Two Natures???

[Pilgrimshope]

ah, OK, i see why we haven't been meeting

talking about either is talking about both

Romans 6:4-5​

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be [in the likeness] of [His] resurrection,​

Right like we died in baptism not literally in the likeness of his death bro . Jesus died literally we died figuratively in baptism in the likeness of his death burial and resurrection

Let me try something read this

“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. …

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead.

The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

it is sown a natural body,

it is raised a spiritual body.

there is a natural body,

there is also a spiritual body.

And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man,

so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:35-37, 42-44, 49-50‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Is Paul correct about what he’s saying there ? And here

“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptable and we will be changed.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:

can you at least acknowledge that Paul’s teaching clearly about the resurrection and what type of body well have ?

I mean at least let’s agree on that part so we have a place to start

 

[Pilgrimshope]

That ambiguousness in the English language lends itself to being confused. For example, I can either be confused, or I can confuse, but Jesus cannot be confused, even if anyone tried to confuse him. Is this a good example of what's happening here?

“Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:18‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“Because he himself suffered when he was tested , he is able to help those who are being tested.”

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭NIV‬‬

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to be touched with our weaknesses,

but we have one who has been tested in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”

Would change anything ?

 

[Mem]

“Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:18‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“Because he himself suffered when he was tested , he is able to help those who are being tested.”

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭NIV‬‬

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to be touched with our weaknesses,

but we have one who has been tested in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”

Would change anything ?

I don't think the difference in interpretation is coming in with "tempted" as implying a succumbing but in the voice, where one verse is speaking in active and the other is speaking in the passive. Those you reference are speaking in the passive, but the one @posthuman referenced is speaks in the active voice also that says God neither tempts any nor can be tempted, which in summary says that He can neither actively tempt nor passively be tempted. This appears to be a contradictory of those verses you've referenced if it were not for that "yet he did not sin" should tell us why this does not. That is, He can empathize with our weakness but--yet...

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I don't think the difference in interpretation is coming in with "tempted" as implying a succumbing but in the voice, where one verse is speaking in active and the other is speaking in the passive. Those you reference are speaking in the passive, but the one @posthuman referenced is speaks in the active voice also that says God neither tempts any nor can be tempted, which in summary says that He can neither actively tempt nor passively be tempted. This appears to be a contradictory of those verses you've referenced if it were not for that "yet he did not sin" should tell us why this does not. That is, He can empathize with our weakness but--yet...

Jesus while in the flesh said this ….

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
‭‭John‬ ‭4:24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Can the son of man be tempted ?
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭20:28‬ ‭

“Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:45‬ ‭

“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭17:22-23‬ ‭

“but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,

sat down on the right hand of God;”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:12‬ ‭

“For there is one God,

and one mediator between God and men,

the man Christ Jesus;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Was Jesus the son man the messiah tempted ? Before he was glorified ?

“And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭1:13‬ ‭

Later when he’s about to be crucified

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
‭‭John‬ ‭17:5‬ ‭

“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.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭

“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. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:17-18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I honestly don’t get the controversy even if we remove e wry verse entirely that says he was for sure tempted lol the doctrine says he needed to be tempted just like us in order to be a merciful higher priest knowing our plight and position and struggles the doctrine itself about Jesus becoming flesh says it even if we erased all the verses saying “ jesus was tempted just like we are yet he didn’t sin “

i honestly think basic things like that that just say what they say and then fit perfectly into the rest of the doctrine saying he needed to do that for us to be our intercessor ect is the way to go . But often because we’ve always thought something even scripture falls short of breaking down the wall we created

 

[posthuman]

That ambiguousness in the English language lends itself to being confused. For example, I can either be confused, or I can confuse, but Jesus cannot be confused, even if anyone tried to confuse him. Is this a good example of what's happening here?

http://biblehub.com/greek/3985.htm

it might be that English is more precise here actually, such that translation imposes a meaning that isn't actually there. check the usages there in the link; it's contextual, so in English there was a decision based in the theological bent of the translator, whether to emphasize His deity ((cannot be tempted)) or His humanity ((man is tempted))

given how James frames the mechanics of temptation, i am fully convinced on this aside - - it's a really subtle thing, but i'm resolved that if i am going to inevitably make mistakes in my thinking, i am going to err on the side of giving God too much glory

 

[posthuman]

I don't think the difference in interpretation is coming in with "tempted" as implying a succumbing but in the voice, where one verse is speaking in active and the other is speaking in the passive. Those you reference are speaking in the passive, but the one @posthuman referenced is speaks in the active voice also that says God neither tempts any nor can be tempted, which in summary says that He can neither actively tempt nor passively be tempted. This appears to be a contradictory of those verses you've referenced if it were not for that "yet he did not sin" should tell us why this does not. That is, He can empathize with our weakness but--yet...

lends itself more to Christ having been "tested" doesn't it?

it doesn't fundamentally change His having shared in our sufferings. it only changes the characterization of His fallibilty/infallibilty - - which i consider fundamental to His trustworthiness, and the basis of our faith.
i.e. is it a miracle He didn't sin or was it the inevitable consequence of His identity that He could not possibly?

