General Christ - our example

[Petunia]

Christ COULD have sinned, but he chose not to - he is our example to follow.

“Though he were a Son, yet LEARNED (3129) he OBEDIENCE by the things which he suffered; And being MADE PERFECT (5048), he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. (Heb. 5: 8, 9)

3129: learned from experience
5048: working through the entire process to reach the final fase.

Christ had to be like Adam: able to sin and able to die (both impossible to God). They were not sinners from birth, but they had the freedom to choose (obedience to their Father or disobedience, aka sin)

If Christ wasn’t able to sin, then why was he led by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil? (Mat. 4:1) If he couldn’t sin, his temptations weren’t real and he wasn’t tempted like we are. BUT he was indeed “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”. Heb. 4:15

Saying that Christ could have sinned, doesn’t demean him at all, on the contrary!
For what glory is it not to sin when you are incapable to do so? But if you can sin, but you don’t, and suffer for it, this is acceptable with God. (Compare 1 Pe 2:20).

Christ is the last Adam, our example to follow! (1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Pe 2:21-23)

 

[Outcast]

Christ COULD have sinned, but he chose not to - he is our example to follow.

“Though he were a Son, yet LEARNED (3129) he OBEDIENCE by the things which he suffered; And being MADE PERFECT (5048), he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. (Heb. 5: 8, 9)

3129: learned from experience
5048: working through the entire process to reach the final fase.

Christ had to be like Adam: able to sin and able to die (both impossible to God). They were not sinners from birth, but they had the freedom to choose (obedience to their Father or disobedience, aka sin)

If Christ wasn’t able to sin, then why was he led by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil? (Mat. 4:1) If he couldn’t sin, his temptations weren’t real and he wasn’t tempted like we are. BUT he was indeed “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”. Heb. 4:15

Saying that Christ could have sinned, doesn’t demean him at all, on the contrary!
For what glory is it not to sin when you are incapable to do so? But if you can sin, but you don’t, and suffer for it, this is acceptable with God. (Compare 1 Pe 2:20).

Christ is the last Adam, our example to follow! (1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Pe 2:21-23)

Hello Petunia. I used to take the position that you hold here. After all, that is what I was taught for years.

There are other scriptures that show me that the things I was taught were not very accurate.

While Yeshua was born to a human mother, He did not have a human father. Would it seem reasonable to wonder what made Him different from Adam?

 

[Petunia]

Thanks outcast for your response!

I’m interested in what scriptures changed your mind and how you see Adam en Jesus.

 

[Outcast]

Thanks outcast for your response!

I’m interested in what scriptures changed your mind and how you see Adam en Jesus.

Good morning, Petunia. I will collect my thoughts so I seem to be organized when I respond, so it will be a while once I get my chores done.

 

[Outcast]

Good morning, Petunia. I will collect my thoughts so I seem to be organized when I respond, so it will be a while once I get my chores done.

I think I have organized some passages that cause some thought in our understanding of the nature of our Messiah. At least I hope so. When I learned about them, they certainly gave me a brighter light with which to see Yeshua

The first Adam was created by God where the second Adam Yeshua was born of woman and the fullness of Yahweh's spirit.

The first Adam on created innocent because he did not know good from evil. While the scripture don't speak of his having a childhood, I think it is safe to say he was created as an adult able to speak, walk, interact, etc. There was no one there except the serpent to corrupt him. The eve was made to be his wife. The second one Yeshua had a childhood and had to learn all the things that Adam was created with.

The first Adam had only one law to obey. He failed in that by keeping his eyes/heart on Eve rather than his Creator.

Yeshua was born to be the fulfillment of prophecy.

Gen 3: 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

We see in Isaiah that Yahweh tells us again that He is going to fulfill that prophecy: Yeshua was the New Covenant.

Is 42:6 “I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

Is 49:8–9 Thus says the LORD: In a time of favor I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages, saying to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Appear.’

When Yeshua was born, he inherited the nature of His father:

John 3:34 For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

We should be skeptical of the variances in translations between all the bibles we may find in English. There are passages which are interpretations more than they are translations. Doctrines are created out of these interpretations.

Gal 4:4 is one of them - by adding punctuation. That comma was added and not in the original.





