PDA

View Full Version : May I speak from my heart!



Samsheep2
Dec 19th 2008, 01:05 PM
In my short time as a member of this board and starting first in the forum known as 'maturing in Christ' (I believe that's it) I was told that 'bible chat' was more suited for debating/discussion, etc; than it.

I love to proclaim what I believe and realize there are all kinds of beliefs in here and from various back grounds and as such we will never ever agree even about who Jesus is - for instance one started a thread to see if "JESUS COULD SIN" Now, when I first glanced at it I passed over a number of times just like a few others that to me made me wonder 'what is their motive' in starting such a thing???

To border on blasphemy is very dangerous and I have a light side about me at times but when it comes to my Savior who loved me and gave Himself for me then that is a very serious matter. I posted a reply;...oops got to go someone at the door;...be back later to finish this.

God bless,
Sam,

P.S. Sorry, but been out all day and just came in after taking my wife out for supper. To resume with my thought above I only meant to say this:
...I posted a reply to the question but then got to thinking, why would one question if Jesus could sin? That is if they believe the word of God and have the blessed Holy Spirit abiding as their teacher and if they truly know the Lord in the free pardon of sin - How can one trust Jesus to save their soul and at the same time believe it was possible for Him to sin? To be this way one would have to wonder if he did, know what I mean!

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 01:24 PM
In my short time as a member of this board and starting first in the forum known as 'maturing in Christ' (I believe that's it) I was told that 'bible chat' was more suited for debating/discussion, etc; than it.

I love to proclaim what I believe and realize there are all kinds of beliefs in here and from various back grounds and as such we will never ever agree even about who Jesus is - for instance one started a thread to see if "JESUS COULD SIN" Now, when I first glanced at it I passed over a number of times just like a few others that to me made me wonder 'what is their motive' in starting such a thing???

To border on blasphemey is very dangerous and I have a light side about me at times but when it comes to my Savior who loved me and gave Himself for me then that is a very serious matter. I posted a reply;...oops go to go someone at the door;...be back later to finish this.

God bless,
sam

Sam, the Truth needs no defense. I worry about people who are offended when their truth is questioned. We act as if God is sitting somewhere PO'd (plum offended), wringing his hands, scared to death by the questions we ask.


I say the one of the biggest problems in Christianity is that we don't think and we don't ask questions. Have you ever noticed that the Bible doesn't defend itself. It didn't start with an arguement for God existence. Why?

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 02:52 PM
In my short time as a member of this board and starting first in the forum known as 'maturing in Christ' (I believe that's it) I was told that 'bible chat' was more suited for debating/discussion, etc; than it.

I love to proclaim what I believe and realize there are all kinds of beliefs in here and from various back grounds and as such we will never ever agree even about who Jesus is - for instance one started a thread to see if "JESUS COULD SIN" Now, when I first glanced at it I passed over a number of times just like a few others that to me made me wonder 'what is their motive' in starting such a thing???

To border on blasphemey is very dangerous and I have a light side about me at times but when it comes to my Savior who loved me and gave Himself for me then that is a very serious matter. I posted a reply;...oops go to go someone at the door;...be back later to finish this.

God bless,
sam

Sometimes people create posts to get us to think beyond the surface. I have started my own threads, which ended up being a little too controversial for my liking, but were simply intended to get others, and myself, to dig a little deeper into the Word.

Could he have sinned? It isn't blasphemy to ask that question anymore than it is to get frustrated one day and ask, "God, are you even real?" We can't get answers my friend unless we ask questions. Did you read the Davinci Code? I did...took it all as fiction and enjoyed the heck out of it. It was based on some gnostic texts from the same time period most of the NT was written. Are they garabage? Sure...but is it blasphemy to ask, "Did you marry Mary Magdaline and have children?" Of course not, and his answer would be no, or course. But there is no harm in asking.

When it gets to the blaphemous state is when you go beyond asking and start teaching that his works are of the devil, that he was a sinner, that he was really married and had kids, that he doesn't exist at all.

Peace.
Ken

Brother Mark
Dec 19th 2008, 04:14 PM
My brother Sam, I understand your feelings. But there was a time when I too wondered if Jesus "could" sin. Not that he ever would, but I was wondering about it because of what it meant to me. If Jesus had the potential to sin, then he too had to overcome all that I had to overcome. While I did not read the thread, perhaps it was not one of blasphemey but one of wanting to understand better.

Jesus had to overcome everything I had to overcome. In all ways he was tempted as I was. If he could not ever, in any way, sin, then how could he be tempted?

I do not proclaim to know the answer to this question. But I have taken great comfort in knowing that because Jesus overcame the flesh, we can too.

Blessings,

Mark

theBelovedDisciple
Dec 19th 2008, 05:14 PM
Sam, the Truth needs no defense. I worry about people who are offended when their truth is questioned. We act as if God is sitting somewhere PO'd (plum offended), wringing his hands, scared to death by the questions we ask.


I say the one of the biggest problems in Christianity is that we don't think and we don't ask questions. Have you ever noticed that the Bible doesn't defend itself. It didn't start with an arguement for God existence. Why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

What was Paul's proclamation?



