How Human Was Jesus?

[teddyaware]

Apologies--this must have been confusing--I mistakenly quoted your post #3 in responding to this one (#22 quoted immediately above). To respond to #22:

This seems to agree with my observation that a need for strengthening (by Jesus or the rest of us) is not necessarily the result of any mistakes He may have made as He learned life’s lessons.

The Father definitely strengthened Jesus, and Jesus’ primary characteristic was to submit to His Father’s will. We are invited to follow this pattern. But as long as Jesus is our Mediator, our relationship with the Father is a little different than His; fortunately the object of Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer is that in the end we will all be one.

We certainly need strengthening in our sphere just as Jesus did in His (even without our sins and mistakes—for example, He sustained and strengthened Adam and Eve with daily walks, food, assignments in their stewardship, etc.), and additionally He grants us the benefit of the Atonement in relation to our individual and collective* sins and mistakes so that we can progress as if no sins and mistakes were made (which is the only way to truly progress, He being the Example). [* We often suffer for the sins and mistakes of others, which Jesus experienced also.]

To respond to #3:

I can appreciate this; I think there are many ways that we can be prompted to love Him. From my experience, I love Him because He first loved me (1 John 4:19). I take "first" to mean in sequence and in quality. As times goes by, I realize more and more how He always loved me first, no matter how far from and unlike Him I was, and this increases my love for Him. I am becoming more like Him far more than He ever became like me, and as I do so my love for Him also increases.

Thanks for the input. Your responses are edifying and excellent...

[ERayR]

What do you define as human?

[Five Solas]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blog...-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

Excellent little post. It would be interesting to read an LDS critique of the Christian doctrine of Hypostatic Union (which appears to be Mr. Moore's underlying assumption).

--Erik

[Alan]

As far as I'm concerned, Christ was 100% God, and 100% human.

[teddyaware]

... but while on earth he wasn't 100% perfect from the start. He went from grace to grace and received grace for grace, until he received a fulness of the Spirit of God.

Edited January 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

Yes, but what does "from grace to grace" actually mean?

[teddyaware]

Yes, but what does "from grace to grace" actually mean?

It means progessing from one degree of spiritual epowerment to a higher one, and then to an even higher one, and so on until one becomes perfect. John put it this way:

"12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;" (D&C 93)

Edited January 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

... but while on earth he wasn't 100% perfect from the start. He went from grace to grace and received grace for grace, until he received a fulness of the Spirit of God.

He was not 100% perfect in that He had an unfinished work to complete while in a mortal tabernacle and subject to all the conditions listed in the article and in scripture. But when one lists all the ways as a Spirit, He was 100% perfect from the foundation of the world, and if one compares them to a similar list for the rest of mankind from the foundation of the world, one would stand all amazed!

His perfection had to be realized in the flesh so as to effectuate His victory over sin and death (and thus bring heaven and earth together, which is yet future--Ephesians 1:10), and this process entailed His receiving grace for grace. But He never backslid, like we do. Also, He never sinned, and He died only physically, being spiritually alive on Earth from His birth.

Earlier there was some discussion about the possibility of His making mistakes. I think He may have suffered a greater sting in being accused of mistakes and punished for things He didn't do, in addition to feeling the just and unjust stings for everyone else's mistakes by virtue of His great love for God's children. The net of His development, until His mission, was that he "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." I don't think this necessitates His having to have been foolish and weak and out of favor with God and man, no more than the rest of us are required to be (we accomplish that without any requirement to!)..

[Alan]

It means progessing from one degree of spiritual epowerment to a higher one, and then to an even higher one, and so on until one becomes perfect. John put it this way:

"12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;" (D&C 93)

I am not comfortable with that interpretation.............. and it is an interpretation.

For me, Christ was fully God (and fully human) from the outset. He was perfect and sinless from day one.

I'm not sure we know what "received of a fulness" really means.

[CV75]

I am not comfortable with that interpretation.............. and it is an interpretation.

For me, Christ was fully God (and fully human) from the outset. He was perfect and sinless from day one.

I'm not sure we know what "received of a fulness" really means.

