Was Jesus God?

[Sevenseas]

ninhao:

First, thanks for the good 'going over' you gave my post...I appreciate that you did more than a cursory read!

fter examination I find there can be different meanings applied to the words test and tempt in scripture. I don't agree that because the words are not used interchangeably in the KJV that this proves they are always singular in meaning. I do not find the KJV infallible in translation.

I don't know what you mean by 'always singular in meaning'?

Once again there can be different meanings to the words tempt/test.

Actually, it is the APPLICATION of the word, the way it is used, that defines the meaning...ie...test can be both noun and verb as follows:

The word test can be both a noun: as in 'I am so glad I studied for that test!' or a verb as in: 'Listen here ... do you really want to test my patience?'

AND can be used as a verb with or without an object...without object: to undergo a test...with object: we need to test that paint

I hope you can see that by those definitions, the word test can be applied in the same manner as the word tempt

The word tempt on the other hand, is only used as a verb...you cannot tempt a test but you can be tempted to cheat on a test

At any rate, I did mention going over several translations and not just the KJ...I am not a KJ Bible only person, but there are translations far worse

There is not some different meaning in the way the devil tested, tried or tempted Jesus as Jesus was not a partial god...He was God in the flesh.

Therefore, He cannot be tempted as a person can be and God (the Father) cannot be tempted as a person can be

If you insist there is some kind of difference in the testing Jesus underwent, the only thing I can think of was that the purpose of His testing

was to remain sinless and yet still be able to understand the fraility of our flesh when we undergo tests, trials, temptations.

If you suggest that Jesus wanted the things the devil offered, as Mike seems to do (he has not come back but he sure made a splash in the

Trinity thread...he does not believe in the Trinity either) but overcame anyway, then I have to disagree. That theory suggests that Jesus

was tempted from within and I do not believe that. He was sinless on earth, the Bible states that no sin was found in Him...it does not take

very long to find sin in us

The Bible states we are drawn away and tempted by the things that are IN us...so, unless someone believes that Jesus had sin IN Him,

I do not see how He could be tempted from within...

I find it strange that God would offer a test to show satan can be resisted when it was impossible to fail. That is, if the second Adam could not be tempted in the same manner as the first Adam then the propitiatory equivalencies have not been met. This is my opinion.

Well ok...I can see the logic in this...but the understanding is not in how we perceive things, but in how God applies things and

what it meant when Jesus died...death could not hold Him because He was sinless....no sin was found IN Him EVEN though

He was tested...the test or tempting failed as NO SIN WAS IN HIM. Does that make it clearer?

Guess if we still do not agree on this, it may remain that way..as long as you do not think Jesus was less God than God

That error, I believe, leads to many more and I believe that has become quite evident (to clarify...I don't mean you!)

[Mcgyver]

Just kind of a thought here...

We know from the book of James that: each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. (emphasis mine)

We each as human beings have a "sin nature" (for purposes of this discussion defined as) the propensity or predilection to sin...hopefully we can agree on this point.

I also think that this "sin nature" is something that is "passed down" (for lack of a better term) through the patriarchal line. We never see the term "sins of the mothers", it is always the "sins of the fathers". Eve is not held responsible for sin and death entering the world (though she gave into temptation first), Adam is the one held responsible.

Jesus however...who was fully man as well as fully God...was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and therefore did not inherit the sin nature that is passed down to us through the patriarchal line.

Therefore, even though Jesus had desires...His greatest desire...the one overwhelming force driving Him here on earth...was the desire to be obedient and to please the Father (being of one essence with the Father, this I feel makes perfect sense).

If Jesus was not tempted, then we have a problem with Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. (emphasis mine)

This obviously speaks not only to testing, but to temptation...in all points as we are...

So then, I think that the answer is that even though Jesus could be tempted...His ultimate desire to please the Father and lack of a predisposition to sin enabled Him to defeat all temptations.

JMO

[Sevenseas]

ummmmm.....as we are drawn away by what is INSIDE of us already, I don't think we can compare Jesus that way.

Wanting something is not what is wrong.....it is what we do with and how we handle the wanting. We can handle something wrong

because sin is already there......

I mean, what is the difference if one believes that Jesus was both God and man in equal parts and yet prone to sin but somehow did not sin?