Despite how some translators render Heb 2:17, Yeshua was not "made in every way" as we are. I dare say that I was not born with the full measure of my Father's spirit. Note the words that are gray. I don't think "to be likened" to be the same as "in every way."



I do hope that this gives you things to ponder. I would like to once again thank my brother Lee B for presenting these points to me that stirred my thoughts.

Please feel free to present your thoughts on these points, and may God grant all of us a better understanding of His truth.

 

[Petunia]

Thanks Outcast! I appreciate your input!

I agree that translations aren’t always correct. I doubt that they are really translated from Hebrew and Greek - like they say they did - seems to me that they’re making their own little twists from the Interlinear translations - how else can they “all” have the same errors?

I read the texts several times and I thought about it, keeping an open mind and of course I prayed about it … I don’t think I got the point you want to make though - it feels like I’m missing something, but what?

So I just write how I see it and hopefully you can pick it up from there to help me see what you see (I may not agree, but I do want to see it and consider it at least).

It’s true, Christ wasn’t in EVERY way like we are

We are children of Adam (Acts 17:26)
We have genetic flaws, that we inherited from our ancestors (1 Chronicles 2:16; 2 Sam. 2:22-23; 3:27; 16:9)
We fall short every day (1 Ki 8:46)
We don’t think of God every step of the way (Rom. 7:21; Psalm 16:8)
Our likeness of God is shattered (Col. 3:10)
We will die because we sinned (Rom. 6:23)
We were not taught from the womb by God Himself (Psalm 22:9-10; Is. 50:4-5)
We don’t know Scripture like he did (John 10:34)
We don’t have the Spirit in the same measure as Christ had (John 3:34)
God doesn’t talk with us like he did with Christ (Mat. 3:17; Luke 6:12)

But Christ was AS WE are in many aspects:

His life began in the womb (Luke .1:30-31)
He was born as a baby (Luke 2:7)
He grew up and learned from experience (Luke 2:52; Mark 6:3)
He learned to be obedient (Luke 2:51)
He learned to make his own choices (John 2:4)
He was hungry, thirsty and tired (Mat. 4:2; Joh. 19:28; Joh. 4:6)
He didn’t know everything (Mark 13:32)
He could be annoyed or mad in some degree (Mark 8:17; 9:19; 11:15-17)
He was brought up by imperfect parents (Luke 2:43, 48-49)
He experienced pain, both physically and emotionally (1 Pe 2:24)
He died (as we will someday) (Mark 15:37)

 

[Petunia]

See above for part 1

Christ was LIKE Adam before he sinned - they were both (or will be)

Son of God (Luke 3:38; Mat. 3:17)
Made in the likeness of God (Gen. 1:26; Col. 1:15)
without genetic flaws - without sin (Rom. 5:12; Heb. 4:15)
Mortal (Gen. 5:5; Mark 15:37)
Father of mankind (Gen. 1:28; 1 Cor. 15:22)

They both had free will (Gen. 3:17; John 12:50)

But Christ wasn’t EXACTLY like Adam:

Adam disobeyed and sinned, Christ obeyed and didn’t sin
Adam was never a child, Christ was
Adam was not aware of anything bad, Christ was (Mat. 12:34)

So it’s a matter of context really:
Adam and Christ were alike (but not in everything)
Christ is like we are (but not in everything).

Scripture tells us in what way Adam and Christ and Christ and we are alike or different.
So I believe what the Bible says - Christ:

wept (Joh. 11:35)
Had very difficult moments (Luke 22:44)
He learned to be completely obedient/ his obedience reached an other level because it was tested through suffering (Heb. 5:8-9).
Was tempted by the devil - so he could be tempted (Mat. 4:1)

 

[Petunia]

O, I forgot, I agree that Yeshua was born to be the fulfillment of prophecy (Gen. 3:15 etc.)

I’m not convinced yet that Is. 42:6; 48:8-9 talk about the New Covenant (there are many covenants)
I’d like to read more context, so I’ll be back on that point.

But assumed that it is talking about the New Covenant (he is undoubtedly the mediator of that covenant), what does that change in the context we’re talking about?

I believe that everything Christ did, he did because he was taught by God, because he had God’s Spirit.
It was not a super human, without God he couldn’t have done it - although he could’ve done more than we ever can. He always sought his Father’s way, not his own, that’s what made him so powerful.

