Seventh-day Adventist's Sabbath and Catholic's Sunday

[Patrick_Murebil]

(continued from previous post)

***Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphip′olis and Apollo′nia, they came to Thessaloni′ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.

Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead,

Acts 17:4 And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

Acts 17:5 But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, 7 and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.

Acts 17:10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe′a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

Acts 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessaloni′ca learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroe′a also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds. ***

There is a clear pattern here with Paul’s visit to two different synagogues. Once again they went to Jewish synagogues on the sabbath, not Christian synagogues verses 1 and 10. Paul’s purpose was to argue or reason with the non-believing Jews from the scriptures about the need for the Christ to suffer,die and rise from the dead verses 2 and 3. Some of these non-believing Jews and Greeks converted and believed verses 4, 11, 12. And once again the non-believing Jews incited persecution against Paul and his companions verses 5-8, and 13. Paul was evangelizing the non-believing Jews in their synagogues where he knew they would be on the sabbath. He was not meeting with believers in Jesus Christ.

***Acts 18:After this he left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them; 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them, and they worked, for by trade they were tentmakers.

Acts 18:4 And he argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.

Acts 18:5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedo′nia, Paul was occupied with preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.

Acts 18:6 And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”***

Paul went to visit a Jew and his wife in Corinth who had been banished from Rome and Paul stayed with them because they were all tent makers verses 1-3. He argued, or reasoned, in the synagogue every sabbath and persuaded who? Not believers in Jesus Christ, but non-believing Jews and Greeks in the synagogue verse 4. And was Paul worshipping Jesus in the Jewish synagogue with other believers? No. He was testifying to non-believing Jews that Jesus was the Messiah verse 5. And once again the non-believing Jews, not Christians, opposed and reviled Paul verse 6. And Paul declares that he is finished with the Jews and shook out his garments and proclaimed that from that point forward he was going to evangelize the gentiles…he was finished with the Jews verse 6.

None of these verses support Paul keeping the sabbath and worshipping Jesus with fellow believers in Jesus…Christians. He was going to the synagogues on the sabbath to evangelize the Jews because this was the perfect opportunity to be heard by the Jews.

This is not evidence of the Apostles keeping the sabbath and teaching converts to keep the sabbath. It is evidence that Paul was working to convert the Jews to Jesus. There is no scripture in the NT that provides evidence of the Apostles worshipping Jesus on the sabbath…none. But there is Biblical evidence of the Apostles worshipping Jesus on the first day of the week…Sunday…Matthew chapter 28 particularly verses 9 and 17.

God bless all!!!

 

[Yerusalyim]

There indeed seems to be a very large quantity of strange and horrific doctrines there doesn’t it.

Items above and below “B” were deleted

B) Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation - been annihilated by God eternally.

I know MOST Catholics will disagree with me…but my reading of the Catholic faith is that we teach that Christ was impeccable…in that he did NOT sin…but not that he was incapable of sinning. So, my position is that Christ MUST have been capable of sin. He was like us in all things but did not sin…or he was like us in all things but COULD NOT sin? Which is more accurate. If Christ was incapable of sinning then his obedience wasn’t really obedience…was it? God emptied himself of glory and took humanity on himself. One condition of humanity is the ability to sin…if he was incapable of sin he did not have the full human experience. Without the ability to sin the temptation by Satan was NOT real temptation and Christ was NOT like us in all things. I REALLY have a hard time seeing how Christ’s obedience has any meaning if he were incapable of sinning. Without that I think we get back to the gnostic idea that Christ took on a human “form” but wasn’t really human.

 

[Pythons]

I know MOST Catholics will disagree with me…but my reading of the Catholic faith is that we teach that Christ was impeccable…in that he did NOT sin…but not that he was incapable of sinning. So, my position is that Christ MUST have been capable of sin. He was like us in all things but did not sin…or he was like us in all things but COULD NOT sin? Which is more accurate. If Christ was incapable of sinning then his obedience wasn’t really obedience…was it? God emptied himself of glory and took humanity on himself. One condition of humanity is the ability to sin…if he was incapable of sin he did not have the full human experience. Without the ability to sin the temptation by Satan was NOT real temptation and Christ was NOT like us in all things. I REALLY have a hard time seeing how Christ’s obedience has any meaning if he were incapable of sinning. Without that I think we get back to the gnostic idea that Christ took on a human “form” but wasn’t really human.

