Was it possible for Christ to have sinned ?

[jgredline]

According to Hebrews 2:17-18

17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

The writer of Hebrews says that Christ “had to be made like His brethren in all things… For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted†(2:17–18, nasb). Does this mean that Christ could have sinned?

I have my thoughts but what say you?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Jesus was obviously not a mere mortal ...otherwise He WOULD have sinned. Does this mean that Jesus had a decided advantage over the rest of us? Obviously, He did. I don't know that the same effort would have been required for Jesus not to be tempted to sin as the effort WE require not to be tempted to sin. The best we can usually do is to remove ourselves from those temptations for which we might have a propensity to sin, i.e. stay away from any liquor environment if one is an alcoholic.

 

[thessalonian]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus was obviously not a mere mortal ...otherwise He WOULD have sinned.

I do not agree with this. Adam and Eve in the Garden did not have to sin. The scriptures tell us that in the Garden they were "good". Further we will be mortals still after the resurrection when our bodies rise. Will we still sin? We will have the capabilities of sin (though there will be no temptation) but we will not sin. It is not "mortalness" that causes us to sin, though it allows for it. Even if we were not mortal men, the angels were capable of sin. For 1/3 of them fell with Lucifer. The cause of sin is rebellion against God by the will. Jesus had the ability to sin because he was 100% man. He was tempted and did have to resist sin. But his will was not in rebellion. It was in complete union with God. Therefore he did not sin. Jesus had the divine nature and so he could not sin because it was completely against his nature, not corrupted by the fallen nature of man (he did not have the fallen nature, though he did have a human nature). It is our fallen natures that keep us in sin. However in the garden Adam and Eve did not have a fallen nature. Rebellion as with the angels caused them to sin. They let their wills fall out of union with God who wishes to restore our union to him through Jesus Christ.

 

[Georges]

I believe it was possible...Did he? I believe he kept Torah perfectly, especially after he was endowed with the power of God's Holy Spirit after his baptism. However, the Torah did provide means to make a man righteous by atonement...Did Jesus sin (and repent, or atone) before his baptism and the endowment by the HS....? He must have been able to sin, or else the whole substitution thing would not work...

 

[MrVersatile48]

Thess disagrees that Jesus was not a mere mortal, & says He was 100% man

John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1 make it crystal clear that Jesus was, & is, none less than the Almighty Creator in human form

Jesus said, 'I & the Father are one' - John 10:30

He said, in John 14, 'He who gas seen Me has seen the Father'

The Bible also repeatedly makes it clear that it was because He was sinless that He alone could 'take away the sin of the world'

'Neither is there salvation in any other..there is no other name under Heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved'

'He who has the Son has the Father: he who does not have the Son, does not have the Father'

Thess & RCC falsely claim that Mary was sinless, that she is 'Queen of Heaven', an 'eternal virgin' (despite the clear evidence of Jesus' younger brothers & sisters) & 'co-redemptrix'

Like the forbidden pagan Isis/Osiris etc cults, RCC place Mary higher than Jesus, as a false goddess, & hold the words of corrupt popes, cardinals, monks & priests as an 'infallible magisterium' while they regularly deny, twist & corrupt the Word of God


'Beware false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing: inwardly, they are ravenous wolves'

'Their folly will be clear to all'

'& great will be the fall..'

George posted while I was still writing, but this seems to cover that

I was actually going to add that the Bible repeatedly - as in Revelation 22 - blesses all who take God at His Word & curses all who reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the King of kings & Lord of lords

Ian

 

[Drew]

I believe that Christ could indeed have sinned.

 

[thessalonian]

Sigh, more off topic postings, distortions, and personal attacks on what I hold true. Do you ever tire of bearing false witness Mr. V?

Thess disagrees that Jesus was not a mere mortal, & says He was 100% man

You are quite wrong about what I believe Mr. V. But then you display your ignorance of Catholicism time and time again so what more would we expect. Jesus was 100% man but also 100% God. Not fifty fifty, such that some part of him was not God. And no that is not 200%.

