Christ's human nature...

[Dr. Shane]

Adam was also FULLY a man, with a pure sinless HUMAN nature.

Indeed, and in that respect Adam was different from Jesus. Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not sinless flesh.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3)

"For both He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren... Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same... Wherefore it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." (Hebrews 2:10, 14, 17, 18)

This is real basic Adventist doctrine. I don't understand why anyone struggles with it. That is where I am at a loss. I understand where other denominations go wrong. They are lead on the wrong path due to the false doctrine of original sin. I don't understand where some Adventists get confused.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Since Jesus had a sinful flesh like ours with all its inclinations/propensities, there is no reason for us not be able to achieve the sort of perfection He achieved before Jesus comes.

I disagree.

Once we sin, sin gets a hold on us and draws us into it more and more. Our only relief is divine power that comes from God.

Jesus had the divine power from the womb. Unlike us, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man (with a sinful nature) from day 1. We are conceived and born as 100% man (with a sinful nature) and do not acquire the divine nature until our rebirth, when we accept Christ as our Savior.

[pnattmbtc]

I'm not sure if you left something out of this sentence. I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say. Can you repeat it?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnat: I think this is a wrong way of thinking about this. That is, the statement "I don't use Jones for authority." Authority comes from truth; or, perhaps, better said, the power behind authority is truth.

Gerry: Wrong? What happened to Sola Scriptura?

Here's something Waggoner said:

Quote:

Do not make the mistake of supposing that this does away with the necessity for any human agency in the Gospel. If it did, then the apostles would have been self-condemned, because they were preachers of the Gospel. God has set apostles, prophets, teachers, etc., in the church (1Cor.12:28); but it is the Spirit of God that works in all these. "He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God." John 3:34. Therefore, no matter by whom anybody first hears the truth, he is to receive it as coming direct from heaven. The Holy Spirit enables those who wish to do God's will to tell what is truth as soon as they see or hear it, and they accept it, not on the authority of the man through whom it came to them, but on the authority of the God of truth. We may be as sure of the truth which we hold and teach as the apostle Paul was. But whenever anybody cites the name of some highly-esteemed preacher or doctor of divinity, to justify his belief, or to give it more weight with some person whom he would convince, you may be sure that he himself does not know the truth of what he professes. It may be the truth, but he does not know for himself that it is true. It is everybody's privilege to know the truth (John 8:31,32); and when one holds a truth directly from God, ten thousand times ten thousand great names in its favor do not add a feather's weight to its authority; nor is his confidence in the least shaken if every great man on earth should oppose it. It is a grand thing to be built on the Rock.(The Glad Tidings)

This resonates with me. It was something like this I had in mind by my comment.

Quote:

Pnat: However, the truth of what Jones wrote can be seen apart from considering a third-party endorsement. Simply read what he wrote, and look at the arguments, all based 100% on Scripture, and what he says can be easily seen to be truth.

Gerry: Easily? Then why is there not unanimity? I could say the same thing to what I am presenting. To me it is very obvious just from Lk 1:35 & Rom 8:3 that He was not EXACTLY just like us! NO HUMAN being could claim that.

I became interested in Jones and Waggoner was because of the things Ellen White wrote about him. She wrote that God gave them a message. She wrote that they (specifically Waggoner) could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. She wrote many other positive things about them. I've read them for myself, and agree with her convictions. In saying that one could simply see that what Jones said is truth can be seen by reading what he wrote, I was expressing my conviction.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

G:I said that because of degenerating heredity His vitality was not like that of Adam. What does this mean? Adam was probably over 7 or 10 ft tall. He (Jesus) was probably <6 ft tall. Adam's IQ was probably a match for any computer we have today, therefore beyond measure. Christ's IQ? 120? 130? Adam lived to 930 yrs. Had Jesus lived a normal lifespan, perhaps 70, or by reason of strength 80, Ps 90:10. Adam did not know sickness. Christ's body would have been more susceptible to disease. We don't have a record of Him getting sick. Maybe he followed the Health Message? Jesus got a lot more tired & more quickly than Adam; more hungry & thirsty than Adam. Required more sleep than Adam. More susceptible to the effects of intemperance, abuse, addiction, etc. etc..