Please correct me if and where I’m wrong - with the Word of our Father and sound reasoning.


Have a nice weekend!

 

[Outcast]

Hello again Petunia. I hope that Yahweh helps you with your search for truth.

Yes, I see many agreements with you. There are a couple points that I would like to make. They are:

The Israelite in the days of "The Law" had God's spirit in the midst of them. Only certain people had the spirit within them.

Ezekiel 36:27: I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Isaiah 63:11: Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses. Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,

Judges 15:14: When he came to Lehi, the Philistines came shouting to meet him. Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and the ropes that were on his arms became as flax that has caught fire, and his bonds melted off his hands.

Psalm 51:11: Cast me not away from your presence and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

We don't have the "fulness of Yahweh's spirit" but, if we indeed belong to Yahweh, we have Yahweh's spirit dwelling with us.. Some authors of book in the New Testament equate Yahweh's (who IS a spirit) with Yeshua spirit. I believe that can happen only because Yeshua had the fullness of God's spirit. I.E. - He could not sin.

Since He came as the New Covenant, He was not born under the Law. That is why the added comma in Galatians 4:4 is so troubling as it accuses Yeshua of being born under "the Law" which would make Him a sinner.

Take for example when Yeshua stayed, unbeknownst to His parents, when they were travelling back to Nazareth from Jerusalem. Might we say that He did not honor His mother and father? Luke 2:39-46

Then, He broke the Sabbath according to the Pharisees. He was doing the work of His Father - so if that is true, doesn't than make Yahweh the cause of His Son's sin? Mat 12 and John 5

IF He was "under the Covenant of Sinai, there would be a huge issue.

Galatians 5:18: But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Indeed, Yeshua was still a mortal man, but the words He spoke were not His own:

John 7:16: My teaching is not mine but his who sent me.

John 8:26: …the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.

John 14:10 : The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his work.

John 14:24 …the word you hear is not mine but is from the Father who sent me.

John 12:49-50: for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.

As far as Yeshua being tempted by Satan, while people traditionally attempt to say that He resisted temptation, did He really? This is where understanding that Yeshua had the Spirit of His Father (DNA?) within Him, scripture tells us that He could not be tempted - with Evil.

In order for people to accept that Yeshua was no mere man - in every way - as we are, we are told of the amazing things that He withstood, that He did in His Father's name, and the words He spoke. If Yeshua had been born like us "in every way," then He was born with the curse of sin within Him. Should be think that being born with the fullness of Yahweh will indwell alongside a sin nature?

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

We received the indwelt spirit upon accepting the New Covenant with its promises and its obligations of obedience. We can still choose to sin, but God's spirit prompts us not do and chastises us if we do. Thank God!

 

[Petunia]

I’m going to think about it.
But one question popped up immediately: what about Adam?
How does he fit in this?

 

[Kaironaut]

“Though he were a Son, yet LEARNED (3129) he OBEDIENCE by the things which he suffered; And being MADE PERFECT (5048), he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. (Heb. 5: 8, 9)

This is exactly the point. He wasn’t perfect to begin with, he became perfect because he obeyed in the face of suffering. This presumes that some kind of contingency preceded the event, which was eventually settled by his obedience.

 

[Outcast]

I’m going to think about it.
But one question popped up immediately: what about Adam?
How does he fit in this?

Maybe I see your question too broadly, and wonder if there is a more specific question.

However, the issue with "the first Adam" is that he was created without sin and without Yahweh's indwelling spirit. He did not learn obedience through childhood, nor did Eve. If Adam had not sinned, we would not be in this messy world we inhabit. Think of Adam and man's first opportunity to be sinless. All that it required was that Adam obey God's one instruction.

The second Adam endured childhood and learned. Through His obedience, he became perfect - and becoming perfect can be seen various ways depending on what a person's thoughts are as to what the word really means. This of course leads to questions about "being born with the fullness of His Father's spirit v/s His baptism to fulfill all righteousness. I think it is wise to understand that His baptism is not the same as our baptism. Theories can vary there.

After the New Covenant was enacted by His death and resurrection, we also are called to become part of the New Covenant and enter through our baptism and obedience to the words Yeshua gave us from His Father.

