Why is Satan personified in the NT?

[Peter]

so do you think Satan was in Jesus

This is not Biblical language,
To start using non-Biblical language is dangerous.
You can end up drawing conclusions and arguing over something that is built on a false premise.

[Peter]

I am one of those Christadelphians who thinks Christ's temptation was external. All of what is described of the temptation could have involved an adversary - maybe a deputation from the Sanhedrin maybe or maybe the High Priest

Luk 4:13 Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.

The word "Kairos"*translated opportune time really means "a measure of time". So whoever this devil was it departed from Jesus. Also it was going to meet him again. So you ask yourself "did he meet an adversary like one the members of the Sanhedrin again?or maybe a deputation from the High priest ?" The answer is yes he did!
This departing of the accuser from Jesus tells you that this accuser is not his nature.
However in saying that it must be said that an external temptation necessarily becomes an internal one. That's the way it works.

*
1) due measure

2) a measure of time, a larger or smaller portion of time, hence:

a) a fixed and definite time, the time when things are brought to crisis, the decisive epoch waited for

b) opportune or seasonable time

c) the right time

d) a limited period of time

e) to what time brings, the state of the times, the things and events of time

[Peter]

To summarise, this is why I detest the theory that would suggest Satan is "within" the very essence and substance of Christ himself

I don't know whether my fellow bloggers have got it clear on the nature of Christ.
Rom 8:3 reads "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"
This translation gives a wrong slant - the word harmatia translated sinful means to err . So in reality the phrase should read something like - Jesus was sent in the likeness of erring flesh. This is not as strong.
But that is not all. The phrase says he was sent in the likeness - ie a resemblance
Next we have Hebrews 4 the following:
Hbr 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all [points] tempted as [we are], [yet] without sin.
That tells us he had all the same temptations and lusts as ourselves
in respect to money
in respect to self defence
in respect to sex
in respect to pride and status
in respect to honesty
All of these are selfish motivations and giving into temptations brings what is thought to be advancement for the self. That is the genius of sin - self needs preservation and elevation
However he also had a mind that had been trained in the ways of God
He had a relationship with His Father that was intimate
He had a spirit which was directed at things godly
he had the help of God through personal revelation and the comfort of angels and the Holy spirit with which to perform miracles.

It is Biblical to say he had the natural man in him but all through his life it was completely in subjection to the Spirit of life spoken about in Romans 8.
It is clear that the self will aspect was in him always but it never won.
This battle is revealed in these words:
Luk 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."
So when faced with the horror of crucifixion he chose the Father's way not self protection.

ONCE AGAIN the following is anBiblical concept: Satan is "within" the very essence and substance of Christ

[Steve W]

Dear Peter - It doesn't help that you seem to keep trying to discredit me personally (post #300 above). I did write you a personal message on the 'puzzled' thread post 108 explaining why I had to take some time out for personal reasons. I have apologised and suggested you post in concise form any important qu I missed. I have written much lately in response to many posts on this forum (especially yours) and am honestly not avoiding anything. Having limited time, I have focussed this discussion down to this important point, as it seems to be the nub of the whole thing. So thanks for your response here. I have read it and hope to receive other responses from the forum to see where we all stand on this. It is without doubt the case, that classic Christadelphian theology on this seems to suggest that the devil was an inherent part of Christ's nature, and that the temptation came from within himself, in the same way that you and I are drawn away by our internal lusts, and as Jeremiah said, the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked. Most Forum members believe this was true for Jesus also, that he had a sinful nature tended towards evil. Furthermore, it seems they believe the devil (Christ himself - his fallen nature) was innocent in the temptation of Christ (ie didnt sin).

I was alerted to this issue by StevieB's post on the 'puzzled' thread (post #20) where he wrote: "If I'm not mistaken, "the devil hung there dead" is a quote from Brother A D Norris. The flesh (the devil) was destroyed on the cross. I see no problem with this terminology. He was not saying Jesus' actions were of the devil, merely that Jesus' flesh (the devil) was hanging on the cross, dead."