We teach that He couldn’t have sinned - that’s basically the meaning of impeccable…
…One condition of humanity is that a woman is bred by a man for her to “be with child”.
…That didn’t happen in Jesus case so we know already something different is going on here.

God The Son is Eternally obedient to the Father just as Scripture says…
…The whole point of the many prophecies in the Old Testament about The Christ.
…Was WHEN He would come & Save - it was never “IF He could save”.

There was NEVER any possibility of Jesus sinning and loosing His own salvation…
…There was NEVER any possibility of God eternally annihilating Christ.
…This all comes from an Arian or Arian like understanding of Scripture.

The Bible says there was “war in heaven” because Lucifer went against God…
…Does this mean that there had to at least be a chance for Lucifer to defeat God Almighty?
…Otherwise the war in heaven would NOT really be a war and would be a mockery and a farce?

The same goes with Mary and Joseph rushing Baby Jesus out of Jerusalem…
…If there wasn’t a real chance of Baby Jesus being put to the sword and being taken out Salvation history right there.
…The same goes for Jesus walking on water if He didn’t have the chance of sinking and drowning.

We could go on but this is how I see it - the Old Testament Prophets said all these things the real Christ would do…
…And the Jews had been waiting for someone to actually fulfill these things.
…Therefore the “real Christ” would by default HAVE TO fulfill all those things.
…One of which was going to His death w/out sin.

 

[Yerusalyim]

We teach that He couldn’t have sinned - that’s basically the meaning of impeccable…
…One condition of humanity is that a woman is bred by a man for her to “be with child”.
…That didn’t happen in Jesus case so we know already something different is going on here.

God The Son is Eternally obedient to the Father just as Scripture says…
…The whole point of the many prophecies in the Old Testament about The Christ.
…Was WHEN He would come & Save - it was never “IF He could save”.

There was NEVER any possibility of Jesus sinning and loosing His own salvation…
…There was NEVER any possibility of God eternally annihilating Christ.
…This all comes from an Arian or Arian like understanding of Scripture.

Show that to me infallibly declared.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

I know MOST Catholics will disagree with me…but my reading of the Catholic faith is that we teach that Christ was impeccable…in that he did NOT sin…but not that he was incapable of sinning. So, my position is that Christ MUST have been capable of sin. He was like us in all things but did not sin…or he was like us in all things but COULD NOT sin? Which is more accurate. If Christ was incapable of sinning then his obedience wasn’t really obedience…was it? God emptied himself of glory and took humanity on himself. One condition of humanity is the ability to sin…if he was incapable of sin he did not have the full human experience. Without the ability to sin the temptation by Satan was NOT real temptation and Christ was NOT like us in all things. I REALLY have a hard time seeing how Christ’s obedience has any meaning if he were incapable of sinning. Without that I think we get back to the gnostic idea that Christ took on a human “form” but wasn’t really human.

Hi Yerusalyim,

Take some time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly the section on Jesus:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

Jesus was fully human and fully God. He was tempted in every way that we are, but without sin. The sinlessness of Jesus, in God becoming a man, is the gift of God for the salvation of fallen mankind. The mystery of God becoming man to save mankind is and mystery and an act of love we may never fully understand. This was not show or act, it was a sacrifice and offering made by God for us…it is very real…even with the fact that Jesus would not sin. It was God’s plan from the beginning.

God bless all!!!

 

[Yerusalyim]

Hi Yerusalyim,

Take some time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly the section on Jesus:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

Jesus was fully human and fully God. He was tempted in every way that we are, but without sin. The sinlessness of Jesus, in God becoming a man, is the gift of God for the salvation of fallen mankind. The mystery of God becoming man to save mankind is and mystery and an act of love we may never fully understand. This was not show or act, it was a sacrifice and offering made by God for us…it is very real…even with the fact that Jesus would not sin. It was God’s plan from the beginning.

God bless all!!!

I’ve read the Cathecism in depth…it says Jesus DID NOT sin…which I firmly believe. It does NOT say that Jesus COULD NOT sin. Does it? Christ has two wills, Divine and Human…how is it possible for Christ to have a human will (that he subjects to the divine) if that will was NOT CAPABLE of independent action? In other words…if Christ, in his human will, could not sin…was it really a human will?

