ClubV12 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 It's rather obvious actually. By submitting to temptation, turning the stones into bread, THAT alone qualifies as worshiping Satan in my opinion. Reason being is that Christ already knew who He was talking to. You underestimate the power of sin and where it leads. Break one commandment, break them all.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 11, 2011 Moderators Posted May 11, 2011 You keep focusing on the "stones and bread". Because Jesus being hungry could have been tempted to turn the stone into bread. And you are saying - no way? Absurd! Quote: Please Gerry, focus in on the bowing down and worshiping Satan Temptation. As I said, The idea of the temptation itself to bow down and worship satan is on its face ludicrous. Only a total idiot would even consider it let alone do it. Come on get real rudywoofs. Now who is in Alice and Wonderland? You should be embarrassed to even think about such a thing. [color:blue] And how many will be saved? There must be lots and lots of idiots. That's why Satan does not come in a red suit, with pitch fork and tail. He comes as an angel of light, and his messengers even come in the name of Christ. So even your pretentious "sitting at the feet of Jesus" and "lofty height" impresses me none. The "thank God, I'm not like other men Pharisee" smug in his self-righteousness, was not justified after all. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall." If there was no possibility whatsoever for Christ to yield to temptation, then His temptations were all a charade, and He is no model for victorious Christian living. Quote: Do you think that Jesus Christ would be that stupid to fall for that "temptation"? As I said, there is ZERO chance that Jesus Christ would worship satan and you know it, which is why you won't answer my query in regard to probability. If there was zero chance, then He was no man. Quote: If there was even the slightest chance on this temptation you would have given it to me long ago. The fact that you haven't and the lack of Biblical support for your position clearly proves my point. ESV | Heb 4:15 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. Oh, I almost forgot, if the phrase "Christ could have yielded to temptation" is not expressly found in Scripture, so therefore you don't believe it. Then OTH, the phrase, "It is impossible for Christ to yield to temptation" is not in Scripture either. Therefore, it must false!!!
miz3 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 ClubV12, The very fact that Jesus Christ knew the moment satan opened his mouth that it was satan means that Jesus Christ would never, ever, even give satan the smallest of concessions. Thus, by that alone there is ZERO CHANCE Jesus Christ would have sinned. How stupid Jesus Christ would have been to knowingly obey saatan. I guess I have been right all along!
Woody Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Quote: I guess I have been right all along! lol It's a good thing that you are able to realize when you are right. :) May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
ClubV12 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Based on that logic, miz3, the moment I recognize it's the evil one tempting me I immediately turn from him because I recognize the danger? Reality is, sometimes I do recognize the temptation and it's origin and yet I still do it! Sometimes we come up with very good excuses to justify our actions. Sometimes we just knowingly and with fore thought act out on them anyway. Jesus recognized the temptor alright, but that alone didn't stop Him from choosing a path, for good or for evil. He was near death from starvation, surely He could have eaaily justified His actions under such stress. Regardless of who was standing by His side or if He was seemingly alone. In fact it's the classic hypothetical situation where: Your starving, would you steal food? Your starving in a remote wilderness. You find a pig in a trap. Would you kill and eat the pig? Your starving, would you steal or kill a pig to feed others but would not partake of the food yourself (thus justifying your actions)? Your starving and have the ability to turn stones into bread, would you do it?
miz3 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 ClubV12. Jesus Christ has been hungry for a long time before satan even showed up. All that time He could have made numerous stones into bread. During that time there was nary a twitch to perform a miracle. It was only until satan showed and made the suggestion then and only then was Jesus Christ under temptation and could have sinned. In your case, ClubV12, you have a sinful nature that drives you to sin even without being tempted. You can;t help it, unless you call on God to use His power to overcome sin. Unless there was a sinful bent in Christ there could never ever be a chance of His sinning! Do you believe that Christ had a "sinful nature" like you and I do? If you do, that explains your unBiblical position.
ClubV12 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 "It was only until satan showed and made the suggestion then and only then was Jesus Christ under temptation and could have sinned." I don't believe that!!! I believe Jesus was free to choose His own path at any point in His life, just as Adam was. He and His apostles often went hungry, good preparation for a coming time when He would really know hunger! Eve may have been decieved, but Adam had clear and full knowledge of what he was doing and chose to do it. As did Christ, there was no deception, He had a choice to make with full knowledge of the situation at hand. One chose death, Jesus chose life. As to whether or not Christ had a sinful nature, thats being covered under another thread.