I wondered whether others thought that Jesus was the devil on the cross, and having re-read everybody's posts, I summarised what seem to be the prevailing views of the forum below - We are trying to refine this to accurately reflect the standard Christadelphian position. So earlier statements have been refined to the latest 5 points below, as some felt earlier statements were inaccurate representations of the prevailing view, so were amended (this includes the one you answer above in post 301, which is now therefore removed from the list below).

So, if I may, please may I pose the reworded points once more in order to try to gain a forum consensus.........

[Steve W]

Please correct this if it is inaccurate. I believe the forum are asserting the following: (all contributions welcome in response)

Thanks to Gaz and Peter for your responses - wonder what others have to say on this.... is the following true or false?

1. Jesus Christ had a heart that was tended towards evil, that wanted to sin (a sinful nature). (see posts 293 / 297 etc)

2. In Christ's body, in his flesh (body, emotions and desires), no good thing dwelt - his flesh was corrupt and fallen. (293 / 297)

3. Christ's body (his flesh) was God's adversary. (see posts 288 / 304)

4. In the wilderness temptation, the devil that tempted Christ was actually Christ himself - part of himself. (283/ 287/ 293)

5. The devil (in tempting Christ to disobey the first and third commandments) was not sinning, when he vocalised his request to engage Christ in this disobedient course of action, (making an offer of personal advantage, as a reward for law breaking). (285 etc)

[Peter]

Dear SteveW
I am not trying to denigrate you but rather to remind you of how you have been arguing.
I am not lying when I say you have left many questions unanswered.I have especially noted that you have tended to ignore my questions.
I was expecting that you might do some analysis of the explanations I have proffered - instead you have either been dismissive or have ignored them.
It maybe that I am in a different time zone and you prefer to have discussion with people in real time. I have noted that you do answer Glimmer and others like gaz. I don't want to get offside with you but I have been frustrated that you have not faced up to the questions and suggestions I have made.
My feeling is that you have been a little dogmatic - maybe we all have to a certain extent - but I think what this discussion is all about - is trying to get into the mind of the other bloggers and trying to see how and why they see things the way they do - rather than simply engaging in verbal fisticuffs.
We have probably all been guilty of this.

There are still some key questions I have been meaning to ask you:
The first is this:When you read a passage with the word devil or satan in it what is the first thing that comes into your mind?
Can you tell when you first heard that notion? When in your life? Try and be accurate here!
Where do you think it came from?

[Steve W]

Peter. Qu. " When you read a passage with the word devil or satan in it what is the first thing that comes into your mind?

SteveW answer: all the other verses in scripture that mention Satan, the devil. Nothing else.

Peter. Qu. "Can you tell when you first heard that notion? When in your life? Try and be accurate here!"

SteveW answer: in Christadelphian Sunday school. I attended the local ecclesia in Lichfield, UK, from birth to age 15/16. We studied all the Bible stories (in the KJV) and I learned many verses by heart - every week without fail under the guidance of established Christadelphian adults. My mother even painted out the wings of the angels in my children's Bible story book I was given where they were inappropriate, so keen was she to not give an unChristadelphian image to my young mind! Harry Whittaker was a major influence on my family, being a member of our local eccclesia.

I was then given a KJV New Testament as a gift at school at age 16, and a KJV concordance as a prize from Christadelphian Sunday School - the one I still carry in my Bible case. With these two books I studied and cross referenced all scriptures to do with who Jesus is and who the devil is. I had by the age of 23 heard nothing really about Satan from any other religious souce, my parents didn't watch TV (until much later, and then only really the news) and we had no other family input other than Christadelphian (all my nearby maternal family members (Barker, Thomas & Basten families) were/are Christadelphian). Any contact I had with orthodox anglicanism etc between age 16 to 18 at school, I instantly saw as religion not faith from my observations, (and it did more to put me off Christianity, than much else I'd seen!)

