Jesus sinless? Like it's a big deal, and He had to work at it ?
Or is it more like, by definition, ANYTHING He does isn't sinful because He is the one doing it, no matter what it is ?
I'm thinking of His withering the fig tree. Beyond the mystery of why He just didn't heal the darn thing, instantaneously, is quite a poser. But if the fig was privately owned and he zorched it, we have a strong case of Jesus as a willful destroyer of property. The owner of the tree might have filed suit for damages, and prevailed, just by the testimony recorded Inerrantly in Scripture.
So, we have a 'God', who by definition, cannot be sinful, no matter what He does, and just in the story of the barren fig tree, curiously we have that same 'God' committing a crime, and not just any crime, a crime He could have avoided by an effortless instance of His healing grace, which He mysteriously, failed to exercise this occasion.
And then there is His admonishing His followers to drink poison and handle dangerous serpents . . . .
Or is it more like, by definition, ANYTHING He does isn't sinful because He is the one doing it, no matter what it is ?
I'm thinking of His withering the fig tree. Beyond the mystery of why He just didn't heal the darn thing, instantaneously, is quite a poser. But if the fig was privately owned and he zorched it, we have a strong case of Jesus as a willful destroyer of property. The owner of the tree might have filed suit for damages, and prevailed, just by the testimony recorded Inerrantly in Scripture.
So, we have a 'God', who by definition, cannot be sinful, no matter what He does, and just in the story of the barren fig tree, curiously we have that same 'God' committing a crime, and not just any crime, a crime He could have avoided by an effortless instance of His healing grace, which He mysteriously, failed to exercise this occasion.
And then there is His admonishing His followers to drink poison and handle dangerous serpents . . . .