 

[Pythons]

Show that to me infallibly declared.

The 5th General Council of Constantinople CONDEMNED the teachings of Theodor of Mopsuestia…
…Who claimed that Jesus only became impeccable subsequent to the Resurrection.

Also,

National Council of Catholic Bishops on Catholic Doctrine, April 9, 1996
A. Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Statements

1. The Impeccability of Jesus Christ

Catholicism insists that it is possible to hold the faith of the church while maintaining that Jesus Christ could have sinned. “It is not that Jesus Christ was absolutely incapable of sin, but rather that he was able not to sin and, in fact, did not sin” ( p. 547). The book argues that “both views - the one favoring impeccability and the one that does not - are within the range of Catholic orthodoxy” (p. 547). This position, however, cannot be reconciled with the Christology of the councils.

[Footnote 2: In the anathemas against the Three Chapters, the Second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the opinion attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia that Jesus attained impeccability only with the resurrection (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 434).]

In two natures, Jesus Christ is only one hypostasis (or person), the hypostasis of the Word. With Christ there is no possible subject of the verb to sin. There are indeed two wills in Christ, but only one person, one subject. The contention that Jesus could have sinned, if followed to its logical conclusion, inevitably implies a Nestorian or an adoptionist Christology, though it must be said that Catholicism does not draw such extreme conclusions.

This and of course around 100 explicit Bible texts which claim it was impossible for the Christ to sin.

 

[Pythons]

I’ve read the Cathecism in depth…it says Jesus DID NOT sin…which I firmly believe. It does NOT say that Jesus COULD NOT sin. Does it? Christ has two wills, Divine and Human…how is it possible for Christ to have a human will (that he subjects to the divine) if that will was NOT CAPABLE of independent action? In other words…if Christ, in his human will, could not sin…was it really a human will?

Are you saying that Christ had two minds ( a human mind & a Divine mind )?

 

[chero23]

I just want to address this one for now.

Yes Jesus was known as Michael the archangel prior to the incarnation. Michael - the commander of the angels. But not that He was an angel, but the commander of the angels (whom He created). and on the lower rank of command was the created being Lucifer who was, after Jesus, head over the angelic hosts (like a chain of command).
Jesus was always the “only begotton of the Father” that is the only One who is like God.

If you want quotes from EGW to support the SDAs believe this, then here:

" The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng–“ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}
The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration." ~ Patriachs and Prophets Ch1 p36.2

“Jesus was the majesty of heaven, the beloved commander of the angels, who delighted to do His pleasure. He was one with God, “in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), yet He thought it not a thing to be desired to be equal with God while man was lost in sin and misery. He stepped down from His throne, He left His crown and royal scepter, and clothed His divinity with humanity. He humbled Himself even to the death of the cross, that man might be exalted to a seat with Him upon His throne. In Him we have a complete offering, an infinite sacrifice, a mighty Saviour, who is able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by Him. In love He comes to reveal the Father, to reconcile man to God, to make him a new creature renewed after the image of Him who created him.” ~ God’s Amazing Grace p160.4

Please, if you’re going to say what SDAs believe, at least speak truthfully.

So you say speak of the SDA truthfully I sure will. You guys believe in contraception. That is wrong because on one level you are closing yourself to life, and the pill has been known to kill women. Remember that one of the commandments say, thou shall not kill.

Speaking of killing, you guys accept abortion. I love the way the SDA has it on their site. If your baby has a defect in the womb, pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you an abortion is an option. Really! Really!! Remember God made each one of us to him image, see Genesis, and James, plus, Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, came to help the sick. If you allow abortion to a baby in the womb because the Dr.s tell you, oh he’s going to be a vegetable all his life, is best that you have an abortion. One, you don’t trust God, b/c he makes each person in his image, if he gives you a child with Down syndrome, or autism, or some mental or neurological problem, that doesn’t mean God hates you or that he made a mistake, he did it to see how you will treat this child. Remember he said, whatever you do to them you do to me.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The 5th General Council of Constantinople CONDEMNED the teachings of Theodor of Mopsuestia…
…Who claimed that Jesus only became impeccable subsequent to the Resurrection.