It was my adult realisation (aged 24) that the world is in a spiritual battle between God, and the kingdom of darkness under Satan, that caused me to call out on the Lord for salvation. From that day to this I have remained as close as possible to the Lord Jesus, and to God's salvation & protection in Christ and his teaching, and humbly seek to represent his truth wherever possible, despite sometimes the loss of favour with friends and family.

but anyway - back to the survey of the forum's position.....

[Steve W]

Please correct this if it is inaccurate. I believe the forum are asserting the following: (all contributions welcome in response)

Thanks to Gaz and Peter for your responses - wonder what others have to say on this.... is the following true or false?

1. Jesus Christ had a heart that was tended towards evil, that wanted to sin (a sinful nature). (see posts 293 / 297 etc)

2. In Christ's body, in his flesh (body, emotions and desires), no good thing dwelt - his flesh was corrupt and fallen. (293 / 297)

3. Christ's body (his flesh) was God's adversary. (see posts 288 / 304)

4. In the wilderness temptation, the devil that tempted Christ was actually Christ himself - part of himself. (283/ 287/ 293)

5. The devil (in tempting Christ to disobey the first and third commandments) was not sinning, when he vocalised his request to engage Christ in this disobedient course of action, (making an offer of personal advantage, as a reward for law breaking). (285 etc)

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Please correct this if it is inaccurate. I believe the forum are asserting the following: (all contributions welcome in response)

Thanks to Gaz and Peter for your responses - wonder what others have to say on this.... is the following true or false?

1. Jesus Christ had a heart that was tended towards evil, that wanted to sin (a sinful nature). (see posts 293 / 297 etc)

2. In Christ's body, in his flesh (body, emotions and desires), no good thing dwelt - his flesh was corrupt and fallen. (293 / 297)

3. Christ's body (his flesh) was God's adversary. (see posts 288 / 304)

4. In the wilderness temptation, the devil that tempted Christ was actually Christ himself - part of himself. (283/ 287/ 293)

5. The devil (in tempting Christ to disobey the first and third commandments) was not sinning, when he vocalised his request to engage Christ in this disobedient course of action, (making an offer of personal advantage, as a reward for law breaking). (285 etc)

I agree with what gaz said in post #297

[Steve W]

Attempts to identify Christadelphian theology re. Jesus' nature and the devil in the wilderness temptation.

ALL CONTRIBUTIONS WELCOME PLEASE.

Thanks Glimmer.

OK, I have reworded these points from Gaz's own words - not wanting to put words in anyone’s mouth, may I summarise what I think your position is on Christ and Satan in the temptation, (from Gaz's post 297 - please correct if you disagree): You believe that...

1. Jesus Christ had a heart that was tended towards evil, (a sinful nature) - a natural inclination to want to sin (which he fought against).

2. Christ's body - his flesh (body, emotions and desires) was corrupt (a fallen nature) with a primal / natural desire to sin. This desire to sin being always with him, such that he had to put it to the back of his mind and try instead to meditate on the things of God.

3. Christ's body (his flesh) was primarily his own adversary (Satan), but also God's adversary (in that it was carnally inclined to sin against God).

4. In the wilderness temptation, the devil that tempted Christ was actually Christ himself - part of himself – his own carnal desire to do wrong things with the power that God had just given him (at his Jordan baptism). But Peter disagrees with this point, speculating that the devil was perhaps another unidentifiable human being.

5. The devil (Christ’s own carnal nature), in tempting Christ to disobey the first and third commandments was not sinning, when he vocalised his request to engage in this disobedient course of action, (and in vocalising the offer of personal advantage, as a reward for this incitement to law breaking).

[dkiversen]

Originally Posted by dkiversen

"Bound in darkness" doesn't appear in either verse. The verses speak of CHAINS referring to imprisonment as with the example of Peter (Acts 12:6-7) and Paul (Acts 21:13, 28:20).

This isn't the same as the bondage verses you quote because they're about slavery. We do mischief because we're the slaves of sin.

So these fallen angels are imprisoned and can't be deceiving the world.

