Could Jesus have sinned?

[Eventhorizon]

On a side note I will be getting drunk tonight and talking about Jesus for a while in tiny chat. That is until I get bored. Ill be going over things like what he was like as a child. That time when he was 8, hit a boy for laughing at him and then told him never to talk about it to his father. Good times, good times.

 

[Barnabas]

45, 000 different denominations of Christianity, which ones do you belong to?

That's not entirley truthful, most of the denominations that would be counted for that number are sub-groups within a single denomination, it's the difference between the southern baptists and the free will baptists, they're both baptist but just belive slightly different things on particular topics.



Or we can take my particular favorite from the restoration movement, where e the Churches of Christ split from the Christian Churches over whether or not they used musical instruments during worship(there were a few other arguments dealing with church hierarchy, but the music broke the camels back). Outside of that they are entirely the same theologically and I've had the pleasure of preaching at both.

 

[Eventhorizon]

That's not entirley truthful, most of the denominations that would be counted for that number are sub-groups within a single denomination, it's the difference between the southern baptists and the free will baptists, they're both baptist but just belive slightly different things on particular topics.



Or we can take my particular favorite from the restoration movement, where e the Churches of Christ split from the Christian Churches over whether or not they used musical instruments during worship(there were a few other arguments dealing with church hierarchy, but the music broke the camels back). Outside of that they are entirely the same theologically and I've had the pleasure of preaching at both.

Awesome! Your response shows consideration and thought.

Dont you think it interesting how much disagreement there is among Christians?

 

[Barnabas]

Awesome! Your response shows consideration and thought.

Dont you think it interesting how much disagreement there is among Christians?

There hasn't really been agreement among christians even among the early church, I mean you have peter writing about how other people are twisting the words of Paul to distort their meaning. History made simple, people suck.

 

[knight in battle]

Yeah but Jesus was true God AND true man, he wasnt true God and resembled man or true God in the shape of man, you know?

A camel can travel through the eye of a needle without a burden upon its back, the "eye of the needle" was an arch way that traders used in Jesus day, through which camels with no or little burden could pass easily but through which a heavily burdened camel could not. It is not as supernatural a suggestion as it appears when you know what it means.

i suppose it is possible for any human to transgress, the only difference being that he didn't. and i suppose if he could not have been tempted just as every other human was tempted, then he could not have been relatable to other human beings, which was a selling-point for Jesus as promoted by Paul. i stand corrected.

 

[LucyJr]

Christ is GOD.

His WILL, as the Son of God, is ALWAYS in perfect harmony with the Father and the Spirit.

GOD is ONE.

At NO TIME WHATSOEVER, did the WILL of CHRIST go AGAINST the will of God, NOR COULD it.

This is VASTLY IMPORTANT to understand. What you're saying is nothing but BLASPHEMY.

To SUGGEST, for ONE SECOND, that CHRIST COULD sin, is to DENY he's the SON of GOD. End of story.

You've GOT to get this straight, if you claim you're a Christian.

You CANNOT be on the fence about this. It's not possible.

Either say he is GOD, or say he's a SINNER. But you CANNOT say he's BOTH GOD AND a SINNER.

By saying that Jesus could sin if He wanted to, that does not make Jesus Christ a sinner. He could sin, but He won't sin. Ever.
And the synthetis of these two, is that indeed He can not sin ultimately. This is as simple as I can explain it.

 

[LucyJr]

All of that is irrelevant.

The fact is, if anyone is to be saved at all, it must be by GRACE and not by the sinner's own choice.

That's correct. Partialy. Grace must be received, because people are persons. They have emotions, mind, and....will. People are not robots. They are a much high degree of complexity made in God's image.

If the sinner ELECTS HIMSELF to salvation, then GOD is a mere puppet of the SINNER'S WILL.

All sinners have been elected along time ago. The sacriice of Christ has been made. Whosoever accept the grace trought Jesus Christ, will be saved and forgiven. DON'T missinterpret the Bible to fit to your pre-made theology.

then GOD is a mere puppet of the SINNER'S WILL.

That's complete non-sense.
Firstly, the sinner is not into any position to elect himself, just like a murderer is not into any position of "elect" his eliberation, even negotiating.
Secondly, the death of Jesus Christ changed this situation. The payment for the sins of all men had been made by Jesus.
Thirdly, the sinner is into the position of repentene and acceptance of the salvation, by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord of Lords, and submitting his will to Jesus.

So no, the sinner does not elect himself if he receive the grace of God by a act of free will.

