Kenosis Heresy

civic

Well-known member
Actually "divine nature" as "a god."
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2320: θεότης

θεότης, θεότητος, ἡ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de civ. Dei 7, 1)), deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Colossians 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.)[SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης: θεότηςdeity differs from θειότης divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench

And Thayer was at least an honest unitarian . I have not met one on CARM who is honest with the text . He would not allow his own personal bias to effect words and translations from Greek into English.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2320: θεότης

θεότης, θεότητος, ἡ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de civ. Dei 7, 1)), deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Colossians 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.)[SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης: θεότηςdeity differs from θειότης divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench

And Thayer was at least an honest unitarian . I have not met one on CARM who is honest with the text . He would not allow his own personal bias to effect words and translations from Greek into English.
You are aware that the Lutheran Grimm is the author of "Thayers" lexicon and that Thayer just translated it into English, are you not? What Thayer added is found in [brackets].

Tell me you know this.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Scripture declared the Israelites tempted God in the wilderness wanderings.
Not even related. The Israelites were a rellious, and stiff-necked bunch who CONSTANTLY DOUBTED God, and His provisions for them. i.e. they "put God to the test" (tempted Him) by demanding "signs" from Him GREATER than He was pleased to give (and shouldn't have had to anyway).

Much different than offering Him influence (which HE already possessed) so not a temptation at all, or tempting Him to Go against his revealed Word (not fasting as Jesus had been instructed to do), or the best one - arranging for Jesus to prove INTELLECTUALLY how special He was with a public demonstration.

Of course, Since Jesus had to accept His own real identity BY FAITH - and didn't enter ministry UNTIL He was joined and empowered by the Holy SPirit (just like we are supposed to be) then the temptations were REAL, and Jesus could have tossed it all, and accepted satan's offers (the same ones that satan offered Adam, and Eve that they tossed God under the bus in favor of satan's offer).

Context, context, context!!!
 

civic

Well-known member
Not even related. The Israelites were a rellious, and stiff-necked bunch who CONSTANTLY DOUBTED God, and His provisions for them. i.e. they "put God to the test" (tempted Him) by demanding "signs" from Him GREATER than He was pleased to give (and shouldn't have had to anyway).

Much different than offering Him influence (which HE already possessed) so not a temptation at all, or tempting Him to Go against his revealed Word (not fasting as Jesus had been instructed to do), or the best one - arranging for Jesus to prove INTELLECTUALLY how special He was with a public demonstration.

Of course, Since Jesus had to accept His own real identity BY FAITH - and didn't enter ministry UNTIL He was joined and empowered by the Holy SPirit (just like we are supposed to be) then the temptations were REAL, and Jesus could have tossed it all, and accepted satan's offers (the same ones that satan offered Adam, and Eve that they tossed God under the bus in favor of satan's offer).

Context, context, context!!!
Nope same word same meaning- eisgesis bob.
 

civic

Well-known member
AWW - my interpretation doesn't match yours. I'll stick with mine. ALL God's chilluns gots "interpretations".
No the same word tempted is the same since Jesus quoted that passage applied it to Himself .

Could Jesus have sinned ?

There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:

1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.

2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.

The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought; the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass, you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition one except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.

Those who hold to peccability believe that, if Jesus could not have sinned, He could not have truly experienced temptation, and therefore could not truly empathize with our struggles and temptations against sin. We have to remember that one does not have to experience something in order to understand it. God knows everything about everything. While God has never had the desire to sin, and has most definitely never sinned, God knows and understands what sin is. God knows and understands what it is like to be tempted. Jesus can empathize with our temptations because He knows, not because He has “experienced” all the same things we have.

Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted, but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NKJV). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6, especially verses 2 and 16-22).got?

hope this helps !!!
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
No the same word tempted is the same since Jesus quoted that passage applied it to Himself .