Originally Posted by Steve W

dk - The Bible says quite specifically that the devil (and his angels) deceive the world - disagree if you will...

I entirely agree that the devil and his messengers are deceiving the world.

What I was trying to say was:

• the angels, however we interpret them, of 2 Peter and Jude are in chains until judgement day;
• the devil, however we interpret it, is active now rather than being in chains;
• so identifying the devil with the imprisoned angels of 2 Peter and Jude doesn't work scripturally.

[Steve W]

I know what you're saying dk. But we cant really state with certainty whether or not these chains reduce rather than entirely cease all activity. Jesus did say the following, indicating that the devil is now reduced in his power - bound / spoiled, but not yet anihilated:

"And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? ... how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." (Mat 12:26)

"in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power... Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col 2)

There is no doubt that on the cross, Jesus spoiled the powers that were in rebellion to him, and bound the strong man - Satan. In this way he triumphed over the devil (who held the power of death through sin) and denied him his facility to hold men in bondage to death. So Christ has bound the devil and his angels - denied them their pyrrhic and temporary apparent 'victory' over mankind from the fall to the coming of the spotless Lamb of God - their subsequent 'reduced condition' is described aptly by the metaphor of restraining chains. (clearly we're not looking at clunking iron chains here!) Whilst the devil is still active (seeking whom he may devour) as an opportunist, waiting for people to come out from under the cover of Christ where they are in safe haven from his reduced powers.

"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." (1 Jn 3:8)

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Heb 2:14)

Although people still die, and still sin, the devil's works are here described as "destroyed" - his hold on death is undone by Jesus. But this state of destruction has not entirely prevented his ability to act in a temporary, reduced way until the day of the Lord, when he will face judgement and final termination of his activity. We see that although Jesus according to scripture detroyed the devil's power, he still poses something of a real, but reduced problem to humans....

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Eph 6:11)

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." (1 Pet 5:8)

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" (Jas 4:7) HALLELUJAH!

[Steve W]

Jesus Christ was TEMPTED by the tempter - the devil.

The 'tempter' was the devil. The 'tempted' was Christ.

They are not the same thing / person / character / identity. Nowhere in scripture is the devil identified with Christ in the way the forum suggests above - as being part of Christ's nature. What does it mean then, that the devil tempted Jesus ?...

What does "TEMPT" really mean?

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15)

Clearly we are told here that Jesus was "WITHOUT SIN". this refers to his state of being, as well as his actions - he had no sin in him, he was without sin. Therefore - he did not sin. Jesus was tempted - but this in no way infers that he felt the inclination to sin, or that he had to suppress internal lusts / sinful tendencies as suggested above - not at all. There is no scripture to tell us that Jesus felt the urge to sin or had wicked intent tht he suppressed - none. The only possible scripture to suggest this is Heb 4:15. But I believe this word TEMPT is being misinterpreted here.

The word TEMPT is peirazo translated by Strongs: did (1), put (1), put to the test (2), tempt (2), tempted (13), tempter (2), test (6), tested (2), testing (7), tried (2), trying (2). to make proof of, to attempt, test, tempt, to try, put under trial

Jesus was TRIED - TESTED - PUT TO THE TEST - MADE PROOF OF - ATTEMPTED - PUT UNDER TRIAL - by an external agent according to the text, who CAME TO HIM and then LEFT HIM.

This word peirazo is used of Christ's temptation / trial:

1. "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matt 4:1) (the devil is the one tempting, not Christ)

2. "when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God" (MAtt 4:3) (The tempter CAME to him - is not part of his nature)

3. "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15) (same word - tried / tested etc. - not inferring in any way an internal wish / desire / inclination to sin.)

peirazo used elsewhere thus:

1. "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)

Now I know you dont believe that God has a sinful tendency! so how come the word is used here like this - it does not indicate a sinful nature at all then.

2. "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;" (Heb 11:37)

Again - an external assault - meaning - they were tried / tested etc. You cannot tell me these saints were internally attracted to these activities coming at them!