Wasn't he 'set' in DEFENSE of the Gospel Truth........ that Gospel that was Delivered unto Him...

And in another Epistle.. it is a command to

Earnestly Contend for the 'faith' that was delivered up...

To me that is not just standing by and letting all sorts of doctrine and half truths be labeled as 'truth'.. accepting it all in 'love'...

Pauls statement is very clear.. in 'defense' as there were many 'other' Gosels being proclaimed and many other 'Jesus's' being proclaimed by false teachers, false brethern, false ministers etc.. those whom satan had planted as he plants his own as to appear as the real thing...


Jesus Himself is TRUTH.. He doesnt need defending.. He can 'defend' on His own and He DEFENDS His own children....... and He will..

but when lies, half truths, and downright false teaching comes across that is 'un biblical.. yet accepted as Truth... because we must not judge or we must 'love' and accepting everything in love.... then thats where the line must be drawn as far as 'truth' being defended...

Its like if your a very good cook.. you have a tremendous recipe that you have freely given to those to use.. all of a sudden somebody comes along out of mischief and spite.. adds to that recipe... changes it some.. this making the recipe 'horrible'... then the word gets out that you have a terrible recipe..........will you not 'defend what was Origianlly delivered?

Paul was set in 'defence' of the Gospel Truth delivered to him... its clear in his writing and epistles that there were many other 'gospels' around at that time. and many 'other Jesus's ' being preached... which by the way.. he writes.. those who come to you preaching 'another' Jesus

let him/her be accursed

or you 'might' well bear with him/her..

I may offend some on here.. and some may be taken back by my Bold stance .. but all I can do is testify about Him and what He has done... and I will earnestly contend for that Faith that was first delivered up.. and I will defend the 'Truth'... this maybe offending many.. but I'm not here to 'please' people or man.. but to "please" Him .. Him who has called me out of darkness into His marvelous light..

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 05:26 PM
well, whether jesus could sin or not, the important thing is that he didn't

however the scriptures say he was tempted in every way we are

now we also know God cannot be tempted

however we must remember Jesus who was fully God was also fully man

man can be tempted

The bible also says that Jesus understands us when we are being tempted and he is not in heaven saying how could you even say you are struggling with temptation? i think the verse says we do not have a high preist who is not empathetic or something like that

If Jesus couldn't sin in his flesh, then that means he cannot relate to us

but i believe in his flesh was the possibility to sin, but being also fully God, those temptations were never given into

either way, the main point is he came, he died, he rose, for us and His glory, Amen

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 07:25 PM
My brother Sam, I understand your feelings. But there was a time when I too wondered if Jesus "could" sin. Not that he ever would, but I was wondering about it because of what it meant to me. If Jesus had the potential to sin, then he too had to overcome all that I had to overcome. While I did not read the thread, perhaps it was not one of blasphemey but one of wanting to understand better.

Jesus had to overcome everything I had to overcome. In all ways he was tempted as I was. If he could not ever, in any way, sin, then how could he be tempted?

I do not proclaim to know the answer to this question. But I have taken great comfort in knowing that because Jesus overcame the flesh, we can too.

Blessings,

Mark

Weird...I just had this conversation today with another I know. He too had a similar question, but he was stuck on the word tempted. Why was Messiah tempted...how could he be? He is God?

So I looked up the word tempted in that verse and realized that maybe "tempted" wasn't the best choice of words. You be the judge.

Tempted is taken from:
pi-rad'-zo
From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.

The root word for pirad'zo is:
pi'rah and means to test or put to trial.

So I am not so sure he was tempted as much put to the test. That might be semantics...but....

Ken

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 07:38 PM
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. James 1:13

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 07:43 PM
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. James 1:13

this is true but lets remember that Jesus was fully God AND fully man. God cannot be tempted but Jesus also humbled himself putting on the likeness of sinful flesh. He was also a man. In his man nature he could be tempted

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 07:46 PM
this is true but lets remember that Jesus was fully God AND fully man. God cannot be tempted but Jesus also humbled himself putting on the likeness of sinful flesh. He was also a man. In his man nature he could be tempted

Good point are you thinking of the temptation in the wilderness as biblical backup ?

mikebr
Dec 19th 2008, 07:55 PM
Weird...I just had this conversation today with another I know. He too had a similar question, but he was stuck on the word tempted. Why was Messiah tempted...how could he be? He is God?

So I looked up the word tempted in that verse and realized that maybe "tempted" wasn't the best choice of words. You be the judge.

Tempted is taken from:
pi-rad'-zo
From G3984; to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.

The root word for pirad'zo is:
pi'rah and means to test or put to trial.

So I am not so sure he was tempted as much put to the test. That might be semantics...but....

Ken

The interesting thing to me is that He was led by the Spirit.

TrustingFollower
Dec 19th 2008, 07:55 PM
My brother Sam, I understand your feelings. But there was a time when I too wondered if Jesus "could" sin. Not that he ever would, but I was wondering about it because of what it meant to me. If Jesus had the potential to sin, then he too had to overcome all that I had to overcome. While I did not read the thread, perhaps it was not one of blasphemey but one of wanting to understand better.