And if God WANTS to save everyone, but FAILS, that ALSO means God's will is subject to the sinner's will.

I don't think it means so. I think it means just that God wants to save everyone, but He can not, because some people will not chose Him.
Is that make God in-potent and incapable? No, because we are made to have a free will, which brings moral responsability in itself. God does not pass our will.

You wouldn't DARE suggest that YOUR WILL is more powerful than GOD'S, would you?

I think God's will is infinite more powerful and glorious than my will. Hovewer, God, as powerful as He is, let me have my choice, because that's how He created me, in His image. It is a high degree of complexity in his Creation, to be able to have moral responsability.

God saves whom he will, and the rest go to Hell.

That's just the facts. And if you don't know that, it's because you are lost.

It would be very good if you could argumentate this non-sense by scriptural verses.
Had you not contradicted yourself before by saying that God wants to save all? Then why not all are saved? Or its maybe something about the word "all"?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Had you not contradicted yourself before by saying that God wants to save all? Then why not all are saved? Or its maybe something about the word "all"?

Absolutely not. I have never said God wants to save all, but can't.

In fact, that's the biggest source of contention in these threads!

I've consistently emphasized divine election in every post. And I'm certain everyone here can attest to that.

 

[EFabricio]

My friend I've heard that line about basing your beliefs on the bible a hundred times before, even in this thread, everyone hear claims that there theology is biblicaly based. And I'm sure you have a theology as a Jehovah's witness as well, since theology is just the systematized beliefs of the church at large.

I believe That Jesus did not Sin,

Sovereign Grace Believes that Jesus could not sin,

You believe that Jesus was not God,

That's all theology whether correct or not. I tend to agree with your point about Satan tempting Jesus, I'd also like to point out that part of Jesus ministry was to lead an sinless example for us, if were inherently sinful then what's the point of this sense we could never possibly live up to that example.

I however find it key that we recognize the Jesus, Is as much a part of YHWY, it makes his death a moot point if he's not God

Also do you believe in the person hood of the Holy Spirit.

Well, the thing is that most Christian denominations, Catholics and Protestands alike, base most of their doctrines in the Theology of Augustin and Aquinas who themselves were big fans of Greek Philosophy, mainly that of Plato and Aristotle respectively. And when you read what the Bible teaches about these philosophies, you realize that you are not supposed to do that (Colossians 2: 8) because then you destroy the truth.

The question you posted arises under the assumption that Jesus is God. In that case, things get really difficult, you know. You wonder: when Jesus prayed... Who did he pray to? Himself? When he said stuff like "Remove this cup... But let not my will take place but yours" What was the point?... And who resurrected Jesus? Himself? How exactly? Wasn't he supposed to be dead?... And if he set an example for us, when he quoted the Hebrew Scriptures saying: "You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart", was he teaching us to be love ourselves?... And could Jesus sin? If he could, who was he accountable to? Who would punish him or give him a reward? Why did Satan tempt him?

But when Jesus is the Son of God, as the Bible says, the answers are easy. Jesus prayed to his Father; when he died, Jehovah resurrected him; Jesus never talked much about himself but about his Father whom he knew better than anyone; And since Jesus was the Son of God, he could have sinned if he chose to, because he had free will also.

Anyways... Jesus set the example not for us to be as good as he was, but for us to be better than we are (1 Peter 2: 21-23). So we can see ourselves on a mirror and know what our flaws are and what we need to do to have Jehovah's approval. Here's something that cheers me up:

John 16: 33: "I have said these things to you so that by means of me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world." The part that says "take courage! I have conquered the world" gives me the impression that he is trying to say that since he could do it, so could we. His endurance had nothing to do with him being perfect but with him being loyal, and that we can be.

We don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Read Acts 2: 1-9. According to that text, we say it is Jehovah's active force or power. Jesus said it was a helper, not necessarily a person, right?

Whenever you can, try to explain to me how you make sense of the trinity and its implications in a logical way. Because I don't quite get it. I'm not challenging you or insulting you, I am really curious about a logical explanation about this matter from an unbiased source (Meaning you don't hate JWs... you'd realize now why many Christians hate us).

 

[Eventhorizon]

By saying that Jesus could sin if He wanted to, that does not make Jesus Christ a sinner. He could sin, but He won't sin. Ever.
And the synthetis of these two, is that indeed He can not sin ultimately. This is as simple as I can explain it.