I think it might refer to a fulness of power over death and hell, or to the full realization of the fulfillment of the plan of salvation for mankind, which He heads.

[teddyaware]

I am not comfortable with that interpretation.............. and it is an interpretation.

For me, Christ was fully God (and fully human) from the outset. He was perfect and sinless from day one.

I'm not sure we know what "received of a fulness" really means.

If you believe the 93rd section of the D&C is scripture (which I do), then there can be no doubt but that Christ did not receive a fulness of the gifts and powers of God until the time of his baptism. To illustrate the point, I continue on in quoting John in D&C section 93:

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; (D&C 93)

So Christ grew in the grace and knowledge of God until the day of his baptism, when "he received a fulness of the glory of the Father." To receive means to be given and accept something you do not already possess. Luke put it this way:

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2)

So we see Christ increased in wisdom, which clearly indicates that as he matured he received greater wisdom than he already possessed. So he progressed from one degree of spiritual empowerment to a greater one, His wisdom increased. The definition of the word "increase" is: To make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree. So there's no getting away from it, Christ improved and progessed during his earthlife.

Why should we be disturbed by the idea that Christ grew as an individual, just like the rest of us. We have no problem giving full devotion to our perfect Heavenly Father, even though many Church leaders over the years have taught that he was once a man who went through a process wherein he grew in grace, knowledge, wisdom and intelligence until he became perfect. But when it comes to Christ, personal growth is not possible?. Do we really think Jesus had as much wisdom at 2 years of age as he did when he was 33? Think about it...

Edited January 16, 2013 by teddyaware

[Five Solas]

If you believe the 93rd section of the D&C is scripture (which I do), then there can be no doubt but that Christ did not receive a fulness of the gifts and powers of God until the time of his baptism. To illustrate the point, I continue on in quoting John in D&C section 93:

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; (D&C 93)

So Christ grew in the grace and knowledge of God until the day of his baptism, when "he received a fulness of the glory of the Father." To receive means to be given and accept something you do not already possess. Luke put it this way:

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2)

So we see Christ increased in wisdom, which clearly indicates that as he matured he received greater wisdom than he already possessed. So he progressed from one degree of spiritual empowerment to a greater one, His wisdom increased. The definition of the word "increase" is: To make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree. So there's no getting away from it, Christ improved and progessed during his earthlife.

Why should we be disturbed by the idea that Christ grew as an individual, just like the rest of us. We have no problem giving full devotion to our perfect Heavenly Father, even though many Church leaders over the years have taught that he was once a man who went through a process wherein he grew in grace, knowledge, wisdom and intelligence until he became perfect. But when it comes to Christ, personal growth is not possible?. Do we really think Jesus had as much wisdom at 2 years of age as he did when he was 33? Think about it...

Jesus certainly matured as a man. But the idea that he "became perfect" is problematic. Scripture makes plain Jesus was God incarnate (John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16). Likewise, Scripture makes plain there is only One God ("even demons believe"--James 2:19). The God of Christianity isn't progressing as He goes along, for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8 ). Lastly, Jesus was without sin (i.e., imperfection, Hebrews 4:15, 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Previously I suggested an LDS critique of the Christian doctrine of Hypostatic Union would be interesting to read. Was this it?

--Erik

[teddyaware]

Jesus certainly matured as a man. But the idea that he "became perfect" is problematic. Scripture makes plain Jesus was God incarnate (John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16). Likewise, Scripture makes plain there is only One God ("even demons believe"--James 2:19). The God of Christianity isn't progressing as He goes along, for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8 ). Lastly, Jesus was without sin (i.e., imperfection, Hebrews 4:15, 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Previously I suggested an LDS critique of the Christian doctrine of Hypostatic Union would be interesting to read. Was this it?

--Erik

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the thoughful reponse.The idea that Christ "became perfect" finds its support in Hebrews 5:

8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Learn: To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study.

Made: Past participle of make -- To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create.

Became: Having undergone change or development.

Just imagine Christ when he was a little child. Don't you think he had to learn to talk, walk, read, write, spell, play games, manners, etc? And now think of him as an older child. Don't you think he had to learn the skills of carpentry under the tutelage of his step father Joseph?