Jesus had to overcome everything I had to overcome. In all ways he was tempted as I was. If he could not ever, in any way, sin, then how could he be tempted?

I do not proclaim to know the answer to this question. But I have taken great comfort in knowing that because Jesus overcame the flesh, we can too.

Blessings,

Mark
Like Mark says here, we all ask in order to understand the whole sacrifice Jesus made. While Jesus being fully man and fully God, he did not call on his deity while here as a man. Jesus faced the very same temptation we do and shows us we can overcome too.

If we never asked questions like this how would we grow to maturity in the faith? These kind of questions are the natural progression of maturity and how we find out what those false doctrines are. We don't have to defend God, he is very capable of doing that for himself. We do have to defend ourselves form the false teaching out there and the way we do that is through knowledge of what the truth is.

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 08:14 PM
Good point are you thinking of the temptation in the wilderness as biblical backup ?


that and i was basin it on hebrews 4:15-16 i believe proclaims:

he was tempted in EVERY way that we are.

So there was a part of Jesus in which he can relate to us being tempted. He must have been able to feel what its like for the flesh to be tempted and felt the sinful natures weakness to temptation, yet he was without sin.

I mean, would it be amazing if Jesus didn't sin if it was impossible for Him to do so in His flesh? then whats the point? he cannot relate to us because He didnt even have potential to sin in his flesh?

However i think it is more profound to believe that though he was tempted (implying that he could sin imo), he refused to give into that temptation for 30 years. That is truly amazing. However as i said before, he was not tempted in his Deity. because God cannot be tempted, but Jesus also had a fleshly nature in his physical body right?

timmyb
Dec 19th 2008, 08:23 PM
Well... I can say I haven't been on here much simply because I have seen the same doctrines discussed over and over again and there is always someone who doesn't believe and here's why and there's some one who believes it and here's why...

It is my simple opinion that many of us look too much beyond the surface and take away the simplicity of knowing who Jesus is and thinking the right thoughts about him... Sometimes it just becomes a discussion more about a book than Jesus himself... we need to keep in mind that the Bible is the means to the the end... the end is knowing who Jesus is... the Bible is only a vehicle... it's not a literary work to be broken down an analyzed... it's the word of a living God who desires that his people search him out and know him...

Anyone can make a doctrine and make the Bible back it up... anyone can twist scripture... i can say something and someone can come along and misquote me and say that's what I said and totally miss my heart by a long shot... and that's what I'm afraid people do to God all of the time...

I say this because I am jealous to see someone who wants to know Jesus and have a heart for him... at the end of the day when I stand before God, I won't answer to the Bible, I'll answer to God... the Bible is only a means to know him... and many Bible scholars will hear Jesus say to them 'I never KNEW you'...

reformedct
Dec 19th 2008, 08:42 PM
Well... I can say I haven't been on here much simply because I have seen the same doctrines discussed over and over again and there is always someone who doesn't believe and here's why and there's some one who believes it and here's why...

It is my simple opinion that many of us look too much beyond the surface and take away the simplicity of knowing who Jesus is and thinking the right thoughts about him... Sometimes it just becomes a discussion more about a book than Jesus himself... we need to keep in mind that the Bible is the means to the the end... the end is knowing who Jesus is... the Bible is only a vehicle... it's not a literary work to be broken down an analyzed... it's the word of a living God who desires that his people search him out and know him...

Anyone can make a doctrine and make the Bible back it up... anyone can twist scripture... i can say something and someone can come along and misquote me and say that's what I said and totally miss my heart by a long shot... and that's what I'm afraid people do to God all of the time...

I say this because I am jealous to see someone who wants to know Jesus and have a heart for him... at the end of the day when I stand before God, I won't answer to the Bible, I'll answer to God... the Bible is only a means to know him... and many Bible scholars will hear Jesus say to them 'I never KNEW you'...


this is a very good point and i agree 99.9%

the bible points us to Jesus this true. We can debate all day but if we don't individual seek Jesus and His righteousness for ourselves we won't know Him

however, because the Bible points us to Him, i believe it is wise to try to interpret what the Bible says about JEsus so we can see Him as he really is

For example, if i believe my salvation cannot be lost, and that Jesus will stick with me even when i fall into sin, my affections and relationship with Jesus will be different than if i believe it can be lost. Then my relationship toward Him would be a little different. Way more fear of slipping up by comitting a sin and such

So yes Jesus is the focus. However the Bible tells us about Him. So if we misinterpret what is said about Him, our picture of Him may be a little(and sometimes waaay) off.

Unfortunately i don't think these kind of debates will die until Jesus comes back.

I wish so bad to be able to sit down with Jesus, and have him explain to me exactly what everything in the Bible means, and exactly how i should relate to Him. Unfortunately all believers are not unified in all beliefs but what can you do?