Also,

National Council of Catholic Bishops on Catholic Doctrine, April 9, 1996
A. Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Statements

1. The Impeccability of Jesus Christ

Catholicism insists that it is possible to hold the faith of the church while maintaining that Jesus Christ could have sinned. “It is not that Jesus Christ was absolutely incapable of sin, but rather that he was able not to sin and, in fact, did not sin” ( p. 547). The book argues that “both views - the one favoring impeccability and the one that does not - are within the range of Catholic orthodoxy” (p. 547). This position, however, cannot be reconciled with the Christology of the councils.

[Footnote 2: In the anathemas against the Three Chapters, the Second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the opinion attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia that Jesus attained impeccability only with the resurrection (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 434).]

In two natures, Jesus Christ is only one hypostasis (or person), the hypostasis of the Word. With Christ there is no possible subject of the verb to sin. There are indeed two wills in Christ, but only one person, one subject. The contention that Jesus could have sinned, if followed to its logical conclusion, inevitably implies a Nestorian or an adoptionist Christology, though it must be said that Catholicism does not draw such extreme conclusions.

This and of course around 100 explicit Bible texts which claim it was impossible for the Christ to sin.

The quotes you give me here do not imply infallibility. Give me a Catholic document that clearly states JESUS could not sin. I have read NOTHING in the bible that says Jesus COULD NOT SIN…only that he DID NOT…which is much more impressive. Obedience is not obedience if the possibility of DISobedience does not exist…is it?

I’m pouring over the Cathecism and just can’t find anything that says Jesus COULD NOT sin. So give me the VATICAN document…because the National Council of Catholic Bishops (now the USCCB) is NOT an infallible body.

 

[Pythons]

The quotes you give me here do not imply infallibility. Give me a Catholic document that clearly states JESUS could not sin. I have read NOTHING in the bible that says Jesus COULD NOT SIN…only that he DID NOT…which is much more impressive. Obedience is not obedience if the possibility of DISobedience does not exist…is it?

I’m pouring over the Cathecism and just can’t find anything that says Jesus COULD NOT sin. So give me the VATICAN document…because the National Council of Catholic Bishops (now the USCCB) is NOT an infallible body.

Infallibility is something else but in any event Christ was also infallible.

Ok, Get your Bible open and something to write these down on…
…You will want to carry them around with you for a few weeks.
…Commit them to memory.

Luke 24, 25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Our Lord called Cleopas ( and those like minded around him ) that they were FOOLS…
…For not believing “ALL” that the Prophets had spoken about Christ.
…Then Jesus showed them all the Scriptures concerning Himself.

Now seriously, would Christ have called Cleopas a FOOL if the Prophets would have left open the possibility…
…Of the Christ attempting to provide Salvation & failing to do so!
…No, I think not.

Let’s look at just one of MANY Scriptures which render impossible the possibility of failure.

Do you consider Daniel a Prophet - Yes or No?

Daniel 2,40
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and** that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold**; the great God hath **made known to the king **WHAT shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure

Did the “Great God” really have the authority to tell Daniel to say these things or did the Great God speak out of turn?
…Perhaps Daniel fudged it a little bit and in his zeal for the Lord threw in a couple extras for effect.
…Ya know - something to get the King all excited.

It’s either THAT or that prophecy ( along with scores of others ) proclaim THAT Salvation was a work of God…
…And that THAT was what was going to come to pass, period.
…Therefore the dream was CERTAIN and the interpretation was SURE.

What possibility would there be in what the Great God said He would do not happening due to His failure?

Survey says?

Like I said Scripture is literally saturated with equally explicit statements about the Christ to the point…
…If Jesus “could have sinned” He wouldn’t have been The Christ in the 1st place.

Would you like more from the Bible?
…We’ve got around 100 more to go through.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Infallibility is something else but in any event Christ was also infallible.

Ok, Get your Bible open and something to write these down on…
…You will want to carry them around with you for a few weeks.
…Commit them to memory.

Luke 24, 25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Our Lord called Cleopas ( and those like minded around him ) that they were FOOLS…
…For not believing “ALL” that the Prophets had spoken about Christ.
…Then Jesus showed them all the Scriptures concerning Himself.

Now seriously, would Christ have called Cleopas a FOOL if the Prophets would have left open the possibility…
…Of the Christ attempting to provide Salvation & failing to do so!
…No, I think not.

Let’s look at just one of MANY Scriptures which render impossible the possibility of failure.

Do you consider Daniel a Prophet - Yes or No?