Jesus assuming he was real would have to have been exceptionally ignorant to sin considering he was the ONLY person on earth to truly know the end outcome of sinning. Life was easy for Jesus, who couldnt be devine when life was that easy?

 

[Barnabas]

Well, the thing is that most Christian denominations, Catholics and Protestands alike, base most of their doctrines in the Theology of Augustin and Aquinas who themselves were big fans of Greek Philosophy, mainly that of Plato and Aristotle respectively. And when you read what the Bible teaches about these philosophies, you realize that you are not supposed to do that (Colossians 2: 8) because then you destroy the truth.

The question you posted arises under the assumption that Jesus is God. In that case, things get really difficult, you know. You wonder: when Jesus prayed... Who did he pray to? Himself? When he said stuff like "Remove this cup... But let not my will take place but yours" What was the point?... And who resurrected Jesus? Himself? How exactly? Wasn't he supposed to be dead?... And if he set an example for us, when he quoted the Hebrew Scriptures saying: "You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart", was he teaching us to be love ourselves?... And could Jesus sin? If he could, who was he accountable to? Who would punish him or give him a reward? Why did Satan tempt him?

But when Jesus is the Son of God, as the Bible says, the answers are easy. Jesus prayed to his Father; when he died, Jehovah resurrected him; Jesus never talked much about himself but about his Father whom he knew better than anyone; And since Jesus was the Son of God, he could have sinned if he chose to, because he had free will also.

Anyways... Jesus set the example not for us to be as good as he was, but for us to be better than we are (1 Peter 2: 21-23). So we can see ourselves on a mirror and know what our flaws are and what we need to do to have Jehovah's approval. Here's something that cheers me up:

John 16: 33: "I have said these things to you so that by means of me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world." The part that says "take courage! I have conquered the world" gives me the impression that he is trying to say that since he could do it, so could we. His endurance had nothing to do with him being perfect but with him being loyal, and that we can be.

We don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person. Read Acts 2: 1-9. According to that text, we say it is Jehovah's active force or power. Jesus said it was a helper, not necessarily a person, right?

Whenever you can, try to explain to me how you make sense of the trinity and its implications in a logical way. Because I don't quite get it. I'm not challenging you or insulting you, I am really curious about a logical explanation about this matter from an unbiased source (Meaning you don't hate JWs... you'd realize now why many Christians hate us).

I would love to have that conversation I just don't think that it's appropriate to diverge the topic of this thread from that nature of God and Christ with whether or not he was God. If you'd like to start a new thread I'd be happy to join in.

 

[Lark]

Yes, but being FLESH and BLOOD does NOT NECESSITATE being a SINNER.

In the case of CHRIST, he was real flesh and blood, but he was BORN of GOD. Without sin, and without the POSSIBILITY of SIN.

Even the "new spirit" that dwells in the regenerated (spiritually re-born) sinner is incapable of sin, because that spirit is "born of God".

And that spirit is of CHRIST, who is born of God, who, AGAIN, is INCAPABLE of SIN.

Read 1 John 3:9 :

I dont see it that way.

Like I said, given that he was God incarnate its difficult to see how he could have sinned in the sense of turning away from God or disbelief in God, either his existence or providence, since he was God, no one doubts their own existence without being schizophrenic or similarly troubled and there's absolutely no reason to believe this was the case, as to providence he could and did exercise it himself (or not as the case or temptation may be).

There is the possibility that he could have acted in a manner which would have been considered unethical or immoral, he was doing so by the standards of many contemporary Jews in his day, keeping the company of the crippled and ill, whose afflictions were believed to be a consequence of sin, their own or family members etc.

That is not the same as sin though and its something I'd tried to draw out in the other thread about whether or not society needs a concept of sin.

Although I do think that God and Jesus both have the potential for sin given that they possess free will and I think in Jesus case because he possessed not just free will but human will, in some sense I dont think that the bible was going to record Jesus failings that much, it does though, it does record his belief in the race destiny of the Jews etc. and then his departures from those ways of thinking and acting but I'm sure there would be other mistakes which have been omitted because they werent felt important to the narrative which the authors were trying to create. I dont think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that either.

There is a lot within the bible which can be reflected upon, the apparent miracles could be considered and reconsidered as possibly capracious, I read a good fictionalisation of the fate of Lazarous for instance after he had completed his roll in the Jesus story.

 

[Lark]

I think the passage you are referring to is about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. Both things would seem impossible, except for the miraculous.

As for Jesus being true man: does a real man rape women? Does a real man tell lies to cover himself? Does a real man sin against God?
I think that Jesus was indeed true God and true man.