TrustingFollower
Dec 19th 2008, 09:07 PM
Unfortunately all believers are not unified in all beliefs but what can you do?
Simply pray. Unity will eventually come back to this church, at least one part will be unified. That part will be the bride of Christ. The Holy Spirit will move in the true believers and give the revelation needed to cause that unity. This can only happen through submission to God's will and prayer unceasing.

timmyb
Dec 19th 2008, 09:11 PM
this is a very good point and i agree 99.9%

the bible points us to Jesus this true. We can debate all day but if we don't individual seek Jesus and His righteousness for ourselves we won't know Him

however, because the Bible points us to Him, i believe it is wise to try to interpret what the Bible says about JEsus so we can see Him as he really is

For example, if i believe my salvation cannot be lost, and that Jesus will stick with me even when i fall into sin, my affections and relationship with Jesus will be different than if i believe it can be lost. Then my relationship toward Him would be a little different. Way more fear of slipping up by comitting a sin and such

So yes Jesus is the focus. However the Bible tells us about Him. So if we misinterpret what is said about Him, our picture of Him may be a little(and sometimes waaay) off.

Unfortunately i don't think these kind of debates will die until Jesus comes back.

I wish so bad to be able to sit down with Jesus, and have him explain to me exactly what everything in the Bible means, and exactly how i should relate to Him. Unfortunately all believers are not unified in all beliefs but what can you do?

I agree with you... but here's what I was trying to say... yes it's important to know the word of God... but the most important thing is knowing God as a person... and having a wrong thought about God is often shown in faulty doctrine... So I am all about knowing the Bible, but that's not the means to the end... To have knowledge of the Bible without having knowledge of God as a person is in my mind the greatest tragedy in Christianity short of the falling away near the end of the age (which is a rabbit trail I do not want to go down)

Gregg
Dec 19th 2008, 09:38 PM
I agree with you... but here's what I was trying to say... yes it's important to know the word of God... but the most important thing is knowing God as a person... and having a wrong thought about God is often shown in faulty doctrine... So I am all about knowing the Bible, but that's not the means to the end... To have knowledge of the Bible without having knowledge of God as a person is in my mind the greatest tragedy in Christianity short of the falling away near the end of the age (which is a rabbit trail I do not want to go down)

I think I can see what you are saying, but how will you know if you are in fact going down the right trail. It seems to me that we read and then try to live it, not in legalism, but in love. Can we tell if we are changing can we tell if we are making a difference to others? Aren't both of these the fruits that the Bible talks about to give us comfort and peace on what you are talking about?

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 09:53 PM
I wish Samsheep would come back from answering the door. I would like to hear what he fully wanted to state.

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 01:36 AM
Sam, the Truth needs no defense. I worry about people who are offended when their truth is questioned. We act as if God is sitting somewhere PO'd (plum offended), wringing his hands, scared to death by the questions we ask. Who said I was offended? Not I - mad yep!!! but not offended. And as for the truth needs no defence I disagree with that my friend the bible is plain to the 'saints' that we are to earnestly contend for the faith' - that is the truth.

Do you understand what that means? Here it is 2008 and Jude V3,4, was pen down 1900 plus years ago and the truth was defended by the Apostle Paul at every turn - I could give you many instances where this took place but for one:

Acts 17:22-34 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.


I say the one of the biggest problems in Christianity is that we don't think and we don't ask questions. Have you ever noticed that the Bible doesn't defend itself. It didn't start with an arguement for God existence. Why? Ah! but my friend that same bible said to preach the word, to not be ashamed, to be instant in season and out of season, to reprove, rebuke and exhort - From what you say I feel you have never studied the life of Paul. If the pattern of our salvation defended the faith (truth) you better believe this old soldier is going too.

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:09 AM
My brother Sam, I understand your feelings. But there was a time when I too wondered if Jesus "could" sin. Not that he ever would, but I was wondering about it because of what it meant to me. If Jesus had the potential to sin, then he too had to overcome all that I had to overcome. While I did not read the thread, perhaps it was not one of blasphemy but one of wanting to understand better.]/quote] Mark it was not the original poster that has upset me it was the backers that jumped on board with their scripture saying YES!!!!!! he could have. Now a young one in the LORD might ask but not one who has left the milk.

[quote]Jesus had to overcome everything I had to overcome. In all ways he was tempted as I was. If he could not ever, in any way, sin, then how could he be tempted? Mark, I have no way of knowing how long you have been born from above and I have already answered this in the other thread and I think in this one also but just in case you miss or over look them:
Can an Impeccable Person like Jesus Be Tempted as a peccable one?
It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation. Not only is there agreement on the fact that Christ had no sin nature, but it is also agreed on the other hand, that as to His person He was tempted. This is plainly stated in Hebrews: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:15 ). Mark, I'm not sure how acquainted you are with 'mariology' but one thing they are ignorant of is this, even though Jesus was born of a Virgin he had not any of her blood in His veins - we get our blood from the Father and not the mother - ask your Dr.
It is also clear that this temptation came to Christ in virtue of the fact that He possessed a human nature, as James states: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man” (1:13 ). On the one hand, Christ was tempted in all points except through that of a sin nature, and on the other hand His divine nature could not be tempted because God cannot be tempted. While His human nature is temptable, His divine nature is not temptable. On these points all can agree. The question is, then, can such a person as Christ is, possessing both human and divine natures, be tempted if He is impeccable?
The answer must be in the affirmative.

