Christ's human nature...

[Sonny]

If the logic is:

1.Newborns need a Savior.

2.Therefore having sinful flesh necessitates needing a Savior.

3.Therefore Christ could not have had sinful flesh, because then He would have needed a Savior.

This logic has holes in it.

How so? Look at Gerry's reference to Psalms 51:5

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

David brings out two points:

a] He was sinful at birth

b] He was sinful at conception.

"b" can't refer to the mind accepting temptation through the nature because at conception the mind hasn't even begun to be developed. So "sinful" at "conception" must refer to his mother's genetic material passed on to David through procreation.

If Christ took upon His Deity our humanity after the fall then His humanity was the same as David's - sinful by both conception & birth.

By the way, I am not stating that Christ's performance was flawed. His performance was perfect, unblemished obedience to God's law.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

The main question is does an infant who dies at birth need a Savior?

I think the main question, in the context of this thread, is "Did Christ assume our sinful nature?" In regards to your question, if we say yes, a newborn needs a Savior, that begs the question, "Why?"

G: If a baby is conceived in sin and born a sinner, then s/he automatically needs a savior and there is NO begging the question. If s/he is NOT born a sinner and yet one says s/he needs a savior, THEN logically we would ask why?

Pnat: If the logic is:

1.Newborns need a Savior.

2.Therefore having sinful flesh necessitates needing a Savior.

3.Therefore Christ could not have had sinful flesh, because then He would have needed a Savior.

This logic has holes in it.

G: If by "sinful flesh" you mean flesh that has inherent inclination/propensity to do evil, flesh that is indwelt and ruled by sin as Paul in Rom 7 says fallen human nature to be, then show where the hole is in the above logic. If Christ had this kind of corruption in Him, He would NOT have been the Lamb that is WITHOUT blemish! And He would have needed a savior Himself!

BTW, I think there is something wrong with your syllogism. You have two conclusions in it.

[Sonny]

Humans are not condemned merely for being born with fallen natures.

Humans are condemned for both,

a] having a sinful nature and

b] transgression

In order to enter heaven we must,

c] have our transgressions forgiven by accepting both the imputed & imparted righteousness of Christ and

d] receive a glorified humanity free from inward sin (i.e., the sin nature) at the second coming. We can't take our sinful nature to heaven because it too is sin - sin in the flesh.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

Do you mean human substance or body of flesh? As Paul describes it:

Colossians 2:9 NAS

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Would not God be able to give Jesus flesh without Mary's DNA? God gave Adam flesh without any preexisting DNA.

Why would it be necessary for God to do this?

If Christ didn't have Mary's DNA, in what way was Christ a descendent of Adam, Abraham and David? The prophecy was that the Messiah would be a son of David. If Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a son of David, then He didn't fulfill the prophecy and thus Jesus would not be the Messiah to come.

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

If we are all born with sin in the "flesh", then wouldn't Jesus be born with sin in the "flesh" from Mary's DNA or was Mary, as the Catholic's teach, without sin from birth?

Mary was not without sin from birth, and yes, Jesus had Mary's DNA. The Roman Catholics are wrong on this. They make the claim that Mary was born immaculate because they believe God condemns humans for being born as descendents of Adam, but this is an error. Humans are not condemned merely for being born with fallen natures. Jesus condemned sin in flesh by showing that people in the flesh can obey God.

Romans 8:1-5

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. [3] For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, [4] in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

God (Father and Holy Spirit and the One who lived in the form of an angel, Michael [who is like God]) were Adam's progenitors, in other words Adam was their son. In order to qualify as the Redeemer said Redeemer must meet two qualifications. One he must be born of a woman (son of man). Two he must be born of God (Son of God). Jesus met both requirements for He preceded Adam and gave birth to him, and also was born of a daughter of Adam. Throughout His ministry Jesus said that He was Son of God and Son of Man. It is without question that Joseph, who's tribal linage (Judah) gave Jesus His Son of David name, but Joseph contributed nothing genetically to the conception. We are not told what tribe Mary came from, but we are told that her cousin Elizabeth was of the daughters of Levi. Mary could have been from the tribe of Levi. This is interesting, because we understand that Jesus is both King and Priest.

The following text would indicate that Jesus both preceded and followed David.

Revelation 22:16 NAS

"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

A question on Jesus true nature. Was Jesus the Passover Lamb?

[John317]

In order to enter heaven we must,

c] have our transgressions forgiven by accepting both the imputed & imparted righteousness of Chrit and

d] receive a glorified humanity free from inward sin (i.e., the sin nature) at the second coming. We can't take our sinful nature to heaven because it too is sin - sin in the flesh.

This is true. Enoch, Elijah and Moses were given glorified humanity free from inward sin when they were translated to heaven.

I agree with you also about the necessity of both teh imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ.

[John317]

.. Jesus... preceded Adam and gave birth to him,

Yes, the pre-incarnate Christ preceded Adam and created him. Christ did not really give birth to Adam, however. Adam was never a part of Christ. When someone gives birth to someone else, it means they came out of someone else's body. Of course this is not the case with Adam. He was God's son only in the sense that he was made in the image of God, and that's not the same sense in which we say that the Messiah would be the descendent of David. The Bible meant that the Savior would come out of David, not merely be called by David's name. Jesus is the "Root and Offspring of David" (Rev. 22: 16). Of course, the Messiah is also God.