Gustave Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 You love putting words in other people's mouths, do you not? Your logic is flawed. God is not human. And in heaven, it was a battle on a whole different level than it is with Satan and humans. Satan **knows** he can tempt people to sin. He did not know what actions might occur in heaven.
ClubV12 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Gustave, it's common knowledge the early Seventh Day Adventist struggled with understanding what would become foundational points in due time. Truth is, after all, progressive. We, and the church, grew into it. Ellen White, nor Daniel nor any other prophet recieved ALL light in ONE vision or one sudden burst of knowledge. Daniel was physically sick over some of what was revealed to him. It took time and further revelations for him to understand. Did you notice the date of the publication you posted? 1868, that in itself explains much of the confusion on the issue. In the final triumph of good over evil, Satan whips his army of men into a battle frenzy and they together attack the city of God. Now he KNOWS he cannot win such a battle, and yet, he proceeds with it. Why??? Why not? He's got nothing to loose anyway, he's grasping at the thinnest of straws that he might prevail, because there is no other alternative. Such was the temptation of Christ, what did Satan have to loose? Nothing! If he DIDN'T tempt Christ nothing would change for sure. But if he did tempt Him and by the slimmest of odds he was successful, everything would change! Such is the case when a mind is deluded and no options remain. Which is why a suicide bent person can become a very dangerous person, there is nothing to loose. Personally I think the evil doer did indeed fully and earnesty believe he had a good chance of getting Jesus to sin. He was very crafty and patient waiting for the 40 days to just about end, when Christ was at His weakest, to make his move.
CoAspen Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Again, you need to chill your rhetoric...take a deep breath..count to 10 or 100 or what ever it takes. If Christ could not have sinned, by what ever method, than why was he here?
Moderators Gerr Posted May 11, 2011 Moderators Posted May 11, 2011 Gustave, it's common knowledge the early Seventh Day Adventist struggled with understanding what would become foundational points in due time. Truth is, after all, progressive. We, and the church, grew into it. Ellen White, nor Daniel nor any other prophet recieved ALL light in ONE vision or one sudden burst of knowledge. Daniel was physically sick over some of what was revealed to him. It took time and further revelations for him to understand. Did you notice the date of the publication you posted? 1868, that in itself explains much of the confusion on the issue. In the final triumph of good over evil, Satan whips his army of men into a battle frenzy and they together attack the city of God. Now he KNOWS he cannot win such a battle, and yet, he proceeds with it. Why??? Why not? He's got nothing to loose anyway, he's grasping at the thinnest of straws that he might prevail, because there is no other alternative. Such was the temptation of Christ, what did Satan have to loose? Nothing! If he DIDN'T tempt Christ nothing would change for sure. But if he did tempt Him and by the slimmest of odds he was successful, everything would change! Such is the case when a mind is deluded and no options remain. Which is why a suicide bent person can become a very dangerous person, there is nothing to loose. Personally I think the evil doer did indeed fully and earnesty believe he had a good chance of getting Jesus to sin. He was very crafty and patient waiting for the 40 days to just about end, when Christ was at His weakest, to make his move.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 11, 2011 Moderators Posted May 11, 2011 Unless there was a sinful bent in Christ there could never ever be a chance of His sinning! Lucifer & 1/3 of the angels had no sinful bent. Yet they sinned. Adam & Eve had no sinful bent. Yet they sinned. Or did God create them with a sinful bent?