Mark, the question is simply, is it possible to attempt the impossible? To this all would agree. It is possible for a rowboat to attack a battleship, even though it is conceivably impossible for the rowboat to conquer the battleship. The idea that temptability implies susceptibility is unsound. While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable. It will be observed that the same temptation which would be easily resisted by one of sound character may be embraced by one of weak character. The temptation of a drunken debauch would have little chance of causing one to fall who had developed an abhorrence of drink, while a habitual drunkard would be easily led astray. The temptation might be the same in both cases, but the ones tempted would have contrasting powers of resistance. It is thus demonstrated that there is no essential relation between temptability and peccability.
Temptability depends upon the constitutional susceptibility, while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as his natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But his peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by those temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which he was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of his holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce him to sin, and he would be impeccable. And yet plainly he would be temptable.”

No creature is beyond the possibility of temptation, though he may, by grace, be beyond the possibility of yielding to temptation. The only being who cannot be tempted is God: James 1:13. And this, from the nature of an Infinite Being. Ambition of some sort is the motive at the bottom of all temptation. When the creature is tempted, it is suggested to him to endeavor to ‘be as gods.’ He is incited to strive for a higher place in the grade of being than he now occupies. But this, of course, cannot apply to the Supreme Being. He is already God over all and blessed forever. He, therefore, is absolutely intemptable.”

Mark, I close with this thought, how can one who could have sin sent His seed into my NEW BEING and then said:

1 John 3:9 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.

Thanks, Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:11 AM
well, whether jesus could sin or not, the important thing is that he didn't

however the scriptures say he was tempted in every way we are

now we also know God cannot be tempted

however we must remember Jesus who was fully God was also fully man

man can be tempted

The bible also says that Jesus understands us when we are being tempted and he is not in heaven saying how could you even say you are struggling with temptation? i think the verse says we do not have a high preist who is not empathetic or something like that

If Jesus couldn't sin in his flesh, then that means he cannot relate to us

but i believe in his flesh was the possibility to sin, but being also fully God, those temptations were never given into

either way, the main point is he came, he died, he rose, for us and His glory, Amen

Feel free to read post #20,21 and 22,

Thanks, Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:16 AM
Well... I can say I haven't been on here much simply because I have seen the same doctrines discussed over and over again and there is always someone who doesn't believe and here's why and there's some one who believes it and here's why...

It is my simple opinion that many of us look too much beyond the surface and take away the simplicity of knowing who Jesus is and thinking the right thoughts about him... Sometimes it just becomes a discussion more about a book than Jesus himself... we need to keep in mind that the Bible is the means to the the end... the end is knowing who Jesus is... the Bible is only a vehicle... it's not a literary work to be broken down an analyzed... it's the word of a living God who desires that his people search him out and know him...

Anyone can make a doctrine and make the Bible back it up... anyone can twist scripture... i can say something and someone can come along and misquote me and say that's what I said and totally miss my heart by a long shot... and that's what I'm afraid people do to God all of the time...

I say this because I am jealous to see someone who wants to know Jesus and have a heart for him... at the end of the day when I stand before God, I won't answer to the Bible, I'll answer to God... the Bible is only a means to know him... and many Bible scholars will hear Jesus say to them 'I never KNEW you'...

I agree to a point but we are commanded by our LORD to study the scripture so as to be able rightly divide them and not be ashamed at His coming - I could say a bit more but if interested read my three posts #20,21 & 22,

Thanks, Sam

Brother Mark
Dec 20th 2008, 12:13 PM
Mark it was not the original poster that has upset me it was the backers that jumped on board with their scripture saying YES!!!!!! he could have. Now a young one in the LORD might ask but not one who has left the milk.

OK. That explains it. I thought you were upset with the question. We all learn by asking questions.



Mark, I have no way of knowing how long you have been born from above and I have already answered this in the other thread and I think in this one also but just in case you miss or over look them:

Can an Impeccable Person like Jesus Be Tempted as a peccable one?
It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation.Indeed, There is a difference between being tempted within and without. Only those that have experienced true freedom can tell the difference. Yet, we see Jesus was tempted in the desert when he was hungry. Thus, his flesh experienced temptation in the same manner we do. But he had no sin nature. His temptation was similar to that which faced Adam and Eve. The first Adam failed while the second Adam did not. He was tempted in all ways just like we are my friend. It was no less a temptation than you or I would face. It is every bit as stout and desirous. He resisted to the point of shedding blood in prayer. Often, we give up earlier than that.


His divine nature could not be tempted because God cannot be tempted
. While His human nature is temptable, His divine nature is not temptable. On these points all can agree. The question is, then, can such a person as Christ is, possessing both human and divine natures, be tempted if He is impeccable?

The answer must be in the affirmative. Sam, don't we, as believers, have a human nature? :hmm:

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 12:28 PM
even though Jesus was born of a Virgin he had not any of her blood in His veins - we get our blood from the Father and not the mother - ask your Dr.

What's your evidence for this assertion please? Are you talking about biological red stuff or as a metaphor for human nature? Are you saying Jesus got none of his DNA from Mary?