So unless at the moment he was born he was already exactly as he would be, in every way, as a grown man, then he did go through a process of growth and change -- and that's the wonder of it all! He really is like us...

Edited January 16, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

I agree that Christ did not become perfect, because he already was. He was the Great Jehovah, the creator of all.

Any imperfection applied only to his mortal body, which he later perfected. But his character was perfect from the outset; of that I am sure.

[teddyaware]

I agree that Christ did not become perfect, because he already was. He was the Great Jehovah, the creator of all.

Any imperfection applied only to his mortal body, which he later perfected. But his character was perfect from the outset; of that I am sure.

Hi Alan,

Enjoying your responses. I've got some questions for you, and I ask these questions in humility because I'm not exactly sure how to answer these myself. Also, in asking these questions I know I'm about to tread on very sacred ground. So I want you to understand at the outset I know I am about to converse about things that are most holy. Now that you know how I'm approaching this exercise, here are the questions:

Why do you think Christ pled with his Father three times to remove from him the obligation to drink the contents of the "bitter cup," if he were already absolutely perfect? Yes, I know the Saviour said "nevertheless not my will, but thy will be done," But why did he ask that the cup be removed at all? If he were already perfect in every way, at that point in time, it would seem to me he wouldn't have asked his Father to take the cup away from him so he that he wouldn't have to "drink" its dearful contents. You see, he very well he knew throughout most of his life that it was absolutely essential he finish drinking the the full measure of the cup, or else all would be lost. So why implore the Father three times to remove the cup if he were already perfect in every way? Would a perfect being's mind and heart "shrink" from a task he knew for a surity he had to be complete?

So now I'm about to reveal to you what I think may be a most perfect example of how the Saviour "received grace for grace" and how he "continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness."

The Saviour's heart and mind shrank from the obligation to follow through with drinking the symbloic "cup of trembling." The very thought of so doing filled his heart with most terrible dread. Nevertheless, the Lord told his Father he would do as commanded if there was no other way to escape the demands of the obligation. While the Lord struggled within himself, like none other had ever done before, the Father looked down from heaven with mercy upon his Son. He knew his Son did not sense within his heart and mind that he possessed the wherewithall to accomplish such a seemingly impossibe task. So in answer to the pleading of Jesus, the Father came to his rescue. For we are told:

43 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." (Luke 22)

The father realized his Son didn't have the present strength of mind and spirit to finish his perparations of salvation unto the children of men, so he sent a messenger of spiritual power from heaven to strengthen and enable the Christ to complete the infinite and eternal sacrifice.

The Son demonstrated and extended supreme grace when he told his Father he was willing to go through with the sacrifice, even though he seems to have demonstrated the fact that he lacked the strength to go through with it. Then, because Jesus did demonstrate and extended such great grace within the limits of the power he then possessed, the Father gave Jesus an even greater measure of grace (physical, emotional and spiritual strength) than he previously possessed, empowering him to endure the manifold sorrows of his great sacrifice until he came off as the great conquerer.

And so, the Saviour "received grace for grace" and "continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness."

Edited January 17, 2013 by teddyaware

[Five Solas]

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the thoughful reponse.The idea that Christ "became perfect" finds its support in Hebrews 5:

8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Learn: To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study.

Made: Past participle of make -- To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create.

Became: Having undergone change or development.

Just imagine Christ when he was a little child. Don't you think he had to learn to talk, walk, read, write, spell, play games, manners, etc? And now think of him as an older child. Don't you think he had to learn the skills of carpentry under the tutelage of his step father Joseph?

So unless at the moment he was born he was already exactly as he would be, in every way, as a grown man, then he did go through a process of growth and change -- and that's the wonder of it all! He really is like us...

We might be saying the same thing, teddyaware. Yes, Jesus developed (and learned) as he grew from infant to boy to man. Just as I know more today than I did at age 30, or 20 or...

