Was Christ Tempted to Sin ?

[savedbygrace57]

jn 832

So there was no temptation?

Yes Christ was tempted but not enticed !

There was no pull to do wrong, to sin?

No, that would mean Christ was enticed inwardly, which is sin and lust ! At that time He would have been a sinner !

Then it was not a temptation at all

It was, from the devils intention but it did not entice Christ to sin ! God ordained it so that Christ's sinlessness would be manifested.

the Bible cannot be trusted because it says He was tempted...

Your understanding cannot be trusted because the bible never said He was enticed, He was tempted !

James 1:13-14 is not describing Christ, but men who are sinners by nature ! That Christ could never be, at least the one I know and serve !

 

[stovebolts]

jn 832



Yes Christ was tempted but not enticed !




No, that would mean Christ was enticed inwardly, which is sin and lust ! At that time He would have been a sinner !



It was, from the devils intention but it did not entice Christ to sin ! God ordained it so that Christ's sinlessness would be manifested.



Your understanding cannot be trusted because the bible never said He was enticed, He was tempted !

James 1:13-14!

I would echo what I've quoted and say:

Lets say somebody tempted me with drugs... well, I know a lot about drugs, and I know that drugs can make you feel pretty good. But I also know that drugs can be very bad. Based on this understanding, I can say no to drugs if I were ever tempted without ever being enticed.

According to James, being tempted isn't the sin. Being enticed by the temptation as SBG puts it is.

When Jesus was tempted in every way, he was never enticed because he understood what he results would be. If we want to look at ourselves as an example, how many times have we sinned in ignorance and had to learn the hard way? If you've ever learned something the hard way, you'll never be enticed again if the lesson truly sank in. This doesn't mean that we'll never be tempted of it again, but we'll be strong enough never to be enticed by it again.

Jesus knew the stakes... after all, he created all things... and He knew the fathers plan. We could even say he understood the plan. So he was the suffering servant, showing us the way. Never sinning, but always understanding what we go through because understands the power of temptation.

 

[John 8:32]

I would echo what I've quoted and say:

Lets say somebody tempted me with drugs... well, I know a lot about drugs, and I know that drugs can make you feel pretty good. But I also know that drugs can be very bad. Based on this understanding, I can say no to drugs if I were ever tempted without ever being enticed.

According to James, being tempted isn't the sin. Being enticed by the temptation as SBG puts it is.

When Jesus was tempted in every way, he was never enticed because he understood what he results would be. If we want to look at ourselves as an example, how many times have we sinned in ignorance and had to learn the hard way? If you've ever learned something the hard way, you'll never be enticed again if the lesson truly sank in. This doesn't mean that we'll never be tempted of it again, but we'll be strong enough never to be enticed by it again.

Jesus knew the stakes... after all, he created all things... and He knew the fathers plan. We could even say he understood the plan. So he was the suffering servant, showing us the way. Never sinning, but always understanding what we go through because understands the power of temptation.

Well Yeaah, He helped write it...

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[elijah23]

I sometimes wonder about this. I believe Jesus was God in flesh, so was God tempted to sin?

The same question comes up whether or not Jesus felt physical pain when he was crucified, since he was God in flesh. I think what really hurt him was how mankind turned their back on him when he had been absolutely faithful to us.

I guess I sort of got off the subject, huh?

 

[Asyncritus]

No, you didn't Elijah.

You merely spoke the words of common sense and truth.

You showed the basic impossibility that faces any serious trinitarian, who has to backpedal furiously to cover the confusion which as clearly as night follows day, is the consequence of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

See how SB has to struggle:

He felt the force of temptation but wasn't tempted! How does one do that, I wonder?

He felt pain because he was flesh, a man.

He also felt temptation, because he was flesh, a man - and you know the scriptures which say that ever so plainly.

Why can't you guys go where scripture goes? That's the real mystery.

 

[wayseer]

No, you didn't Elijah.

You merely spoke the words of common sense and truth.

You showed the basic impossibility that faces any serious trinitarian, who has to backpedal furiously to cover the confusion which as clearly as night follows day, is the consequence of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

See how SB has to struggle:

He felt the force of temptation but wasn't tempted! How does one do that, I wonder?

He felt pain because he was flesh, a man.

He also felt temptation, because he was flesh, a man - and you know the scriptures which say that ever so plainly.