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 01:26 PM
I wish Samsheep would come back from answering the door. I would like to hear what he fully wanted to state.

Hi MM, it's been a long time I know since you made this request - and since from the door thing I had to leave, got in late, answered a few of these replies - I would ask that you go directly to #'s 20,21, & 22.

Thanks, Sam

Of course when I got back to complete what was on my heart others had started replying to me and...well, you know how it goes in here!!!

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 01:35 PM
OK. That explains it. I thought you were upset with the question. We all learn by asking questions. Hi my friend and glad you understood.


Sam, don't we, as believers, have a human nature? :hmm: Sure, and ours is a two-fold human nature taking both Father & Mother to produce it. One planted the seed and the other incubated it until birth - not so with Jesus since He was GOD in the flesh. I've already explained this and will be glad to say more. But thank God after the NEW BIRTH we too become like Him in that all who are born again or as scripture states (born of God) doth not commit sin). Just the old man, he's the one that must be changed like his soul and spirit.

God bless,

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 01:39 PM
What's your evidence for this assertion please? Are you talking about biological red stuff or as a metaphor for human nature? Are you saying Jesus got none of his DNA from Mary?

To a point yes, since He was GOD in the flesh and there was no corruption within Him. You do believe that right?

I'm fixing to have to leave but will gladly go into more detail after I get back, sorry;...

Have a blessed day, Sam

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 01:52 PM
Absolutely I believe He was sinless; born without the taint of original sin and did not sin at any point. There's a topic on Mary in this folder which is touching on this, and we're discussing the incarnation there.

Brother Mark
Dec 20th 2008, 01:53 PM
Sure, and ours is a two-fold human nature taking both Father & Mother to produce it. One planted the seed and the other incubated it until birth - not so with Jesus since He was GOD in the flesh. I've already explained this and will be glad to say more. But thank God after the NEW BIRTH we too become like Him in that all who are born again or as scripture states (born of God) doth not commit sin). Just the old man, he's the one that must be changed like his soul and spirit.
God bless,

Correct. Jesus didn't have a sin nature, i.e. the old man. Yet, he did have flesh, in the same way that Adam and Eve did. And what's even more exciting, is that we have Jesus nature, the divine nature in us now so that we no longer have to sin. We are now partakers of the divine nature.

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:35 PM
Absolutely I believe He was sinless; born without the taint of original sin and did not sin at any point. There's a topic on Mary in this folder which is touching on this, and we're discussing the incarnation there.

It's me again, after going out and seeing the rain start I called off my trip and came back in - too old to split wood in the rain (74).

Thanks, I saw this but never clicked on it and will take a peep at it later.

As for evidence I will gladly give you a link for your own personal study which will save me time and typing. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/01.htm

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

This very fact that sin is in the blood necessitated the VIRGIN BIRTH of Christ if He was to be a son of Adam and yet a sinless man. For this very reason, Christ could partake of Adam’s flesh which is not inherently sinful, but He could not partake of Adam’s blood which was completely impregnated with sin. God found a way by which Jesus "born of a woman" (not man) could be a perfect human being but, because He had not a drop of Adam’s sin in His veins He did not share in Adam’s sin. We take up this subject of the virgin birth in another message, but we just anticipated this thought here to further prove the statement that sin is in the blood and the whole plan of redemption, therefore, revolves around the blood. Next, go to this link:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/03.htm

It is not Eve's blood which flows in the veins of mankind but ADAMS. That is why it is ADAM's sin and not Eve's which all men inherit. Sin is in the blood, and transmitted in the blood of man and in the flesh. Since the LIFE is in the blood according to the Scriptures, and the wages of sin was death, sin affected the blood of Adam and caused him to die. Because sin is a disease of the blood, it can be cured by the application of sinless blood, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. As the first Adam’s sin corrupted the blood of the entire human family, so the pure sinless blood of the last Adam makes atonement for the sin of the world. "For without shedding of blood is no remission . . ." "It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." It was not Eve’s sin which affect us although Eve sinned before Adam did. It was the SIN of ADAM which brought death upon the whole race because it is ADAMS blood that transmits original sin and it is for this reason we are not called the SEED OF THE WOMAN but we are ADAM'S SEED. ONLY Jesus is called the Seed of the woman, because He was born of a woman without one drop of human blood in His veins, and thereby could avoid the sin of Adam which is only transmitted through the blood which the male contributes to his offspring. Jesus could have a human body, but one drop of Adam's blood would have made Him a sinner just as you and I. There was then only one remedy for SIN and that was sinless blood and only one could supply this, even the sinless Son of God.

Here is my last link for your own personal study:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_MR_DeHaan/Chemistry/04.htm

JESUS SINLESS

The Bible teaches in addition that Jesus was a SINLESS man. While all men from Adam to this day are born with Adam’s sinful nature, and, therefore, are subject to the curse and eternal death, the Man Jesus was without sin and, therefore, DEATHLESS until He took the sin of others upon Himself and died THEIR death. Now while Jesus was of Adam's race according to the flesh yet He did not inherit Adam's nature. This alone will prove that sin is not transmitted through the flesh. It is transmitted through the blood and not the flesh, and even though Jesus was of the "Seed of David according to the flesh" this could not make him a sinner.