Gustave Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 The "rectum" is all the product of your fertile imagination. You will NEVER find that or even hinted at in ANY SDA publication. The Bible clearly says, "God is a Spirit." Having said that, surely, you are familiar with the anthromorphism that the Bible uses about God. He has eyes, hands, feet, hair, He hears, smells. And then ergo - you say He has a "rectum?" Yeah, right
teresaq Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: ClubV12 As I understand it, Christ was tempted AFTER or at the END of His 40 day fast. He was near death, at His weakest possible point in His life, physically. That is when the devil came, as an "angel of light". As if he were sent from heavens throne to rescue Christ from His suffering. At first, Jesus was NOT SURE it was Satan! He did not know for sure until Satan spoke. "IF, thou be the son of God...". That was the key, he revealed himself by his words, not by his appearance or actions. Jesus, being familiar with the BIBLE, knew at the moment what He was facing. Literally dieing of hunger, who among us would have not traded all for even a morsel of bread? When the temptations were over, angels from heaven immediately attended Christ, bringing Him food and drink lest He perish, being at deaths door. The temptations were very real indeed, as was the possibility of failure. His knowledge of the scriptures played a significant roll in over coming. What "sin" did Christ "overcome" so that He was able to resist His temptation? Matthew 4 1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Would it have been sin for Christ to turn the stones into bread, solely for Himself? why, or why not? And what was Satan's challenge? facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 The Bible authors were clear to point out that Jesus PERSONALLY KNEW our INFIRMITIES......That means Jesus experienced EVERYTHING we did APART FROM SIN. I, personally, have not met an SDA who would disagree with this. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Sonny Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 What "sin" did Christ "overcome" so that He was able to resist His temptation? Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh Christ defeated or condemned sin, where? in His humanity. Paul speaks of this in Romans 7:20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. What is indwelling sin? Some call it the sin nature, but that doesn't tell me what sin is. Sin is the opposite of agape love. Agape has no self in it. That means those indwelt by agape live for others only. There is no selfishness, self-seeking and self-interest in agape. If you bend back agape towards yourself you have sin. It's called iniquity. Christ said "no" to our bent-to-self all His earthly life, but on the cross He faced His greatest temptation. His temptation was to go against His father's will, come down off the cross and save His own skin. His temptation was to love Himself and let His murderers go to hell. That's agape bent back to self. Think it out. Jesus never did anything wrong. He never cheated or swindled anyone. He never mistreated anyone. He lived for others only. But yet Christ, an innocent man, was nailed to a tree. What would you do if you could wipe your murderers out and come down of the cross and save yourself? And you could do all this by just a thought. So the love of self was Christ's greatest temptation, but He said no to our nature and died the 2nd death. He defeated our sin nature & its desires.
teresaq Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gustave "EVERY man" is tempted when THAT MAN is drawn toward something HE LUSTS for already! ...What do you believe Jesus lusted for that was classified as SIN. ...So that "Christ" had to RESIST "HIS" temptation ( not the Devil's )? Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: ALL these evil things come from within, and defile the man Did Lucifer or Adam & Eve have any of the above when temptation came to them? I agree, Gerry. Maybe we forget that the bible was written concerning post-fall man, not pre-fall. What was Jesus "lusting" for, or more accurately stated, desiring? If I had been in His position and was starving, it would probably be food that I would be strongly craving... facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Gustave Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Gustave, it's common knowledge the early Seventh Day Adventist struggled with understanding what would become foundational points in due time. Truth is, after all, progressive. We, and the church, grew into it. Ellen White, nor Daniel nor any other prophet recieved ALL light in ONE vision or one sudden burst of knowledge. Daniel was physically sick over some of what was revealed to him. It took time and further revelations for him to understand. Did you notice the date of the publication you posted? 1868, that in itself explains much of the confusion on the issue.
Sonny Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 "My Father, if it is possible, take this cup from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." Christ's humanity, indwelt with our bent-to-self, desired to live and let the human race sink into oblivion. Yet His mind realized the pull of His human nature and submitted to His Father's will.
teresaq Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: Gerry The "rectum" is all the product of your fertile imagination. You will NEVER find that or even hinted at in ANY SDA publication. The Bible clearly says, "God is a Spirit." Having said that, surely, you are familiar with the anthromorphism that the Bible uses about God. He has eyes, hands, feet, hair, He hears, smells. And then ergo - you say He has a "rectum?" Yeah, right It's not me saying that Gerry, it was the Adventists all through the life and ministry of EGW... ...Yes, I agree that God is a "spirit". ...Therefore I DENY the following affirmations. Originally Posted By: Review and Herald, Sept 5, 1878 The God of the Bible is NOT a mere principle, an essence or spirit of the universe, but he is a real, personal being having a body, form, shape, local habitation, a throne, etc. Originally Posted By: from the SAME article Did the Lord deceive Moses, and make him think he had a face, and hands, and parts, when he had none? No, indeed. Then God has parts, notwithstanding the creeds say he is without body or parts. Originally Posted By: the SAME article Thus it is declared that [color:#330000]God has all the members and parts of a perfect man. This is not said once, no twice, but many