So, mankind received a "do over" to start a new world with Yahweh as our Father and Yeshua as our brother.

 

[Petunia]

This is how I see it:

“Jesus IS the New Covenant” (Is. 42:6; 48:8-9)

Jesus is guarantor and mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), therefore he can be called “the covenant”.
The cup from the last supper is also called the new covenant (Luke 22:20)

This is known as metonymy (a figure of speech in which a word is substituted for another word that it is closely associated with. For example, “the White House” is often used as a metonymy for the presidential administration.)
See Gen. 17:10 (circumcision - the sign of the covenant - is called God’s covenant);
Ex. 12:11 (the paschal lamb is called the passover)

Since He came as the New Covenant, does this mean he was NOT born UNDER the LAW?
I don’t understand what you mean with the comma in Gal. 4:4. Do you say that it must be read as “Mary was born under the law”?
If so, the verb is not feminine and she is not the topic in the context of Gal.

I believe Christ HAD to be born under the law, since he was born in a Jewish family. He was circumcised and presented to God as the firstborn male (Luke 2:21-23), as required under the law (Lev. 12:3; ex. 13:2).
If he wasn’t under the Law, he couldn’t fulfill the Law (Deut. 18:15; Luke 24:27, 44 ) and he couldn’t die as “cursed under the Law” (Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:22-23).

Does this mean Christ sinned?

The Bible says Jesus did NOT sin (Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pe 2:22)

About your 2 examples:
Luke 2:39-46 The Bible doesn’t explain exactly how it came to be that Jesus was left behind. His parents assumed … But they didn’t check. It was the parents responsibility to care for him and make sure all their children were present before they left.
When the 12 year old Jesus discovered his parents were gone, he went to (or stayed in ?) his Father’s house - assuming they would find him there - as they did. He wasn’t sinning against the Law.

He broke the Sabbath according to the Pharisees.
Mat 12 and John 5
The Pharisees went beyond what was written. They were NOT against “work” on the sabbath in some cases as Jesus explains in Mat. 12:11. They had double standards and often drew the wrong conclusions.
Mark 3:4-5 It seems to have been a maxim [saying] with the Jews that not to do good when we have an opportunity is to do evil; not to save life is to kill or to be guilty of murder. On this principle our Saviour puts this question to the Jews - whether it was better for him, having the power to heal this man, to do it, or to suffer him to remain in this suffering condition; and he illustrates it by an example, showing that in a manner of much less importance - that respecting their cattle - they would do on the Sabbath just as "he" would if he should heal this man. (Barnes)
So he wasn’t sinning against the Law, in fact he wasn’t even sinning against the PRACTICE of the Pharisees in keeping the Law.

You reason that because he had “the fullness of God’s Spirit” Yeshua couldn’t sin and he could not be tempted - although Scripture says he WAS tempted more than once (Mat.4:1; Luke 4:13).
I don’t know if it’s correct to say that he RESISTED temptation, but he did RESIST the Devil. Maybe he didn’t feel it as a real temptation because he had his eyes on his Father and on the prize (Heb. 12:2; Ps. 16:8). Compare Phil. 3:7-8

If Adam was created without the indwelling of God’s Spirit, did he even have a fair chance?
I think Adam did have a measure of God’s Spirit (Gen. 2:7; Job 27:3; Is. 42:5; Psalm 104:29).
He could/ should have asked for more - but he chose not to. Christ however did several times! (Luke 22:41-44). Doesn’t this show as well that Yeshua did NOT have the full measure of the Spirit at EVERY single MOMENT?

“mankind received a "do over" to start a new world with Yahweh as our Father and Yeshua as our brother.”

Thank God an Amen to that!

 

[Outcast]

This is how I see it:

“Jesus IS the New Covenant” (Is. 42:6; 48:8-9)

Since He came as the New Covenant, does this mean he was NOT born UNDER the LAW?

That is correct. Maybe I am being "too literal" in your view, but it seems valid to understand that one cannot be both under the Covenant of Sinai and under the New Covenant at the same time. They have different purposes and the instructions under them are different.

I don’t understand what you mean with the comma in Gal. 4:4. Do you say that it must be read as “Mary was born under the law”?
If so, the verb is not feminine and she is not the topic in the context of Gal.