God has made of ONE BLOOD ALL THE NATIONS of the earth. Sinful heredity is transmitted through the blood and not through the flesh. Even though Jesus, therefore, received His flesh, His body from a sinful race, He could still be sinless as long as not a drop blood of this sinful race entered His veins. God must find a way whereby Jesus could be perfectly human according to the flesh and yet not have the blood of sinful humanity. That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.

ORIGIN OF THE BLOOD

It is now definitely known that the blood which flows in an unborn babies arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the foetus itself only after the introduction of the male sperm. An unfertilized ovum can never develop blood since the female egg does not by itself contain the elements essential for the production of this blood. It is only after the male element has entered the ovum that blood can develop. As a very simple illustration of this, think of the egg of a hen. An unfertilized egg is just an ovum on a much larger scale than the human ovum. You may incubate this unfertilized hens egg but it will never develop. It will decay and become rotten, but no chick will result. Let that egg be fertilized by the introduction of the male sperm and incubation will bring to light the presence of LIFE IN THAT EGG. After a few hours it visibly develops. In a little while red streaks occur in the egg denoting the presence of Blood. This can never occur and does never occur until THE MALE SPERM HAS BEEN UNITED WITH THE FEMALE OVUM. The male element has added life to the egg. Life is in the blood according to scripture, for Moses says:
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:11). "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof."


Leviticus 17:14

Since there is no life in the egg until the male sperm unites with it, and the life is in the blood, it follows that the male sperm is the source of the blood, the seed of life. Think it through.


NO MOTHERS BLOOD
For this very reason, it is unnecessary that a single drop of blood be given to the developing embryo in the womb of the mother. Such is the case according to science. The mother provides the foetus (the unborn developing infant) with the nutritive elements for the building of that little body in the secret of her bosom, but all the blood which forms in that little body is formed in the embryo itself and only as a result of the contribution of the male parent. From the time of conception to the time of birth of the infant not ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD ever passes from mother to child. The placenta that mass of temporary tissue known better as “afterbirth,” forming the union between mother and child is so constructed that although all the soluble nutritive elements such as proteins, fats, carbohydrates, salts, minerals and even antibodies pass freely from mother to child and the waste products of the child's metabolism are passed back to the mothers circulation, no actual interchange of a single drop of blood ever occurs normally. All the blood which is in that child is produced within the child itself as a result of the introduction of the male sperm. The mother contributes no blood at all.

TESTIMONY OF SCIENCE

Now for the sake of some of the skeptics who may doubt these statements let me quote from a few reliable authorities. In Howell’s Textbook of Physiology, Second Edition, pages 885 and 886, I read:
"For the purpose of understanding its general functions it is sufficient to recall that the placenta consists essentially of vascular chorionic papillae from the foetus (the unborn child) bathed in the large blood spaces of the decidual membrane of the mother. The fetal and maternal blood DO NOT COME INTO ACTUAL CONTACT. THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER by the walls of the fetal blood vessels and the epithelial layers of the chorionic villae."
Or let me quote from Williams’ Practice of Obstetrics, Third Edition, page 133. Here I quote,
"The fetal blood in the vessels of the chorionic villae AT NO TIME GAINS ACCESS TO THE MATERNAL BLOOD in the intervillous space, BEING SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER by the double layer of chorionic epithelium."

I hope this all helps and of course a study of this sort is not received in one reading or a day or? But when one compares scripture with the scripture as we are taught...well, God bless,

Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:38 PM
Correct. Jesus didn't have a sin nature, i.e. the old man. Yet, he did have flesh, in the same way that Adam and Eve did. And what's even more exciting, is that we have Jesus nature, the divine nature in us now so that we no longer have to sin. We are now partakers of the divine nature.

Exactly and if interested please read post #32.

God bless,
Sam

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 02:43 PM
Thanks Sam - I'll read it carefully and come back with any comments I have :)

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:46 PM
Thanks Sam - I'll read it carefully and come back with any comments I have :)

You're more than welcome as we say in the South;...

God bless
Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 02:57 PM
To border on blasphemy is very dangerous and I have a light side about me at times but when it comes to my Savior who loved me and gave Himself for me then that is a very serious matter. I posted a reply;...oops got to go someone at the door;...be back later to finish this. As a clarrification only please allow me to say that there are other ways to blaspheme than just this one:

Mark 3:28-29 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Since some appear to have misunderstood my opening words and esp. the above ones about 'TO BORDER ON BLASPHEMY' I encourage them to at least study these two V's out. After doing it then maybe they will see a more wider sense of why I said what I said.

Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.
1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
James 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Revelation 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Thanks, Sam

Bethany67
Dec 20th 2008, 03:45 PM
Sam - that's a most excellent series of articles. It really blessed me spiritually AND answered some specific ponderings I've had today. I'd disagree with the author about unfertilized hens' eggs never having bloodspots (this can happen in less than 1% of unfertilized eggs because the blood vessels in the yolk sac may rupture), but that's really a minor point. I love how he pulls the whole of scripture together and shows the theme of the blood running all the way through. Thank you! I can pay the author no higher compliment than to say it moved me to tears and worship.