Pnat: Nobody cares about any of this. What I mean by this is that this is well known, but not important; that is, when the fact of Christ's taking "sinful flesh" is considered, nobody, either then or now, has this in mind, except incidentally. That is, it is not today, nor ever has been, the core issue.

Gerry: I am truly amazed that you would make a statement like that!!! NOT IMPORTANT? Truly amazing!!! 930 vs. 70-80 yrs? IQ 1000+ vs 120-130? Perfect health vs imperfect health? Nearly tireless vs easily tired? Truly amazing.

I explained what I meant. I said:

Quote:

that is, when the fact of Christ's taking "sinful flesh" is considered, nobody, either then or now, has this in mind, except incidentally. That is, it is not today, nor ever has been, the core issue.

If you disagree with this, please provide some evidence for your disagreement. There are hundreds of pages easily accessible on the internet discussing this subject. See if you can find some debate about whether or not Christ got tired.

Quote:

Pnat: What people see as the results are the vices and sins of Christ's ancestors, and these were passed to Christ through their DNA, through "the working of the great law of heredity" which Christ accepted, "like every other child of Adam.;

G:Because He had murderers, prostitutes, and adulterers in His family tree that therefore He had the tendency/inclination to commit murder, adultery, and prostitution?

Ellen White's point was that Christ followed the workings of the great law of heredity, and that the results of this are seen in his ancestors. These results include sin and vice of every sort. That's what anybody who read the passage she wrote would think of. Not that David or Solomon etc. got tired.

Quote:

Do you think that it ever crossed Christ's mind to murder somebody? Crossed His mind to fornicate? Prostitute Himself? I have pointed this out previously - did Cain commit murder because He had murderous parents? Did Noah get drunk because he had drunken parents? Had there been another couple in Eden, the temptation to commit adultery would have been a possibility.

I said this before and I'll say it again to make a point. It is totally erroneous to say or even think that Jesus would have been above temptation or sinning if He had the sinless nature of Adam. Adam was created pure & sinless. He was tempted and sinned. Lucifer, even a higher perfect being sinned.

As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the point I made. At least, I don't see the connection. I was pointing out that Ellen White said that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity, the results of which were seen in His earthly ancestors. In other words, He had the same heredity we have. He took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature.

Quote:

Here is another EGW quote: "Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test. For our sake He exercised a self-control stronger than hunger or death.--The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

What nature? Man's nature. Since He took Adam's position, then He must had had the same innocence as Adam but with a body that is the product of 4k yrs of degenerating human heredity.

Human nature with all its liabilities? What liability is she talking about? She makes it clear in the next sentence that it was the POSSIBILITY of yielding to temptation just like Adam did.

No, not at all. She said, from the quote you cited:

Quote:

If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities.(emphasis mine)

Surely, assuming Christ had not assumed our sinful nature, our having a sinful nature would, in *this* sense, make our conflicts more trying. Her whole point here is that Christ took *our* nature, not the nature of Adam before the fall.

Regarding Christ's temptation, Ellen White wrote:

Quote:

In the desolate wilderness, Christ was not in so favorable a position to endure the temptations of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. {Con 31.3}

When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden, he was without the taint of sin. He stood before God in the strength of perfect manhood. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced. {Con 31.4}

Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf, four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing, each successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and the infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points on which man could be assailed. {Con 32.1}

She writes:

1.Christ took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. (Note: "purity and uprightness")

2.Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. (Note: not only "physical" is mentioned. In particular "moral degeneracy" is mentioned).

3.The human family had been departing, each successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. (Again, this isn't focusing on the physical)

4.Christ bore the sins and the infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man.

5.In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points on which man could be assailed.