Could Jesus have sinned ?
YES. The MIRACLE is that He, as a fully human Adamic MAN, didn't let His human lust "Conceive" and become SIN (James 1:14), and lived His life PERFECTLY so that He could be the PERFECT blood sacrifice.
 

civic

Well-known member
YES. The MIRACLE is that He, as a fully human Adamic MAN, didn't let His human lust "Conceive" and become SIN (James 1:14), and lived His life PERFECTLY so that He could be the PERFECT blood sacrifice.
He never had any human lust for to lust is a sin.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
He never had any human lust for to lust is a sin.
Nope it isn't. "Lust" is just simple HUMAN NATURE that we all (including Jesus) have. James 1 is clear that if our LUST doesn't conceive, then there will be no subsequent SINFUL ACTIONS. If Jesus had no personal LUST, then He was never "tempted in every respect as we are". And His temptation in the wilderness was nothing but meaningless "Window Dressing".

Simple as that
 

Anthony

Active member
He never had any human lust for to lust is a sin.
Yes, absolute truth!

Apostle Paul said in our flesh nothing good dwells. We have inward tendency to sin but that's not the case with Christ as His body was prepared - not from Mary. Mary had the same problem like any human being.

His blood is God's own. He had no inward sinful nature but had to be led by The Spirit to be tempted of the devil to fulfill obedience to God for us.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
He never had any human lust for to lust is a sin.
He never committed murder or disobeyed his God and Father either, but that did not mean he could not have chosen to do so just like Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were perfect and also without sin.... until they did.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
.
civic said:
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2320: θεότης

θεότης, θεότητος, ἡ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de civ. Dei 7, 1)), deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Colossians 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.)[SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης: θεότηςdeity differs from θειότης divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench

And Thayer was at least an honest unitarian . I have not met one on CARM who is honest with the text . He would not allow his own personal bias to effect words and translations from Greek into English.
Click to expand...
You are aware that the Lutheran Grimm is the author of "Thayers" lexicon and that Thayer just translated it into English, are you not? What Thayer added is found in [brackets].

Tell me you know this.
@civic, did you forget this?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Nope it isn't. "Lust" is just simple HUMAN NATURE that we all (including Jesus) have. James 1 is clear that if our LUST doesn't conceive, then there will be no subsequent SINFUL ACTIONS. If Jesus had no personal LUST, then He was never "tempted in every respect as we are". And His temptation in the wilderness was nothing but meaningless "Window Dressing".

Simple as that

What do you make of what Jesus said here?

Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
They were NOT THE Son of God.
Luke 3:38 says in the King James, the same bible Jesus red:

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

What exactly do you think the difference is between "the son of God" and "son of God" anyway?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
What do you make of what Jesus said here?

Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (KJV)
I.e. they had "LUST". James 1, however, states that it's when LUST CONCEIVES, and becomes SINFUL ACTIONS that there's a SIN ISSUE.

Your OWN LUST is where temptation STARTS. "Enticement" is satan's part of the process - to bring you to the point where the lust CONCEIVES.

Since Jesus was TEMPTED IN EVERY RESPECT AS WE ARE, but without SIN, how do you propose that is even possible if Jesus had no natural lust as part of His human nature???
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I.e. they had "LUST". James 1, however, states that it's when LUST CONCEIVES, and becomes SINFUL ACTIONS that there's a SIN ISSUE.



Your OWN LUST is where temptation STARTS. "Enticement" is satan's part of the process - to bring you to the point where the lust CONCEIVES.

I think that what Jesus was saying that if one continues to pursue the improper desire in ones mind it is the same as committing the sin.

Since Jesus was TEMPTED IN EVERY RESPECT AS WE ARE, but without SIN, how do you propose that is even possible if Jesus had no natural lust as part of His human nature???

I don't believe that Jesus could not sin. I said that to @civic.

To your point do you think that one who practices pornography but does not act on it has not sinned?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
I think that what Jesus was saying that if one continues to pursue the improper desire in ones mind it is the same as committing the sin.



I don't believe that Jesus could not sin. I said that to @civic.

To your point do you think that one who practices pornography but does not act on it has not sinned?
"Practices pornography" would be an admission that they're already ACTING on it. Leviticus 18 has quite a bit to say about that.

Sexual lust is a normal feature of Human nature. it's what you DO with it that makes all the difference.
 
Last edited:
Top