Daniel 2,40
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and** that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold**; the great God hath **made known to the king **WHAT shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure

Did the “Great God” really have the authority to tell Daniel to say these things or did the Great God speak out of turn?
…Perhaps Daniel fudged it a little bit and in his zeal for the Lord threw in a couple extras for effect.
…Ya know - something to get the King all excited.

It’s either THAT or that prophecy ( along with scores of others ) proclaim THAT Salvation was a work of God…
…And that THAT was what was going to come to pass, period.
…Therefore the dream was CERTAIN and the interpretation was SURE.

What possibility would there be in what the Great God said He would do not happening due to His failure?

Survey says?

Like I said Scripture is literally saturated with equally explicit statements about the Christ to the point…
…If Jesus “could have sinned” He wouldn’t have been The Christ in the 1st place.

Would you like more from the Bible?
…We’ve got around 100 more to go through.

Absolutely NONE of what you’ve written here shows that Christ was INCAPABLE of sinning…Yes…>God the Father KNEW Christ would not sin…that is NOT the same as saying Christ COULD NOT sin. I go back to my original position…Christ HAS a human will…why was it NOT possible for him to have sinned? How was Christ obedient if he could not be disobedient. How was he tempted if he could not sin…how was he like us in all things yet DID NOT SIN as Hebrews 4:15 says “For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” It doesn’t say COULD NOT SIN…simply that Christ was tempted like we are…but without sin. That certainly IMPLIES that he COULD HAVE sinned…

 

[Pythons]

Absolutely NONE of what you’ve written here shows that Christ was INCAPABLE of sinning…Yes…>God the Father KNEW Christ would not sin…that is NOT the same as saying Christ COULD NOT sin.

If A = B & B = C than A = C Yerusalyim…
…Furthermore if you admit that the Father knew Christ would not sin.
…And then explicitly told you in the Scriptures that Christ wouldn’t sin.
…What on earth causes you to introduce a hypothetical that, according to God, is IMPOSSIBLE?

So, EVERYTHING I’ve written, according to God shows that Christ was INCAPABLE of sinning…
…For the reason that The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit ( God ) said that He wouldn’t sin.

Matthew 1,20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she SHALL bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he SHALL save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I’m guessing that you would also argue that because Mary was human that she MIGHT NOT HAVE been with Child…
…Because after all, if there wasn’t the possibility that she wouldn’t bear a child.
…Then the prophecy of a virgin being with child has to be a mockery and a farce.

I’m sorry Yerusalyim, I don’t mean to offend you here but what you’re saying…
…Is classic Jehovah’s Witness or Seventh-day Adventist reasoning.
…Are you claiming you were taught this idea within the Catholic Church?
…Or is this possibly something you picked up somewhere else?

Yerusalyim:

I go back to my original position…Christ HAS a human will…why was it NOT possible for him to have sinned?

Because that human will was added to an already Divine Nature…
…God became man without ceasing to be God.
…Man did NOT become God without ceasing to be man - which sounds like where you are going.

Yerusalyim:

How was Christ obedient if he could not be disobedient. How was he tempted if he could not sin…how was he like us in all things yet DID NOT SIN as Hebrews 4:15 says “For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” It doesn’t say COULD NOT SIN…simply that Christ was tempted like we are…but without sin. That certainly IMPLIES that he COULD HAVE sinned…

Scripture states that Christ was ETERNALLY obedient to the Father - that’s why God the Son came in the 1st place…
…Christ WAS tempted by or “of” the Devil exactly like Scripture says He was.
…Christ was tempted OUTSIDE of sin exactly like Scripture says He was.

 

[spina1953]

In Genesis we find that Adam and Eve walked with God and when they sinned they no longer walked with God. Now Jesus the Christ showed how man can once again walk with God and with man. From the Gospels we see that Jesus the Christ taught how man is to walk with God and to walk with each other. Now in oreder to do this Jesus if he were to sin would not be able t show this or do that. But Jesus was one with the father so Jess would not and could not sin as to do so then not only would Jesus not be God the Son but that God the father would not be able to exist as God cannot deny Himself. Nothing exists outside of God meaning that if God does not exist then nothiing else exists. God exists because hH cannot deny what and who He is, and neither can Jesus deny that he is theSon of God and thre Son of man. Jesus united man again with God as man was seperated from God because of sin which was and is contrary to the nature of God who cannot sin.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Scripture states that Christ was ETERNALLY obedient to the Father - that’s why God the Son came in the 1st place…
…Christ WAS tempted by or “of” the Devil exactly like Scripture says He was.
…Christ was tempted OUTSIDE of sin exactly like Scripture says He was.