The "weaknesses of fallen man" encompass the things she just outlined, which is far more than simply becoming tired or hungry.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnat: I disagree with your interpretation of the Baker letter. I think Ralph Larson's makes more sense. It would take a lot of work to go through this, and I have grave doubts that the effort would be worth it, but if you would like to start a thread (or someone else) discussing the Baker letter, I'd be willing to do so. Until that happens, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Gerry: Then we agree to disagree. Let others make their own analysis and come to their own conclusion.

Pnat: 1.According to EGW's counsel, if we wish to know her views, we should consider her *published* works. This is wise counsel, because we don't know the circumstances behind her private letters. For example, everybody agrees that EGW was correcting Baker in some way, but nobody knows what Baker was teaching. We can only guess based on EGW's letter to him. But there are many different theories regarding this, even amongst those who agree concerning EGW's views. If we knew what Baker was teaching, it would be easy to interpret her private letter.

Gerry: I try to read as much of what she has said on this subject as I can. So far, I have not seen anything she wrote that would make me change my mind.

Have you read what she said about Jones and Waggoner? Have you read what they wrote?

Quote:

Pnat: 2.There's a private letter where Ellen White says that Christ had "evil tendencies." We could just as easily use that as the cornerstone of what Ellen White taught as the Baker letter. But this wouldn't be following her counsel. The more we discuss the Baker letter, the more we disregard her wishes on how we should go about understanding her views.

G:I have asked you for the reference for this letter before, but you seemed not to have understood what I was talking about. So I am asking for the reference where this letter is found. As far as I know, every published writing of EGW is supposed to be in the disc I have. The pattern I see in Scripture is that when a prophet makes a significant error, God makes a correction. Example: Nathan telling David he could build the temple, and Paul correcting the Thessalonian's misunderstanding Paul's statement in his first letter that Christ may be coming in their lifetime.

She spoke of Christ's coming as a mean "with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir." The reference is Letter 303, 1903.

[John317]

...Adam was probably over 7 or 10 ft tall.

I don't have the quote with me but somewhere Ellen White wrote that Adam was more like 12 ft. tall and that Eve came up to about his shoulders. I'll try to find it and when I do I'll post it.

They were both huge by our standards, perfectly formed, and no doubt with a far greater brain capacity than we have.

[John317]

She spoke of Christ's coming as a mean ["man,"ed.]"with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir." The reference is Letter 303, 1903.

Could you tell where you read this? That's quite a statement.

I have no doubt that Jesus knows from personal experience the struggles we go through in resisting sin. That is actually one of the main reasons He came here, so we can know that God understands what it is like to be human-- not what it is like to be Adam before the Fall, but what it means to be human like all the people He came to help. He knows what we need to resist and overcome and He supplies the power.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnat: When the Holy Flesh controversy was just starting, S. N. Haskell communicated with her, saying:

G:Why are you even bringing up the holy flesh controversy? Is it to discredit the notion that Jesus had a "holy" body from the moment of conception with guilt by association?

p:No, it's for the reasons I pointed out. The Holy Flesh theology goes like this:

1.Christ did not have sinful flesh.

2.To be ready for heaven, we need to overcome sin, like Christ did.

3.Therefore we need to have the same flesh that Christ had.

Gerry:#2&3 following #1 don't make sense. If Christ did NOT have sinful flesh, HOW could ANYONE expect man with SINFUL FLESH to achieve perfection AS Jesus did?

By having an experience that would get rid of the sinful flesh. This was the idea of the Holy Flesh movement.

Quote:

There is NO logic or justice to that kind of expectation. In my experience, those who believe that Jesus came in sinful flesh with all its sinful propensities are the ones who teach that since Jesus did it with his sinful flesh, sinful man with all his inherent propensities should be able to do the same.

This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. The Holy Flesh movement was that Christ had sinless flesh.

Quote:

As for #3, Scripture is explicitly clear that we acquire glorified flesh only at the Second Coming of our Lord. But as far as overcoming sin is concerned, Jesus overcme sin by total dependence on His Father & through the power of the HS. We overcome sin in the same manner, by dwelling in Him & through the power of the HS.