3. "And they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words... But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it." (Mk 12:13)

Jesus was not here 'inclined' to give way, or 'internally desiring' anything here - he was being 'tempted' / tried / tested / quizzed by the Pharisees - like a mosquito might test you if it kept buzzing into your ear - not something you would internally desire! The Pharisees were the tempters - they were quizzing Jesus, to try to trip him up, in the same way the devil did. Jesus proved himself under testing. Even at maximum physical stretch (fasting food and water for 40 days - at the max re. human endurance) Jesus still refuted the devil, and rebuffed him from scripture - There is no hint that he had any internal desire to give way to the devil - none whatever. Under trial / testing, Jesus proved his sinlessness / innocence / undefilement.

[gaz]

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Heb 2:14)

Although people still die, and still sin, the devil's works are here described as "destroyed" - his hold on death is undone by Jesus. But this state of destruction has not entirely prevented his ability to act in a temporary, reduced way until the day of the Lord, when he will face judgement and final termination of his activity. We see that although Jesus according to scripture detroyed the devil's power, he still poses something of a real, but reduced problem to humans....

I'm sorry Steve, but you cannot possibly argue that since Christ's death that mankind is tempted less than beforehand. 2 Timothy 3 talks about things getting worse and worse.
2 Tim 3.1-8 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.

2 Peter 3.3-4 ...scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

To me these verses say that the devil is still as powerful as he's ever been (metaphorically speaking of course).

How can we possibly reconcile verses such as

"For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." (1 Jn 3:8)

with

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil..."(Eph 6:11)

How can Jesus defeat the devil and yet later on in time we're warned to be on our guard against the very same thing? The only possible explanation is that the devil is not a singular being but rather a concept.

Jesus Christ was TEMPTED by the tempter - the devil.

The 'tempter' was the devil. The 'tempted' was Christ.

They are not the same thing / person / character / identity. Nowhere in scripture is the devil identified with Christ in the way the forum suggests above - as being part of Christ's nature. What does it mean then, that the devil tempted Jesus ?...

Again, please understand the word personification...

What does "TEMPT" really mean?

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15)

Clearly we are told here that Jesus was "WITHOUT SIN". this refers to his state of being, as well as his actions - he had no sin in him, he was without sin. Therefore - he did not sin. Jesus was tempted - but this in no way infers that he felt the inclination to sin, or that he had to suppress internal lusts / sinful tendencies as suggested above - not at all. There is no scripture to tell us that Jesus felt the urge to sin or had wicked intent tht he suppressed - none. The only possible scripture to suggest this is Heb 4:15. But I believe this word TEMPT is being misinterpreted here.

The word TEMPT is peirazo translated by Strongs: did (1), put (1), put to the test (2), tempt (2), tempted (13), tempter (2), test (6), tested (2), testing (7), tried (2), trying (2). to make proof of, to attempt, test, tempt, to try, put under trial

Jesus was TRIED - TESTED - PUT TO THE TEST - MADE PROOF OF - ATTEMPTED - PUT UNDER TRIAL - by an external agent according to the text, who CAME TO HIM and then LEFT HIM.

Again, I point you to James 1.14-15 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

There are obvious places where someone is tempted by an external source and obvious places where someone is tempted from inside, but in both cases we are able to decide how we treat either sort of temptation. Jesus' temptation didn't turn into desire, he stopped it before it got that far. When I suggested that Jesus had an urge to sin, I meant that in the steps of James 1 he was tempted but that did not turn into desire. Once desire happens sin is inevitable.

This word peirazo is used of Christ's temptation / trial:

1. "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matt 4:1) (the devil is the one tempting, not Christ)

2. "when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God" (MAtt 4:3) (The tempter CAME to him - is not part of his nature)

3. "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb 4:15) (same word - tried / tested etc. - not inferring in any way an internal wish / desire / inclination to sin.)

I'll ask a question at this point...how different to us (the rest of mankind) was Jesus? Do you think he was capable of sinning? From your answer tell me exactly how human that made him?