His, was not a natural conception.....I doubt His desires were what we might conceive of...I think your explanation kind of lines up with what

Mike says; the difference being that you do not agree that Jesus was not fully God...unless I don't understand what you write

I never heard this teaching before that Jesus somehow wanted to sin and yet did not. This is something new for me.

what about this:

It does not say “he cannot be tempted”- but that “he cannot be tempted by evil”- that is the point of James thought, God does not tempt us with evil (to sin) nor can He be tempted by evil and sin.

Jesus was tempted at all points (Heb.4:15), meaning Jesus was tempted at all points as mentioned in 1 Jn.2:16- the world—1) the lust of the flesh, 2) the lust of the eyes, and 3) the pride of life (1 Jn.2:16). He was tempted directly by the Devil to do evil by disobeying god and coveting the kingdom. Even Satan the most power creature was unable to tempt Jesus to do sin or evil (Mt.4).

Temptations often instigate a response from the sin nature in man, but Jesus had no sin nature.

I understand that Jesus was tempted in ALL points (by the devil) and did not sin because he did not have a sin nature.

I know what Hebrews says regarding Jesus suffering in being tempted...maybe that should be addressed

[Guest]

I understand that Jesus was tempted in ALL points (by the devil) and did not sin because he did not have a sin nature.....

Amen~!

~

What

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:21

Jesus Wanted

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:21-24

Is Us

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

[Mcgyver]

ummmmm.....as we are drawn away by what is INSIDE of us already, I don't think we can compare Jesus that way.

Wanting something is not what is wrong.....it is what we do with and how we handle the wanting. We can handle something wrong

because sin is already there......

I mean, what is the difference if one believes that Jesus was both God and man in equal parts and yet prone to sin but somehow did not sin?

His, was not a natural conception.....I doubt His desires were what we might conceive of...I think your explanation kind of lines up with what

Mike says; the difference being that you do not agree that Jesus was not fully God...unless I don't understand what you write

I never heard this teaching before that Jesus somehow wanted to sin and yet did not. This is something new for me.

what about this:

It does not say “he cannot be tempted”- but that “he cannot be tempted by evil”- that is the point of James thought, God does not tempt us with evil (to sin) nor can He be tempted by evil and sin.

Jesus was tempted at all points (Heb.4:15), meaning Jesus was tempted at all points as mentioned in 1 Jn.2:16- the world—1) the lust of the flesh, 2) the lust of the eyes, and 3) the pride of life (1 Jn.2:16). He was tempted directly by the Devil to do evil by disobeying god and coveting the kingdom. Even Satan the most power creature was unable to tempt Jesus to do sin or evil (Mt.4).

Temptations often instigate a response from the sin nature in man, but Jesus had no sin nature.

I understand that Jesus was tempted in ALL points (by the devil) and did not sin because he did not have a sin nature.

I know what Hebrews says regarding Jesus suffering in being tempted...maybe that should be addressed

You bring up a good point...

As I said, just a thought....

FWIW I remember a seminary class that discussed this point for a week...and at the end of it all...came to the conclusion that there is no one good answer, because for every point there is a counterpoint...the best we can do is offer food for thought...

I think this is one of those things that fall under the "great is the mystery of Godliness" in 1 Tim 3:16.

Not saying we shouldn't discuss it though.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Mcgyver

[Sevenseas]

FWIW I remember a seminary class that discussed this point for a week...and at the end of it all...came to the conclusion that there is no one good answer, because for every point there is a counterpoint...the best we can do is offer food for thought...

I think this is one of those things that fall under the "great is the mystery of Godliness" in 1 Tim 3:16.

Not saying we shouldn't discuss it though.

I am definitely understanding that there are some strong ideas about what exactly the definition would be.

Perhaps a look at the book of Hebrews would add something? But we can agree that Jesus did not have sin a nature? I think most everyone unless

you are somehow not understanding Who Jesus was/is?

Anyway........it is a major topic tho

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,^e Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4

[Mcgyver]

FWIW I remember a seminary class that discussed this point for a week...and at the end of it all...came to the conclusion that there is no one good answer, because for every point there is a counterpoint...the best we can do is offer food for thought...

I think this is one of those things that fall under the "great is the mystery of Godliness" in 1 Tim 3:16.

Not saying we shouldn't discuss it though.

I am definitely understanding that there are some strong ideas about what exactly the definition would be.

Perhaps a look at the book of Hebrews would add something? But we can agree that Jesus did not have sin a nature? I think most everyone unless

you are somehow not understanding Who Jesus was/is?