Pnat: Now if how you were thinking were true, the way this heresy would have been attacked is like this:

"Yes, Christ did have holy flesh, but we won't have holy flesh until translation."

But that's not how their theology was attacked. Their theology was attacked at the root, attacking the idea that Christ did not have sinful flesh.

Gerry: Red herring. I am making no such arguments. Besides, I had already pointed out that none acquires a glorified body until the parousia.

It's not a red herring. Please note the argument. Their theology was:

1.Christ did not have sinful flesh.

2.Christ overcame sin without having sinful flesh.

3.Therefore we need an experience to get rid of our sinful flesh.

Now here's the point! We (SDAs; Ellen White + others, including Haskell, Waggoner, Jones, and others) did not attack this argument the way you just did, by pointing out that we receive holy flesh only at translation. Of course this is true, but it's not the point I'm making. I'm also not making the point that you are making the same error they are in regards to our obtaining holy flesh before translation.

The point is that we did attacked their theology at the root, as point one. We said they were in error in their assumption that Christ's flesh was not sinful flesh like ours is.

Quote:

Pnat: It's simply not possible that Ellen White wasn't a postlapsarian, when one considers the historical facts.

G:I simply don't think so. I used to believe Jesus was born with sinful flesh with all its evil propensities, but after studying some more, I changed my mind.

The first the pre-lapsaraian idea came into SDAism was around 1950. Before this time, there was no prelapsarian published statement in SDAism.

When the Holy Flesh arose, it was met by attacking its prelapsarian ideas. Ellen White joined with Haskell, Jones, Waggoner and others, and answered with postlapsarian articles. I've presented you with what Haskell wrote the week after writing her. He quoted the Desire of Ages in the Review and Herald, and explained "This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations."

Waggoner's sermon at the 1903 General Conference session was instrumental in bringing an end to the Holy Flesh movement. I can quote it if you like. Ellen White was present at that session. Waggoner, like Haskell, attacked the Holy Flesh movement by arguing that they were wrong in asserting that Christ did not have have sinful flesh.

The Holy Flesh movement used the same arguments you are using, quoting the same Scripture texts, and using the same logic. We countered this with the same arguments post-lapsarians are using today. It's the same debate over a hundred years later. Ellen White was on the post-lapsarian side.

If Ellen White had agreed with the Holy Flesh movement regarding Christ's being pre-lapsarian, she would have said they were right about that point, but wrong about our needing to have a holy flesh experience before translation. Instead she wrote:

Quote:

When I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.(http://www.gospel-herald.com/finneman/nat_christ/nc3.htm)

[Gerr]

Before I go through your posts to respond to them, let me ask you one question:

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

[doug yowell]

Yes,thanks that's clearer.

[Gerr]

Shane, let's go to the most significant question before we go round and round, and it is the same question I asked Pnat:

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Scripture clearly states that He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. He was called "that holy thing" because the Spirit by whom He was conceived is HOLY.

Pnat: No, Gerry. Christ is not called "that holy thing" because the Holy Spirit is holy, but because Christ is holy! Your idea doesn't make sense, because if Christ were holy because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that He wasn't holy because He was conceived by Mary. He'd be half holy and half not.

Gerry: You are talking about His pre-incarnate existence. He laid that aside. Jesus, as man, had a beginning. His beginning as human was at conception, conceived through the power of the HS. And He was called, "that holy thing" not because of His prior existence, but because of His origin at conception. Was He conceived in sin like David? Child of wrath at birth like everyone of us? I don't think so.

Our pioneers interpreted Ps. 51 like this:

Quote:

A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.

The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:

For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted. Heb. 2:16-18

The argument was:

1.Christ was of the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh.

2.David had sinful flesh.

3.Christ inherited David's flesh.

We see this on a number of occasions. The Holy Flesh people argued as you are, but we counted that argument as Waggoner demonstrates.

