Could Jesus have failed?

[Webers_Home]

.
David's seed was in Christ (Rom 1:3) and based upon all the history written
about David and his progeny in the Old Testament; I think we can be
reasonably sure that Christ would have both failed and sinned had he been
born only of man rather than of both God and man.

The Watchtower Society is of the opinion that Jesus didn't sin because he
"chose" not to sin. But that's what they say; it's not what the Bible says. The
fact of the matter is, Jesus' heritage made it impossible for him to sin.

†. 1John 3:9 . . Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on
sin, because His [reproductive] seed remains in such one, and he cannot
practice sin, because he has been born from God.

That translation makes it look as though one born of God sins now and then
but not all the time; viz: doesn't make a habit of sin. But the text on the
Greek side of the Kingdom Interlinear says that one born of God is not able
to sin.

Try this. Grasp both your ankles; lift yourself up off the floor and hover there
for two minutes. You can't do it. No, you can't do it because it's not a matter
of choice but of ability. Now you know what it means for Jesus to be unable
to sin. For him it's no more a choice than it is for you to lift yourself off the
floor by your ankles.

God's son had an additional amazing advantage besides his heritage.

†. Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.

Since we're looking at not just divine quality per se; but rather at "the"
divine quality, then we're looking at the quality of God's divinity; which I
think pretty safe to assume is impeccable. I seriously doubt even the Devil
himself could fail and/or sin were he brimming with not just a percentage;
but with all the quality of God's divinity.

While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot do? Well; the
Witness' conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). But a
better response than that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is just as
impossible for God to sin as it is for His progeny to sin. I mean; think about
it. If God's progeny is unable to sin due to the intrinsically sinless nature of
God's reproductive seed; then it goes without saying that the source of that
seed would be unable to sin too.

†. Jas 1:13-14 . .When under trial, let no one say: "I am being tried by
God." For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try
anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own
desire.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Mungo]

God's son had an additional amazing advantage besides his heritage.

†. Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.

Since we're looking at not just divine quality per se; but rather at "the"
divine quality, then we're looking at the quality of God's divinity; which I
think pretty safe to assume is impeccable. I seriously doubt even the Devil
himself could fail and/or sin were he brimming with not just a percentage;
but with all the quality of God's divinity.

While we're on the subject: what is the one thing God cannot do? Well; the
Witness' conditioned response is that God cannot lie (Heb 6:18). But a
better response than that is God cannot sin. In point of fact: it is just as
impossible for God to sin as it is for His progeny to sin. I mean; think about
it. If God's progeny is unable to sin due to the intrinsically sinless nature of
God's reproductive seed; then it goes without saying that the source of that
seed would be unable to sin too.



Buen Camino
/

Paul was referring to Jesus after his Resurrection as shown by the next verse "and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority."

That could only be because Jesus has risen from the dead and been glorified.

However in Philippians Paul writes that Jesus "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," (Phil 2:6-7). It was only afterwards that God "has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth," (vs 9&10)

James says that "God is not subject to temptation to evil," (Jas 1:13).

But Matthew says: "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil".(Mt 4:1)

Was that temptation real or just a sham? I think real, because as Pillipians said, Jesus "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant". However Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit and so could resist temptation.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Mungo, on 05 Dec 2012 - 07:02, said : Paul was referring to Jesus after his
Resurrection

That's not what the Bible says. That's your interpretation of what you think
the Bible says.

Mungo, on 05 Dec 2012 - 07:02, said : in Philippians Paul writes

The correct interpretation of Php 2:9-11 is a closely guarded secret that only
hand-picked individuals are permitted to have.

†. Mtt 11:27 . . No one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does
anyone fully know the Father but the Son, and anyone to whom the Son is
willing to reveal him.

Mungo, on 05 Dec 2012 - 07:02, said : "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be
tempted by the devil".(Mt 4:1)

It's very common for poorly-trained Bible students to assume the above implies
that God's son has some weaknesses that the Devil can exploit if Jesus
doesn't keep his guard up. But the Lord's temptation wasn't a test of his resolve
since according to 1John 3:9 it was, and it still is, impossible for Jesus to sin.
In other words; it's futile to tempt Jesus since there is nothing in him that finds
sin appealing. So why the outback temptation? Well; that was for our benefit.
Manufacturers routinely proof-test products to assure potential customers that
their products are up to the task for which they're designed.