Yes, Jesus was eternally obedient…but if he lacked the ability to be DISOBEDIENT then this wasn’t obedience. Scripture says Jesus was tempted and did not sin…not that he was incapable of sinning. Your argument seems to be much akin to the Calvinist argument of pre-destination. Calvinists believe that since God KNEW in advance that God MADE IT HAPPEN…and therefore because he KNOWS if we will be saved he DETERMINES it and we as humans don’t have free will. Just because God the Father KNEW Christ would be obedient does not equate to Christ’s inability to be Disobedient. So again…something from the Vatican that has weight and I will be convinced.

 

[spina1953]

Yes, Jesus was eternally obedient…but if he lacked the ability to be DISOBEDIENT then this wasn’t obedience. Scripture says Jesus was tempted and did not sin…not that he was incapable of sinning. Your argument seems to be much akin to the Calvinist argument of pre-destination. Calvinists believe that since God KNEW in advance that God MADE IT HAPPEN…and therefore because he KNOWS if we will be saved he DETERMINES it and we as humans don’t have free will. Just because God the Father KNEW Christ would be obedient does not equate to Christ’s inability to be Disobedient. So again…something from the Vatican that has weight and I will be convinced.

I agree with your statement. God knows every choice man can or could make, and since man has free will to choose what he wants, he can thereby choose either to obey God or not. I think St. paul said that Jesus assumed our human nature in everything but sin. What does this mean? iIthink it means just what it says that Jesus the man was everythhing that man is but not of sin, Jesus was the perfect man just as Adam was before the fall from God’s grace. The only difference is that Jesus was also the Son of God and as such I really doubt that He would be able to deny Himself, if He did, then Jesus is and was not the Son of God nor the son of man; it really boils down to whether or not we are willing to believe that Jesus is who He said He is.

 

[Pythons]

Yes, Jesus was eternally obedient…but if he lacked the ability to be DISOBEDIENT then this wasn’t obedience.

Think about what you just said.

You agree that Jesus was obedient PRIOR to the Incarnation…
…And you state that “IF” God the Son lacked the ability to be disobedient prior to Incarnation.
…Then it WASN’T obedience?

That, like Spin11953 says, makes absolutely ZERO sense.
Yeruasalyim:

Scripture says Jesus was tempted and did not sin…

Scripture says HOW Jesus was tempted also…
…And it doesn’t include that He ( as in internally ) was tempted.

Matthew 4,1
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted OF the devil.

Luke 4,1
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered

Now, how is it that Scripture says man is tempted?

James 1,13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God CANNOT be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, WHEN he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed

Consider yourself - there are things or situations that are MY WEAKNESS which indeed are sins…
…However to you these things hold no interest to you whatsoever.
…& if I were to tempt you to participate in something that wasn’t in your wheel-house.
…You YOURSELF were not tempted yet it could be said that I indeed tempted you to do them.

This is the way it was with Our Lord!

Think of it this way Yeruasalyim, let’s say that you are gay and someone you know…
…Says that they have two tickets to a gay strip club show, the best in the city.
…If THAT is something that appeals to YOU then you will be enticed, feel the pull and WANT to go through with it!

If on the other hand you are not gay then you wouldn’t feel the conflict, pull or desire to go to a gay strip club…
…The hard fact is that while the person you know TEMPTED you to go to a gay strip show.
…You were NOT tempted within yourself to go.

I.E. ‘Yerusalayim’ was tempted OF Fred, or Bob or whoever that offered the tickets.
Yerusalayim:

not that he was incapable of sinning.

If God really knows the end from the beginning like Scripture says He does…
…& God TOLD YOU that Christ wouldn’t sin & that Christ would save.
…Then you can take it to the bank that Christ COULDN’T sin because God said so.
Yerusalayim:

Your argument seems to be much akin to the Calvinist argument of pre-destination. Calvinists believe that since God KNEW in advance that God MADE IT HAPPEN.

