The temptation of Christ ...

[Guest]

Jesus was obviously very different from us, being able to resist all temptation to sin.

Doesn't that raise the question then on how he was able to resist all temptation to sin? Did he do it through supernatural means or natural means? In the instances where he resisted temptation he just didn't make the Devil disappear, he used scripture to counteract the Devil's arguments. He could have easily casted the Devil into some swine or the Abyss, but he didn't.

I too find this topic interesting because I find it important to know that Jesus was able to sympathize with our weaknesses. If he used supernatural means than how could he possibly be sympathetic towards us? I just find it odd that Jesus would come down here to be our example, but he would be using powers that we don't have access to and therefore making it impossible for us to know if he can relate to us or not.

Please don't take my words as being hostile. I am seriously trying to see the other side of this view, but in light of certain scriptures I just can see how it stands up. If you can show how the other side can explain the scriptures given, than that may help me see your point of view. Thanks.

[Guest]

Romans 5:18,19 -

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Micah, Thanks, good post

However if you look at this verse (5.18) in isolation it does sound like it proves imputed sin "condemnation vs justification" but if you read Romans 5 in it's entirety you see Paul comparing Christ's sacrifice to Adam's transgression and 5 times Paul calls Christ's sacrifice "MUCH MORE" then Adam's transgression.
Which sounds to me that Adam's transgression gave man a desire or bent toward sin as opposed to imputed sin but Christ's sacrifice gives is IMPUTED righteousness which is MUCH MORE then what Adam did which was allowing sin to come into the world as a whole.

[Guest]

Romans 5:18,19 -

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Micah, Thanks, good post

However if you look at this verse (5.18) in isolation it does sound like it proves imputed sin "condemnation vs justification" but if you read Romans 5 in it's entirety you see Paul comparing Christ's sacrifice to Adam's transgression and 5 times Paul calls Christ's sacrifice "MUCH MORE" then Adam's transgression.
Which sounds to me that Adam's transgression gave man a desire or bent toward sin as opposed to imputed sin but Christ's sacrifice gives is IMPUTED righteousness which is MUCH MORE then what Adam did which was allowing sin to come into the world as a whole.

Are you suggesting then that man has the capability to never sin? Or would you say that being bent toward sin is actually the sin nature? If we had that possibility to not sin than how could the verse that says "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" be true? If God gave us the capability to be sinless, wouldn't that verse be assuming that man has no choice, but to fail. Also, in the verse quoted above in Romans that states "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men", how can that be if one is able to resist all sin?

[Guest]

Pia, the word God is used in many ways throughout the Bible literature. go back to the drawing board, and study on this. The way in which the verb is used does not build a case.

[Guest]

micah wrote:

I too find this topic interesting because I find it important to know that Jesus was able to sympathize with our weaknesses. If he used supernatural means than how could he possibly be sympathetic towards us?

before i respond (and i dont think you are being hostile at all- i hope i dont come across that way!)- i want to make clear that i dont necessarily disagree with your viewpoint. in fact i believe that you and homer are likely correct, but i am simply not 100% sure about this. these "arguments" help me to hone my thinking.

now, in response to Jesus being sympathetic-- as i indicated earlier, why must we conclude that simply because Jesus isnt tested "exactly like us" or that he had the advantage of no sin nature that he cant be sympathetic with our plight? can't we as normal people be sympathetic to others that have fallen into sin that we, by the grace of God, have not fallen in to? Let's face it, Jesus was not tempted in every exact way that we are. he didnt have the internet. he didnt have TV with blatant sexual and violent images assaulting his senses every few minutes. women's fashions were different. yes, i believe that he was tested in the same areas we are, but maybe not with the same intensity. however, i still believe that jesus is able to sympathize with the struggles that the post-modern world brings to our respective plates.

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15 (ESV)

this verse does not explain how Jesus resisted temptation, simply that he did so. are we to imply from this verse that jesus had "weaknesses?" or simply that he can sympathize with ours (because he created us)?

TK

[Guest]

Are you suggesting then that man has the capability to never sin? Or would you say that being bent toward sin is actually the sin nature? If we had that possibility to not sin than how could the verse that says "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" be true? If God gave us the capability to be sinless, wouldn't that verse be assuming that man has no choice, but to fail. Also, in the verse quoted above in Romans that states "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men", how can that be if one is able to resist all sin?

If we don't have "original sin" or sin imputed to us then theoretically it should be possible for someone not to sin although the bible states everyone has indeed sinned.
Other then Romans 5 the weight of scripture is that a man is responsible for his own sins and not his father's sin nor Adam's sin so if Romans 5 teaches original sin then for example Ezekial did'nt did'nt know what he was talking about because he explained at great length about personal responsibility.
Yes i acknowledged that Romans 5.18 by itself sounds like imputed sin but even this verse does'nt precisely state that .
Is "condemnation" necessarily imputed sin, it could be a bent toward sin and it could be the legal permission by God to allow Satan to have the power to be the god of this world. Or the condemnation Paul could be referring to may be death, not imputed sin at all.
"for if by the offense of the ONE the death did reign THROUGH THE ONE, MUCH MORE those who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving" 5.17
The condemnation may in fact be death.