I believe Christ HAD to be born under the law, since he was born in a Jewish family. He was circumcised and presented to God as the firstborn male (Luke 2:21-23), as required under the law (Lev. 12:3; ex. 13:2).
If he wasn’t under the Law, he couldn’t fulfill the Law (Deut. 18:15; Luke 24:27, 44 ) and he couldn’t die as “cursed under the Law” (Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:22-23).

The Son of God was born of a woman who was under The Law. The "having been born" does not determine the gender of who was born. There are words that are always used regardless of gender.

It should be seen as "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman having been born under the law,"

IN short, Yeshua came as the New Covenant who could not be under two covenants even though His mother way. He was born of Yahweh who establishes covenants.

Does this mean Christ sinned?

Only if he was born under the Old Covenant.

The Bible says Jesus did NOT sin (Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pe 2:22)

Yes, He knew no sin.

2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Righteousness means living in right relationship with God. We act with righteousness when we live justly, honestly, and faithfully according to God’s instruction.

About your 2 examples:
Luke 2:39-46 The Bible doesn’t explain exactly how it came to be that Jesus was left behind. His parents assumed … But they didn’t check. It was the parents responsibility to care for him and make sure all their children were present before they left.

In that patriarchal society, Yeshua was knowledgeable to the Hebrew Scriptures - he was "of age" according to that culture. An observer would see that He didn't honor His mother by knowing where she expected him to be yet not doing so. Under the old covenant, that would be as sinful behavior, just as breaking the sabbath was.

When the 12 year old Jesus discovered his parents were gone, he went to (or stayed in ?) his Father’s house - assuming they would find him there - as they did. He wasn’t sinning against the Law.

He broke the Sabbath according to the Pharisees.
Mat 12 and John 5
The Pharisees went beyond what was written. They were NOT against “work” on the sabbath in some cases as Jesus explains in Mat. 12:11. They had double standards and often drew the wrong conclusions.

Yet, they and the Sanhedrin were the judges of those who broke the law. The law as referenced in the Ten Commandment was only the beginnings of The Law. There were hundreds more - some from God through prophets and then those that came from traditions.

Matt 23: 1-3 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.

However, since Yeshua came as the New Covenant, He gave a different version of how certain rules should apply. However, the New Covenant was not yet enacted, so He told the Israelites to obey those corrupted leaders as "the Law" still applied to them.

Mark 3:4-5 It seems to have been a maxim [saying] with the Jews that not to do good when we have an opportunity is to do evil; not to save life is to kill or to be guilty of murder. On this principle our Saviour puts this question to the Jews - whether it was better for him, having the power to heal this man, to do it, or to suffer him to remain in this suffering condition; and he illustrates it by an example, showing that in a manner of much less importance - that respecting their cattle - they would do on the Sabbath just as "he" would if he should heal this man. (Barnes)
So he wasn’t sinning against the Law, in fact he wasn’t even sinning against the PRACTICE of the Pharisees in keeping the Law.

You reason that because he had “the fullness of God’s Spirit” Yeshua couldn’t sin and he could not be tempted - although Scripture says he WAS tempted more than once (Mat.4:1; Luke 4:13).

I think I did say he couldn't be tempted "by evil." The terms of that temptation was that He was to worship Satan - which was evil. So, the temptation has no effect on Him. We, those of us indwelt by God's spirit, should not be tempted by evil, but some are. That is between them and God.

Can you imagine the impact upon His disciples to know what was offered to Yeshua which He refused? Do you think it had an impact on them to know that He was able to be unaffected ty them? Maybe that highlighted to them that He was no normal man?

I don’t know if it’s correct to say that he RESISTED temptation, but he did RESIST the Devil. Maybe he didn’t feel it as a real temptation because he had his eyes on his Father and on the prize (Heb. 12:2; Ps. 16:8). Compare Phil. 3:7-8

Exactly. I'm not sure that I would see His future purpose as a prize, though. Knowing His destiny and seeking His Father's help and council is part of righteousness.

If Adam was created without the indwelling of God’s Spirit, did he even have a fair chance?

Certainly he had a fair chance. It was only AFTER his disobedience that humans were born with a sin nature. Adam was not a blank slate, though. He had a warning from God to not eat from that tree to obey.

