At least in Catholic tradition, December 8 is
Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
Is that true in other Christian denominations as well?
Is that true in other Christian denominations as well?
On 07/12/2025 20:40, David Dalton wrote:
Is that true in other Christian denominations as well?
I think Catholics are unique (Orthodox as well?) in the doctrine of the immaculate conception. We respect Mary as the mother of Jesus and
clearly an exceptional woman, but the fallacy with the immaculate
conception is that if Mary needed to be born without sin in order to
give birth to Jesus (who was without sin), then Mary's mother needed to
be born without sin in order to give birth to Mary. And, inevitably, the mother of Mary's mother needed to be born without sin in order to give
bith to .... and so ad infinitum until you get to Eve, the first woman -
and that is where things tend to break down a bit, she being rather more fond of apples than is really appropriate for a woman without sin.
Just suppose Joseph had been the biological father, could Jesus still
have been without sin, or is it just the male who carries original sin? (something I don't actually believe in by the way)
On 12/12/2025 13:04, John wrote:
Just suppose Joseph had been the biological father, could Jesus still
have been without sin, or is it just the male who carries original
sin? (something I don't actually believe in by the way)
Apparently it is the mother who carries it, hence the need for Mary to
be immaculate.
I do believe in original sin. I don't believe Mary was immaculate. Or Joseph. Or anyone other than Jesus Himself.
Whilst I agree with you regarding Mary and Joesph, surely Jesus would
also have been born with inherited sin?
However, as I said, it is all just speculation. The Bible does say that
Jesus was "without sin", which certainly means that He did not commit
any sins and *may* mean that He had no inherited sin. Speculate away.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness I believe
he was undergoing tendencies to sin. An extremely good
person is not necessarily free from tendencies to sin
but does not succumb to them.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness I believe
he was undergoing tendencies to sin. An extremely good
person is not necessarily free from tendencies to sin
but does not succumb to them.
It also establishes the principle that being *tempted* to sin does not
of itself constitute sin. Indeed, at the close of the temptation in
the wilderness, in Luke 4:13, "When the devil had finished all this
tempting, he left Him *until an opportune time*". So that makes clear
that Jesus would be tested at other times, too.
Hebrews 4:15, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to
empathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in
every way, just as we arerCoyet he did not sin."
IMO it's self-explanatory. "Jesus was tempted", now, He could not have
been 'tempted' if there was no possibility of Him choosing that route.
There is no doubt in my mind that He experienced almost unimaginable temptation, and yet did not succumb to it. We have to not only accept
His divinity, but also His humanity.
the devil took a lot of potshots, but of course the "opportune time" was
at gethsemane, where his disciples couldn't stay awake and keep watch
after stuffing themselves with the passover seder. (fasting might've
helped here)
On 17/12/2025 07:53, Timreason wrote:
IMO it's self-explanatory. "Jesus was tempted", now, He could not have
been 'tempted' if there was no possibility of Him choosing that route.
But that does not mean that He had a "tendency" to whatever it was.
Jesus was the second Adam. Adam and Eve had no "tendency" to eat apples,
yet it was possible for them to choose to do so and so to sin. Likewise
it was possible for Jesus to choose and to sin, even though He had no "tendency" towards the wrong choices.
There is no doubt in my mind that He experienced almost unimaginable
temptation, and yet did not succumb to it. We have to not only accept
His divinity, but also His humanity.
Of course, but His humanity was not that of you or me, but that of Adam before the Fall. To claim otherwise makes Him an imperfect model,
because even if we claim that He had the tendencies and weaknesses of
Tim Reaon, I can then object that He did not have *my* tendencies and weaknesses and therefore He was not tempted just like *I* am!
Where do people get this notion it was an apple?-a All we know is it was
a fruit.
But the bible says he was tempted just like you, just like Tim, justYou mean, He was tempted to cruise dodgy sex website on His mobile phone?
like me, etc.