[Guest]

TK,

No, you have not been hostile at all. I just sometimes find it diffucult sometimes to express words on a discussion board without trying to come across as too agressive.

now, in response to Jesus being sympathetic-- as i indicated earlier, why must we conclude that simply because Jesus isnt tested "exactly like us" or that he had the advantage of no sin nature that he cant be sympathetic with our plight? can't we as normal people be sympathetic to others that have fallen into sin that we, by the grace of God, have not fallen in to?

But is that really sympathy or empathy? The definition of sympathy is to have an affinity or association with someone wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other. I can have empathy towards someone who became paralyzed, but I could never sympathize with them because I have never experienced anything similar to that.

Let's face it, Jesus was not tempted in every exact way that we are. he didnt have the internet. he didnt have TV with blatant sexual and violent images assaulting his senses every few minutes. women's fashions were different. yes, i believe that he was tested in the same areas we are, but maybe not with the same intensity. however, i still believe that jesus is able to sympathize with the struggles that the post-modern world brings to our respective plates.

However, aren't we all tempted towards our own desires more than others. Like some people seem to be more perceptible to alcohol and others to lust, but we can all sympathize with each other because we know what it is like to be tempted by something.

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15 (ESV)

this verse does not explain how Jesus resisted temptation, simply that he did so. are we to imply from this verse that jesus had "weaknesses?" or simply that he can sympathize with ours (because he created us)?

Like I stated above Jesus can sympathize because he has that shared connection and not just because he created us. He has suffered the same feelings of temptations as we have.

Hebrews 2:18 -

18For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

Also, I do think Jesus had weaknesses just like us. He was hungry after 40 days in the desert. That is why the Devil used that as the first temptation.

[Guest]

good comeback micah. i really think you are right. but it just goes to show just how amazing Jesus was and what he was able to accomplish. never an unkind word, never a hint of sarcasm, never allowing an impure thought. amazing.

quite honestly, as i was growing up i always assumed that Jesus was sinless because he was God and couldnt sin. i never really seriously considered this issue until fairly recently. i am not sure what my pastor thinks about this; i'll need to ask him.

TK

[Guest]

If we don't have "original sin" or sin imputed to us then theoretically it should be possible for someone not to sin although the bible states everyone has indeed sinned.

Seems like a catch 22 statement. How can being sinless = have sinned?

Other then Romans 5 the weight of scripture is that a man is responsible for his own sins and not his father's sin nor Adam's sin so if Romans 5 teaches original sin then for example Ezekial did'nt did'nt know what he was talking about because he explained at great length about personal responsibility.

I don't see how this would negate us being born with a sin nature. I believe we inherit a lot of sinful tendancies from our parents. We tend to imitate the people who teach us.

Even though I am not responsible for Adam's sin or my Father's sin that doesn't mean I shouldn't be responsible for my own even if it is passed down from Adam. I still have control over my own choices in life. I do have the ability to choose right even though I do have a sinful nature.

Yes i acknowledged that Romans 5.18 by itself sounds like imputed sin but even this verse does'nt precisely state that .
Is "condemnation" necessarily imputed sin, it could be a bent toward sin and it could be the legal permission by God to allow Satan to have the power to be the god of this world. Or the condemnation Paul could be referring to may be death, not imputed sin at all.
"for if by the offense of the ONE the death did reign THROUGH THE ONE, MUCH MORE those who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving" 5.17
The condemnation may in fact be death.

I could give you that, but it doesn’t explain verse 19:

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. [emphasis added]

Also, what would you say about Romans 3:23 –

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

How could a baby who dies at birth be a sinner if they do not have the sinful nature?

What would you also say was the reason for the virgin birth? If we are born without a sinful nature than there shouldn’t have been a problem with Jesus being born from Joseph’s seed. It would have been miraculous as well.

[Guest]

good comeback micah. i really think you are right. but it just goes to show just how amazing Jesus was and what he was able to accomplish. never an unkind word, never a hint of sarcasm, never allowing an impure thought. amazing.

quite honestly, as i was growing up i always assumed that Jesus was sinless because he was God and couldnt sin. i never really seriously considered this issue until fairly recently. i am not sure what my pastor thinks about this; i'll need to ask him.

TK

Yes, it is quite amazing, but before you go pestering your pastor, may I throw a little fuel on the smoldering flames. Tell me (or anyone else) what you think of this passage:

Isaiah 7:14-16

14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."