BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: Fenris on February 10, 2026, 02:55:58 PM
-
NIV: 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.
KJV: 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.
ESV: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
As the local non Christian with a middling understanding of Christianity, this strikes me as very strange.
If Jesus is God, how can he be tempted? Is God tempted? Is God capable of sin?
-
NIV: 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.
KJV: 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.
ESV: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
As the local non Christian with a middling understanding of Christianity, this strikes me as very strange.
If Jesus is God, how can he be tempted? Is God tempted? Is God capable of sin?
Ah, the mystery of the incarnation and the hypostatic union. How can Jesus be fully human and fully God at the same time?…
It is a mystery that cannot be fully explained.
-
N
NIV: 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.
KJV: 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.
ESV: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
As the local non Christian with a middling understanding of Christianity, this strikes me as very strange.
If Jesus is God, how can he be tempted? Is God tempted? Is God capable of sin?
You fail to understand Jesus' dual nature. Prior to His incarnation in the flesh, He existed eternally as the Word of God. (John 1:1-3) Moreover, He inherited a divine nature by virtue of God's Spirit indwelling Him from conception, which made Him the Son of God. Conversely, He inherited a human nature from His mother, subjecting Him to the frailties of humanity. While the Spirit of God cannot be tempted, overcoming temptation at the hands of the Devil (Luke 4:1-13), was necessary for Jesus to be our kinsman-redeemer. It's important to remember that Jesus died voluntarily as our savior, choosing the moment He gave up the Spirit. "The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
-
It is a mystery that cannot be fully explained.
Do those two Irish guys try to explain it?
-
You fail to understand Jesus' dual nature.
I confess that I do not understand it.
Conversely, He inherited a human nature from His mother, subjecting Him to the frailties of humanity.
I don't understand this, either.
was necessary for Jesus to be our kinsman-redeemer.
Why do we need a kinsman-redeemer?
This charge I have received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
So is Jesus God, or is God a separate entity? I know those two wacky Irish guys discussed this.
-
You fail to understand Jesus' dual nature.
I confess that I do not understand it.
Conversely, He inherited a human nature from His mother, subjecting Him to the frailties of humanity.
I don't understand this, either.
was necessary for Jesus to be our kinsman-redeemer.
Why do we need a kinsman-redeemer?
This charge I have received from My Father.” (John 10:17-18)
So is Jesus God, or is God a separate entity? I know those two wacky Irish guys discussed this.
We're not on the same wavelength with respect to doctrine, and that's not likely to change. I simply sought to offer input regarding your questions. My best attempts to explain will always be inadequate. It is what it is. :)
-
We're not on the same wavelength with respect to doctrine, and that's not likely to change. I simply sought to offer input regarding your questions. My best attempts to explain will always be inadequate. It is what it is. :)
And I thank you for your efforts!
-
And I thank you for your efforts!
Doctrinal differences are inevitable, but pose no barrier to our friendship. 👍
-
It is a mystery that cannot be fully explained.
Do those two Irish guys try to explain it?
Absolutely!!!! Connell and Donall wrap up the “Trinity “ discussion with the Athanasian dialogue that does have a short piece in the incarnation and the hypostatic union.
The question of impeccability/peccability argument has been a favorite argument of Bible college students and seminarians for centuries but is a subset of questions of the incarnation issue
-
if Jesus is God, how can he be tempted? Is God tempted? Is God capable of sin?
The unsatisfactory answer --
"Well, when Jesus was incarnate and fully human (while also being fully divine), it was possible to tempt Him as He had assumed human nature. And thus, qua human, would have been capable of sin, i.e., was morally imperfect, as the capacity to sin arises only in the face of moral imperfection."
I have no idea how any of that would actually work. They're words that describe something I'm incapable of describing.
I think it's an interesting suggestion to say that the divine can take on humanity, given what that implies about humanity -- we are not some 'other', but divinely derived. A qualitative difference? Well I suppose we get there from imago Dei anyway, but you know.