Point being: if Jesus had to resist the Devil with will power, then he'd be just as
flawed as the rest of us and you'd have good reason to believe that the
Devil would eventually catch him in a moment of weakness. No doubt the Devil
hoped that after forty days in the outback Jesus would be wore down to the
point where he would no longer care whether he sinned or not. But it made
no difference. Jesus was still just as impervious to sin after forty days in
the outback as he was during the first 30 years of his life in Nazareth because
Christ's innocence doesn't depend upon his resolve; but rather, upon his genetics
so to speak; viz: upon God's [reproductive] seed.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Hezekiah]

I was always under the impression that the sin was passed on by the father in the semen. I was alwas told that it was the semen that determined the blood of the fetus.
God was the Christ's father. There was no sin in Christ's blood, no sin of the father.

 

[Mungo]

.
Mungo, on 05 Dec 2012 - 07:02, said : Paul was referring to Jesus after his
Resurrection

That's not what the Bible says. That's your interpretation of what you think
the Bible says.

Mungo, on 05 Dec 2012 - 07:02, said : in Philippians Paul writes

The correct interpretation of Php 2:9-11 is a closely guarded secret that only
hand-picked individuals are permitted to have.

†. Mtt 11:27 . . No one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does
anyone fully know the Father but the Son, and anyone to whom the Son is
willing to reveal him.

Mungo, on 05 Dec 2012 - 07:02, said : "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be
tempted by the devil".(Mt 4:1)

It's very common for poorly-trained Bible students to assume the above implies
that God's son has some weaknesses that the Devil can exploit if Jesus
doesn't keep his guard up. But the Lord's temptation wasn't a test of his resolve
since according to 1John 3:9 it was, and it still is, impossible for Jesus to sin.
In other words; it's futile to tempt Jesus since there is nothing in him that finds
sin appealing. So why the outback temptation? Well; that was for our benefit.
Manufacturers routinely proof-test products to assure potential customers that
their products are up to the task for which they're designed.

Point being: if Jesus had to resist the Devil with will power, then he'd be just as
flawed as the rest of us and you'd have good reason to believe that the
Devil would eventually catch him in a moment of weakness. No doubt the Devil
hoped that after forty days in the outback Jesus would be wore down to the
point where he would no longer care whether he sinned or not. But it made
no difference. Jesus was still just as impervious to sin after forty days in
the outback as he was during the first 30 years of his life in Nazareth because
Christ's innocence doesn't depend upon his resolve; but rather, upon his genetics
so to speak; viz: upon God's [reproductive] seed.

Buen Camino
/

And all that is your interpretation of what you think the Bible says.
.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Hezekiah, on 05 Dec 2012 - 19:31, said : I was always under the impression that
the sin was passed on by the father in the semen. I was alwas told that it was the
semen that determined the blood of the fetus. God was the Christ's father. There
was no sin in Christ's blood, no sin of the father.

That theory is easily debunked by going back to the very beginning.

†. Gen 2:21a-22a . . So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and,
while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot.
And the Lord God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a
woman.

Eve wasn't created a distinct species of her own from the dust as had been
Adam. She was manufactured from already-existing human organic tissue
amputated from Adam's side. So then, Eve was just as much Adam as
Adam; viz: her flesh was Adam's flesh, her bones were Adam's bones, her
blood was Adam's blood; and her breath of life was Adam's breath of life. So
then, any child born of a woman-- whether normally conceived or virgin
conceived --is just as much Adam as Adam too; which is why it's perfectly
on the up-and-up to trace Jesus' biological ancestry in Luke all the way back
to Adam; who is the biological progenitor of every human being, beginning
with Eve-- no exceptions.

Mungo, on 06 Dec 2012 - 02:47, said : And all that is your interpretation of what you think the
Bible says.

Yes.

Buen Camino
/