ProjectPeter
Dec 20th 2008, 04:14 PM
Sounds great and all... but it is still devoid of anything Scriptural that speaks of sin being in the blood.

Think of it this way... no where does Scripture say that we war with the "blood in us". Does speak of our war with the flesh though. No where do we see an analogy in Scripture that we have some sort of magical blood transfusion when we are born again. What we do have is the old man is buried and the new man rises from that death... etc. No where does it mention on that grand day that we'll have glorified blood... but it does mention that body. There are just too many holes in this... and this is just a few things. There is more such as McGyver said elsewhere... "Kinda blows the whole concept (fulfillment of the office) of Jesus as our "kinsman redeemer" right out of the water...doesn't it?" He'd be right as well.

While all of this sounds cool... it falls well short of any proof that sin is in the blood. In that regard is really is quite contrary to Scripture.

threebigrocks
Dec 20th 2008, 05:12 PM
Sam, question for you.

How do you separate the sin from the flesh when what we have now through faith is not flesh but spiritual?

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 05:54 PM
Sam - that's a most excellent series of articles. It really blessed me spiritually AND answered some specific ponderings I've had today. I'd disagree with the author about unfertilized hens' eggs never having bloodspots (this can happen in less than 1% of unfertilized eggs because the blood vessels in the yolk sac may rupture), but that's really a minor point. I love how he pulls the whole of scripture together and shows the theme of the blood running all the way through. Thank you! I can pay the author no higher compliment than to say it moved me to tears and worship.

You're welcome and I also was moved many years ago after the Lord had saved me out of religion and this book 'CHEMISTRY OF THE BLOOD' crossed my path. At that time I had been taught the liberal way and the Holy Soirit grounded this in my soul.

God bless,
Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 05:58 PM
Sounds great and all... but it is still devoid of anything Scriptural that speaks of sin being in the blood.

Think of it this way... no where does Scripture say that we war with the "blood in us". Does speak of our war with the flesh though. No where do we see an analogy in Scripture that we have some sort of magical blood transfusion when we are born again. What we do have is the old man is buried and the new man rises from that death... etc. No where does it mention on that grand day that we'll have glorified blood... but it does mention that body. There are just too many holes in this... and this is just a few things. There is more such as McGyver said elsewhere... "Kinda blows the whole concept (fulfillment of the office) of Jesus as our "kinsman redeemer" right out of the water...doesn't it?" He'd be right as well.

While all of this sounds cool... it falls well short of any proof that sin is in the blood. In that regard is really is quite contrary to Scripture.

Well, as the saying goes 'to each his own' But there are five chapters in those links and I challenge you to read it all.

Thanks, Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 06:15 PM
Sam, question for you.

How do you separate the sin from the flesh when what we have now through faith is not flesh but spiritual?

Of course I could go back over all the articles which the links point to - but I am satisfied with the whole concept of the impeccability of the man Jesus. All I will do is challenge you to re-read all five chapters and study the issue out about the chemistry of the blood.

I will say this to answer your question above - since the life of the flesh is in the blood and since just as the wind it's self cannot be seen (only the effects of) then the flesh manifests sin outwardly which it was impossible for Christ to do since He was without sin. No one but the Sovereign God can separate all this simply because when He purpose to take a sinner, to make him a saint and then with a glorified body to become like our mediator who is at the right hand side. All I know for sure by faith is now I have been predestine to be like Him.

Theologically speaking, it would take page after page after page and then to some there would still be doubts since only the Holy Spirit can reveal this to the heart.

I hope this helps to answer what I think your question was to me.

Thanks, Sam

ProjectPeter
Dec 20th 2008, 06:47 PM
Well, as the saying goes 'to each his own' But there are five chapters in those links and I challenge you to read it all.

Thanks, Sam
I read it all. Again... it fails the test of Scripture... fails it badly. Tell you what... pick which passage you think most strongly makes the case... since this is Bible chat... we can start there and talk about what the Bible says in regard to this. :)

threebigrocks
Dec 20th 2008, 08:08 PM
Of course I could go back over all the articles which the links point to - but I am satisfied with the whole concept of the impeccability of the man Jesus. All I will do is challenge you to re-read all five chapters and study the issue out about the chemistry of the blood.

I will say this to answer your question above - since the life of the flesh is in the blood and since just as the wind it's self cannot be seen (only the effects of) then the flesh manifests sin outwardly which it was impossible for Christ to do since He was without sin. No one but the Sovereign God can separate all this simply because when He purpose to take a sinner, to make him a saint and then with a glorified body to become like our mediator who is at the right hand side. All I know for sure by faith is now I have been predestine to be like Him.

Theologically speaking, it would take page after page after page and then to some there would still be doubts since only the Holy Spirit can reveal this to the heart.

I hope this helps to answer what I think your question was to me.

Thanks, Sam

Since it seems I'm half a step behind ProjectPeter on this :rolleyes:, and his question to you is the same and mine would have been, we'll wait for your reply to his question. ;)