This is some of what happened to Jesus, but rather like the tip of the iceberg. There's much more to temptation than simply being tired or hungry.

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that it was bearing our sins that made Christ's temptations so difficult. In addition to being hungry and tired, Christ bore our sins, and did so in sinful flesh. This whole package combined to make His temptations so difficult.

What! Sniff, Sobb, I'm going to miss you William. I enjoyed reading you even tho at times I didn't understand you. Mainly due to that Accident!

Again I greatly appreciate the sources, your thoughts, your insight, your sence of humor, your little badness, and most of all your kindness that you left us.

I'm happy to hear about Annie and Bryce. Such a joy it must be for you. Enjoy. Will catch you later.

The question is simple. We are born with propensities of disobedience. Was Christ born with them (like us) or not (differently from us)?
Propensities of disobedience are inclinations to disobey the law. Do you define them as a carnal mind or as a sinful nature?

Bearing sins is bearing the guilt of those sins, understanding how sinful they are, not facing exactly the same temptations. Saying that Christ faced the same temptations of a homosexual, of a prostitute, of an alcoholic, or of a gambler, doesn’t make any sense at all, and is, in fact, blasphemous.


We have discussed this at length in the past. Of course there are three points on which men are tempted and Christ faced them all. Ellen White says this not just once or twice, but many times.

In the wilderness of temptation Christ met the great leading temptations that would assail man. There He encountered, singlehanded, the wily, subtle foe, and overcame him. The first great temptation was upon appetite; the second, presumption; the third, love of the world. ... His manifold temptations grow out of these three great leading points. {4T 44.2}

With this terrible weight of guilt upon Him because of our sins He withstood the fearful test upon appetite, and upon love of the world and of honor, and pride of display which leads to presumption. Christ endured these three great leading temptations and overcame in behalf of man, working out for him a righteous character, because He knew man could not do this of himself. He knew that upon these three points Satan was to assail the race. He had overcome Adam, and he designed to carry forward his work till he completed the ruin of man. Christ entered the field in man's behalf to conquer Satan for him because He saw that man could not overcome on his own account. {3T 372.1}

Now where, in the EGW writings, is this *link* you are speaking about? What passages do you have in mind?

Bearing sins is bearing the guilt of those sins, understanding how sinful they are, not facing exactly the same temptations. Saying that Christ faced the same temptations of a homosexual, of a prostitute, of an alcoholic, or of a gambler, doesn’t make any sense at all, and is, in fact, blasphemous. [/quote]

i think i get your point with these two and similar addictions: "of an alcoholic, or of a gambler", since Christ never became addicted to anything.

but what is the prostitute or homosexual addicted to? but as for the homosexual, as blasphemous as it might sound, i can see Jesus being tempted because a thought popping into the mind, planted by satan, i would understand, is not sin but a temptation which can be accepted or refused.

not sure how the prostitute would fit in as a temptation tho. but we need to understand how prostitutes become prostitutes. and for my homosexual brethern we need to understand that also.

Same answer. If you define "propensities of disobedience" as a carnal mind, Christ was not born with that. If you define it as a "sinful nature," then Christ was (in the sense that He assume "our sinful nature."



If hereditary (genetically passed), then Christ had them, as we all do. If something else, then He didn't.



It would depend on the context. It's not a common phrase.



The Scriptures say Christ was tempted in all points as we are.



The Scriptures say Christ was tempted in all points as we are. Denying this is blasphemous.



If Christ were not tempted as the homosexual, or the prostitute, or the alcoholic or the gambler, then these have no Savior. This idea is a "holier than thou" attitude, that Christ was only tempted to do "good sins" like I do, not the bad sins that the bad people do.



Christ was tempted in "all points" as we are. I don't understand how this can be interpreted as completely differently than we are. You see Christ's temptations as totally foreign to ours.