Another question - in your view of things is there ever a time when man can be tempted to do something from his own heart, or is there always an external tempting force there in some way or other?

peirazo used elsewhere thus:

1. "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)

Now I know you dont believe that God has a sinful tendency! so how come the word is used here like this - it does not indicate a sinful nature at all then.

2. "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;" (Heb 11:37)

Again - an external assault - meaning - they were tried / tested etc. You cannot tell me these saints were internally attracted to these activities coming at them!

3. "And they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words... But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it." (Mk 12:13)

Jesus was not here 'inclined' to give way, or 'internally desiring' anything here - he was being 'tempted' / tried / tested / quizzed by the Pharisees - like a mosquito might test you if it kept buzzing into your ear - not something you would internally desire! The Pharisees were the tempters - they were quizzing Jesus, to try to trip him up, in the same way the devil did. Jesus proved himself under testing. Even at maximum physical stretch (fasting food and water for 40 days - at the max re. human endurance) Jesus still refuted the devil, and rebuffed him from scripture - There is no hint that he had any internal desire to give way to the devil - none whatever. Under trial / testing, Jesus proved his sinlessness / innocence / undefilement.

Yes, you've showed a lot of scripture which talks about external temptations, but this is not always the case.

Mark 7.15-23 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

These evil actions are clearly coming from within man's heart/mind.

Sorry, I've hit a brick wall tonight & my brain refuses to do any more thinking, but I will aim to continue this soon...

[Steve W]

Gaz writes: "I'm sorry Steve, but you cannot possibly argue that since Christ's death that mankind is tempted less than beforehand. 2 Timothy 3 talks about things getting worse and worse."

Steve w responds - What!? I'm not saying anything like that Gaz - that's not close to what I said above!

Of course I Agree with your analysis of 2 Tim 3 - things getting worse and worse IN THE WORLD - not in the true body of Christ!!!
- I hope you agree that since the death and resurrection of Christ, God has made a new and living way, has given us of his mighty power to resist the devil, and has given eternal hope in the gospel - these all giving aid to men in their plight, enabling them to succesfully negate the temptations of the devil and avoid the sins of the flesh, and to enjoy the fellowship of the Spirit (Phil 2:1) - or what have you got? - not much....

And your analysis of the sinful flesh in men I agree with. But Jesus was not sinful! I would ask you to read the analysis of the word TEMPT and see that it is clearly 'being put under test'. In you and me, of course this temptation strikes a chord within, and our lusts are attracted to the tempting feature - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, these all latch onto outside phenomena, then sinful desire kicks in to WANT it. The temptation comes from the external phenomenon in this instance, the lust comes from the inner flesh, the desire to enact the sin comes from within, murder, adultery etc all proceeds from within, but the person with whom the sinner wants to commit adultery / murder is external not internal - the imagery comes from wothout, and the desire comes from within. our sin is within - but Jesus had no sin within. I'm sure we contrive all manner of sin within our imaginations, but Jesus didnt. He was innocent, pure, undefiled.

Jesus was tempted by the devil - offered stones for bread, flights of fancy off the temple pediment, and the kingdoms of the world - these were all shown him and offered to him by the devil. But it struck no chord within him - he had no evil lusts, but being fully human, he had human appetites - obviously, he was extremely hungry, fasting for 40 days! and would have liked to eat bread no doubt - but he was not wanting to abuse the power God had given him, and clearly delineated the difference between the two - Adam and Eve had human appetites before they fell - in their sinless uncorrupt state in Eden. Jesus was like this. This did not make them any less than human at that point. Its just that because Jesus was the sinless Son of God, he was different than Adam - he was the Son of God the SON OF GOD!!! - the only begotten of the Father. Adam was made from clay, and was the man from the earth. Jesus was the man from heaven (Jn 3:31) - (spot the difference)

I am not making this up Gaz - read the scriptures I have analysed above - and I'll post below why Jesus is come in the flesh, but only in the LIKENESS of SINFUL flesh.... Jesus was not internally defiled - Sin did not proceed from within him. It does for all other men. Which is why we need to be saved, and why Jesus is the only one who can save us (under and in God).

