Flesh (Old Man) VS Spirit (New Man): Difficult Scriptures explained by Pastor Ralph Arnold

[Guojing]

Correct; however, He also did not have glorified flesh until after His resurrection.

So are you reasoning that while Jesus could have sin then, we will not able to once we get that “glorified flesh”?

 

[Kolistus]

Correct; however, He also did not have glorified flesh until after His resurrection.

I wonder about that, Jesus is said to be like us in everything.

 

[Kolistus]

I believe He could have sinned, because otherwise He did not truly overcome temptation.

The ability of humans to sin in their glorified bodies does not follow from that assertion.

That is how I see it too, we have to remember Jesus was not in a glorified body here on earth, he had a body like ours that felt pain, weakness, frailty. How graceful of God to come to us in that way? !

 

[Dino246]

So are you reasoning that while Jesus could have sin then, we will not able to once we get that “glorified flesh”?

I don't see connection between the two that you see. Jesus was not in "glorified flesh" until after His resurrection, so to me, the question is moot.

 

[Guojing]

I don't see connection between the two that you see. Jesus was not in "glorified flesh" until after His resurrection, so to me, the question is moot.

To put it simply, this is the difference in our doctrines.

I believe not having a sinful nature is sufficient to ensure someone could not sin.

You believe it is not, you believe that 2 sufficient conditions are required for that

1. No sinful nature
2. glorified flesh

This is how you reason that Jesus could have sinned in this first coming, because he only had 1 but not 2, before his resurrection.

 

[Dino246]

To put it simply, this is the difference in our doctrines.

I believe not having a sinful nature is sufficient to ensure someone could not sin.

You believe it is not, you believe that 2 sufficient conditions are required for that

1. No sinful nature
2. glorified flesh

This is how you reason that Jesus could have sinned in this first coming, because he only had 1 but not 2, before his resurrection.

You're welcome to make whatever statements you like about your beliefs, but not about mine. You have completely missed the point.

 

[Guojing]

You're welcome to make whatever statements you like about your beliefs, but not about mine. You have completely missed the point.

That is why I was trying to clarify why exactly do you think Jesus could have sinned in his first coming, while simultaneously believing that once we get our new bodies, we could not sin.

If you are willing to clarify, feel free to. If you don't wish to, I understand.

 

[Dino246]

That is why I was trying to clarify why exactly do you think Jesus could have sinned in his first coming, while simultaneously believing that once we get our new bodies, we could not sin.

If you are willing to clarify, feel free to. If you don't wish to, I understand.

For the third time, I don't think the two issues are related.

As I have said at least twice, I believe that it was possible for Jesus to sin, because if He could not, then His "temptation" was not real and His identification with sinners ("tempted in every way, yet without sin") is an empty assertion.

I have not made and will not make any claim about our new bodies beyond what Scripture states, because such would be pure speculation.

 

[Guojing]

For the third time, I don't think the two issues are related.

As I have said at least twice, I believe that it was possible for Jesus to sin, because if He could not, then His "temptation" was not real and His identification with sinners ("tempted in every way, yet without sin") is an empty assertion.

Alright, since you don't want to link the 2 together, I can let that rest.

And as I have stated, in that scripture that you used, Hebrews 4:15, sin there is a noun and not a verb. That passage is not saying Jesus did not sin, but rather it is saying Jesus did not have Adam's sin nature.

But since you insist noun or verb makes no difference to you, alright then, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Dino246]

That passage is not saying Jesus did not sin, but rather it is saying Jesus did not have Adam's sin nature.

I don't agree on that point. There is nothing in the text to suggest that is the author's intent.

 

[oldethennew]

Jesus, as God's Right Hand Man, could NEVER SIN or be TEMPETED, because HE IS GOD =
'Study to show yourselves to be approved'...
the greatest challenge of our lives??? for sure, our Heavenly Father only desires for His children
to do their jobs that He has given us, so that we may come to Him in total
Love, Thankfulness, Humility, and to be a member of His Holy Family/Kingdom to Come!!!

 

[Guojing]

I don't agree on that point. There is nothing in the text to suggest that is the author's intent.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb correct?

 

[Dino246]

You know the difference between a noun and a verb correct?

Seriously? Yes.

I think you're grasping at straws.

 

[Dino246]

Jesus, as God's Right Hand Man, could NEVER SIN or be TEMPETED, because HE IS GOD =
'Study to show yourselves to be approved'...
the greatest challenge of our lives??? for sure, our Heavenly Father only desires for His children
to do their jobs that He has given us, so that we may come to Him in total
Love, Thankfulness, Humility, and to be a member of His Holy Family/Kingdom to Come!!!

So His temptation was a sham, and the statements in Scripture that He was tempted are lies?

Interesting theory. I disagree wholeheartedly. One does not "overcome" something to which one is immune from the outset.

 

[Guojing]

Seriously? Yes.

I think you're grasping at straws.

So When you use that passage to say Jesus could have sin but did not , you are using sin as a verb.