But I think it a little strange to say a 2 year old is more perfect than a 2 week old, or an 80 year old is more perfect than a 40 year old--as you seem to imply. And to read Hebrews 5:8 to mean God is progressing (beyond His development as a mortal man) and therefore He is not the same yesterday, today and forever--is to set Scripture against Scripture and would confound all of it.

But again, I may be reading too much into your posts.

--Erik

[teddyaware]

We might be saying the same thing, teddyaware. Yes, Jesus developed (and learned) as he grew from infant to boy to man. Just as I know more today than I did at age 30, or 20 or...

But I think it a little strange to say a 2 year old is more perfect than a 2 week old, or an 80 year old is more perfect than a 40 year old--as you seem to imply. And to read Hebrews 5:8 to mean God is progressing (beyond His development as a mortal man) and therefore He is not the same yesterday, today and forever--is to set Scripture against Scripture and would confound all of it.

But again, I may be reading too much into your posts.

--Erik

I'm not sure what you're trying to explain. What I said was:

"So unless, at the moment he was born, he was already exactly as he would be in every way as a grown man, then he did go through a process of growth and change."

So I'm not seeing where you're going with your line logic if it's based on the above quote. My point is that Jesus, as a man, surely had much more knowledge and wisdom as a thirty-year old than he possessed at the moment he was born. If divine perfection includes the attribute of omniscience (knowing all things), then, clearly, Jesus was not omniscient on the day he was born. So he grew in grace and knowledge. As Luke puts it:

"52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.with God and man." (Luke 2)

As can be readily understood by the above quote, Jesus increased in his knowledge of the things of God. So in that sense his earthly experience was much kike ours. He experienced the joys of learning and personal improvement. "He continued from grace to grace." (from D&C 93)

Edited January 17, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

Hi Alan,

Enjoying your responses. I've got some questions for you, and I ask these questions in humility because I'm not exactly sure how to answer these myself. Also, in asking these questions I know I'm about to tread on very sacred ground. So I want you to understand at the outset I know I am about to converse about things that are most holy. Now that you know how I'm approaching this exercise, here are the questions:

Why do you think Christ pled with his Father three times to remove from him the obligation to drink the contents of the "bitter cup," if he were already absolutely perfect? Yes, I know the Saviour said "nevertheless not my will, but thy will be done," But why did he ask that the cup be removed at all? If he were already perfect in every way, at that point in time, it would seem to me he wouldn't have asked his Father to take the cup away from him so he that he wouldn't have to "drink" its dearful contents. You see, he very well he knew throughout most of his life that it was absolutely essential he finish drinking the the full measure of the cup, or else all would be lost. So why implore the Father three times to remove the cup if he were already perfect in every way? Would a perfect being's mind and heart "shrink" from a task he knew for a surity he had to be complete?

So now I'm about to reveal to you what I think may be a most perfect example of how the Saviour "received grace for grace" and how he "continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness."

The Saviour's heart and mind shrank from the obligation to follow through with drinking the symbloic "cup of trembling." The very thought of so doing filled his heart with most terrible dread. Nevertheless, the Lord told his Father he would do as commanded if there was no other way to escape the demands of the obligation. While the Lord struggled within himself, like none other had ever done before, the Father looked down from heaven with mercy upon his Son. He knew his Son did not sense within his heart and mind that he possessed the wherewithall to accomplish such a seemingly impossibe task. So in answer to the pleading of Jesus, the Father came to his rescue. For we are told:

43 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." (Luke 22)

The father realized his Son didn't have the present strength of mind and spirit to finish his perparations of salvation unto the children of men, so he sent a messenger of spiritual power from heaven to strengthen and enable the Christ to complete the infinite and eternal sacrifice.

The Son demonstrated and extended supreme grace when he told his Father he was willing to go through with the sacrifice, even though he seems to have demonstrated the fact that he lacked the strength to go through with it. Then, because Jesus did demonstrate and extended such great grace within the limits of the power he then possessed, the Father gave Jesus an even greater measure of grace (physical, emotional and spiritual strength) than he previously possessed, empowering him to endure the manifold sorrows of his great sacrifice until he came off as the great conquerer.

And so, the Saviour "received grace for grace" and "continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness."

