Jesus had a human nature?

Since Jesus was both man and God, and we know God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempteth He any man, there is no way He could be tempted to sin.

He could not sin at all.

 

You are wrong.

Hebrews 4:15
For 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.

Matthew 4:1
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

Sorry. The Scriptures refute your assertions.

 

So you are saying Jesus lusted? He lusted for power? for the kingdoms of this world?

If rbell says it, it has gotta be true. After all, Jesus was a man, wasn't He?

One of the temptations in the wilderness was power over vast kingdoms of this world. Hey, Jesus must've had a sinful nature after all and lusted for that power, right?

Wrong!

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Christ Jesus could not be tempted with evil, being God whether in the flesh or no.

 

My my, awful defensive.

Don't argue with me. I showed you specific scriptures that explicitly refute your argument.

Jesus did not lust for anything. Read the back half of Hebrews 4:15...He did not sin.

And by the way, please refrain from insinuating that I question the Deity of Christ. That is not appreciated.

Have a good one. :wavey:

 

And I showed you Scripture that states He could not be tempted. He was God even in the flesh, was He not?

Scripture says every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust; Jesus was a man, was He not?

So if He was tempted in the wilderness in the sense of being tempted to sin, then that means He lusted as Scripture states is what brings about temptation.

My guess is He could not sin because He could not be tempted to sin because He did not lust.

Lust, according to the Word of God, is the root of what causes a man to be tempted with sin.

So the temptations in the wilderness were not, as annsni pointed out, temptations to sin.

 

Any temptations in Christ were judged by Him and He righteously responded with good (according to the will of His Father.) The temptations were real, just as Him being human was real, but Jesus Christ fulfilled the law by being perfect in His judgments guided by His Spirit. He died in His righteousness and defeated death as a man; seems to disregard His full humanity would make this whole act of atoning for our sins a staged charade.

You say God could not sin, will you then say God can not die on the cross in the same light? Do you not see the implications beginning when you deny either humanity or divinity as 100%?

 

The deity of Christ did not die on that cross. It was His flesh that died.

As to the law and the fulfillment of the law and judgments, they have nothing to do with whether Christ was tempted to sin or not.

He came to do the will of the Father. He did not sin because He could not sin.

 

As a man, Christ was tempted.

Hbr 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


As God, He overcame.

1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.


Simple.

 

If He was God in the flesh, and God cannot be tempted with evil as Scripture states, He could not be tempted with evil.

Again, temptation to sin is caused by lust according to the Scripture.

I believe Christ was tempted (tested)with the sin, but not temptable to sin.

Satan put Christ to the test... and Christ, because He could not sin, did not sin

 

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.


What does it mean to be tempted as we are?

 

Look up the Greek word(s) for tempted in that verse, Amy.

Both (peirazo, peirao) simply mean "to test"

The Greek word(s) for tempted in James 1:13 where James wrote "...God cannot be tempted..." are two different words indicating He is not temptable to sin.

Jesus, even in the flesh, was still God. And God cannot be tempted with evil.

 

STIF:

You gravely err in assuming that simply because one CAN be tempted, he is thereby sinning. Temptation does NOT equal sin! Simply because Jesus COULD be tempted and could recognize the meaning of such temptation DOES NOT mean He DID sin. In fact, the miracle -- the confirmation of His deity, was that in His HUMAN NATURE, though he "could have" sinned, He DID NOT.

JDale

 

.. snip ...

 

Could Jesus sin?

1. The word “peccability” which means “prone to sin” is a term associated with a theological question related to Jesus’ life. Could someone who was fully God actually succumb to temptation and sin?

2. While Jesus could have sinned, it was certain that he would not.

• Heb. 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

• Heb.7:26 “a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, ”

• Heb.9:14 “without blemish”

• I Jn.3:5 “In him there is no sin”

• II Cor.5:21”knew no sin”

• Jn.8:29 “I always do what is pleasing to him who sent me”

• Jn.15:10 “I have kept my father’s commandments”

