Discussing with a Christian: Jesus TWO Natures one being Human the other God according to Triniterians, we also discuss Jesus being “sinless therefore divine”?
Christians tell us the Human nature of Jesus, is not like his divine nature. Only the human nature has flaws like, he needs to sleep, gets hundry, ignorant about the last hour, it can die. Etc.
They argue the divine nature has no flaws, because its the divine nature that is God. But then i ask them, can the human “nature sin” They say: no. It can’t sin and never has it sinned. So again tell me how is the human natures flawed?
Please clarify who said, “The human nature can’t sin and never has sinned,” and when they said it.
This sounds like something mis-quoted and/or taken out of context.
Hi Graham Harter, just about every Christian i have spoken to, say that Jesus has never sinned by his human nature nor divine nature, they have even gone to the extent to say his human nature was too perfect to fall into sin.
May i ask, do you believe Jesus sinned through his human experiences on earth?
Orthodox Christology is in many respects quite a subtle and nuanced doctrine. The nuances need to be distinguished quite carefully, otherwise we can easily end up saying things we don’t really mean, and/or people can take us to mean things we haven’t actually said.
How much of that has been the case, i.e., mis-statement, in things Christians have said to you, and how much has been misunderstood; and how much of it has been what Christians genuinely believed, and you’ve understood it correctly, is of course difficult to say.
For what it’s worth, here is my understanding of what the New Testament teaches about Christ in his human nature. I will word this carefully, and I would certainly appreciate it if others would be so kind as to read what I say carefully and endeavour not to understand it as saying something it isn’t.
Did Jesus ever sin?
Firstly, the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus never once sinned.
In order for the Messiah to bear the sins of his people (those who put their trust in him), theologically it’s necessary for him to be as it were an ‘unblemished’ lamb — like the unblemished lambs which were to be offered in the tabernacle as prescribed in the book of Leviticus (see, e.g., Leviticus 1:10 (context: whole chapter)).
Not only is this a theological point that Christians believe about Jesus, but the New Testament actually states it explicitly:—
“For we do not have a high priest [i.e., Jesus] who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet was without sin.”
So then, it is clear that Jesus did not sin.
Didn’t he sin through his human experiences on earth?
Now, the New Testament is unashamed in attributing to Jesus Christ some very human experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement (Matthew 8:10), not knowing things (John 4:1 being an example).
Merely to undergo human experiences such as the above, is not sin.
Sin rather is turning away from God, disobedience toward God. Sin is not therefore entailed in any of the above experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement, not knowing — unless of course any of the above experiences arise out of some sinful course of action. For example, I might not know about God because I deliberately choose not to find out about him. But in and of themselves, the above experiences are not sinful.
This should in any case be clear from the foregoing points. If the New Testament says that Jesus underwent these human experiences, but the New Testament also says that Jesus did not sin, it follows that these experiences are not (of necessity) sinful.
Could Jesus have sinned?
I am firmly convinced that it was possible for Jesus to sin.
To be human is to have the aptitude to sin.
What then does it mean for the Son of God to take our human nature to himself, if that does not entail his taking on the possibility of sin?
Or to put it another way, how could Jesus be the Saviour of sinners if he did not so identify with us as to take on our aptitude to sin?
Hence I firmly believe that, though Jesus did not sin, it was possible for him to do so.
Once again, however, we are not reliant solely on philosophical reasoning to reach this conclusion. Scripture itself gives us a very clear clue.
In Matthew chapter 4 and parallels, Jesus is driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The devil actually tempted Jesus — three specific temptations are given in Matthew chapter 4, and a very similar list of three temptations in Luke chapter 4.
Now what does it mean that Jesus was “tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1), if in fact it were not possible for Jesus to succumb to that temptation? Surely, rather, the very fact he was tempted implies that it was possible for Jesus to sin.
God be thanked, Jesus resisted the devil. In this he did the opposite to what Adam had done. When Adam was tempted by the devil, he succumbed (Genesis 3:6-7); Jesus, however, resisted.
Such is my understanding of the answer to your question, Mustafa Muhammed Sahin, from the New Testament’s perspective. I believe that all three of the points I have demonstrated above are not only true and reasonable, but also demonstrable from the New Testament text.
I hope this has been helpful to you.
Hi Graham Harter thank you very much for your well written response, i do i must say understand your stance, that Jesus as you say had the possibility to “Sin” by his human nature.
However i will God willing point out the many inconsistencies even still by the many examples lets start for example with this one,
Many Christians that i know when they respond to the Muslim questions regarding, Jesus human nature for example he did not depend upon his own Godly powers to give him strength after being tempted by the devil, Jesus the the (God Man) suffered, at times “Angels” would come to give him healing( Luke 22:43), they would strengthen him. When Muslims would say, why did not Jesus if indeed he have TWO nature’s one being “divine” did not demand on that very “divine” nature to give him strength, rather looked else where for help?