He is different to us in respect of his manner of life because we are not true men.

Yeah, that was the passage I was referring to, although I was replying to an earlier post which cited it.

There is the totally miraculous interpretation, ie a camel passing through the eye of a sowing needle, which appears to be suggesting that rich people, or materialistic people, can not experience paradise or God's gifts, I prefer the other interpretation that it refers to an arch, the camel can pass through it no problem, provided it is unburdened. In which case the story is changed from one of condemnation and mysticism to a teaching tale, a parable from which it is possible to develop wisdom for living.

I see what you are hinting at about the "true man", although when behaving amorally men are still men, perhaps it is a case of being "human, all to human" but then it is still human. I think there are positives and negatives about humanity, it is a wise thing to acknowledge both even if you obviously want to encourage only one aspect and discourage the other.

Like I say, I dont believe it would have been possible for Jesus to sin in the manner of disbelief in God or divine providence, although I believe that he was at least potentially capable of sin the an ethical or moral sense, free will and all.

Philip K Dick wrote a pretty brilliant book called The Divine Invasion which employs psychology and kabbalism or gnosticism to discuss how God, a single being, could have multiple personalities, or incarnations, some of which do not "agree", ie that of satan and jesus, its a good book, even if you arent religious.

 

[Lark]

i suppose it is possible for any human to transgress, the only difference being that he didn't. and i suppose if he could not have been tempted just as every other human was tempted, then he could not have been relatable to other human beings, which was a selling-point for Jesus as promoted by Paul. i stand corrected.

Yeah, the version of Jesus which I read in some of the posts here reads like a "Human Lite" or "Diet Human" or "Human Zero", not the real article, which, for me at least, would invalidate the incarnation's purpose, either to God or humankind.

 

[just me]

That's not entirley truthful, most of the denominations that would be counted for that number are sub-groups within a single denomination, it's the difference between the southern baptists and the free will baptists, they're both baptist but just belive slightly different things on particular topics.



Or we can take my particular favorite from the restoration movement, where e the Churches of Christ split from the Christian Churches over whether or not they used musical instruments during worship(there were a few other arguments dealing with church hierarchy, but the music broke the camels back). Outside of that they are entirely the same theologically and I've had the pleasure of preaching at both.

Or the way the Sunnis and Shias disagree about the lineage of Muhammed.

 

[just me]

Ever had nails beat through your hands and feet?

 

[just me]

That's not entirley truthful, most of the denominations that would be counted for that number are sub-groups within a single denomination, it's the difference between the southern baptists and the free will baptists, they're both baptist but just belive slightly different things on particular topics.



Or we can take my particular favorite from the restoration movement, where e the Churches of Christ split from the Christian Churches over whether or not they used musical instruments during worship(there were a few other arguments dealing with church hierarchy, but the music broke the camels back). Outside of that they are entirely the same theologically and I've had the pleasure of preaching at both.

I used to think of you as a Christian of some sort.

 

[just me]

Whether jesus existed on this earthly plane in bodily form and if he did whether or not he sinned is entirely irrelevant because what matters is YOUR experience not the experience of an avatar 2000 years ago

The ONLY thing that matters is: what are YOU doing?

The teachings of jesus is just one aspect of creation...one aspect of this entire learning experience that is reality. Take what you need from it and keep going but don't get tied down to one thing

Our Father, which art in Heaven
Hallowed be Thy name.

Do you worship God? You stated loving your neighbor and God was the same thing. Do you worship God? Do you honor Him. Do you pray to Him? You get the picture...

 

[SovereignGrace]

I used to think of you as a Christian of some sort.

Well, that's how it is with false prophets. It's not like they're going to expose themselves. So, whenever possible, they must be exposed.

I think Barnabas has been sufficiently exposed at this point, to anyone who knows anything about Scripture.

What Barnabas should do is admit that he's wrong, and seek the mercy of God, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, that's how it is with false prophets. It's not like they're going to expose themselves. So, whenever possible, they must be exposed.

I think Barnabas has been sufficiently exposed at this point, to anyone who knows anything about Scripture.

What Barnabas should do is admit that he's wrong, and seek the mercy of God, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ohoho to be entirely fair, I haven't seen where Barnabas claimed to be a prophet.

Do you even know what a prophet is? A prophet is not somebody who simply says what they believe. A prophet says words and claims that they are divinely inspired.

There's only one person here who has claimed to be a prophet, and that person is you.