Why can't you guys go where scripture goes? That's the real mystery.

SB is hardly a 'serious trinitarian' as you put it - he has trouble with basic theology let along trying to negotiate the Trinity.

If we accept Jesus was fully God and fully human and there is no confusion then he felt pain, he felt depression and he felt tempted.

As I have said previously, to suggest otherwise means our salvation is nought as Jesus death means nothing.

In fact one Gospel has it that he eat and had others feel his wounds - just to prove the point.

 

[rrowell]

Questions for Oneness

(1) How could Jesus be the Father of Himself (Matt. 16:17)?
​

(2) If Jesus is alone, why did He say He was not alone (Jn. 8:16)?
​

(3) If Jesus is alone, why did He use the plural pronouns “we” and “our” (Jn. 14:23)?
​

(4) How could Jesus stand at His own right hand (Acts 7:55)?
​

(5) If Jesus is alone, why did John say that those who abide in the doctrine of Christ have “both” the Father and the Son (2 John 9)?
​

(6) Jesus said that He always pleased the Father (Jn. 8:29). Paul said that Christ pleased not Himself (Rom. 15:3). How could that be so if Jesus is the Father?
​

John 14:26—“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
​

John 14:26 (Oneness Twist)—“But the Comforter, which is me, whom I will send in my name, I shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
​

 

[John 8:32]

Questions for Oneness

(1) How could Jesus be the Father of Himself (Matt. 16:17)?
​

(2) If Jesus is alone, why did He say He was not alone (Jn. 8:16)?
​

(3) If Jesus is alone, why did He use the plural pronouns “we†and “our†(Jn. 14:23)?
​

(4) How could Jesus stand at His own right hand (Acts 7:55)?
​

(5) If Jesus is alone, why did John say that those who abide in the doctrine of Christ have “both†the Father and the Son (2 John 9)?
​

(6) Jesus said that He always pleased the Father (Jn. 8:29). Paul said that Christ pleased not Himself (Rom. 15:3). How could that be so if Jesus is the Father?
​

John 14:26—“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.â€
​

John 14:26 (Oneness Twist)—“But the Comforter, which is me, whom I will send in my name, I shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.â€
​

Exactly! These and many more problem scriptures demonstrate the error of the Trinity.

Here's another, who did Christ pray to? Himself?

 

[stovebolts]

N
See how SB has to struggle:

He felt the force of temptation but wasn't tempted! How does one do that, I wonder?

He felt pain because he was flesh, a man.

He also felt temptation, because he was flesh, a man - and you know the scriptures which say that ever so plainly.

Why can't you guys go where scripture goes? That's the real mystery.

Life isn't as black and white as we'd like to think. Many things are a paradox, including the cross. How can something live by dying? We are meant to wrestle with scripture and if anyone thinks they've got it nailed, well, how do you nail a paradox aside from calling it what it is?

 

[stovebolts]

SB is hardly a 'serious trinitarian' as you put it - he has trouble with basic theology let along trying to negotiate the Trinity.

You are very correct in saying that I am not a "serious trinitarian'. especially when it's used to divide. I'll put my eggs in the basket that shows us how to live any day over the week than argue over minute detail over the diety of Christ.

As far as having trouble with basic theology, again you are correct in that I do not subscribe to all of your theology. I would take it one step further and state that when I argue theology, I generally don't answer as expected either. In many cases it's not that I haven't heard the arguments because I have. I simply choose to take a path less traveled. After all, the same arguments have been put up for centuries and no clear 'winner' has emerged. No, I'd rather grow and be stretched than argue the same old arguments.

Now then, I was taught that good theology always builds off solid exegesis, and the more disciplines you have backing your exegesis, the tighter your theology will be. If you ever care to do some exegesis, well then, that would be educational for everyone. Unfortunatly most don't even know what exegesis is, let alone how to do it.

Grace and Peace.

 

[wayseer]

You are very correct in saying that I am not a "serious trinitarian'. especially when it's used to divide. I'll put my eggs in the basket that shows us how to live any day over the week than argue over minute detail over the diety of Christ.

As far as having trouble with basic theology, again you are correct in that I do not subscribe to all of your theology. I would take it one step further and state that when I argue theology, I generally don't answer as expected either. In many cases it's not that I haven't heard the arguments because I have. I simply choose to take a path less traveled. After all, the same arguments have been put up for centuries and no clear 'winner' has emerged. No, I'd rather grow and be stretched than argue the same old arguments.