We are tempted from within, which you don't believe is the case for Christ. We have inclinations to sin. You don't believe Christ felt any such inclinations, in spite of its being said that He took "our sinful nature" and was made to be sin for us. You believe that Christ's "temptations" were simply along the lines of being tricked and nothing else. Our temptations do not consist of simply being tricked. You believe Christ could overcome temptation simply by following His own inclinations. He had no self to be denied in the sense that we do. In order to sin Christ would actually have to do something which He found repulsive. Why would He do that? How could this possibly be conceived of as being difficult? (I don't believe I've misrepresented your thoughts here. If so, I'm sorry, and ask you to please correct.)



I said where. In DA 24. She says Christ shared in our heredity in order to share in our sorrows and temptations. This makes no sense in your view. One would have to limit our temptations to being tricked, to being tempted to do good sins, and trivialize His identity with us to being able to become hungry and tired.

Haskell quoted from "The Desire of Ages" and stated that Christ took fallen humanity with its hereditary inclinations to sin. I don't understand why you think you understand Ellen White's theology better than Haskell or Prescott or Jones or Waggoner.

Ellen White endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh." You claimed you believe every word of this sermon. I pointed out you could only make this claim by not being familiar with Prescott's beliefs, and quoted a parallel passage of Prescott to prove this. Ellen White was familiar with Prescott's beliefs.

Ellen White endorsed Jones and Waggoner's message of righteousness by faith over a thousand times. Their message was tied into their belief regarding Christ's humanity. They themselves said so, both of them. One cannot deny the tie between one's belief on Original Sin and righteousness by faith. How could it be possible that Jones and Waggoner would be correct in regards to righteousness by faith while at the same time wrong in regards to Christ's human nature? Have you read their ideas on righteousness by faith?

The point was the God had difficulty doing the right thing. If you want to enumerate more examples, feel free. I don't have the time.

My position is that doing the right thing, even if one was the very definition of right, could be very difficult. It was so for God in Heaven, it was so for God incarnate. Difficulty in doing the right thing does not require sinful flesh.

It is invalid to argue that:
1) Jesus had difficulty doing right,
2) sinful flesh has difficulty doing right,
3) therefore, Jesus had sinful flesh.

Difficulty in doing right is not limited to sinful flesh.

Why?



More examples aren't needed. An explanation of the one you gave would be fine.



What do you mean by the right thing? Why would it be difficult for God to do the right thing? You mean God was vacillating between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, and then after a lot of effort God finally decided to do the right thing?



I don't see why one would think it would be difficult for God to do the right thing. The whole concept of God doing something wrong doesn't make sense to me, let alone it's being difficult for God to avoid doing so.



I think it does. Why wouldn't it?



You're just asserting this. You're not providing any evidence or argument as to why this should be the case.

Do you think it was difficult for Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit? The SOP tells us specifically this was the easiest of tests God could give, that it was not difficult. Their natures were sinless. Why would it be difficult for them to do right?

Arnold, I realize I wrote a lot of posts in response to your post a little while back, so no problem not addressing all of them, but please address this one: #112745.

Thanks.

Likewise, dear Elle, likewise. (Thanks, Rosa and Arnold!) Thanks so, so much for your sweet remembrance, Elle, I will cherish it always. My experience here was unquestionably bittersweet: Sweet being here, bitter leaving here. Can't wait until there won't be any more sorrow in parting. Sigh. (Love your style, Tommy!)

Knowing I would return one last time, I thought long and hard what I should leave behind for a lasting impression; for a true spiritual blessing for my short-lived acquaintances. Or should I have said friends? I finally decided as my last labor of love to leave you a powerbloodyful sermon I outlined from a young evangelist's audio recording. Enjoy: Nicolaitans

Catch you later, too, Elle. God forever bless each one of you!

Always,

Will

Because becoming sin is not palatable to a holy God?

You've read the EW passages about God's decision to send Jesus down. You've quoted it before. So it should be no surprise to you that implementing the plan of salvation was no walk in the park for the Godhead.