times, not in parables and in symbols, and figures, but directly and plainly. Originally Posted By: the SAME article Then God has a person. Now what is the meaning of the word person? It seems that on so simple a word as this that there could be no mistake. It does not and cannot mean an immaterial, intangible, shapeless, formless essence. It always means an intelligent being, having a body, shape, and form. Originally Posted By: the SAME article By these passages we find what the Bible means by the word person. It never means a being without body, parts, or passions. Now the Bible, after using the word person hundreds of times in the sense indicated above, says that God is a person. We believe it, and are willing to leave it there. If a child was born that "DIDN'T have a rectum" would you be so bold to say that child... ...Had ALL the parts and MEMBERS of a perfect man? ...That, right there, is exactly what you said I wouldn't find in ANY Adventist publication. SDA publications from it's initiation to past the death of Ellen White are SATURATED with this... ...The very Premise is what they based the Sanctuary teaching from. ...And yes, I can document that as well. You have only partial quotes here that do not give the full sense of the article. I take it you see "rectum" as sinful? Or something God would not have? How about Jesus, the God-man? Jesus said God had a shape, would you call Him a liar? John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. and He is Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. 1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we are going to use John 4:24 as any kind of proof that God is some kind of all-pervasive phantom, then we will also have to believe that before we can worship Him we must also become "spirits". The passage in context, John 4: 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Originally Posted By: GerryCabalo Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. Why would Satan waste his time tempting and dogging Him at every turn if there was not any possibility that he could succeed in tempting Christ to do something beyond His Father's will? Since you believe the chance that Jesus Christ could have sinned is NOT ZERO, then what percentage is it that Jesus Christ would have bowed down to Satan and worshiped him in exchange for the kingdoms. Is it 50%? Is it 75%? Is it 30%? I await your answer. I don't know why you are asking Gerry, since it is the bible inspired by the Holy Spirit that made the statement,Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. In which case we would have to go to Jesus and ask Him what the odds had been... that's how it seems to me anyway. :) facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
miz3 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 In the final triumph of good over evil, Satan whips his army of men into a battle frenzy and they together attack the city of God. Now he KNOWS he cannot win such a battle, and yet, he proceeds with it. Why??? Why not? He's got nothing to loose anyway, he's grasping at the thinnest of straws that he might prevail, because there is no other alternative. Such was the temptation of Christ, what did Satan have to loose? Nothing! If he DIDN'T tempt Christ nothing would change for sure. But if he did tempt Him and by the slimmest of odds he was successful, everything would change! Such is the case when a mind is deluded and no options remain. Which is why a suicide bent person can become a very dangerous person, there is nothing to loose. By your own words above you now agree that Jesus could not lose. As teresaq(sda) points out the Holy Spirit led Jesus in the wilderness to be tempted. The Holy Spirit was in control of Jesus and His actions. After 40 days nothing has changed the Holy Spirit was still in control of Jesus Christ. As such there would be ZERO CHANCE OF DEFEAT! The Bible speaks and the Truth is known! It is a figment of human imagination that everything was held in the balance and it all might go down the drain. This is nothing more than human created drama. This is also what comes when SDA believe that every word the Prophet cited is inspired. Ellen White was "inspired" but not everything she communicated was "inspired", like the getting "intoxicated on grape juice" line. We need to be careful in our usage of Ellen White because our misuse of her is just as much blasphemy as to say she was from the devil.
Moderators Gerr Posted May 11, 2011 Moderators Posted May 11, 2011 The Bible speaks and the Truth is known! And the Truth is: ESV | Heb 4:15 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. There would be no point in saying - "yet without sin" if, as a MAN, there was not the slightest possibility that He could have chosen to do so.
Gustave Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Matthew 4 1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Would it have been sin for Christ to turn the stones into bread, solely for Himself? why, or why not? And what was Satan's challenge? Here is how I understand it. Verse 7 It is written AGAIN, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God. The whole spectacle was classified in Scripture as Christ being temped OF or BY 'the Devil'... ...Therefore each and every 'temptation' Satan offered was temptation. ...Which violated the Law of Moses which explicitly stated NOT to tempt the Lord they God. Deut 6:12 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah. When Satan rebelled in heaven he did not simply rebell against God the Father.... ...He ( Lucifer ) rebelled against GOD; Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Would it have been a sin for Jesus to turn stones into bread? ...No, I don't believe it would have been. ...It is NOT a sin to eat if one is hungry nor is it a sin to be in need of food. ...Jesus simply would have NOTHING at all to do with the Devil. This whole discussion is all about IF Jesus was "tempted within Himself"... ...So that it is said Jesus RESISTED HIS ( not the Devil's ) temptation. ...I've only demonstrated the Arianism behind the premise Jesus was tempted WITHIN Himself like WE ARE.
Gustave Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 There would be no point in saying - "yet without sin" if, as a MAN, there was not the slightest possibility that He could have chosen to do so Gerry, what does the word "BUT" mean to you in the text you quoted? ...Fabricate as many sentences as you like and place the word BUT in the same place. ...What does it mean in EACH & EVERY time? How does this effect your undertanding?
Recommended Posts