Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Was it possible for Christ to have sinned ?

j,

I would like to offer my opinion, and some Scripture, that I think supports it. Granted, I have never studied, or prayed, about this topic in detail.

The point of Satan's temptation was to get Christ to employ His divine power that He had set aside to become humble for our sakes.

Philipians 2:7

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

John teaches that Christ was tempted in three ways as we are 1 John 2:16

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Certainly Christ could have called His angels at any point...even when He was dealing with the Pharisees. He was constantly not wanting it to be known who He was and telling others do not tell, or slipping away before He was made a King...Only upon entering Jerusalem did HE make Himself known to all deliberately...He wanted our attention on His death.

Anyway, He submitted to God, and in that submission became man, and in that human-ness was truly human. However Christ was, how we strive to be; He did not sin willfully in the flesh, because of the Father in Him. I do think Satan tempted Him in the flesh hoping to thwart God's redemption plan...in that sense, Christ overcame temptation, and even the angels came to minister to Him, because his thoughts were of the flesh, and yet He resisted with the Word of God, and kept his flesh from even a sinful thought.

He was truly free from the sinful nature of man, and His will was not directed by that...it was free in the flesh, as Adam's was. So, in that sense, the temptation was REAL, and the resistance was REAL. So, because the Father was in Him, He was able to resist even in thought, as we will be able to when we have new mortality. Christ used the Word to combat satan for that reason, and was tempted as Adam and Eve were, in His flesh ...lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and pride of life. He acted here, by the Holy Spirit, and His own deity was in the form of submission to God...So, He was both fully God, and fully man, but not using the very divine power that satan was tempting Him to use...So, I believe He was fully tempted in His flesh, and resisted because the Father was in Him, and to have used His divine power to even resist, would have been to fall into the temption that satan was giving.

A side note, as believers, we are free in our spirits once we are reborn. God does not tempt us beyond what we are able to resist. However, our flesh is still bound by sin...we all know Paul's take on this. The Lord bless you.
 
Lovely,

Nice post my dear. A refreshing view from one that 'accepts trinity'.

I am NOT being sarcastic. I am serious. Your insight shows that you realize that Christ WAS indeed 'tempted' as the Word states. Most that 'believe' that Christ WAS God are unable to comprehend that Christ WAS actually 'tempted' by Satan.

Many seem to think that there WAS NO 'true' temptation.

Now, for there to BE temptation, one MUST be 'tempted'. This is a PRIME indication that Christ WAS INDEED tempted. He OVERCAME. That is a VERY important understanding concerning the 'nature' of Christ. For, by UNDERSTANDING this, it becomes APPARENT that Christ COULD have 'fallen to temptation'. Otherwise, He wasn't 'truly' tempted. For one COULD NOT be tempted if they were UNABLE to bow to the temptation.
 
vic said:
undertow said:
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.

Undertow.
I don't want to give you a quick simple answer because your question is important. I will work on it best I can during my lunch hour and see if can't come up with something that makes sense to you. I have my thoughts in my head but I will need to put them to word.
Thanks jg
 
vic said:
undertow said:
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.

Vic,

Is it really 'hot' up there again today? He he he. Just jokin'.

MEC
 
undertow wrote:
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?


The answer lies in His High Priest position....I have to go...but, because He was without sin Himself, he did not have to sacrifice for Himself...and was in this manner able to BE our sacrifice, and our High Priest...I really have to go, but perhaps I can clarify, and offer Scripture later.

The Lord bless you.
 
What a tough question. I am going to have to think about this. Ok I have thought about this. Since Jesus is God, he could not have sinned.
 
As ONE man brought sin into the world by 'falling' to temptation, ONE man died for sin by OVERCOMING temptation, (doesn't this indicate that Christ was NOT God?) For Christ to BE the ULTIMATE sacrifice, He HAD to be SPOTLESS, the PERFECT Sacrifice. NOT God Himself for God CANNOT BE SACRIFICED.