Thank you for your response - I see what you're saying. However, are you sure your starting point is correct? Was Jesus really unable to go through with it? Was he really trying to get out of it? I think not. The words "if it be possible" suggest he was enquiring whether it absolutely had to be done this way. In other words, is it possible this could be done some other way. When it became obvious that there was no other way he went ahead. I would suggest the angel was probably their to comfort rather than strengthen, as it is rendered in our Bible.

I just have difficulty with the tendency of many of my fellow saints to go too far in humanising Jesus and localising God beyond that which the scriptures declare. I think there is great danger in this.

[teddyaware]

Thank you for your response - I see what you're saying. However, are you sure your starting point is correct? Was Jesus really unable to go through with it? Was he really trying to get out of it? I think not. The words "if it be possible" suggest he was enquiring whether it absolutely had to be done this way. In other words, is it possible this could be done some other way. When it became obvious that there was no other way he went ahead. I would suggest the angel was probably their to comfort rather than strengthen, as it is rendered in our Bible.

I just have difficulty with the tendency of many of my fellow saints to go too far in humanising Jesus and localising God beyond that which the scriptures declare. I think there is great danger in this.

Now Alan, Why in the world wouldn't you just take Luke at his word? The apostle Bruce R. McConkie, speaking in General Conference said, "We know that an angel came from the courts of glory strengthening him in his ordeal." Why does it seem so difficult to understand that Christ needed the saving interventions of his Father, as much as we need the saving interventions of Christ?

In Matthew, chapter 5, we hear Christ command:

"48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Then, after his glorious resurrection, we hear Christ command his people in 3 Nephi:12:

48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

It appears Jesus was unwilling to call himself perfect until he ascended to heaven where, as a resurrected being, "he was given all power in heaven and earth."

Therefore, Jesus received greater and greater endowments of spiritual power until he was finally made perfect in every way. In other words,

"12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. (D&C 93)

Jesus and his Father had a Father and Son relationship. As Jesus continued to obey his Father, his Father blessed him with more grace (spiritual power) than he already possessed. Why is this so hard to believe? It's right there in black and white in the scriptures.

Just like the rest of us, Jesus had to prove himself. If he failed in proving himself he would have failed in his mission. The brethren have taught Jesus was peccable -- look it up.

Edited January 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

I have difficulty with this because we know from the scriptures that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the old testament. He was the only God the Jews knew. Try telling the Jews their God is imperfect, or not all-knowing, all-seeing etc.

Let me put a question to you. Suppose Jesus had failed. What then? Would he still be God?

[cdowis]

Another "what if" question?

Sigh.

[teddyaware]

I have difficulty with this because we know from the scriptures that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the old testament. He was the only God the Jews knew. Try telling the Jews their God is imperfect, or not all-knowing, all-seeing etc.

Let me put a question to you. Suppose Jesus had failed. What then? Would he still be God?

Some of our leaders have taught that if Jesus had failed, he would cease to be God. It causes me to love him all the more when I realise his victory over sin, death and the devil was a great trial, and not something easy for him to accomplish.

Also, let's take look at some of Abraham's noble and great ones whom he saw in vision in the pre-mortal world. There can be no doubt that Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah were among the highest echelon of the pre-existent noble and great ones. Yet, until the day the angel visited them, they were described as "the very vilest of sinners." So if some of these great, angelic spirits enter this fallen state, and if they then really botch things up before getting around to repentance and exercising faith -- why, then, is it so hard to believe the Lord grew in wisdom and stature, continuing from one degree of grace to even higher states of grace until he received a fulness?

Edited January 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

In my view the very idea that Christ would have ceased to be God if he had failed in his mission is blasphemous. We are the ones in trouble not him. Our problems are of our own making not his. He did not have to rescue us, he did it by choice. He could have chosen not to and left us where we are.

[teddyaware]

In my view the very idea that Christ would have ceased to be God if he had failed in his mission is blasphemous. We are the ones in trouble not him. Our problems are of our own making not his. He did not have to rescue us, he did it by choice. He could have chosen not to and left us where we are.