Anyway........it is a major topic tho

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,^e Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4

I hope that after the Trinity thread that question would have been answered!

But just to be clear...Jesus did not have a sin nature (which was the thrust of my earlier post).

[Guest ninhao]

ninhao:

First, thanks for the good 'going over' you gave my post...I appreciate that you did more than a cursory read!

You are welcome your post was very interesting and informative.

I don't know what you mean by 'always singular in meaning'?

I meant that the words the KJV translate as tempted and tempt in Luke 4 do not necessarily have the same meaning or application. The temptation satan applied to Jesus was to entice Him to sin and the temptation Jesus would not apply to God was not to entice God to sin.

Actually, it is the APPLICATION of the word, the way it is used, that defines the meaning...ie...test can be both noun and verb as follows:

The word test can be both a noun: as in 'I am so glad I studied for that test!' or a verb as in: 'Listen here ... do you really want to test my patience?'

AND can be used as a verb with or without an object...without object: to undergo a test...with object: we need to test that paint

I hope you can see that by those definitions, the word test can be applied in the same manner as the word tempt

The word tempt on the other hand, is only used as a verb...you cannot tempt a test but you can be tempted to cheat on a test

At any rate, I did mention going over several translations and not just the KJ...I am not a KJ Bible only person, but there are translations far worse

I agree the words tempt and test can be applied in the same manner. The question is if they should be applied in the same manner in Luke 4. There is a debate on the application of tempt in this chapter which can be seen in several reputable translations as you would know.

There is not some different meaning in the way the devil tested, tried or tempted Jesus as Jesus was not a partial god...He was God in the flesh.

Therefore, He cannot be tempted as a person can be and God (the Father) cannot be tempted as a person can be

If you insist there is some kind of difference in the testing Jesus underwent, the only thing I can think of was that the purpose of His testing

was to remain sinless and yet still be able to understand the fraility of our flesh when we undergo tests, trials, temptations.

Yes this is my position. We can see in the scriptures the "inner" torment Jesus endure like in Gesthamane bless our dear Lord for this terrible time of suffering.

Mat 26:41-42 KJV Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. (42) He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

If you suggest that Jesus wanted the things the devil offered, as Mike seems to do (he has not come back but he sure made a splash in the

Trinity thread...he does not believe in the Trinity either) but overcame anyway, then I have to disagree. That theory suggests that Jesus

was tempted from within and I do not believe that. He was sinless on earth, the Bible states that no sin was found in Him...it does not take

very long to find sin in us

The Bible states we are drawn away and tempted by the things that are IN us...so, unless someone believes that Jesus had sin IN Him,

I do not see how He could be tempted from within...

May i request that you cease to refer to your discussions with Mike when responding to me. I have not fully considered everything in your discussions and would like to concentrate on ours.

I don't believe Jesus had sin "in him" in the same manner as the first Adam did not have sin "in him" until he succumbed. Do you believe the first Adam was born/created with sin "in him" ?

Well ok...I can see the logic in this...but the understanding is not in how we perceive things, but in how God applies things and

what it meant when Jesus died...death could not hold Him because He was sinless....no sin was found IN Him EVEN though

He was tested...the test or tempting failed as NO SIN WAS IN HIM. Does that make it clearer?

Guess if we still do not agree on this, it may remain that way..as long as you do not think Jesus was less God than God

That error, I believe, leads to many more and I believe that has become quite evident (to clarify...I don't mean you!)

I agree it is most important not to introduce our perceptions into bible teachings. I believe the bible is clear that Jesus came in the likeness of man yet was still God. I believe Jesus had no sin in Him in the same manner as the first Adam.

Jesus also told us His Father was greater than He. This does not mean Jesus was any less God than God

It does show that Jesus put aside His position to fulfill the propitiatory requirements, to satisfy justice, and to show God's love for man.

Heb 2:17 KJV Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Php 2:6-7 KJV 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:

[allofgrace]

ninhao:

First, thanks for the good 'going over' you gave my post...I appreciate that you did more than a cursory read!

You are welcome your post was very interesting and informative.

I don't know what you mean by 'always singular in meaning'?

I meant that the words the KJV translate as tempted and tempt in Luke 4 do not necessarily have the same meaning or application. The temptation satan applied to Jesus was to entice Him to sin and the temptation Jesus would not apply to God was not to entice God to sin.