Now then, I was taught that good theology always builds off solid exegesis, and the more disciplines you have backing your exegesis, the tighter your theology will be. If you ever care to do some exegesis, well then, that would be educational for everyone. Unfortunatly most don't even know what exegesis is, let alone how to do it.

Grace and Peace.

A spirited defense but one which does not address the topic at hand - was Jesus tempted? Regardless - my apologies.

You have made the observation that while Jesus 'felt' temptation he somehow was NOT tempted. This requires explanation. To me it sounds more like a two-way bet than anything else - covering both Jesus' divinity and humanity while elevating Jesus above humanity.

I can understand your position - and it is one the Early Fathers argued over for hundreds of years - not always with success.

The basic question which your position reveals is - how can a 'pure' divine entity have anything to do with a sullied and 'impure' humanity? As a result a number circulatory doctrines have sprung up around this very issue - the perpetual virginity of Mary being but one.

The real issue is soteriological - is our salvation genuine or just a pipe dream? If Jesus is little more than a 'good' man then we still lack access to God. Is Jesus is divine then what he did has no bearing on humanity. Either way we loose. Rather than adopting a 'two ends against the middle' theory we need to acknowledge that we are dealing with that which is largely beyond human experience. God, quite literally, is amazing and continues to confound humanity.

On this point I adopted the Orthodox position - that we are dealing with a 'mystery' and that more the we try to 'understand' the more we tire ourselves in knots.

 

[wayseer]

Questions for Oneness

(1) How could Jesus be the Father of Himself (Matt. 16:17)?
​

(2) If Jesus is alone, why did He say He was not alone (Jn. 8:16)?
​

(3) If Jesus is alone, why did He use the plural pronouns “we” and “our” (Jn. 14:23)?
​

(4) How could Jesus stand at His own right hand (Acts 7:55)?
​

(5) If Jesus is alone, why did John say that those who abide in the doctrine of Christ have “both” the Father and the Son (2 John 9)?
​

(6) Jesus said that He always pleased the Father (Jn. 8:29). Paul said that Christ pleased not Himself (Rom. 15:3). How could that be so if Jesus is the Father?
​

John 14:26—“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
​

John 14:26 (Oneness Twist)—“But the Comforter, which is me, whom I will send in my name, I shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
​

(1) You are trying to use human logic to unmask the divine - not always successful. And I fail to understand what Matt 16:17 has to do with this Q.

(2) You have torn this text our of its context to satisfy your own ideas - not good exegesis. The situation to which Jesus addresses his words is found in John 8: 19b.

(3) Again you selecting text for your own reason. I see no incongruity.

(4) The object is Stephen - not Jesus.

(5) This is a long bow. How does this text support your thesis?

(6) Trying to stitch text together to support an ideology is not exegesis.

... and what has any of this to do with OP?

 

[rrowell]

(1) You are trying to use human logic to unmask the divine - not always successful. And I fail to understand what Matt 16:17 has to do with this Q.

(2) You have torn this text our of its context to satisfy your own ideas - not good exegesis. The situation to which Jesus addresses his words is found in John 8: 19b.

(3) Again you selecting text for your own reason. I see no incongruity.

(4) The object is Stephen - not Jesus.

(5) This is a long bow. How does this text support your thesis?

(6) Trying to stitch text together to support an ideology is not exegesis.

... and what has any of this to do with OP?

I have never seen anyone flop as much as you, you have set here on this forum, denied the divinity of the bible, said Jesus and God are the same person, then change subjects and tell someone what proper exegesis is?

Exegesis of what? the bible you say is of men and not God?
Your on the wrong forum.

 

[wayseer]

I have never seen anyone flop as much as you, you have set here on this forum, denied the divinity of the bible

If you think the Bible is divine then you are placing the Bible above God. The Bible is not a divine 'object'. To do so is idolatry.

said Jesus and God are the same person

They aren't? The Nicene Creed begs to differ.

Your on the wrong forum.

I accept I ask inconvenient questions. But the reason my questions seem 'inconvenient' is that many Christians are not prepared to question their own ideology nor look more closely at the context of text rather taking text out of context and using it for their own purposes.