Thess & RCC falsely claim that Mary was sinless, that she is 'Queen of Heaven', an 'eternal virgin' (despite the clear evidence of Jesus' younger brothers & sisters) & 'co-redemptrix'

What would full of grace be? How could her "soul maginify the Lord" if it was sinful? Go see the ark of the covenant thread in the RCC section and I will get to more.

Jesus had brothers and sisters. This is very true and I don't deny it. But show me the verse that says "Joses, son of Mary". It's not in their dude and Joses and simon and Jude can be shown to be quite likely not immediate brothers but relatives of Jesus. You simply cannot prove they are not. The Hebrew/Greek terms for brother allow for this wider usage.

Like the forbidden pagan Isis/Osiris etc cults, RCC place Mary higher than Jesus, as a false goddess,

Nope that's a lie. Mary is not higher than Jesus. She interceeds to him for us. She can do nothing on her own for us except ask for the grace he has earned. You twist again.

'Their folly will be clear to all'

Yes it is. :-D

 

[Fat]

I have my thoughts but what say you?

Well first I would want to define sin. I think a sin is anything man does that displeases God. Sin has to be committed against God. When God takes a human life it is not a sin, He can not sin against Himself. He can not displease Himself.

Could a member of the Trinity sin against another member? NO is my thought.

By grace alone
Fat

 

[Solo]

.
9 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.
1 John 3:9
.

 

[Imagican]

Absolutely He 'could have sinned'. He didn't though. He 'overcame' the temptation and was thereby 'worthy' to be offered as 'a SPOTLESS' Sacrifice, the LAMB of God, WITHOUT blemish. Otherwise, there would be NO point in the offering.

Folks, Christ WAS/IS the example that we are to FOLLOW. We are NOT the 'only begotten' and therefore are MORE subseptable to temptation, BUT, we are told that we will NOT be offered MORE than we can withstand. That in itself is an indication that we TOO may be 'spotless' and 'without blemish' through the 'blood of Jesus Christ'. Do you believe it? Of COURSE NOT, that's why it's SO easy to continue in SIN. For it takes FAITH. It MUST be believed to be accomplished.

 

[jgredline]

Ok Let me see if I could make heads or tails of what was said putting aside the stuff that was not related to the question
Some of you argued that Christ could not have sinned. You believe that our Lord was tempted like we are and that He can sympathize with our weaknesses, but that He was incapable of sinning. In support of this view you argue, first, that since Christ was God, and since God cannot sin and here are a couple of verses to support this argument (Heb. 6:17; James 1:13), it follows that Christ could not sin either. Second, since Christ had no fallen human nature, as we do, He had no propensity to sin. Finally, they observe that His temptation was only from without, not from within. Hence, He could be tempted without having the real possibility of sinning.

Now lets take a look at the other view of this debate. Some believe that Christ had the ability to sin (since He had the power of free choice), but did not sin. In short, sin was possible, but not actual in Jesus’ life. To deny this possibility, you believe, would deny His full humanity, His ability to “sympathize with our weaknesses†(Heb. 4:15), and would make His temptation into a charade. You say that while Jesus could not sin as God, nonetheless, He could have sinned (but didn’t) as man. Since Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human. A distinction must be made in what He could do in each nature. For example, He could not get tired, hungry, or sleepy as God. But He did all of these as man. His divine nature could not die. Yet He died as man. Likewise, they argue, Christ could not have sinned as God but could have sinned as man.

In the end Jesus could not have sinned because he is GOD.

I should point out that for a long time I believed Jesus could have sinned but now when I even think of that, it makes my stomach turn.


Jg

 

[Imagican]

So, from 'your' point of view, the story of Christ's temptation was 'just that'. No relevance to our understanding whatsoever. Funny that this would have been offered for no other reason than; that it happened. Yet EVERYTHING else offered concerning Christ WAS offered for a 'reason' and for understanding. And I guess that your perception is that Satan was 'such an idiot' that He tempted Christ KNOWING that Christ 'could NOT accept the offer'. And THAT, my friend, makes PERFECT sense. That the entity given dominion over this planet was SO ignorant that He would tempt God KNOWING that God could NOT be tempted. And I suppose that even when confronted with the 'truth', as is here offered, you will still deny it?