You;ve just made my point. You're right, "he did not have to rescue us, he did it by choice." Meaning he was free to choose not to rescue us. And if he had made that choice not to rescue us and "left us where we are," he would have ceased to be God. All because he had his own free agency. According to James Talmage, Jesus was peccable. James E Talmage, in his Jesus the Christ, taught the following:

"A question deserving some attention in this connection is that of the peccability or impeccability of Christ--the question as to whether He was capable of sinning. Had there been no possibility of His yielding to the lures of Satan, there would have been no real test in the temptations, no genuine victory in the result. Our Lord was sinless yet peccable; He had the capacity, the ability to sin had He willed so to do. Had He been bereft of the faculty to sin, He would have been shorn of His free agency; and it was to safeguard and insure the agency of man that He had offered Himself, before the world was, as a redeeming sacrifice. To say that He could not sin because He was the embodiment of righteousness is no denial of His agency of choice between evil and good. A thoroughly truthful man cannot culpably lie; nevertheless his insurance against falsehood is not that of external compulsion, but of internal restraint due to his cultivated companionship of the spirit of truth. A really honest man will neither take nor covet his neighbor's goods, indeed it may be said that he cannot steal; yet he is capable of stealing should he so elect. His honesty is an armor against temptation; but the coat of mail, the helmet, the breastplate, and the greaves, are but an outward covering; the man within may be vulnerable if he can be reached.

But why proceed with labored reasoning, which can lead to but one conclusion, when our Lord's own words and other scriptures confirm the fact? Shortly before His betrayal, when admonishing the Twelve to humility, He said: "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations."[306] While here we find no exclusive reference to the temptations immediately following His baptism, the exposition is plain that He had endured temptations, and by implication, these had continued throughout the period of His ministry. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews expressly taught that Christ was peccable, in that He was tempted "in all points" as are the rest of mankind. Consider the unambiguous declaration: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 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."[307] And further: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."

Edited January 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

You;ve just made my point. You're right, "he did not have to rescue us, he did it by choice." Meaning he was free to choose not to rescue us. And if he had made that choice not to rescue us and "left us where we are," he would have ceased to be God. All because he had his own free agency. According to James Talmage, Jesus was peccable. James E Talmage, in his Jesus the Christ, taught the following:

"A question deserving some attention in this connection is that of the peccability or impeccability of Christ--the question as to whether He was capable of sinning. Had there been no possibility of His yielding to the lures of Satan, there would have been no real test in the temptations, no genuine victory in the result. Our Lord was sinless yet peccable; He had the capacity, the ability to sin had He willed so to do. Had He been bereft of the faculty to sin, He would have been shorn of His free agency; and it was to safeguard and insure the agency of man that He had offered Himself, before the world was, as a redeeming sacrifice. To say that He could not sin because He was the embodiment of righteousness is no denial of His agency of choice between evil and good. A thoroughly truthful man cannot culpably lie; nevertheless his insurance against falsehood is not that of external compulsion, but of internal restraint due to his cultivated companionship of the spirit of truth. A really honest man will neither take nor covet his neighbor's goods, indeed it may be said that he cannot steal; yet he is capable of stealing should he so elect. His honesty is an armor against temptation; but the coat of mail, the helmet, the breastplate, and the greaves, are but an outward covering; the man within may be vulnerable if he can be reached.

But why proceed with labored reasoning, which can lead to but one conclusion, when our Lord's own words and other scriptures confirm the fact? Shortly before His betrayal, when admonishing the Twelve to humility, He said: "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations."[306] While here we find no exclusive reference to the temptations immediately following His baptism, the exposition is plain that He had endured temptations, and by implication, these had continued throughout the period of His ministry. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews expressly taught that Christ was peccable, in that He was tempted "in all points" as are the rest of mankind. Consider the unambiguous declaration: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 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."[307] And further: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."

Thanks for that, but it doesn't really address my point.

Christ could have decided not to rescue us - we agree on that. But it seems you are equating this with sin. I fail to see that Christ exercising his free agency and electing not to do us a favour is a sinful act. You seem to be saying it would be - how so?