[Steve W]

Gaz - this is why (to answer your qu.) I think Jesus is different from us (remember - I still think he is fully human, born of a woman, come in the flesh - but only the LIKENESS of SINFUL flesh - he was without sin......)

- Who do you say I am? Jesus asked his disciples. It's a question that resounds through the ages - WHO DO YOU SAY JESUS WAS / IS?..... Jesus was able to resist the Devil's temptations, whilst at his maximum stretch of endurance - no other man could come remotely close to doing this - not even Adam and Eve in their unfallen state could resist. But Jesus did. Why?...... The forum is saying that Jesus was in inner conflict - he secretly wanted to sin, but yet didnt. That he was craving evil fulfillment. I think this is utterly wrong. I do not think Jesus craved evil fulfilment - his heart was not desperately wicked and deceitful like everybody elses. How do we know this.....

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35

No man was like this - Jesus was entirely holy, undefiled, no sin in him. HE came in the flesh, BUT HE was the SON OF GOD! noone else can claim that. God was his Dad. Not Adam (Joseph). He was not a 'clone' of Mary, or he'd have been a woman, so where did he get his Y chromosome from? (Mary didnt carry one for sure). Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh - this word 'likeness' [homoióma = a form; abstractly, resemblance, made like to, likeness, shape, similitude.(Strongs)] indicates that Jesus was definitely flesh and blood (we are warned that the spirit of Antichrist would suggest otherwise in 1 Jn) but that he was not actually sinful - he came in flesh, in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh, that in the flesh he could destroy the power of sin, as sin had no hold on him, had nothing in him. His death was entirely UNDESERVED and VOLUNTARY. For this reason death could not hold him - Jesus had power in himself to take his own life up again (under God's command (Jn 10:18)). Because only he was truly and entirely holy - No sinful nature.

"in him is no sin" (1 John 3:5) This is referring to his internal state, (not simply his outward actions) - there was no sin IN him.

"holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26)

defilement refers not to actions, but to a state of being. Jesus was undefiled, therefore his flesh did not see corruption. He was MADE higher than the heavens. This ties in to....

“He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.” (John 3:31) spoken before death and resurrection - referring to his state of being as he spoke, as a man - (present and past tense).

"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor 15:47-50)

Jesus inherited the kingdom of God. He was incorrupt. Adam sinned, and fell to corruption. Jesus was not subject to Adam's corruption because he "came from heaven" (his paternal origins - his very identity as a Son, the source-essence of his identity - were God in heaven) - He IS come as a man, in flesh (son of Mary), BUT is only in the LIKENESS of SINFUL flesh, being as he is:

"seperate"
"undefiled"
"incorrupt" [and - praise God - "incorruptible"]
"in him is no sin"
"full of grace and truth"
"heavenly not earthly"

This is the basis of the gospel. and the 'legal' basis of our adoption in Christ as inheritors of the promise - eternal life - IN HIM. If it were not true, we would be without hope - bound to our defilement / corruption / sinful nature / sold under sin / death. As we have borne the image of the earthly, so (by faith in Christ, and his blood sacrifice atonement) we shall bear the image of the heavenly - the holy one of God, who "came from heaven" [ie his origins were God - his Father] and was "taken up into heaven", and is coming back from heaven. ~ He is the 'heavenly man' - sinless.

[Insearchof]

SteveW, From the BASF, I would be compelled to disagree with your above Post,
but from Scripture (God's Word) I will have to say AMEN to it.
My thanks to you, I can now no longer be Insearchof. Eric.

[Steve W]

Hallelujah! Praise God!

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Insearchof

SteveW, From the BASF, I would be compelled to disagree with your above Post, but from Scripture (God's Word) I will have to say AMEN to it. My thanks to you, I can now no longer be Insearchof. Eric.