I think Adam did have a measure of God’s Spirit (Gen. 2:7; Job 27:3; Is. 42:5; Psalm 104:29).
He could/ should have asked for more - but he chose not to. Christ however did several times! (Luke 22:41-44). Doesn’t this show as well that Yeshua did NOT have the full measure of the Spirit at EVERY single MOMENT?

I think we get tripped up with how we understand Yeshua having the fulness of His Father's spirit and His also being born of a woman. They prayers to His Father certainly should indicate that He relied on His Father Yahweh during those days. It should be expected of Him because Yeshua was not God. He was righteous.

He was "born of God."

1 John 3:9-10 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
When Yahweh announced His future son, He said:

Is 42:1-9 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. Thus says Yahweh, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: “I am the Yahweh; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness, I am Yahweh; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.”
Some of these destinies, I think, are still awaiting the right time according to the mind of Yahweh.

I certainly enjoyed your responses, and I appreciate your taking the time to share! Tell me what you think of my thoughts, please.

“mankind received a "do over" to start a new world with Yahweh as our Father and Yeshua as our brother.”

Thank God an Amen to that!

 

[Petunia]

I certainly enjoyed your responses, and I appreciate your taking the time to share! Tell me what you think of my thoughts, please.

To be honest, I’m a bit disappointed. I feel as if you didn’t answer most of my arguments
and yes it took me hours reading, researching and formulating - and that’s okay, I benefit from that myself- but I didn’t expect you going AROUND my arguments instead of going into them (so it feels any way).

I don’t think Jesus was UNDER the new covenant himself - he was the mediator of it. The new covenant wasn’t ratified until Christ died, so how could he be in it?

Thank you for explaining the comma!
I still think - reading the context - it’s not about Mary.
Do you have any evidence that this comma shouldn’t be there? (except that it doesn’t agree with your beliefs)

In that patriarchal society, Yeshua was knowledgeable to the Hebrew Scriptures - he was "of age" according to that culture. An observer would see that He didn't honor His mother by knowing where she expected him to be yet not doing so. Under the old covenant, that would be as sinful behavior, just as breaking the sabbath was.

I disagree. We don’t know all the facts, maybe Mary wasn’t clear about where or when he was expected to be. He wasn’t supposed to read her mind, was he? We simply don’t know how things went.
I do know from experience that imperfect parents have the tendency to blame the child for them feeling worried when their child was lost and found!

But suppose he wasn’t under the Old Covenant and he was under the New Covenant. Following your reasoning: Didn’t he sin against the New Covenant by not showing love to his mother? Or besides any covenant: didn’t he sin against his Father disrespecting his mother? (again following your reasoning)

Yet, they and the Sanhedrin were the judges of those who broke the law. The law as referenced in the Ten Commandment was only the beginnings of The Law. There were hundreds more - some from God through prophets and then those that came from traditions.
the people were to regard them so far as they spoke consistent with the law. Jesus had to obey the Law of Moses, NOT the man-made fence and traditions around the Law - especially when they weren’t loving or good for people.

My argument was: The Pharisees went beyond what was written. They were NOT against “work” on the sabbath in some cases as Jesus explains in Mat. 12:11. They had double standards and often drew the wrong conclusions.
Mark 3:4-5 It seems to have been a maxim [saying] with the Jews that not to do good when we have an opportunity is to do evil; not to save life is to kill or to be guilty of murder. On this principle our Saviour puts this question to the Jews - whether it was better for him, having the power to heal this man, to do it, or to suffer him to remain in this suffering condition; and he illustrates it by an example, showing that in a manner of much less importance - that respecting their cattle - they would do on the Sabbath just as "he" would if he should heal this man. (Barnes)
So he wasn’t sinning against the Law, in fact he wasn’t even sinning against the PRACTICE of the Pharisees in keeping the Law.

So what were their grounds to judge him?

 

[Petunia]

Hi Outcast,

In searching for evidence of ‘your’ comma, I found this:

Was Jesus Christ Born Under the Law?

Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus was "born under [the] law." Some use this to say that while Christ had to keep all the rituals, we do not have to follow His examp

www.cgg.org

The reasoning is from the World Wide Church of God.