But the author meant without sin there as a noun, referring to sin nature. Jesus was without the sin nature

 

[Dino246]

So When you use that passage to say Jesus could have sin but did not , you are using sin as a verb.

But the author meant without sin there as a noun, referring to sin nature. Jesus was without the sin nature

There is nothing there to suggest that "sin" as a noun refers to "the sin nature". You're imposing that on the text instead of drawing it from the text. The different part of speech is nowhere near enough evidence to support your view.

 

[Guojing]

There is nothing there to suggest that "sin" as a noun refers to "the sin nature". You're imposing that on the text instead of drawing it from the text. The different part of speech is nowhere near enough evidence to support your view.

That was why I asked whether you understood the difference between a noun and a verb, it was a serious question

If you agree that sin is a noun there, you should not interpret sin as an action, ie Jesus could have sinned but he did not.

 

[Dino246]

That was why I asked whether you understood the difference between a noun and a verb, it was a serious question

I fully understand the difference between a noun and a verb. Further, I fully understand that the word "sin" in Hebrews 4:15 is a noun and not a verb (at least, in English).

If you agree that sin is a noun there, you should not interpret sin as an action, ie Jesus could have sinned but he did not.

Here, we disagree. The use of "sin" as a noun does not (at all!) preclude the "action" interpretation. If I am playing outfield in baseball, and catch (verb) a pop fly, I have made a good catch (noun). The part of speech implies nothing else there, and it implies nothing else in Hebrews 4:15.

I don't interpret "could have sinned" from the noun "sin", nor would I if it were in the verb form. Rather, I take the whole phrase: "We do not have a high priest who cannot to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things, as we are, yet without sin" (NASB). If the writer meant "yet without the sin nature", I'm reasonably certain that phrase would be in the text. It isn't, nor does the concept appear in the context.

You posit a high priest who was never actually tempted because He was unable to sin. God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13), but God the Son, while in the flesh, could be, and was, and the temptation was either real (meaning He could have sinned) or it was not real (meaning He could not have sinned). If the temptation were not real, then Jesus could have simply yawned at the devil in the desert. Rather, He was genuinely hungry, and He could indeed have told the stones to become bread... and eaten them.

I find the idea that Jesus "could not sin" both speculative and incompatible with plain Scripture.

 

[Scribe]

I fully understand the difference between a noun and a verb. Further, I fully understand that the word "sin" in Hebrews 4:15 is a noun and not a verb (at least, in English).


Here, we disagree. The use of "sin" as a noun does not (at all!) preclude the "action" interpretation. If I am playing outfield in baseball, and catch (verb) a pop fly, I have made a good catch (noun). The part of speech implies nothing else there, and it implies nothing else in Hebrews 4:15.

I don't interpret "could have sinned" from the noun "sin", nor would I if it were in the verb form. Rather, I take the whole phrase: "We do not have a high priest who cannot to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things, as we are, yet without sin" (NASB). If the writer meant "yet without the sin nature", I'm reasonably certain that phrase would be in the text. It isn't, nor does the concept appear in the context.

You posit a high priest who was never actually tempted because He was unable to sin. God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13), but God the Son, while in the flesh, could be, and was, and the temptation was either real (meaning He could have sinned) or it was not real (meaning He could not have sinned). If the temptation were not real, then Jesus could have simply yawned at the devil in the desert. Rather, He was genuinely hungry, and He could indeed have told the stones to become bread... and eaten them.

I find the idea that Jesus "could not sin" both speculative and incompatible with plain Scripture.

And that's a wrap! Well done. The debate trophy goes to Dino246.

 

[Guojing]

I fully understand the difference between a noun and a verb. Further, I fully understand that the word "sin" in Hebrews 4:15 is a noun and not a verb (at least, in English).


Here, we disagree. The use of "sin" as a noun does not (at all!) preclude the "action" interpretation. If I am playing outfield in baseball, and catch (verb) a pop fly, I have made a good catch (noun). The part of speech implies nothing else there, and it implies nothing else in Hebrews 4:15.

I don't interpret "could have sinned" from the noun "sin", nor would I if it were in the verb form. Rather, I take the whole phrase: "We do not have a high priest who cannot to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things, as we are, yet without sin" (NASB). If the writer meant "yet without the sin nature", I'm reasonably certain that phrase would be in the text. It isn't, nor does the concept appear in the context.

You posit a high priest who was never actually tempted because He was unable to sin. God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13), but God the Son, while in the flesh, could be, and was, and the temptation was either real (meaning He could have sinned) or it was not real (meaning He could not have sinned). If the temptation were not real, then Jesus could have simply yawned at the devil in the desert. Rather, He was genuinely hungry, and He could indeed have told the stones to become bread... and eaten them.

I find the idea that Jesus "could not sin" both speculative and incompatible with plain Scripture.

He was tempted, no one is denying that.

The difference between our doctrine is whether Jesus is Impeccable or peccable

I believe the former, you believe the latter