and the language certainly points towards that meaning being at the very least equally valid, even if we set aside all context and potential paths of logic


((meiner Meinung nach))

 

[posthuman]

is it a miracle He didn't sin or was it the inevitable consequence of His identity that He could not possibly?

pitting it more clearly,

given that we know Who He is was there ever a chance He would fail?

if yes, then tempted.
if no then tested.

in either case, found immaculate

 

[Pilgrimshope]

http://biblehub.com/greek/3985.htm

it might be that English is more precise here actually, such that translation imposes a meaning that isn't actually there. check the usages there in the link; it's contextual, so in English there was a decision based in the theological bent of the translator, whether to emphasize His deity ((cannot be tempted)) or His humanity ((man is tempted))

given how James frames the mechanics of temptation, i am fully convinced on this aside - - it's a really subtle thing, but i'm resolved that if i am going to inevitably make mistakes in my thinking, i am going to err on the side of giving God too much glory

In a sentance like this

“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted,

he is able to succour them that are tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬


If we say he was never tempted you don’t see how that disconnects the doctrine being taught about Jesus becoming our high priest ? And being able to help us through temptation ?

 

[posthuman]

In a sentance like this

“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted,

he is able to succour them that are tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬


If we say he was never tempted you don’t see how that disconnects the doctrine being taught about Jesus becoming our high priest ? And being able to help us through temptation ?

what do you find wrong with, in that He Himself was also tested, He is able to help those that are tested?

why would the Law require a priest be tempted with sin?

is the red heifer tempted or tested?

 

[Pilgrimshope]

what do you find wrong with, in that He Himself was also tested, He is able to help those that are tested?

why would the Law require a priest be tempted with sin?

is the red heifer tempted or tested?

I don’t Find anything wrong with it as long as you’re changing the term for Jesus and also us . but that’s my whole point about that particular verse . Even if you change the term to tested Ots the same thing we go through .

Why does changing the term

The same “ test “ we faced he faced and overcame it . He’s not beyond feeling what we feel he’s not beyond being “ tested “ which is just another form for tempted “ when a persons tempted they are being tested ….

i don’t see why you would want to change the word it seems like you see this verse

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:”
‭‭James‬ ‭1:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

thats why your saying Jesus wasn’t tempted tempted right ? What if I do this and say this is absolute proof god did not become a man and Jesus wasn’t the son of man ?

“God is not a man, that he should lie; Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
‭‭Numbers‬ ‭23:19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Would I be right to then insist Jesus is not a man he is not the son of man ? Because the Old Testament said he wasn’t a man or a son of man ? He after that became the son of man became a man to make this possible

“For there is one God,

and one mediator between God and men,

the man Christ Jesus;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Should I just say nope that’s not true because it says he’s not a man in a different area ? That seems to be your logic James said god can’t be tempted , so all the times the Bible says Jesus the son of man was tempted is not true or it’s just simply not the right word but if it’s used about us temptation is fine if the same words used aboit Jesus the man then it’s not the right word


bro are you willing to forget the term and look at what’s being explained about our high preist? That may explain to you why Jesus had to be tempted like we are and overcome it …. Or do you think we should just let it sit ?

 

[posthuman]

bro are you willing to forget the term and look at what’s being explained about our high preist?

the priest is not tempted, he is tested - -

No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.​

(Leviticus 21:21)​

​

likewise the lamb that is offered for sin is tested, not tempted - -

If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect.​

(Leviticus 4:32)​

​

temptation is the result of unrighteous desire in our hearts, and in Christ there is no unrighteousness.

 

[posthuman]

“God is not a man, that he should lie; Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
‭‭Numbers‬ ‭23:19‬ ‭KJV

this is about a specific aspect of man, that we lie and sin.

is Hebrews speaking about a specific aspect of priests, that it is necessary their hearts be full of evil thoughts and desires?
that He cannot mediate for us unless His heart is also wicked?

 

[posthuman]

That seems to be your logic James said god can’t be tempted , so all the times the Bible says Jesus the son of man was tempted is not true or it’s just simply not the right word but if it’s used about us temptation is fine if the same words used aboit Jesus the man then it’s not the right word

yes,

• Christ is God
• in Him is no unrighteousness
• temptation is the enticing of the wicked desires of our carnal heart
• Christ has no wickedness in His heart
• God cannot be tempted
• it is impossible that Christ, our Priest, our Sacrifice, is ever 'tempted' - - He was tested in every way that we are, and thereby established to be perfect.

when Satan examined Him in the wilderness after He was baptized, there was no desire in Him to satisfy His flesh, to seize worldly power, or for vainglory. He could not be tempted by those things. Satan tested Him, and found no defect.


if instead we say He was tempted by sin, then we say He is unworthy to be our priest, unworthy to be our Lamb, and that He is condemned by the evil desires of His heart, but thankfully by random luck and gumption and sheer force of will, He barely made it through without physically expressing the sin He really wanted to commit. wow ten more minutes and He might have broke.
... which is of course, ridiculous.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

the priest is not tempted, he is tested - -

No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.​

(Leviticus 21:21)​

​

likewise the lamb that is offered for sin is tested, not tempted - -

If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect.​

(Leviticus 4:32)​

​

temptation is the result of unrighteous desire in our hearts, and in Christ there is no unrighteousness.

