Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 10, 2021 at 12:15 comment added Steve Yes, all true? But are you denying his prayer for himself? I repeat - If he could not sin, it was all a sham! Don't read tradition nonsense into God's word - just read what is there. Why do you think he could not sin?
Jun 10, 2021 at 11:53 comment added Nhi @user48152 Jesus was “tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). He “committed no sin,” and he “knew no sin” (1 Pet 2:22, 2 Cor 5:21). “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it” (Jn 1:4-5). If he died, it was for our sins. If he prayed, it was to intercede on our behalf (Is 53:12). “He Himself brought our sins in His body up on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live for righteousness; by His wounds you were healed (1 Pet 2:22).
Jun 9, 2021 at 12:11 comment added Steve Then you make a mockery of the whole temptation. If he could not sin, it was all a sham! He did not sin, but the potential was there. Heb 5:7 think about this prayer - or was that just for show too? Why do you think he could not sin?
Jun 9, 2021 at 12:04 comment added Nhi @user48152 I strongly disagree with the statement that "Jesus could sin." Sin brought death to man. But Jesus laid down his own life. His death was an act of self-sacrifice, not the result of sin (1 Peter 1:19).
Jun 9, 2021 at 6:53 history edited Steve CC BY-SA 4.0
added 368 characters in body
Jun 6, 2021 at 1:47 history edited Steve CC BY-SA 4.0
added 440 characters in body
Jun 4, 2021 at 10:12 comment added Steve Paul does not give your 'formal definition', the best we can do is frame the words with other texts that speak to this matter. To press too far is to make more than is intended and provoke empty speculations. - we have enough of those already.
Jun 4, 2021 at 8:59 comment added user38524 user48152 - would you mind including a paragraph in your answer with a formal definition of the word "rich" and how you would paraphrase 2 Cor 8:9 according to that definition?
Jun 4, 2021 at 4:52 history edited Steve CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1509 characters in body
Jun 4, 2021 at 4:19 comment added user38524 Let me see if I get what you are saying. You are essentially defining richness as "ego" and, thus, someone who is "rich" has a lot of ego and someone who is "poor" has very little ego, correct? If so, 2 Cor 8:9 would read like this: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he had a lot of ego, yet for your sake he became devoid of ego, so that you through his lack of ego might become full of ego. Is that what you are saying?
Jun 4, 2021 at 3:13 history answered Steve CC BY-SA 4.0