You have taken certain text which you try to use to support a position which the texts themselves cannot support. It is apparent from one such text that you seem to lack an understanding of basic English grammar (4).

You may have a case but you have to back up your case with some consistency in your argument. If you are intent of trying to prove that The Father of Jesus are not one then you have to address those texts which indicate that both were 'begotten', not 'made'. This is complex exegesis, one which the Patristic Fathers struggled with for hundreds of years.

Further, if, as you indicate, the Father and Jesus are not one then you have to explain how this division effects soteriology - the process of salvation. If, as you contend, Jesus was only human and not divine - what does his death mean to you?

 

[rrowell]

If you think the Bible is divine then you are placing the Bible above God. The Bible is not a divine 'object'. To do so is idolatry.

The Bible is the God Breathed word, His words, I know you don't believe that, and that's fine, but your on the wrong forum.

They aren't? The Nicene Creed begs to differ.

I really don't care what any Creed say's, I don't believe in Creeds or Governing Bodies... I am non denominational...

But I am sure that the Nicene Creed does not say Jesus and God are the same, but that Jesus and God and Holy Spirit are three separate persons acting as one (a Godhead), not only do you twist the Bible but man made doctrine as well.

I accept I ask inconvenient questions. But the reason my questions seem 'inconvenient' is that many Christians are not prepared to question their own ideology nor look more closely at the context of text rather taking text out of context and using it for their own purposes.

Your questions are usually off topic and designed to stir controversy, usually talking out both sides of your mouth, flopping like a fish out of water.
I do however agree with many taking things out of context.

You have taken certain text which you try to use to support a position which the texts themselves cannot support. It is apparent from one such text that you seem to lack an understanding of basic English grammar (4).

I hardly think you are one to speak on ones grammar, have a look at your statement you made in your next quote from you : "If you are intent of trying to prove that The Father of Jesus are not one then you have to address those texts which indicate that both were 'begotten', not 'made'.

Hardly making sense... should it not be "Father and Jesus"?
I have made many reference to scripture, because it does not fit your ideology you say its out of context (why would you care, according to you the bible is a book written from men anyway)

You may have a case but you have to back up your case with some consistency in your argument. If you are intent of trying to prove that The Father of Jesus are not one then you have to address those texts which indicate that both were 'begotten', not 'made'. This is complex exegesis, one which the Patristic Fathers struggled with for hundreds of years.

It is impossible to have consistency with you, you flop like a fish, once you say the bible is written by men with no inspiration, then you say it is, you have no idea what inspiration is and tell someone they should know what they are talking about before they speak...

Do you even have a bible?

Further, if, as you indicate, the Father and Jesus are not one then you have to explain how this division effects soteriology - the process of salvation. If, as you contend, Jesus was only human and not divine - what does his death mean to you?

I have never contended that Jesus was only human and not divine, this is a conclusion you have drawn, you obviously believe Jesus and God "are one" in the same person, I maintain Jesus is the word in flesh, one of three separate persons in the Godhead, Jesus the man is the word in spirit.

You are obviously of universalism, if not you fit perfectly into oneness. either way I feel sorry for you

 

[wayseer]

The Bible is the God Breathed word, His words, I know you don't believe that

You initially claimed the Bible is 'divine'. I challenged your thesis. You now state the Bible is 'God breathed'. You sound confused.

But to rest your mind - I am quite amendable to the term 'God breathed'.

I really don't care what any Creed say's, I don't believe in Creeds or Governing Bodies... I am non denominational...

I suggest you should 'care'. The Creed is actually what defines a Christian.

But I am sure that the Nicene Creed does not say Jesus and God are the same, but that Jesus and God and Holy Spirit are three separate persons acting as one (a Godhead), not only do you twist the Bible but man made doctrine as well.

When you get around to reading it let me know.

I hardly think you are one to speak on ones grammar, have a look at your statement you made in your next quote from you : "If you are intent of trying to prove that The Father of Jesus are not one then you have to address those texts which indicate that both were 'begotten', not 'made'.

So I made a 'typo'. Good of you to pick it up. Now apply the same standard of critical thinking to the particular text involved and you should pick up your own mistake.

I have made many reference to scripture, because it does not fit your ideology you say its out of context (why would you care, according to you the bible is a book written from men anyway)

I care because I trust I think critically and a cut n' paste methodology is not exegesis.