You made the comment about how you feel when you 'think' about Christ 'being able to sin'. Strange, if you ask me, but to each their own. But, I get the 'same' feeling when I witness those that have 'turned' Christ into 'something' that He is NOT. It causes bewilderment and amazement that the 'truth' is NOT apparent to ALL. And I guess you probably feel the same about those that deny that Christ WAS/IS God Himself.

But, I can offer scripture that PLAINLY STATES that Christ IS NOT God. And all that can be offered by those that claim He IS is nothing but inuendo and MUST be 'read into' rather than simply seen in the words offered. For Christ to HAVE A GOD, is a pure indication that He is NOT God Himself. For Christ to WORSHIP God, the Father, is a PURE INDICATION that Christ is NOT God Himself. The apsotles made NUMEROUS references to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Get it. God IS the Father, the Father IS God and Christ IS HIS SON. Really simple folks. So simple, in fact, that a Child could understand it. Try explaining 'trinity' to an eight year old. Sure, you can convince him or her that Christ IS God, but ask THEM to explain HOW. See what your answer is. DUH, I don't know. Yet, ask ANY child who the Father of Christ was and they will tell you GOD. Simple indeed. Christ WAS the Son of God BEFORE taking on the flesh. He WAS the 'firstborn of all CREATURES. Get it, Created LIVING beings?

For Christ to state PLAINLY that what He offered WAS NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY the FATHER, (God), is a PURE INDICATION THAT Christ was NOT God Himself. If He was, then He was completely dishonest in this statement. Yet you will ignore these and insist that He WAS indeed God Himself. Christ states that He IS the Son of God. God states that Christ IS His Son. The apostles STATE the same thing, and those that created and those that accept 'trinity' deny it. Wow!!!

MEC

 

[undertow]

Well first I would want to define sin. I think a sin is anything man does that displeases God. Sin has to be committed against God. When God takes a human life it is not a sin, He can not sin against Himself. He can not displease Himself.

Could a member of the Trinity sin against another member? NO is my thought.

What if Jesus were to speak terrible blasphemy against the Father, would he not have sinned then? Or what if Jesus raped someone?

You know, if nothing is allowed to count as "sin" then does "sinless" really mean much?

 

[jgredline]

So, from 'your' point of view, the story of Christ's temptation was 'just that'. No relevance to our understanding whatsoever. Funny that this would have been offered for no other reason than; that it happened. Yet EVERYTHING else offered concerning Christ WAS offered for a 'reason' and for understanding. And I guess that your perception is that Satan was 'such an idiot' that He tempted Christ KNOWING that Christ 'could NOT accept the offer'. And THAT, my friend, makes PERFECT sense. That the entity given dominion over this planet was SO ignorant that He would tempt God KNOWING that God could NOT be tempted. And I suppose that even when confronted with the 'truth', as is here offered, you will still deny it?

Since Jesus is God, He could not sin.
Since you don't believe Jesus is God, you have left open the possibility that Jesus could have sinned. Scary that you would believe that. Perhaps you too will change your mind.

[quote:bc529]You made the comment about how you feel when you 'think' about Christ 'being able to sin'. Strange, if you ask me, but to each their own. But, I get the 'same' feeling when I witness those that have 'turned' Christ into 'something' that He is NOT. It causes bewilderment and amazement that the 'truth' is NOT apparent to ALL. And I guess you probably feel the same about those that deny that Christ WAS/IS God Himself.

Well we agree in our perception. For the life of me I can't see how you don't believe Jesus is God. Perhaps someday you will change your mind. If your not a trinitarian what would you call your self?