Christian Apologist would say” oh but Jesus was teaching a lesson of humbling himself” as a Man.
Christian Apologist also say” God came down to earth as a Man so he can experience what its like to feel the pains of men, so he can be close to us and experience what we experience, this is why he went through human suffering. So it seems that “Jesus as a man God wished to experience all these human problems, feeling pain, suffering, choosed not to show him self to be “self sufficient”, this was all to prove how humble he is, Yet he never once wished to prove his ” Humbleness” to commit a Sin and the Humbleness of a sincere repentance was never achieved. If he did those things, that too me proves true humility and Humbleness, merely being a man proves nothing, as even man by nature can be cruel and arrogant.
I find that pretty bazzar. Is it possible the Gospel writers felt pretty un-comfortable to mention he was sinful? If it was so un-exceptable for Jesus to sin during his ministry, are we to believe he didn’t sin even during his youth, before his ministry? Are we to believe that Jesus wished to experience even ” death at the cross” yet never wished to experience even the smallest of the smallest sin, like a “swear word”.
Not even during his youth by the way, the bible leaves out much of his youth. Im really suprised ” Jesus” as a human being simply did not commit a sin. I mean why was he so “Shy” after all? The Christians would have said even if he did “Sin” well he was just humbling him self before God, and that was part of his “human nature”? If they had such a get out card for everything else why not allow him to sin, and use the same excuse it was just his ” Human nature” kapish!
Im thinking the Bible writers felt un-comfortable about it because they were i believe trying to prove this man was just to holy and God to even commit Sins. We even look at saintly figures today, who are so devout we think in our minds this guy is just to perfect to commit a sin, i believe this is how the Bible writers wished to write the Bible about Jesus. After all the Bible is just a perspective of man writing on behalf of Jesus, i don’t think Jesus ever said he never sinned, its more about what people thought to believe about him.
For example, the gospel writers were not there while Jesus was being tempted by the Devil. There were no eye-witnesses, Jesus was alone in the wilderness, and the bible account just says After 40 days he resisted Sin. No one can know this for sure, maybe Jesus did sin those nights and days in secret since he followed satan to begin with, and the Bible writers just proposed he over came not to sin any longer, but instead wrote, he resisted sin. In other words we are just getting the assumption of these gospel writers who were not there watching and observing each move of Jesus. As you know sins can also be commited in “Secret”. So how can they be sure from just a public observation? Well of course Christians then say, well the Bible is “inspired” but being “inspired” is not “enough” Christians like to convince themselves that there were many eye-witnesses to the crucified Christ and resurrected Christ, so then i ask where are these “witnesses to every secret move of Jesus? Well the answer is none.
Its interesting how this whole focus God made on Jesus in the 40 days and nights to overcome sin to prove the human nature resisted “Sin” why was God so interested in testing the man nature of Jesus? Its not as though the man nature of Jesus wil be going to heaven or hell, Jesus instead would be sitting on the throne as God no matter if Jesus resisted sin (via) his human nature or not. So why would God put Jesus through all that temptation? When its no value to the human nature of Jesus? Since there will be no human nature of Jesus in heaven rejoicing he passed the temptation. He will be fully God. Jesus only became Human nature to be slain on earth, in the hereafter he will be in his glorified body that is no longer, with the bad human qualities.
If Yahway was testing say, somebody else like, Judas then it would make sense in the wilderness, but to test Jesus who is just going to go to heaven regardless if he resisted sin or not makes no sense. Now i know what you will do, you may say well Jesus was teaching us a lesson to the rest of humanity no matter how tough it is we must resist satans temptations just to explain away these problems. However i would ask the Christian why then did you compare Jesus to Adam? Why did you try and compare Jesus is Greater then Adam for Adam failed and Jesus succeeded?
See its been all about Jesus to prove that he is better then everyone else, its not really about these stories being a lesson to everyone else. Thus why his God even in morality and even in human nature to resist sin, even though you dont wish to admit it, otherwise why compare Jesus human nature with Adams Human nature? Then blame adam not being as Good as Jesus human nature?
Like i said it would have been more, reasonable to test a person like Judas because its that very same human nature of Judas trying to prove obedience to obtain God’s salvation, Testing the obedience of Jesus is meaningless since he will end up in Paradise regardless since of course you believe his God. The only way it will make a little sense if he wasn’t God and thus God tested his 40 night obedience. And that Jesus did not in fact have these ” Two Natures”.
I think the bible writers are not being honest about Jesus and sin, we even have the story of the women brought to him for “adultery” Jesus said those “without sin” cast the first stone. Now Christians Apologist will tell you, Jesus didn’t believe she comited the sin, it was just a false charge.