Quote:

Pnat: This is the same problem as thinking that half of the chromosomes that the Holy Spirit provided were of the "sinless flesh" variety. You'd still have the other half from Mary that weren't. So Christ wouldn't have the nature of Adam before the fall, but a mixed nature, half like Adam before the fall, and half not.

Gerry: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DNA bit is purely speculative on my part. We have no Bible evidence for it. I just have to think that the HS would have had to supply the other 23 to make a viable organism. And I can't conceive of the HS supplying something infected with the virus of sin.

There's still the problem of Mary. 23 of the chromosomes came from her, "infecting" Christ with sin, as you put it (not very accurate, by the way. Perhaps this may be a part of the problem? The fallacy of the assumed premise. To assume a sinful nature is not to be "infected by sin.")

[pnattmbtc]

Do you have "Touched With His Feelings" by Zurcher? It's discussed there. Chapter 14, called "In Search of Historical Truth," under the subheading "Ellen White's Latest Statement on Christ's Human Nature," p. 259 in the edition I have.

[pnattmbtc]

Before I go through your posts to respond to them, let me ask you one question:

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

They are born with sinful flesh. To answer beyond that, I'd have to know what you mean.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Before I go through your posts to respond to them, let me ask you one question:

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

They are born with sinful flesh. To answer beyond that, I'd have to know what you mean.

Let me then rephrase the question. Are the descendants of Adam born SINNERS or not? Or do they BECOME sinners only after they knowingly commit a sin?

[Dr. Shane]

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

No. They are not guilty of sin when they are born. However, since they are born only with a sinful nature, they are destined to sin. In contrast, Jesus was born with both the sinful and divine nature so He was not destined to sin.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

No. They are not guilty of sin when they are born. However, since they are born only with a sinful nature, they are destined to sin. In contrast, Jesus was born with both the sinful and divine nature so He was not destined to sin.

Shane, & Pnat, here are some texts to consider.

1. ESV | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NIV | Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

NRSV | Ps 51:5 Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

NLT | Ps 51:5 For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

2. ESV | Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

NIV | Ps 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

NRSV | Ps 58:3 The wicked go astray from the womb; they err from their birth, speaking lies.

NLT | Ps 58:3 These wicked people are born sinners; even from birth they have lied and gone their own way.

3. ESV | Ro 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

NLT | Ro 5:12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned

4. ESV | Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind

NLT | Eph 2:3 All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else.

"By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger," WHY? BECAUSE EVERYONE descended from Adam EXCEPT ONE, was 1) conceived in sin, 2)infected with the sin virus that Satan infected Adam with, 3) and so are born sinners 4) born already guilty. 5) estranged from the womb.

What makes an innocent looking baby all these? Is it not the evil cravings that is already in his very nature just like a cocaine baby craving for cocaine? Would you say Jesus had this kind of nature? If He was born with a sinful flesh just like the rest of us, with all the craving and propensity to do wrong, He would have been a child of wrath just like the rest us, and would have needed a savior himself.

[Dr. Rich]

Here is my believe and opinion for what it is worth:

1. Adam was made mortal-he was going to die regardless IF he sinned or not! If he did not sin, then he would not have to die the 'second death' and--he could have avoided the first death by eating from the tree of life, IF he had access to it. (Gen. 3:22-24) Adam's first death was the consequence, not the penalty.

2. Adam should have been killed by God (the second death), for his failure to obey the words of God; on the same day he ate the fruit. However, Michael, (The Lord God called "I AM) stepped in and said he would take on the punishment (not the sin) for Adam ONLY--on the condition that Adam (and Eve) repent and become righteous. This is NOT a free gift; it was conditional on their works/deeds. Why? Because if it were a free gift (grace) then why did God establish a test in the first place? In fact, God test everyone to see what their FREE choice will be-and He does not interfere with that test as many mistakenly believe.

3. You and I would not be here today IF God had executed Adam, therefore you and I (humans) are penalized at birth by the same penalty that Adam should have received. But, for the same reason that Adam did not receive the penalty, we too CAN be bonded from this penalty under the same condition given to Adam, and that is to obey the Commandments and the words of God and become righteous thereby overcoming sin.