Alright bro

 

[Pilgrimshope]

this is about a specific aspect of man, that we lie and sin.

is Hebrews speaking about a specific aspect of priests, that it is necessary their hearts be full of evil thoughts and desires?
that He cannot mediate for us unless His heart is also wicked?

“is Hebrews speaking about a specific aspect of priests, that it is necessary their hearts be full of evil thoughts and desires?”

hebrews is speaking of Jesus our high priest and how he was tempted in every way that we are and felt our feelings like we do and yet never sinned

which qualifies the man Jesus Christ to be the high priest who has to be a man
Bit you don’t seem to read those scriptures

uktimately I don’t have to explain to you why this is wrong

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 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.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:14-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Yet you from your mind have to tell and explain to me why what’s written is wrong . I don’t have to explain why this is wrong

“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:18‬ ‭

you have to explain to me why that’s not correct that’s written

yes,

• Christ is God
• in Him is no unrighteousness
• temptation is the enticing of the wicked desires of our carnal heart
• Christ has no wickedness in His heart
• God cannot be tempted
• it is impossible that Christ, our Priest, our Sacrifice, is ever 'tempted' - - He was tested in every way that we are, and thereby established to be perfect.

when Satan examined Him in the wilderness after He was baptized, there was no desire in Him to satisfy His flesh, to seize worldly power, or for vainglory. He could not be tempted by those things. Satan tested Him, and found no defect.


if instead we say He was tempted by sin, then we say He is unworthy to be our priest, unworthy to be our Lamb, and that He is condemned by the evil desires of His heart, but thankfully by random luck and gumption and sheer force of will, He barely made it through without physically expressing the sin He really wanted to commit. wow ten more minutes and He might have broke.
... which is of course, ridiculous.

Yeah if I thought that way wow it sure would be ridiculous

I’d have to just tell everyone why the scriptures in the Bible are wrong and I’m right would be a ridiculous position indeed

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭4:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭4:2‬ ‭KJV‬‬
“That scripture is wrong because my logic tells me”

“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.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4:15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“Thats not true Jesus wasn’t tempted like we are “

“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. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2:17-18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“ oh no that’s wrong preists can’t be tempted “

I wouldn’t want to be in the position of explaining why the Bible is wrong and unreliable and telling people listen to me instead , to me that’s a ridiculous position and a good solid position will be agreeing with scripture

Im comfortable believing what it actually says and the reasoning it gives for it in the explainations that exist in the scripture ….it’s there clearly and plainly . To me it’s ridiculous to take the position Jesus was never tempted

the difference is what I’m saying is repeatedly stated in Scripture multiple times by multiple writers. Your argument relies on you explaining why it’s not true

 

[posthuman]

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭17:22-23‬ ‭

((stirs pot))

"betrayed" is also incorrect; the same Greek also means "delivered"

to betray carries the sense of successfully deceiving, and of the one who was betrayed having made an error of judgement and having been unable to discern the true intentions of the betrayer.

"betray" is also incompatible with Christ's deity. Judas delivered Him to be crucified - - at no time was Jesus ever unaware of what he would do, and it is flatly impossible that Jesus was deceived in any way whatsoever.

 

[posthuman]

the difference is what I’m saying is repeatedly stated in Scripture multiple times by multiple writers. Your argument relies on you explaining why it’s not true

no, it's written in Greek not English.

the problem is of translation and of respect for the Lord in knowledge of His person.

 

[posthuman]

To me it’s ridiculous to take the position Jesus was never tempted

it's ridiculous to insist that Christ's heart was at any time polluted with evil desires.

James 1:13-14​

God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.​

 

[posthuman]

 

[homwardbound]

Does the Christian have two natures, one sinful and the other divine?
Or does the Christian have one nature, the 'new creation'?
Your thoughts with appropriate Scripture.

Once born new from God Father by risen Son, NO! not from Father's view, from this world's view yes!

Now, on the very first day, anyone chose to believe God are made new to see, and grow up into maturity and see only from Father's view John 4:23-24 to me at least, which can take a lot of time and a lot of mistakes made.
Now I see to speak as Paul does in Philippians 1-3
Putting whatever is past behind me, just as fast as it happened to me again, to remain steadfast in this gracious gift of Son given me to see in thanksgiving and praise that sin remains taken away (John 1:29) each and every mistake ever made after that first day I, decided between God and me to see new in this reconciliation done for us all, by Son
2 Cor 5:16-20
As over the years, I have seen one sin after another sin fall off and be gone, Once I got it it not me doing it, it is God doing it by Done work of Son for me all all others as well
It is Finished John 19:30, he did it, for us, at least me to trust it is done, so the new life offered can begin Phil 1:6