And something VERY important to 'realize'!!! Christ did NOT offer the Sacrifice. Christ offered OBEDIENCE to the WILL OF THE FATHER. CHRIST WAS THE SACRIFICE. It was God who offered the Sacrifice. It was God that offered HIS SON for US. Acceptance of this understanding PURELY shows that Christ was NOT God. Christ begged the Father constantly for the POWER to follow HIS, (God's) will. Why would God NEED to beg Himself for this POWER? And HOW could God abandon WHAT HE IS? Many contend that God 'let go' of WHO He 'truly' is to 'become' flesh. IMPOSSIBLE. That's like saying God could BE Satan if He so chose. IMPOSSIBLE for God is INCAPABLE of doing ANYTHING 'against' His NATURE. He CREATED His Son to BE OUR HEAD. And the NEED for a HEAD? To RULE the body. To guide the body in the PROPER direction. Yet there is ONE God that is The HEAD of Christ. God's throne IS IN HEAVEN. Christ sits at His RIGHT HAND, waiting for HIS Kingdom which WILL be THIS EARTH. Can't you SEE it? NOT 'three persons in ONE' But TWO with ONE purpose. Father and SON. As ONE in purpose but SEPARATE in identity. God the Father and JESUS CHRIST, The Son.

In order to understand this, one MUST 'go back' to the OT and gather an understanding of 'sacrifice'. I leave that up to ANYONE that so desires an understanding, to 'go back' and READ what was offered 'almost' from the beginning, concerning sacrifice.

And something that many seem to 'miss'; The sacrifice that was commanded of, from the start, was NOTHING other than a 'preccursor' to the 'One TRUE' sacrifice that would 'come later'. FIRST, man needed to 'learn' what sacrifice WAS in order to UNDERSTAND 'who and what' Christ was when He appeared and offered such.

Now, I ask, of WHAT purpose would it have served for GOD to offer that HE could live 'without' sin? As has been stated OVER AND OVER again by those that accept 'trinity', God COULD NOT SIN. But Christ WAS tempted. So WHAT import could it possibly serve us to know that Christ didn't sin when tempted IF Christ WERE God Himself? And WHY would God NEED come in the flesh in order to 'die' for our sins when sin CAME into the world through ONE MAN and needed to be DEFEATED by ONE MAN? These questions are MUCH more important than 'why Christ NEEDED to be PERFECTLY without sin. The MOST important question goes WAY beyond; WAS Christ God in the flesh, or WAS/IS Christ the Son of God.

And, guys and gals, was does the term 'Mediator' mean to you? From a 'trinitarian' point of view, God is His OWN Mediator. From my point of view and understanding, Christ IS the Mediator BETWEEN Us and God. This would CERTAINLY make Christ Separate from God in entity. A PART of God, for He IS The Son. But separate in that Christ IS the Mediator BETWEEN Us and God. How could God be both? And WHY would God need to 'see Christ' within us in order to allow a 'relationship' between Him and those that have accepted Christ into their hearts? Why would we NOT be able to have God simply accept us 'through' a relationship formed WITHOUT Christ? Answer: Man's heart had become SO corrupt by the time of Christ that even though the Jews 'thought' they were 'following God', they were TOTALLY LOST. Had totally abandoned the 'true' path and NEEDED to be 'put back' on the correct path. And HOW were they to do this? Christ was SENT to allow, once again, man to HAVE a personal relationship with the FATHER/GOD.

When we read of what Christ has to 'say' to the religious order of the time, we PLAINLY see that they had drifted SO FAR from God that they had NO CLUE any longer. They had done what has been done today; CREATED their own gods in their ritual and tradtions and through this had lost ALL contact with God Himself. Otherwise, there would have been NO NEED or the time would NOT have been ripe yet, to send His Son to 'bring them back' into the fold.

And folks, One thing that NEEDS to be understood RIGHT NOW. The state of The Church is WORSE NOW than it was immediately after it's formation. MEN leading other men in 'their direction' rather than following God in His. That we MUST debate such issues as 'trinity' shows that 'man-made' tradition has become MORE important than simply following God. For we are told over and over again through scripture WHAT we MUST do in order to be 'saved'. A devotion to and adherence to a doctrine such as 'trinity' WAS NEVER MENTIONED. If ANYTHING, we were warned that men WOULD come along and offer such and INSIST that others MUST Follow 'this' rather than God through His Son.

WARNING, WARNING!!!!!!!!!! Abandon that which FORCED our Savior to appear. ACCEPT what has been offered and RUN WITH IT. Refuse to get 'caught up' in 'man-made' tradition and FOLLOW GOD instead. He IS YOUR FATHER. He WANTS a relationship with EACH AND EVERY ONE OF HIS CHILDREN. But we CANNOT follow Him AND OTHER MEN. It's ONE OR THE OTHER. And NO, NOT BOTH. For to accept what MAN has to offer is to ABANDON that which has been offered BY THE FATHER. This IS A MUST.

