIG BLUE BOLD above, feel free to let me know. (hint: it ain't gonna happen)

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Asyncritus]

The assumption you put in play is that Jesus somehow sinned in thought, word or deed. The fact is that none of those things are presented in the scriptures. Temptation in the case of Jesus did not = sin or sinning. Why? Because in Him there is no sin. That cannot be said for anyone else. We've gone over it repeatedly, but you insist that you 'must' for some reason make Jesus at a minimum, a sinner in 'mind.' Why, I do not know. One might think they need just a tad more evidence to make that case.

I'm beginning to think you have a blindfold on when you read what Paul writes. Or can you only see what is printed in blue?

If so, here is the passage again with the really relevant part in BLUE.

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.

Did you get that?

tempted like as we are.

How are we tempted? In our minds.

How was Jesus tempted? In His mind.

Where is your problem?

I have NEVER SAID that He sinned. That's what YOU said in the bit quoted above.

So since HE WAS tempted, the question stands:

COULD HE have sinned?

 

[smaller]

Where is your problem?

I have NEVER SAID that He sinned. That's what YOU said in the bit quoted above.

So since HE WAS tempted, the question stands:

COULD HE have sinned?

Ah, well, you should have said this all was complete speculation on your part that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures, apologetics or theology and saved us both some time.

Maybe you thought this was the personal fantasy board?

 

[Asyncritus]

Ah, well, you should have said this all was complete speculation on your part that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures, apologetics or theology and saved us both some time.

Maybe you thought this was the personal fantasy board?

Stop being silly and answer the question smaller.

COULD HE have sinned?

A simple yes or no will do.

Thanks in anticipation.

 

[smaller]

Stop being silly and answer the question smaller.

COULD HE have sinned?

A simple yes or no will do.

Thanks in anticipation.

According to the scriptures, as prior stated, no.

You are welcome to engage in the fantasy at your leisure.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

According to the scriptures, as prior stated, no.

s

Does that mean that He WASN'T tempted like as we are?

 

[smaller]

Does that mean that He WASN'T tempted like as we are?

Well, let's see. You are not accusing Jesus of sinning, right?

So you might agree that the action of temptation took no hold IN Him?

If that's the case, no problemO. As again repeatedly stated, there is a difference in temptation called for puposes of this thread, the BIG BOLD BLUE statement 'in Him is no sin.'

Yeah, 'like' with that one very large caveat.

So what's yer point again?

 

[Sparkey]

Child like reasoning is useful sometimes.
That's a fair enough question, "Could Jesus have sinned?"
Another way of thinking about it would be to ask, "Did Jesus (the man) have free will?"

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, let's see. You are not accusing Jesus of sinning, right?

So you might agree that the action of temptation took no hold IN Him?

We agree that He did no sin. Paul says so VERY clearly. So does Peter.

The point I want to be absolutely clear about is the one you are studiously avoiding.

COULD HE have sinned?

 

[Asyncritus]

Free

I think he needs some help with this point.

 

[smaller]

We agree that He did no sin. Paul says so VERY clearly. So does Peter.

The point I want to be absolutely clear about is the one you are studiously avoiding.

COULD HE have sinned?

The scriptural fact says He didn't. You admit same. So, engage in the speculation all you want. Such is not a scriptural pursuit, but personal speculation.

Could the Sun really be just a very large Orange or perhaps a round yellow banana?

Sure, given enough dope.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

The scriptural fact says He didn't. You admit same. So, engage in the speculation all you want. Such is not a scriptural pursuit, but personal speculation.

Oh come on smaller. Talk some sense and answer the question.

COULD HE have sinned?

(It's in blue, so you can read it).

Yes or no will do nicely.