It is impossible to have consistency with you, you flop like a fish, once you say the bible is written by men with no inspiration, then you say it is, you have no idea what inspiration is and tell someone they should know what they are talking about before they speak...

I have made no such comment.

I have never contended that Jesus was only human and not divine, this is a conclusion you have drawn, you obviously believe Jesus and God "are one" in the same person, I maintain Jesus is the word in flesh, one of three separate persons in the Godhead, Jesus the man is the word in spirit.

If you accept all of this I fail to understand why you raised your 'questions' at all. If you accept the doctrine of the Trinity as you indicate here - why the question - How could Jesus be the Father of Himself? If you accept Jesus was both fully divine and fully human I fail to understand why you need to ask this question. In raising you questions you suggest that the Father (God) and Jesus are not one.

The point being - if Jesus was both fully human and fully divine then he would have felt hunger and pain and temptation - which get's us back to the OP.
'

 

[rrowell]

You initially claimed the Bible is 'divine'. I challenged your thesis. You now state the Bible is 'God breathed'. You sound confused.

But to rest your mind - I am quite amendable to the term 'God breathed'.

It is not my mind that is not at rest, I know what the Bible is and do not question it, it is you that refutes the validity of the Bible, not me, as I have said before and Ill say it again, you have now idea what "inspiration" or "inspired" means, no I believe you have no idea what "divinity" is either.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


θεοπνευστος 2315 theopneustos theh-op'-nyoo-stos from 2316 and a presumed derivative of 4154; divinely breathed

I suggest you should 'care'. The Creed is actually what defines a Christian.

I would suggest anyone paying any mind to one of your suggestions should take heed and do so with extreme caution, as I said I am non denominational, the Bible describes what defines a "Christian", no creed of any kind "Apostolic" "Nicene" or any other, they are all man made and without authority.:

Nicene Creed

Icon depicting Emperor Constantine (center) and the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea of 325 as holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381


The Nicene Creed (Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the creed or profession of faith (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως) that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene (

/ˈnaɪsiːn/) because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (İznik in what is now Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[1]
The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Anglican Church, the Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and many Protestant denominations, forming the eponymous mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.[2]

I no not belong to any of those listed above...

When you get around to reading it let me know.

I have read it before, no need to read it again, so if your waiting, it will be a long long time.

So I made a 'typo'. Good of you to pick it up. Now apply the same standard of critical thinking to the particular text involved and you should pick up your own mistake.

Everyone makes a typo, your the first I have seen to call someones typo's out, if you don't want your typo's called out then don't call out others on them, we all make them.

I care because I trust I think critically and a cut n' paste methodology is not exegesis.

Cut and past has nothing to do with exegesis, like "inspiration" and "divinity" you need to learn what "exegesis" is, but then again scripture means nothing to you, you deny the validity of the Bible.

I have made no such comment.

How about I Jog your memory a little, here is one of our discussions in the past that follows:

Re: Women

First you say this:

Originally Posted by wayseer
So do I - I just don't accept God wrote it.

I respond with this:

Originally Posted by rrowell
Do you have a clue as to what inspiration means?

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Then you say this?:

Originally Posted by wayseer
Exactly what I said - so I fail to understand the problem.

You have no clue what "inspiration of God" is, you flop like a fish out of water.
I suggest you do a study of what "inspired" means.
​

If you accept all of this I fail to understand why you raised your 'questions' at all. If you accept the doctrine of the Trinity as you indicate here - why the question - How could Jesus be the Father of Himself? If you accept Jesus was both fully divine and fully human I fail to understand why you need to ask this question. In raising you questions you suggest that the Father (God) and Jesus are not one.

The point being - if Jesus was both fully human and fully divine then he would have felt hunger and pain and temptation - which get's us back to the OP.
'

You have made accusation that Jesus and God are the same, this is oneness

 

[wayseer]

You have made accusation that Jesus and God are the same, this is oneness

And ... ?

 

[rrowell]

Originally Posted by rrowell
You have made accusation that Jesus and God are the same, this is oneness

And ... ?

Is that what you believe? Jesus and God are the same person? not two persons acting as one?

 

[smaller]

Is that what you believe? Jesus and God are the same person? not two persons acting as one?

Heresy hunting. What a lovely pastime. I'm fairly certain that any common person would see such engagements rather insanely entertaining.

I sure do.

s