Insearchof - I am very confused by your posts. One minute you are quoting Dr. Thomas and defending the BASF (or maybe the BUSF, not sure which you endorse), and the next you are condemning it by praising unbiblical rubbish! You say your "insearchof" is over because you now endorse Steve W's position? I am truly sorry to hear this.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I still think he is fully human, born of a woman, come in the flesh - but only the LIKENESS of SINFUL flesh

Then you don't believe he was truly human! A person is either "human" or they are not. You can't be half-human. Jesus was either truly, totally human of he wasn't - pick one.

Who do you say I am? Jesus asked his disciples. It's a question that resounds through the ages - WHO DO YOU SAY JESUS WAS / IS?..... Jesus was able to resist the Devil's temptations, whilst at his maximum stretch of endurance - no other man could come remotely close to doing this - not even Adam and Eve in their unfallen state could resist. But Jesus did. Why?...... The forum is saying that Jesus was in inner conflict - he secretly wanted to sin, but yet didnt. That he was craving evil fulfillment. I think this is utterly wrong. I do not think Jesus craved evil fulfilment - his heart was not desperately wicked and deceitful like everybody elses.

Peter is right - you DON'T read our posts! That's becoming very clear to me. Please re-read my post quoting Robert Roberts, who CLEARLY states our position regarding the nature of Christ.

No man was like this - Jesus was entirely holy, undefiled, no sin in him.

In "character" - YES!

HE came in the flesh,

I thought you said in the "LIKENESS" of flesh?

BUT HE was the SON OF GOD! noone else can claim that.

True, but what does that mean?

God was his Dad. Not Adam (Joseph). He was not a 'clone' of Mary, or he'd have been a woman, so where did he get his Y chromosome from? (Mary didnt carry one for sure). Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh - this word 'likeness' [homoióma = a form; abstractly, resemblance, made like to, likeness, shape, similitude.(Strongs)] indicates that Jesus was definitely flesh and blood (we are warned that the spirit of Antichrist would suggest otherwise in 1 Jn)

The Bible says (as insearchof pointed out) there is only ONE KIND of human flesh.

but that he was not actually sinful

That's because he didn't sin.

- he came in flesh, in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh, that in the flesh he could destroy the power of sin, as sin had no hold on him,

You can't destroy something that never had a hold on you in the first place.

His death was entirely UNDESERVED and VOLUNTARY. For this reason death could not hold him

That's because he OVERCAME sin by leading a sinless life! Not just because God was his father.

Because only he was truly and entirely holy - No sinful nature.

Because he didn't commit any sin! Not because he "couldn't sin" (which is what you are really inplying) because he was of some sort of "different" flesh than us.

"in him is no sin" (1 John 3:5) This is referring to his internal state, (not simply his outward actions) - there was no sin IN him.

Wrong - scripture always refers to Jesus being sinless because of his obedience to the Father!

defilement refers not to actions, but to a state of being. Jesus was undefiled, therefore his flesh did not see corruption.

Wrong again - his flesh did not see corruption because of what he DID.

"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor 15:47-50)

This just supports what I said above about you not reading our posts. I already proved to you that this passage is referring to Jesus in his glorified, spiritual body, and here you are quoting it again to try and support you view.

This is the basis of the gospel. and the 'legal' basis of our adoption in Christ as inheritors of the promise - eternal life - IN HIM. If it were not true, we would be without hope - bound to our defilement / corruption / sinful nature / sold under sin / death. As we have borne the image of the earthly, so (by faith in Christ, and his blood sacrifice atonement) we shall bear the image of the heavenly - the holy one of God, who "came from heaven" [ie his origins were God - his Father] and was "taken up into heaven", and is coming back from heaven. ~ He is the 'heavenly man' - sinless.

It seems this forum has become more of a "preaching ground" for you rather than a "give and take" discussion. You are not really reading and replying to our posts and our position. But rather taking opportunity to "preach" your views. Personally, I'm not interested anymore.