-
Doctrinal differences are inevitable, but pose no barrier to our friendship. 👍
Of course! I'm quite fond of you fellows. I think you already knew that! :)
-
The unsatisfactory answer --
"Well, when Jesus was incarnate and fully human (while also being fully divine), it was possible to tempt Him as He had assumed human nature. And thus, qua human, would have been capable of sin, i.e., was morally imperfect, as the capacity to sin arises only in the face of moral imperfection."
I would posit that the capacity to sin is a consequence of having free will and not of "moral imperfection".
I think it's an interesting suggestion to say that the divine can take on humanity, given what that implies about humanity -- we are not some 'other', but divinely derived. A qualitative difference?
If one ascribes to that theology, sure.
-
I would posit that the capacity to sin is a consequence of having free will and not of "moral imperfection".
What view do you hold of God's will?
-
What view do you hold of God's will?
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on the question?
-
What view do you hold of God's will?
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on the question?
For example, do you hold that God has the the most free will, and therefore, the most capacity to sin?
-
For example, do you hold that God has the the most free will, and therefore, the most capacity to sin?
No, because God is perfect. God created us imperfect. This gives our existence meaning and our actions consequence.
-
For example, do you hold that God has the the most free will, and therefore, the most capacity to sin?
No, because God is perfect. God created us imperfect. This gives our existence meaning and our actions consequence.
And in your view, does perfection entail the freeest of wills?
-
And in your view, does perfection entail the freeest of wills?
You're wrapping into the idea that God is somehow like a human being. This is not surprising to me, given that you're a Christian. God is not a man and doesn't struggle with "right or wrong". God's behavior is by definition always right.
-
And in your view, does perfection entail the freeest of wills?
You're wrapping into the idea that God is somehow like a human being. This is not surprising to me, given that you're a Christian. God is not a man and doesn't struggle with "right or wrong". God's behavior is by definition always right.
No, I'm suggesting God is quite unlike a human being in that He has the most free will and no capacity to sin.
So I'll rephrase the question. Do you believe God has a will?
-
No, I'm suggesting God is quite unlike a human being in that He has the most free will and no capacity to sin.
So I'll rephrase the question. Do you believe God has a will?
God has free will. Any way in which God expresses that will is definitionally "good", because God is perfect.
-
God has free will. Any way in which God expresses that will is definitionally "good", because God is perfect.
If as you say God is both perfect, and free, as indeed you've now said, and further that God cannot sin for everything that God does is good by definition, then the capacity must come from somewhere else.
-
the capacity must come from somewhere else.
Yes. It comes from the fact that humans are created imperfectly.
-
the capacity must come from somewhere else.
Yes. It comes from the fact that humans are created imperfectly.
Morally imperfect, even?
-
Morally imperfect, even?
No. Any moral shortcomings come from our own choices. Not our own nature. Humans are born a blank slate. What goes on there is what we choose to do.
-
Morally imperfect, even?
No. Any moral shortcomings come from our own choices. Not our own nature. Humans are born a blank slate. What goes on there is what we choose to do.
It's your view that we were created imperfect, with the capacity for moral perfection, which we never achieve due to being created imperfect? You're not saying our nature is perfect but our choices are not, are you?
-
It's your view that we were created imperfect, with the capacity for moral perfection, which we never achieve due to being created imperfect? You're not saying our nature is perfect but our choices are not, are you?
I'm saying that we are not created perfect. We have the capacity to succumb to temptation and not do what is right and good.
-
It's your view that we were created imperfect, with the capacity for moral perfection, which we never achieve due to being created imperfect? You're not saying our nature is perfect but our choices are not, are you?
I'm saying that we are not created perfect. We have the capacity to succumb to temptation and not do what is right and good.
You're describing moral imperfection.
-
You're describing moral imperfection.
I'm describing the possibility of bad behavior. But human beings have free will.
You're making it sound as if humans are doomed to sin. Which I suppose creates the need for Jesus to "save" humanity. But I don't believe that. We can make choices. People can make themselves holy through their own actions, too.