Actually, it is the APPLICATION of the word, the way it is used, that defines the meaning...ie...test can be both noun and verb as follows:

The word test can be both a noun: as in 'I am so glad I studied for that test!' or a verb as in: 'Listen here ... do you really want to test my patience?'

AND can be used as a verb with or without an object...without object: to undergo a test...with object: we need to test that paint

I hope you can see that by those definitions, the word test can be applied in the same manner as the word tempt

The word tempt on the other hand, is only used as a verb...you cannot tempt a test but you can be tempted to cheat on a test

At any rate, I did mention going over several translations and not just the KJ...I am not a KJ Bible only person, but there are translations far worse

I agree the words tempt and test can be applied in the same manner. The question is if they should be applied in the same manner in Luke 4. There is a debate on the application of tempt in this chapter which can be seen in several reputable translations as you would know.

There is not some different meaning in the way the devil tested, tried or tempted Jesus as Jesus was not a partial god...He was God in the flesh.

Therefore, He cannot be tempted as a person can be and God (the Father) cannot be tempted as a person can be

If you insist there is some kind of difference in the testing Jesus underwent, the only thing I can think of was that the purpose of His testing

was to remain sinless and yet still be able to understand the fraility of our flesh when we undergo tests, trials, temptations.

Yes this is my position. We can see in the scriptures the "inner" torment Jesus endure like in Gesthamane bless our dear Lord for this terrible time of suffering.

Mat 26:41-42 KJV Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. (42) He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

If you suggest that Jesus wanted the things the devil offered, as Mike seems to do (he has not come back but he sure made a splash in the

Trinity thread...he does not believe in the Trinity either) but overcame anyway, then I have to disagree. That theory suggests that Jesus

was tempted from within and I do not believe that. He was sinless on earth, the Bible states that no sin was found in Him...it does not take

very long to find sin in us

The Bible states we are drawn away and tempted by the things that are IN us...so, unless someone believes that Jesus had sin IN Him,

I do not see how He could be tempted from within...

May i request that you cease to refer to your discussions with Mike when responding to me. I have not fully considered everything in your discussions and would like to concentrate on ours.

I don't believe Jesus had sin "in him" in the same manner as the first Adam did not have sin "in him" until he succumbed. Do you believe the first Adam was born/created with sin "in him" ?

Well ok...I can see the logic in this...but the understanding is not in how we perceive things, but in how God applies things and

what it meant when Jesus died...death could not hold Him because He was sinless....no sin was found IN Him EVEN though

He was tested...the test or tempting failed as NO SIN WAS IN HIM. Does that make it clearer?

Guess if we still do not agree on this, it may remain that way..as long as you do not think Jesus was less God than God

That error, I believe, leads to many more and I believe that has become quite evident (to clarify...I don't mean you!)

I agree it is most important not to introduce our perceptions into bible teachings. I believe the bible is clear that Jesus came in the likeness of man yet was still God. I believe Jesus had no sin in Him in the same manner as the first Adam.

Jesus also told us His Father was greater than He. This does not mean Jesus was any less God than God

It does show that Jesus put aside His position to fulfill the propitiatory requirements, to satisfy justice, and to show God's love for man.

Heb 2:17 KJV Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Php 2:6-7 KJV 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:

Just to show this one passage which goes along with what you were saying at the end of your last post about Jesus and the Father, though here I would not use the word greater myself. In one sense like the husband and wife God has ordained the man head of the family but it does not meant that one is superior over the other. Just like the Father will exalt the Jesus and Jesus desires that the Father be glorified in all that He does and the Holy Spirit does not draw attention to Himself but to the Lord that the Father be glorified in the Son. And at the end of all this the Son will hand the kingdoms of the world over to the Father as this verse says and is a subject all to itself which few people take notice of, but pay special attention to Rev 11:15 in addition to this:

1 Cor 15:26-28 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Edited February 2, 2013 by allofgrace

[Sevenseas]

Mcgyver:

I hope that after the Trinity thread that question would have been answered!

But just to be clear...Jesus did not have a sin nature (which was the thrust of my earlier post).

The Trinity thread was quite revealing. I don't think I actually contributed to that one (maybe one post...?) but I think it bears repeating who

actually believes Jesus is equal with God and in fact IS God.

But thanks!!! Not that I am taking notes, but I just could not believe some things I read in that thread.....I start to wonder just how far gone down

the wrong path some people are...I've been down the wrong path myself and it really and truly shadows your entire life and everything around you