- From apttoteach.org


"In light of the true divinity and real humanity of Christ, the question arises as to whether his temptations were genuine and if it were really possible for him to have sinned. Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin? Some say his genuine humanity includes the idea that he could have sinned. Others claim that his deity makes it impossible for him to have sinned. All evangelical scholars recognize the reality of his temptations and the fact that he did not sin, but beyond this there is not much agreement. The oft-quoted analogy of two boys attacking an aircraft carrier in their rubber dingy (using sticks and stones), where the sticks and stones represent temptation and the aircraft carrier Jesus, may go a long way in stressing Jesus’ deity and impeccability, but it simply fails to catch the reality and intensity of the attacks which Satan thrust upon him (cf. Matthew 4:1-11). The bottom line in connection with this debate, however, is that Jesus was both God and man, suffered temptation victoriously (Heb 4:15), and can therefore draw near to help us in time of weakness (Heb 2:18); his temptations have given us confidence in his sympathetic heart. Beyond that we cannot know much at all. We can say that no man has ever understood the strength, viciousness, and deceit of temptation better than him and this precisely because he never gave in."

By: Greg Herrick Th.M., Ph.D. Bible.org


The key to this argument, it appears, is, "was Jesus not able to sin, or was Jesus able not to sin?"

My response, again, is BOTH. In His deity, He could not sin. In His humanity - in order to identify with us and actually BE truly human -- He COULD sin.

What makes Jesus different -- and therefore qualifies Him as our High Priest who understands our infirmities -- is that He has faced the very real temptations as a human -- and He defeated them, as a human.

If one says "Jesus was NOT ABLE to sin" he denies the essential essense of the hypostatic union. To say this is to deny in some way His true humanity. On the other hand, should one charge that Jesus -- by the very fact that He indeed was "in the flesh" and could understand and consider the implications of temptation, is therefore somehow guilty of "lust" or other sins, misunderstands and diminishes His Deity, incarnation, and virgin birth.

This is a paradoxical truth that we dare not seek to dissect too finely for fear of chppoing it to bits.

JDale

 

Jesus in His human body could not sin. In order for Him to sin, His Deity which could not sin would have to leave His mortal body.

No, He could not have sinned. That theology site needs to study more on who Jesus was.

 

SFIC:

If that is the case, then you are faced with not a paradox, but with a contradiction.

Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was tempted "in all points just as we are, yet without sin."

If He WAS NOT tempted as you assert, and indeed could not be, then the writer of Hebrews is WRONG about Jesus -- and He was in fact NOT truly human. And this is true, He is not qualified to be our High Priest -- because He CANNOT really identify with what WE suffer through temptation.

That is a contradiction to the teachings of Scripture, to the hypostatic union, and to the very nature (or, should I say, NATURES) of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

To assert that Jesus' person and natures were a paradox -- in His Divine nature He could not sin, in His Human nature the potential existed that He could sin -- is NOT contradictory to the witness of Scripture nor to His ability to fulfill all the prophecies and laws He did to redeem us.


JDale

 

There are three heresies in Church history regarding the humanity of Jesus:

1. Docetism - (To seem, to appear) The belief that God could not really have become human because all matter (the body, the flesh included) is evil.

2. Apollinarianism - The belief that Jesus had a human body but not a human soul. This concept was condemned as heresy by the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

3. Neo-Orthodoxy - A more recent creation, teaches that Jesus' humanity is irrelevant because it is the present encouonter with the Christ, not the historical Jesus, that is important.

Your view comes closest to Appollinarianism, I believe, because you noted earlier in this thread that Jesus had no "human soul." Yet, to become a human, and to truly taste of what we as humans suffer in temptation, He had to have a human soul. Otherwise, the whole of Jesus as Saviour is a sham. He is not qualified to be our sacrifice, much less our High Priest.

JDale

 

You talk about Jesus as thought the only human thing about him was his body; but he was more than that in terms of being a man. He had to have full humanity according to Hebrews in order to atone for our sins.

I agree with JDale's post above, post #218.

You also never took back your statement that Satan was tested, not Jesus, but this is the last time I'll mention it.

 

So only the human nature (flesh and bone part that ate and slept) died on the cross? If it was only the “human person” that died on the cross then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse of our sins!

Think again; Jesus Christ was not under the guidance of a corrupt flesh, He walked after the Spirit… perfectly, doing the perfect will of His Father, Whose judgment is only good.

(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

(Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

(Rom 8:4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(Rom 8:5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Doesn’t matter how many times you say it, got anything else ya broken record you; Jesus’ righteousness defeated death while being sinless in the flesh and this was a real event (no pretend humanity involved) His Father was well pleased with Him, and His judgments were perfectly aligned to His Father’s will when He did it and had everything to do with Him being sinless.