On 18/12/2025 10:16, John wrote:
Where do people get this notion it was an apple?-a All we know is it
was a fruit.
It's just a tradition or stereotype or something.
But the bible says he was tempted just like you, just like Tim, justYou mean, He was tempted to cruise dodgy sex website on His mobile phone?
like me, etc.
On 16/12/2025 19:58, David Dalton wrote:
When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness I believe
he was undergoing tendencies to sin. An extremely good
person is not necessarily free from tendencies to sin
but does not succumb to them.
Why on earth would anyone have a "tendency" to throw themselves off the
very high pinnacle of the temple? Or a "tendency" to worship the devil?
Your disbelief does involve you in some foolish claims.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Your disbelief does involve you in some foolish claims.
You can call it a temptation to sin, if you like, rather than
a tendency to sin. But either way, he did not succumb
to it. And I wasnrCOt talking about a rCLtendencyrCY to throw
oneself off the very high pinnacle of the temple or
to worship the devil, but something like low level
pedophilic attraction.
I believe that would come under the temptation of lust, which I'm sureI'm sure He was and if your insistence on being tempted "just as we are"
Jesus would have been tempted with.
On 18/12/2025 23:35, John wrote:
I believe that would come under the temptation of lust, which I'm sure
Jesus would have been tempted with.
I'm sure He was and if your insistence on being tempted "just as we are"
is restricted to such generalities, I have no quarrel. It's when you
come to particulars - such as using a mobile phone to access pornography
- that we have to admit that Jesus was *not* tempted exactly as we are.
However there is a point I should like to make. Although I have seen
people drinking and taking drugs, I have never once been tempted to do
the same. Parental guidance, the influence of religion, a logical recognition of the harm caused by those things, whatever the cause, I
have never, not once, wanted to taste alcohol or experience the highs of drugs. (I have plenty of other temptations, so don't worry, I'm not
trying to come across as "holier than thou".)
My point is that although Jesus encountered every sort of temptationmore > strongly than we have ever faced, but He was never attracted to
known to man, I believe that there was nothing within him that responded
to the temptation, just as there is nothing within me responds to
alcohol or drugs. His was the sort of sinless nature which Adam
possessed before the Fall.
The temptations were real, they were probably urged upon Him even
That is why I insist that He was a second Adam, not a second Ken Down.
On 18/12/2025 20:30, David Dalton wrote:
Your disbelief does involve you in some foolish claims.
You can call it a temptation to sin, if you like, rather than
a tendency to sin. But either way, he did not succumb
to it. And I wasnrCOt talking about a rCLtendencyrCY to throw
oneself off the very high pinnacle of the temple or
to worship the devil, but something like low level
pedophilic attraction.
You really do talk nonsense. The tempations recorded in Scripture
include the two I mention but nothing whatsoever about what you claim. Making things up, particularly accusations against people, is called lying.
Why not abandon your half-backed and nonsensical pagan ideas and follow
the facts and become a Christian?
I thought Christianity was a faith based belief, there are no facts to
say it's true. I'm not saying it isn't, although Christianity today is nothing like first century Christianity was.
I thgink you took my comment a little too literally
We're both seeing the word tempted differently.-a I read it as the person being tempted, not simply being offered temptation.In your sense, then, I would have to deny that Jesus was ever tempted. I
On 19/12/2025 13:47, John wrote:
I thgink you took my comment a little too literally
If you don't mean what you say, I suggest that you don't say it.
We're both seeing the word tempted differently.-a I read it as the
person being tempted, not simply being offered temptation.
In your sense, then, I would have to deny that Jesus was ever tempted.
Would you apply the same thing to things Jesus said (not including the parables)
Which is a very good reason for not accepting your definition ofIn your sense, then, I would have to deny that Jesus was ever tempted.
Indeed, which would then nullify Hebrews 4:15.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 23:27:41 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,852 |
| Posted today: | 1 |