-
You're describing moral imperfection.
I'm describing the possibility of bad behavior. But human beings have free will.
You're making it sound as if humans are doomed to sin. Which I suppose creates the need for Jesus to "save" humanity. But I don't believe that. We can make choices. People can make themselves holy through their own actions, too.
Yes, you're describing moral imperfection.
-
Yes, you're describing moral imperfection.
I'm describing free will.
-
Yes, you're describing moral imperfection.
I'm describing free will.
Free will in a morally imperfect individual, as clearly, though God also possesses free will (as you've said), God is incapable of sin (as you've said).
-
Free will in a morally imperfect individual
Free will in human beings created according to God's will.
-
Free will in a morally imperfect individual
Free will in human beings created according to God's will.
As you said, imperfect.
-
As you said, imperfect.
I'm fine with that term.
The bible never uses the term "morally imperfect" and so I will not either.
-
As you said, imperfect.
I'm fine with that term.
The bible never uses the term "morally imperfect" and so I will not either.
The concept is there, so I'm not too bothered by it. That is, the words we use describe the reality attested to, whether that's Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, English...
-
Christ is the only tested man to remain sinless and He lays down His righteous life for all sinful men.
-
The concept is there
It's the concept I have problems with. Judaism values the struggle. It's the whole point of human existence.
-
Christ is the only tested man to remain sinless
I thought he was God.
-
Christ is fully God. Fully man.
-
The concept is there
It's the concept I have problems with. Judaism values the struggle. It's the whole point of human existence.
The struggle is there all the more. Moral imperfection doesn't mean impossible.
-
The struggle is there all the more.
The struggle is the main point.
-
The struggle is there all the more.
The struggle is the main point.
Yes.
-
Gen 32:28 “Your name will no longer be Jacob,” He said. “It will be Israel because you have struggled with God and with men and have prevailed.” [HCSB]
-
Gen 32:28 “Your name will no longer be Jacob,” He said. “It will be Israel because you have struggled with God and with men and have prevailed.” [HCSB]
Your point?
-
OK, doing some mindreading here because you haven't explained why you're citing the verse.
I'm assuming that your point was that Jacob wrested with God, proving that God can "be a man".
My problems with this concept.
First of all, even if we cay that God can inhabit a human body, that doesn't mean that God is subject to temptation in the way that human beings are.
Secondly, the verse says "Elohim" not "YHVH". "Elohim" can mean "God", but it can also mean "the divine", or the "powerful", even pertaining to humans. In Exodus 7, God tells Moses "I have made you as an 'Elohim' to Pharaoh". Obviously Moses was not God to Pharaoh.
Thirdly, Jacob did not wrestle with God. He wrestled with an angel. Hosea 12:4 says this explicitly.
-
Gen 32:28 “Your name will no longer be Jacob,” He said. “It will be Israel because you have struggled with God and with men and have prevailed.” [HCSB]
Your point?
Struggling with God, you both agreed on that confirmed by Scripture.
-
OK, doing some mindreading here because you haven't explained why you're citing the verse.
I'm assuming that your point was that Jacob wrested with God, proving that God can "be a man".
My problems with this concept.
First of all, even if we cay that God can inhabit a human body, that doesn't mean that God is subject to temptation in the way that human beings are.
Secondly, the verse says "Elohim" not "YHVH". "Elohim" can mean "God", but it can also mean "the divine", or the "powerful", even pertaining to humans. In Exodus 7, God tells Moses "I have made you as an 'Elohim' to Pharaoh". Obviously Moses was not God to Pharaoh.
Thirdly, Jacob did not wrestle with God. He wrestled with an angel. Hosea 12:4 says this explicitly.
Okay.
-
NIV: 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.
KJV: 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.
ESV: For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
As the local non Christian with a middling understanding of Christianity, this strikes me as very strange.
If Jesus is God, how can he be tempted? Is God tempted? Is God capable of sin?
Can we say that Jesus was the Son of God, and that much is not confusing?
1 John 5:10
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.