It’s very black and white in its reasoning, building poorly on Scripture
are you sure you want this to be your foundation?
1 John 4:1

What I find interesting is that they argue that if Christ was under the Law and Christians are not, this is used as an argument to try to convince others that it is NOT necessary to follow Christ in ALL respects.
I never ever heard this argument - did you? I would never think that way!
That’s a perfect example of black and white thinking. Eph. 4:13-15

May our Heavenly Father bless you with wisdom and discernment!
Eph. 1:15-23

 

[Outcast]

I certainly enjoyed your responses, and I appreciate your taking the time to share! Tell me what you think of my thoughts, please.

To be honest, I’m a bit disappointed. I feel as if you didn’t answer most of my arguments
and yes it took me hours reading, researching and formulating - and that’s okay, I benefit from that myself- but I didn’t expect you going AROUND my arguments instead of going into them (so it feels any way).

I don’t think Jesus was UNDER the new covenant himself - he was the mediator of it. The new covenant wasn’t ratified until Christ died, so how could he be in it?

Thank you for explaining the comma!
I still think - reading the context - it’s not about Mary.
Do you have any evidence that this comma shouldn’t be there? (except that it doesn’t agree with your beliefs)

In that patriarchal society, Yeshua was knowledgeable to the Hebrew Scriptures - he was "of age" according to that culture. An observer would see that He didn't honor His mother by knowing where she expected him to be yet not doing so. Under the old covenant, that would be as sinful behavior, just as breaking the sabbath was.

I disagree. We don’t know all the facts, maybe Mary wasn’t clear about where or when he was expected to be. He wasn’t supposed to read her mind, was he? We simply don’t know how things went.
I do know from experience that imperfect parents have the tendency to blame the child for them feeling worried when their child was lost and found!

But suppose he wasn’t under the Old Covenant and he was under the New Covenant. Following your reasoning: Didn’t he sin against the New Covenant by not showing love to his mother? Or besides any covenant: didn’t he sin against his Father disrespecting his mother? (again following your reasoning)

Yet, they and the Sanhedrin were the judges of those who broke the law. The law as referenced in the Ten Commandment was only the beginnings of The Law. There were hundreds more - some from God through prophets and then those that came from traditions.
the people were to regard them so far as they spoke consistent with the law. Jesus had to obey the Law of Moses, NOT the man-made fence and traditions around the Law - especially when they weren’t loving or good for people.

My argument was: The Pharisees went beyond what was written. They were NOT against “work” on the sabbath in some cases as Jesus explains in Mat. 12:11. They had double standards and often drew the wrong conclusions.
Mark 3:4-5 It seems to have been a maxim [saying] with the Jews that not to do good when we have an opportunity is to do evil; not to save life is to kill or to be guilty of murder. On this principle our Saviour puts this question to the Jews - whether it was better for him, having the power to heal this man, to do it, or to suffer him to remain in this suffering condition; and he illustrates it by an example, showing that in a manner of much less importance - that respecting their cattle - they would do on the Sabbath just as "he" would if he should heal this man. (Barnes)
So he wasn’t sinning against the Law, in fact he wasn’t even sinning against the PRACTICE of the Pharisees in keeping the Law.

So what were their grounds to judge him?

Dear Sister, I see that it is difficult for you to understand the points I have provided. I do understand the difficulty and I was really entrenched in the teachings from the years I spent getting my degree is scriptural studies. I reacted just as you are doing. The problem I had stemmed from believing man's lessons rather than letting deep dives into scripture provide truth, but I eventually turned to Yahweh for understanding. That was a very difficult break with traditional doctrines from man. But, I can tell you this - if Yahweh gives understanding, it sticks.

but I didn’t expect you going AROUND my arguments instead of going into them (so it feels any way).

Forgive me, please, for giving the appearance of "going around" your arguments. I do rather prefer the concept of sharing understandings and not "arguments." I try not to seem argumentative, but I can control only my method of explanation.

Since He came as the New Covenant, does this mean he was NOT born UNDER the LAW?

Yes, He was not born under the law. He came to fulfill it. Your position that His circumcision proves that he was under "The Law" isn't logical. Yeshua didn't choose it at the age of 8 days. Remember His mother was born under the law. Circumcision was her way of obedience to the law.