We have become such a 'lazy' people that we have become UTTERLY dependant upon a 'man-made' book rather than The Spirit of God. Choosing to follow 'men' rather than the Father through The Spirit. Isn't the TOTAL difference in opinons on this board ALONE an UTTER indication that this is TRUE? That there is SO LITTLE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING of the TRUTH? What kind of BODY is this? Now, the important question to ask in order to understand is THIS SIMPLE; WHY? Why has the body become SO INDEPENDENT OF IT'S COMPLETENESS? Why are the 'fingers' 'doing their OWN thing' and the 'feet', why are they running a 'different direction' than the 'HEAD'. There IS a reason folks. And it becomes apparent when one 'steps OUTSIDE' what is offered by 'men' and simply OPENS their heart to The Spirit of God.

MEC
 
Folks, God did NOT come to this earth to 'prove' that He could 'overcome' temptation. He SENT HIS SON to prove this. To offer the EXAMPLE to us that His creation CAN overcome temptation IF obedient TO THE FATHER.
 
Majic man

With all due respect. What you have said in your very long post is your intrepretaion of what you believe based on your theology to fit what you believe. From a trinitariam point of of view it makes perfect sense to me. For the record, God did sacrifice himself as he was the only perfect sacrifice.
For me its easy to understand as the Holy spirit gives me understanding.
For you and other who do not beieve Jesus is God, you feel like you need to understand God and be on his level. For a simple man like me, I will do as the scripture says and believe with out ever seeing.
 
I would like to offer this, it came up while I was discussing this question with my husband.

His simple answer was this. Scripture teaches that Christ was tempted, and Scripture is true. The Lord bless you all.
 
lovely said:
I would like to offer this, it came up while I was discussing this question with my husband.

His simple answer was this. Scripture is true.

And so say the muslims about the Koran. Silly, isn't it?
 
SputnikBoy said:
lovely said:
I would like to offer this, it came up while I was discussing this question with my husband.

His simple answer was this. Scripture is true.

And so say the muslims about the Koran. Silly, isn't it?
Yes, but the Muslims are wrong, and the Koran is a worthless read as far as eternal life goes.
 
Solo said:
SputnikBoy said:
lovely said:
I would like to offer this, it came up while I was discussing this question with my husband.

His simple answer was this. Scripture is true.

And so say the muslims about the Koran. Silly, isn't it?
Yes, but the Muslims are wrong, and the Koran is a worthless read as far as eternal life goes.
It is vague at times and should leave one wanting the whole truth, not vague summaries and misinterpretations of our Bible.
 
Sputnik,

Sputnik wrote:
And so say the muslims about the Koran. Silly, isn't it?

I imagine the simple wisdom that is of God...like belief in Scripture...could seem silly to some. who perhaps believe themselves to be wise, or are deceived by false religions. It is by faith, through the Spirit that I believe the Word, and my husband as well. I do not count him silly in the least, nor myself, at least not in this matter anyway. ;-) Anyway, I know by your first post, and my first post, that we apparently disagree here, but I thought the simple wisdom of just believing the Word that says Christ was tempted was a very good point, and added it for the benefit of those who share that belief. I trust that the temptation happened, and was very real, as lined out in Scripture. If that makes me silly, or even my husband, so be it. I would rather be counted with the sillies of the world in this case. :-D

The Lord bless you.
 
vic said:
Solo said:
SputnikBoy said:
lovely said:
I would like to offer this, it came up while I was discussing this question with my husband.

His simple answer was this. Scripture is true.

And so say the muslims about the Koran. Silly, isn't it?
Yes, but the Muslims are wrong, and the Koran is a worthless read as far as eternal life goes.
It is vague at times and should leave one wanting the whole truth, not vague summaries and misinterpretations of our Bible.

As someone who has read much of the Koran and its abominations, what I can say is this. A Christian who reads and takes his bible to heart and does what it says at worst will be a good person. A person who who reads the koran and takes it to heart and does what it says will become a terrorist.
While all muslims are not terrorist, 98% of terrorist are muslims.
When was the last time time you saw a scuicide Christian bomber?
Maybe this should be a new post.
 
lovely said:
Sputnik,

Sputnik wrote:
And so say the muslims about the Koran. Silly, isn't it?