No, my argument is VERY Catholic while your assertions in this specific case…
…Appeal to a fundamental belief that ‘God’ is conditional & could cease to be God.
…At the least 'God ’ WAS conditional before He was able to demonstrate that He wasn’t conditional.
Yerusalayim:

and therefore because he KNOWS if we will be saved he DETERMINES it and we as humans don’t have free will. Just because God the Father KNEW Christ would be obedient does not equate to Christ’s inability to be Disobedient. So again…something from the Vatican that has weight and I will be convinced.

What you are saying here is that God “is a free moral agent” and can swing either way…
…This is NOT even close to what Calvin taught or any of the De-formers taught.
…It IS however exactly what Arius, Ellen White & the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach.

God is NOT at liberty to deny Himself & God is not a “free moral agent”…
…If you are Catholic where in the world have you got these ideas from?

 

[spina1953]

Hi Pythons: I missed that part about if Jesus lacked the ability to be disobedient then He is not obedient. I certaintly did not agree with that past of the statement. Glad you saw that and after reading your post I see the merit in what you stated. First, let us remember that Jeus said that He and the Father are one. Secondly, since we know that God the Father cannot sin as to do so would make God not God and therefore God could not exist and so nothing else would either. Thirdly, Since Jesus the Christ is the Son of God as well as the son of man, Jesus would also then not be capable of sin as to do so would also mean that God cannot exist which then would be a moot point since nothing would exist to know one or the other. Fourthly, Jesus being the son of man can be tempted just as any human can be, but the difference is that Jesus cannot deny Himself. Lastly, going into the desert to be tempted by the evil shows that as the son of man He not only overcame temptations by the evil one but showed us that we as created in the likeness of God can also overcome temptations whether they come from us or from the evil one.

 

[Pythons]

Hi Pythons: I missed that part about if Jesus lacked the ability to be disobedient then He is not obedient. I certaintly did not agree with that past of the statement. Glad you saw that and after reading your post I see the merit in what you stated. First, let us remember that Jeus said that He and the Father are one. Secondly, since we know that God the Father cannot sin as to do so would make God not God and therefore God could not exist and so nothing else would either. Thirdly, Since Jesus the Christ is the Son of God as well as the son of man, Jesus would also then not be capable of sin as to do so would also mean that God cannot exist which then would be a moot point since nothing would exist to know one or the other. Fourthly, Jesus being the son of man can be tempted just as any human can be, but the difference is that Jesus cannot deny Himself. Lastly, going into the desert to be tempted by the evil shows that as the son of man He not only overcame temptations by the evil one but showed us that we as created in the likeness of God can also overcome temptations whether they come from us or from the evil one.

Yes, that’s an excellent way to put it! We do not worship a God that was “conditional” on His being & remaining God…
…This is what people who claim Jesus could have sinned then would have been eternally annihilated by The Father worship.
…A conditional ‘god’ - Not God Almighty of the Scriptures.

 

[Pythons]

(continued from previous post)

***Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphip′olis and Apollo′nia, they came to Thessaloni′ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.

Acts 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead,

---

Hi Patrick, could you confirm something for me as to the Sabbath teaching with the Seventh Day Adventists…
…I’ve encountered this more than once but I don’t know if it’s a common understanding.
…So, have you heard of the following back when you were a member of the Church?

I’ve had several SDA’s tell me that the Sabbath will become a moral commandment in the future…
…The Pope will make a law that requires everyone to go to Church on Sunday.
…And if a person ignores that law then the Pope will cause the authorities to hunt those people down and torture and kill them.

The teaching goes something like it’s not a sin to go to Church on Sunday NOW but in the future IT WILL BE…
…When this law comes into play AT THAT TIME the Sabbath will become a moral commandment.
…And if a person does not worship on Saturday they will get the mark of the beast put on them, be cast into hell and cease to exist.
…I.E. be annihilated.

I’ve read quite a bit of stuff in the SDA archives and believe it has something to do with their “present truth” rubric…
…Which basically appears to mean that both in the past, present and future.
…Truth goes in and out of existence.

Such as “right now” God will not judge a person for going to church on Sunday…
…But in the future when the Sabbath becomes a present truth God will judge a person for not going to church on Saturday.
…At this time I’ve been told by some SDA’s that “we will know” when this time comes and if we reject it we get the mark of the beast.

Is this along the lines of what the SDA’s believe about the Sabbath and if so how do they claim something ceremonial is actually moral?