I would hope that you understand that we can learn much from man's commentary on scripture. That is also where we find corruption of scripture. My reference to the comma in Gal 4:4 is not an attempt to prove we don't have to follow Yeshua. It is exactly the opposite. His example is what I strive to follow. Yeshua is the expert in the New Covenant because He IS the New Covenant given by His Father, The covenant was in His blood.

Regarding "covenants" in scripture, that is a topic few people put much effort into understanding what they really are. May I guide you to more understanding how they worked and their enactments and purposes?

https://archive.org/details/epicofedenchrist0000rich

Eph 4 should add more to understanding my position in this conversation: 11–16 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

If he wasn’t under the Law, he couldn’t fulfill the Law (Deut. 18:15; Luke 24:27, 44 ) and he couldn’t die as “cursed under the Law” (Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:22-23). Does this mean Christ sinned?

I am a little stunned by your statement that He couldn't fulfill the Law without being under the law. Do you have a logical or scriptural reason to make that assumption?

When the 12 year old Jesus discovered his parents were gone, he went to (or stayed in ?) his Father’s house - assuming they would find him there - as they did. He wasn’t sinning against the Law.

I think you are making an assumption without a valid reason here. We don't know that Yeshua "assumed." I have a reason to say that, under the Commandment to “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you," had Yeshua been under The Law; that could be seen as a sin.

The Pharisees went beyond what was written. They were NOT against “work” on the sabbath in some cases as Jesus explains in Mat. 12:11. They had double standards and often drew the wrong conclusions.

Ex 16:22–30 On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, he said to them, “This is what the LORD has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.’ ” So they laid it aside till the morning, as Moses commanded them, and it did not stink, and there were no worms in it. Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, there will be none.”

On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. And the LORD said to Moses, “How long will you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws? See! The LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.” So the people rested on the seventh day.

God was serious when He gave Moses instructions about the Sabbath:

Ex 31:12–16 And the LORD said to Moses, “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, Yahweh, sanctify you. You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.

You reason that because he had “the fullness of God’s Spirit” Yeshua couldn’t sin and he could not be tempted - although Scripture says he WAS tempted more than once (Mat.4:1; Luke 4:13).

I see the word, but what we cannot see is how Yeshua saw the event. We know He rejected the offers that we made. We must also remember that Yeshua was filled by His Father's spirit, and we know that God cannot be temped by evil. Those offers were quite different from being tempted by something that was not evil. Each of those offers would go against God's will. Jesus received offers, but do you think He was tempted by them?

Lk 4:3–12 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.”

And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’ " (This would be disobedience to His Father)

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”

And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’ ” (This would be idolatry)

And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ”

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ (This would be disobedience)

 

[Petunia]

Thank you, brother!

At first sight it didn’t make any sense to me at all, but then a scripture came to mind …
So I can’t agree or disagree at this point.
I have to do some more research …

For me if I say “argument” I think of the second meaning (that’s how it is used in Dutch).

But I’ll try to enlarge my vocabulary…

I enjoyed this exchange of thoughts!

May Yahweh bless you!

Jude 1:2



.

 

[Outcast]

Thank you, brother!

At first sight it didn’t make any sense to me at all, but then a scripture came to mind …
So I can’t agree or disagree at this point.
I have to do some more research …

For me if I say “argument” I think of the second meaning (that’s how it is used in Dutch).

But I’ll try to enlarge my vocabulary…

I enjoyed this exchange of thoughts!

May Yahweh bless you!

Jude 1:2



.

Thank you Petunia.

 

[Kaironaut]

Hi Outcast,

In searching for evidence of ‘your’ comma, I found this:

Was Jesus Christ Born Under the Law?

Galatians 4:4 says that Jesus was "born under [the] law." Some use this to say that while Christ had to keep all the rituals, we do not have to follow His examp

www.cgg.org

The reasoning is from the World Wide Church of God.

It’s very black and white in its reasoning, building poorly on Scripture
are you sure you want this to be your foundation?
1 John 4:1

What I find interesting is that they argue that if Christ was under the Law and Christians are not, this is used as an argument to try to convince others that it is NOT necessary to follow Christ in ALL respects.
I never ever heard this argument - did you? I would never think that way!
That’s a perfect example of black and white thinking. Eph. 4:13-15

May our Heavenly Father bless you with wisdom and discernment!
Eph. 1:15-23

To be fair we don’t have to be crucified nor circumcised.