I imagine the simple wisdom that is of God...like belief in Scripture...could seem silly to some. who perhaps believe themselves to be wise, or are deceived by false religions. It is by faith, through the Spirit that I believe the Word, and my husband as well. I do not count him silly in the least, nor myself, at least not in this matter anyway. ;-) Anyway, I know by your first post, and my first post, that we apparently disagree here, but I thought the simple wisdom of just believing the Word that says Christ was tempted was a very good point, and added it for the benefit of those who share that belief. I trust that the temptation happened, and was very real, as lined out in Scripture. If that makes me silly, or even my husband, so be it. I would rather be counted with the sillies of the world in this case. :-D

The 'silly' part of my post was in regard to the "I'm right and you're wrong' aspect of all of the many belief systems. And, it doesn't just stop with the Koran. We also have many different beliefs (doctrines) within Christianity that has created an 'us and them' mentality. Please, Jesus, come soon and rescue us all from this 'silliness'.
 
After reading the replies to this post, it becomes OBVIOUS that 'trinitarians' ARE FORCED, by their 'doctrine' to 'create' something DIFFERENT than what is offered in THE WORD.

Christ WAS tempted. Three times in fact. Three times that we have The Word OUTRIGHT stating such. But, as one clearly sees if they read the ENTIRE story of Christ's life that we HAVE in The Word, we actually see that He was tempted MANY times.

Now, look how 'silly' it becomes when ones doctrine DICTATES that one must 'alter' scripture in order to FIT IT to their doctrine. Shouldn't ones' doctrine SIMPLY fit scripture.

My point; for Satan to 'tempt' God AFTER he had ALREADY learned that HE COULD NOT usurp the AUTHORITY of GOD is a REDICULOUS concept. TOTALLY. For to believe this is to believe that Satan tried to tempt GOD by offering HIM,,,,,,,,,,, something???????????? You've GOT to be kidding RIGHT? PLEASE. Read what I am offering and at least 'TRY' to allow it into your hearts. Do those that believe that Satan was tempting GOD, REALLY believe this to be true, or are you simply stating such in defense of a 'doctrine'?

Ours is NOT to become BLIND by the Words of the Bible. They are meant to OPEN ones eyes, NOT CLOSE THEM.

From a 'trinitarian' point of view, Jesus Christ WAS God in the flesh. And this FORCES these to 'believe' that Satan was SO stupid that He TEMPTED God in the FLESH. FOR WHAT? To simply prove to himself, ONCE again, that God is STRONGER than him? Listen to 'how silly' this sounds when one understands that GOD IS GOD. HE CANNOT BE TEMPTED BY SATAN. And of WHAT possible purpose would it have served for Satan to 'tempt' God with what GOD ALREADY POSSESSED? The kingdoms of this world? RUBBISH TO GOD. Simply ALLOWED by The Father for they are a NEEDED condition for man to fulfill his destiny.

Satan 'tempting' God by telling GOD to 'bow down to him'? Come on guys. I have seen HOW SERIOUS many of you are about 'trinity', but that 'just DON'T make NO sense. If it DOES, then someone PLEASE explain it to me in a WAY that makes just the LEAST amount of sense. Or is THIS simply ANOTHER one of those GREAT MYSTERIES?

And PLEASE don't attempt to offer some PHILOSOPHICAL nonsense about God RELEASING His deity in order to 'take on the flesh' Christ performed MIRACLES that FAR exceed any nonsense concerning Him having NO POWER as God. God granted His Son ALL THE POWER THAT HE NEEDED. Christ turned water into wine. Christ HEALED MANY, COMPLETELY. Christ was able to and did RAISE THE DEAD. Christ was ABLE to GO TO THE CROSS, WILLINGLY. Christ WALKED ON WATER. Christ CAST OUT DEMONS. Now, does this sound like an IMPOTENT GOD? ONE THAT 'gave up' HIS POWER TO BECOME FLESH? Of course not. These things were done as a WITNESS to WHO Christ WAS/IS; THE SON OF GOD, and the POWER THE FATHER BESTOWED UPON HIM. Or at least this IS what we were told by God, Christ and the apostles; COMMISSIONED to SPREAD GOD'S WORD.

MEC
 
Back
Top