My response would be suppose, she really did “Sin” would Jesus have been the first to frow the stone, since unlike her accusers, Jesus could have stoned her since he was without sin? So how does Jesus removing the law of stoning get based on a narrative that she was not guilty? If she was guilty then Jesus would have ought to submit to the mosaic law at the time. Well the interesting thing is Bible scholars are now telling us this passage is based on a “textural verience” which may indicate, that the law removing the stonning was just a interpolation invented by those who indulged in such behaviour and invented ideas about Jesus, to remove such a hefty punishment, in order to accommodate there evil desires.
Furthermore, was the bible writers at the same time trying to remove a harsh law for convenience for themselves at the same time trying, to de-value the rest of the jews trying to prove they are “not without sin” and only Jesus is sinless, Possibly! but this invented scribal deciete was based on a verience? Proving further exegerration.
Another point, if the condition of stoning a person in the O.T mosaic law for Adultery can only be applied by “Sinless people” then why would such a law be given by Yahway when the law can never be applied? Since the only one whom is ” Sinless” is apparently Jesus? To carry out this punishment, are we really to believe God reveals a law to Moses that can never be able to be applied unless Jesus turned up decades later, only to remove the law? How nonsensical, it makes no sense that this law is given to moses in a period where the law can’t be applied “since there are no sinless people since Jesus is the only without Sin
I believe if we went back to the Adultery Women event and asked ” Jesus himself if he was without sin along with the Jews. He would have testified he too is NOT without sin. If not he would have stood up and proclaimed it, instead sat silent.
There are two many contradictions. Im sorry if i got a little side tracked. It seems all these TWO nature ideas were invented in order to explain about the many problems when questioning the Divinity with Jesus. They did well but they unfortunately created more problems then solving them elsewhere.
All though Christians may say” its possible for Jesus human nature to sin in order to show the human nature has flaws, they even then still can’t imagine him sinning by that VERY nature because that would make his human nature no less then the human nature of Adam.
Jesus then wouldn’t be Greater in human nature then Adam thus there wouldn’t be proof he was more divine, thus Christians even still give special important emphasize to Jesus human nature to prove it’s greater then everyone else, thus make it equal to some what the nature of God, and nothing less when it’s convenient to do so, and that is exactly the attitude we see in Biblical Theology all about convenience and how to accommodate and super-impose my theory about Jesus to cherry pick a interpretation in order to prove Jesus is divine, and how do i wash down human flaws of Jesus when things are becoming to questionable about Jesus role in divinity. Well lets just Blame his human nature at the same time when its convenient will show how his human nature is more ” Godly” when it comes to the issues of the power to “resist sin” which apparently no human on earth was able to do so except for “Jesus” why is that?
No wonder, most Christians appeal to that very standard he must be God since he resisted “SIN”
Yet that very nature they appeal to ” is according the doctrine of the Trinity not divine”. Interesting!
Christians will say, O.k guys what will do is because we have been exposed on this, will just pretend Jesus was able to sin, but refused the sin.
I would argue, well isn’t the power of refusal every single time, divine in of its self, since no other human being can do like wise? Is this not a special quality only unique to God? Isn’t it true that Christians say Jesus was ” Too Perfect to Sin” which is another attribute of God!
Begs the Question do Christians really believe Jesus human nature is really equal to the Godly nature. It seems it is when its convenient, when its not and Jesus shows human errors as a Man God, will put another spin on it to cover up for our assertion Jesus is God.
A final absurdity, is that we are told Jesus is the “unblemished lamb” he came to take away all the sins he was a pure man, he never sinned yet we are told,
Christians say Jesus is faultless or sinless. But Jesus was the most sinful he took everyones sin on the cross. And paid the ultimate penalty. Even Jay smith admits Jesus the man sinned https://youtu.be/jbcIwmnimQw
Even Apostle Paul even said Jesus became a curse for us, for anyone hanged on a tree is cursed.
Galatians 3:13 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
Why because Jesus took everyones sins and put it on himself thus why he paid the ultimate price (i.e) to be killed, so if this pure holy man became the most curseful person of all who had to pay the price wasn’t he then the ” Most Sinful” of all? If not why did Paul one of the outmost Authorities on the Bible declare such a Holy Man a curse? Surelly only a pure man, un-sinful man would be un-cursed. Yet Jesus was cursed, he took everyone’s sins and put it on himself the repercussions of those “SINS” were the result of his death, in other words Jesus paid for it, if Jesus didnt then others would be judged for there own sins, and pay the price, they didn’t Jesus paid for those sins himself.
I believe “Paul” should have called Jesus instead “blessed on the cross” but he couldn’t say that, for he represented “sin on the cross” a curse! Makes you wonder now, how did this man get killed sinless? For he took all sins onto himself??
I hope this has uncovered for you the deeper questions that ought to be questioned, exposing the many levels of inconsistency when looking at the Two natures in order to prove divinity, it’s as though Christians just make things up as they go to trying to explain the many contradictions when trying to explain the Two natures, which by the way the bible “never” explicitly tells us “Jesus ” said he had TWO nature, its all clearly part of a conspiracy to invent untruthful lies about Jesus.
Please also visit