But, I can offer scripture that PLAINLY STATES that Christ IS NOT God. And all that can be offered by those that claim He IS is nothing but inuendo and MUST be 'read into' rather than simply seen in the words offered. For Christ to HAVE A GOD, is a pure indication that He is NOT God Himself. For Christ to WORSHIP God, the Father, is a PURE INDICATION that Christ is NOT God Himself. The apsotles made NUMEROUS references to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Get it. God IS the Father, the Father IS God and Christ IS HIS SON. Really simple folks. So simple, in fact, that a Child could understand it. Try explaining 'trinity' to an eight year old. Sure, you can convince him or her that Christ IS God, but ask THEM to explain HOW. See what your answer is. DUH, I don't know. Yet, ask ANY child who the Father of Christ was and they will tell you GOD. Simple indeed. Christ WAS the Son of God BEFORE taking on the flesh. He WAS the 'firstborn of all CREATURES. Get it, Created LIVING beings?

For Christ to state PLAINLY that what He offered WAS NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY the FATHER, (God), is a PURE INDICATION THAT Christ was NOT God Himself. If He was, then He was completely dishonest in this statement. Yet you will ignore these and insist that He WAS indeed God Himself. Christ states that He IS the Son of God. God states that Christ IS His Son. The apostles STATE the same thing, and those that created and those that accept 'trinity' deny it. Wow!!!

MEC

[/quote:bc529]

Start a new thread and provide your veses that Jesus is not God.
I have provided threads that prove Jesus is God.
Even though I don't agree with you, I do respect you for your views. Atleast you know what you believe even though I know your wrong just as you think I am wrong.

 

[undertow]

Any ideas why Jesus had to be without sin in the first place? I think that Old Testament sacrifices had to be without blemish, but how does that translate to Jesus needing to be without sin?

Would Jesus need to be completely sinless to take the punishment of sinners? Why couldn't he have sinned big time himself, and then died for all our sins?

 

[Imagican]

J,

I don't choose to 'label' myself ANYTHING other than a 'servant' of the ONE TRUE God. I came to Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. I was baptised in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. NOT a 'trinity'.

If you will pay attention to the post that I offer, perhaps you will see that my 'lack' of acceptance of this doctrine has NOT affected my understanding of our 'purpose' and it CERTAINLY hasn't hindered my relationship with the Father.

It has been accused of me that I CAN'T be saved without this acceptance, yet I KNOW better. There is MUCH that has been revealed that I find MOST of those that accept this 'trinity' don't even seem to have a 'clue' of. Not bragging for what I have been offered has NOTHING to do with me being 'intellegent' 'a good guy' or ANYTHING of the sort. What has been offered has been offered through love that I KNOW I don't deserve. I have GLADLY accepted it though and am thankful for every tad of understanding that I am offered.

j, since I know that 'trinity' is NOT needed for one to develope a relationship with God, that those that accept it INSIST that it is makes it all the more suspect. For it appears like MOST OTHER subversive behavior; those that DO IT, ONLY want to be around others that do it as well. And if given the choice, they would influence EVERYONE around them to take part as well. NO ONE likes to think that they are the ONLY one doing something 'wrong'. So, it is a much more comfortable feeling if EVERY ONE else is 'doing it too'. At least this is the 'way it seems to me'.

I'll start the thread. It won't be much different than what has already been offered in others though. It will simply be 'brushed off' as; well yeah, but you have to take ALL of scripture into account, you CAN'T just 'pick and choose'. Oh well, it ought to be interesting anyway.

MEC

 

[jgredline]

J,

I don't choose to 'label' myself ANYTHING other than a 'servant' of the ONE TRUE God. I came to Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. I was baptised in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. NOT a 'trinity'.

If you will pay attention to the post that I offer, perhaps you will see that my 'lack' of acceptance of this doctrine has NOT affected my understanding of our 'purpose' and it CERTAINLY hasn't hindered my relationship with the Father.