4. Michael came to this earth as a zygote (in the flesh) placed into Mary, a righteous virgin girl’s womb by God the Father and the Holy Spirit (Jesus’ real Parents) so that He would not be under the same penalty as all human kind. Jesus did NOT have to die, but did in order to pay Adam’s initial penalty and to purchase (bond) a kingdom (KOH) from all humans regardless of race, nationality or tongue. (Dan. 12:1-4; Matt. 1; Luke 1; Dan. 2; Rev. 5:9-10.)

5. Jesus told Pilate “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37)

6. Jesus’ nature can be found in John 14:10,11.

[pnattmbtc]

G:Before I go through your posts to respond to them, let me ask you one question:

Are the descendants of Adam born sinful or not?

p:They are born with sinful flesh. To answer beyond that, I'd have to know what you mean.

G:Let me then rephrase the question. Are the descendants of Adam born SINNERS or not? Or do they BECOME sinners only after they knowingly commit a sin?

This is basically asking what the definition of a "sinner" is, isn't it? If the definition of "sinner" is "one who sins," then that would seem to indicate that one is not a sinner until one sins. If a newborn, or infant, is a sinner, then it would stand to reason that the newborn/infant sins. That would also beg the question as to what "sin" is.

I prefer not to dwell much on question which involve newborns. We're told how it was that Christ was able to be tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, is a mystery unexplained to mortals, so I don't see the point in trying to figure this out. Instead, I'm happy to know that Christ assumed "our sinful nature," and did so to be able to succor those who are tempted and to provide an example. I have found Jones and Waggoner's messages (heavily endorsed by EGW) to be very helpful.

[pnattmbtc]

I think the idea that if you sins, God will kill you, is most unfortunate. IMO, it both misunderstands sin and God.

[Gerr]

Pnat: This is basically asking what the definition of a "sinner" is, isn't it? If the definition of "sinner" is "one who sins," then that would seem to indicate that one is not a sinner until one sins. If a newborn, or infant, is a sinner, then it would stand to reason that the newborn/infant sins. That would also beg the question as to what "sin" is.

Gerry: There is no begging the question at all. The definition sin is clear. Sin is transgression of the law. Jesus made it clear that we sin in two levels: 1) sin in the heart, which precedes the next, 2) sin in the act.

As the psalmist said, "I am born a sinner," "born guilty," "estranged from the womb." Of what is a newborn or a toddler guilty of? It can't be level 2 sin since he hasn't had a chance to do anything. So it has to be a level 1 sin, a sin of the heart. The wise man said, ESV | Pr 22:15 "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,..." And from the psalmist, NIV | Ps 58:3 "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." Lies from the womb? That can't be anything else other than the evil propensities imprinted in the sinful flesh, just waiting to be manifested in deeds.

Pnat: I prefer not to dwell much on question which involve newborns.

Well, you shouldn't be afraid to tackle the newborn, since the Bible itslef tackles the issue as I have shown. This is the reason I abandoned the "Jesus had sinful flesh" notion.

[phkrause]

1. Adam was made mortal-he was going to die regardless IF he sinned or not!

I disagree. Hence the reason they were barred from the garden of eden and the tree of life.

[Dr. Shane]

1. ESV | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

[Dr. Rich]

Huh? Really PK? If they were created immortal and could not die, then why the tree of life? This just doesn't make sense to me.

Check out in Revelation what the leaves of the tree of life are doing for those OUTSIDE of the New J City. Those living inside do NOT need the leaves---do they? Why?

And why have a body of dirt and the breath of God to make a living soul IF man was created immortal?

Do you have any bible scripture to prove your opinion?

And how can Jesus be the seed of Abraham since Jesus was before Abraham? (John 3:13, Luke 2:48-50 and Matthew 12:46-50)

And how come Jesus NEVER called Mary "mother"?