It has been accused of me that I CAN'T be saved without this acceptance, yet I KNOW better. There is MUCH that has been revealed that I find MOST of those that accept this 'trinity' don't even seem to have a 'clue' of. Not bragging for what I have been offered has NOTHING to do with me being 'intellegent' 'a good guy' or ANYTHING of the sort. What has been offered has been offered through love that I KNOW I don't deserve. I have GLADLY accepted it though and am thankful for every tad of understanding that I am offered.

j, since I know that 'trinity' is NOT needed for one to develope a relationship with God, that those that accept it INSIST that it is makes it all the more suspect. For it appears like MOST OTHER subversive behavior; those that DO IT, ONLY want to be around others that do it as well. And if given the choice, they would influence EVERYONE around them to take part as well. NO ONE likes to think that they are the ONLY one doing something 'wrong'. So, it is a much more comfortable feeling if EVERY ONE else is 'doing it too'. At least this is the 'way it seems to me'.

I'll start the thread. It won't be much different than what has already been offered in others though. It will simply be 'brushed off' as; well yeah, but you have to take ALL of scripture into account, you CAN'T just 'pick and choose'. Oh well, it ought to be interesting anyway.

MEC

Mec
I do see your point and I do understand what you are saying and I am not questioning your salvation. Your salvation is between you and God as is mine. Like I said while I do not agree with you, I do respect you. Even in the statement that you don't call yourself anything. Mec If I may ask. Would you consider yourself a born again Christian?

Blessings Javier

 

[Imagican]

j,

I only know what I am given. I have accepted Christ into my heart and through this devotion, have developed a 'personal relationship' with the Father, God. I am a sinner and will be till the day I die. These HAVE been forgiven though and as I 'grow' through my walk, I will sin less and less. It took me over thirty years to become the sinner that I was when I 'came to the truth' and it is rediculous to think that it will change IMMEDIATELY. But I can say this without hessitation; I am NOT the person that I was 'before' through NO deeds or understanding of 'my own'. For, if it had been left up to me, I would STILL be heading down the SAME path that I was 'before'. 'I' did NOT change that path. It WAS changed for me. All I did was 'ask' for guidance.

'Born again', 'Christian' 'son of God', I hessitate to offer these for I have witnessed so many that use these to 'separate' themselves from their neighbors. Yes, I consider myself to be 'born again'. What's MORE is that I KNOW that Christ lives within me and it is not 'I' anymore, but He that has offered me the path that I follow. Through Him I have come to know God Himself. For the love that God has for the Son has been offered to me as well. For the knowledge that I too am a 'child of God' has become manifest in my soul and of this there is NO doubt. I am NOT worthy in my mind or heart, but that has changed NOTHING or hindered the relationship in the least. If ANYTHING, I believe that it has allowed it to blossom even MORE.

Where before there was NOTHING in my life but 'hate', much has now been replaced with love. Where there was strife, much has been replaced with peace. Where there was ENVY, now sorrow and empathy. And where there was NO understanding of the 'truth', now there IS wisdom that is NOT of mine own.

Often when I speak, it is as if 'someone else' is 'speaking' through me. I marvel at times at the words that come from my mouth in that these are as a foreign language at times. Things that I would never have dreamed possible coming from these lips or from this heart.

If only one could have known me then and been able to witness the changes that have taken place since, there could be NO doubt in ones mind or heart that these changes were NOT of mine own. Couldn't have done it myself. An impossibility, for the concepts of God and love were FAR removed from my spirit. For you see, I had a father that I loved dearly and didn't even realize it then. He led me like a sheep and I followed 'religiously'. Didn't even know his name, but he knew mine intimately.

I KNOW exactly 'who' it was that I followed now and looking back realize just how intimately I knew him. His name is Satan and he WAS INDEED the father that I worshiped. Unknowing at times, but aware nevertheless. And I followed him rather deeply. His will WAS my will and he rewarded me proper for what I gave him.

So, you see, there is MORE here than may meet the eye. Perhaps my understanding was wrought from a different anvil than most others. For I am now WELL aware of MANY of the guises that are used to lead those that follow WRONGLY astray. And am ALL the MORE thankful that I have been freed from the bonds that I was once under. What a LOVING God we have indeed. That would take one such as myself, HIS ENEMY, and offer His love and His strengnth to one such as that. AMAZING GRACE. And I for one can testify to it. And WILL with every bit of energy that I am given.

Pay attention J, there is MUCH to be offered. I KNOW this for I KNOW 'HOW' to 'receive' it. With suppication and MUCH prayer. Knock and it SHALL be OPENED. ASK and it SHALL be RECEIVED. But, beware, therefore, for the amount GIVEN, the more IS expected. And the closer one gets, the MORE temptation they WILL receive.

Most are EASY targets for the 'tempter' for theirs are SIMPLE wishes. The closer one gets, the more complicated their wishes and the more subtle the 'tempter'. The closer one gets the MORE they MUST wear the COMPLETE armor EVERY MOMENT for Satan is NOT one to be 'trifled' with. His power is EMENSE and WAY greater than our own. NO, not even CLOSE to the Father's, but potent indeed and to be wary of. And it is wise to realize that 'without' the power of God to resist him, we are an EASY mark.

These things I have learned the 'hard' way. Through Much guilt and strife have I traveled to get where I am today. And I am NOTHING now other than what is 'given'. For when I was 'what' I was through mine own efforts, I was MUCH LESS THAN NOTHING. Now I am at least aware. There IS truth to be gained through the Word and MUCH MUCH MORE beyond it. Paul spoke of it but even he was unable to fully describe it. It CAN be obtained but one MUST let go of their preconceived notions and the following of 'other men' to find it. Of this you may be assured. Don't trust me TRUST in the Word and leave the world to it's own.

Bless you Brother, and hope that you will participate in the thread that you suggested. It will be enlightening to those that approach it with an open mind and an open heart. The important thing is to 'follow' The Spirit rather than following other men. If one truly desires to KNOW the difference The Spirit WILL convict. Of this too you can be assured. All one MUST do is 'listen' to that which is offered and allow the discernment to come from the 'source' rather than those that would wisp one away on 'thier OWN journey'.

One thing that I hope that I can convey convincingly to ANY that would choose to follow the 'truth'. LOVE my friends. That IS the answer. And LOVE is GIVING, NOT taking. For there ARE many that will say, "I love this' or 'I love that', when the truth is that they ONLY love what IT offers. TRUE love is love that GIVES for the sake of GIVING and no other. THIS is TRUE love and the love that was offered by our Savior Jesus Christ when He was willing to give ALL for His love of HIS ENEMIES. Even those, ESPECIALLY those that were NAILING Him to the cross. For what did He offer EVEN THEM, 'Forgive them Father for they KNOW NOT what they do". WOW!! Can you imagine? Now THAT is LOVE. And THAT IS what it's ALL ABOUT. Learning 'what' this love 'TRULY' is and experiencing it. And THAT IS THE TRUTH to ANY and ALL who have truly known the Father through His Son who OFFERED us this EXAMPLE. Who WAS/IS, THIS EXAMPLE.

I know it's been a 'long one' but seldom does one even seem to care to ask. And with all the posting I do it seems prudent to allow others to learn at least a 'little' about myself and 'who' I am. Forgive me if I ramble, but I can rarely help it. For SO much has been given I feel compelled to tell it to ANY that will listen. God IS Good and I hope to reveal this to any and all that will 'hear it'.

MEC

 

[mutzrein]

Amazing Grace - how sweet the sound! Thankyou MEC.

 

[Vic C.]

Any ideas why Jesus had to be without sin in the first place? I think that Old Testament sacrifices had to be without blemish, but how does that translate to Jesus needing to be without sin?

Would Jesus need to be completely sinless to take the punishment of sinners? Why couldn't he have sinned big time himself, and then died for all our sins?

Good questions and they are pertinent to the topic. Anyone care to answer them in the hopes of getting back on topic?

I'd really like to minimize cross talk on important subjects such as this.

Thanks.