[wayfinder]

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb? The answer to this question will tell us alot about the nature of Jesus.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Here is an interesting statement from Ellen White:

"All may now obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh . The apostle Paul declares, 'I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing' (Rom. 7:18).'" (Ref unknown)

Here is what the above tells me:

a] As a believer I can have my mind transformed, i.e., I can have a mind in harmony with God's law, but simultaneously,

b] my human body is corrupted by the sinful nature.

Not if you're going by Ellen White's usage. "Corrupted" implies having sinned, according to EGW usage. She does speak of Christ's haven taken our fallen nature, degraded and defiled by sin, however.

G: I checked out the 23 hits in EGW's writings referring to corruption by sin. I don't see that her usage rules out corruption in the sense of "to be infected" or "to be contaminated", which were the meanings in vogue in her day.

P: Anyway, whatever you call it, "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature" or "fallen nature, degraded and defiled by sin," the human nature that we are born with is what Christ assumed. We know this in several ways:

1.DA 49 tells us that like every child of Adam, Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity, the results of which is seen in His ancestors.

2.In MM 181, she tells us that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His own sinless nature. "Our sinful nature" is our sinful nature.

3.She defended Waggoner and Jones' teaching on the subject when she preached with them in 1892.

4.She endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" which was about how Christ took sinful flesh.

5.She worked with Jones, Prescott, Waggoner and Haskell to counter the Holy Flesh teachings, which was done primarily by countering their teaching that Christ did not come in sinful flesh such as we have.

G: I have already pointed out that nowhere did Jones or Prescott (at least in the articles you brought out), ever go so far as to say that Jesus was born with an inherent propensity/inclination for sin. And EGW plainly stated that He did NOT have inherent propensity for sin and that is what the church officially has as her doctrine in the book, "SDAs Believe".

[Gerr]

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb? The answer to this question will tell us alot about the nature of Jesus.

G: Of course, He was! And that Lamb had to be WITHOUT blemish. Had He been tainted by inherited TENDENCY/PROPENSITY to/for sin, He would have been disqualified.

[John317]

...We are not told what tribe Mary came from, but we are told that her cousin Elizabeth was of the daughters of Levi. Mary could have been from the tribe of Levi.

Elizabeth and Mary were related, but it isn't necessary that they both have the same genealogy. In fact, they almost certainly did not have the same genealogy. Jesus was of the lineage of Judah, that is, of the same tribe as David, just as the prophecy had predicted hundreds of years beforehand. The fact that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives (Luke 1: 36), means that Elizabeth and Mary were possibly the offspring of siblings. Those siblings were no doubt married to people of different tribes, which would result in their being "daughters" of different tribes. But we really don't know how they were related since the Greek word [suggenes--Strongs #4773, literally "kinswoman"] may be understood in various ways.

[Gerr]

Jn: Mary was not without sin from birth, and yes, Jesus had Mary's DNA. The Roman Catholics are wrong on this. They make the claim that Mary was born immaculate because they believe God condemns humans for being born as descendents of Adam, but this is an error. Humans are not condemned merely for being born with fallen natures. Jesus condemned sin in flesh by showing that people in the flesh can obey God.

G: We are not condemned for having a weakened or fallen nature. We are condemned as "children of wrath" because we are conceived in sin, having the virus of sin or principle/law of sin in our very members, thus born a sinner. I have asked this several times - was Jesus indwelt by sin, "captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members" like the rest of us?

Jn quoting: Romans 8:1-5

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. [3] For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, [4] in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

G: No condmenation for those who are "in Christ Jesus". When does this take place? Is it not AFTER conversion? i.e., after we have made a conscious decision to choose Him as our Savior and Lord? Until THAT happens, ALL are condemned.

[John317]

Humans are not condemned merely for being born with fallen natures.

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Humans are condemned for both,

a] having a sinful nature and

b] transgression

By "condemned," I mean that humans are not condemned to suffer eternal death merely by virtue of being born with a fallen nature. We all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin in the sense that we inherited Adam's physical nature and thus must die the first death. My parents died a few years ago. They didn't die for their personal sins but because of being of the same nature as Adam after the Fall. Yet that first death is not the death that God sentenced humanity to if they should sin. The wages of sin that Romans 6: 23 refers to is eternal death. Christ underwent this eternal death for us and in our place.

[Dr. Shane]

How so? Look at Gerry's reference to Psalms 51:5

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

David brings out two points:

a] He was sinful at birth

b] He was sinful at conception.

Those that get that out of Pslams 51:5 miss the point.

1) The passage is difficult to translate. Different versions of the Bible translate it differently.

2) David's point is that he is a worthless human being. The passage is part of a prayer he was praying of repentance. His point is that he is sinful through and through. Nothing good is in him.

3) He is not teaching anything about original sin or the nature of Christ.

Catholics use this verse to support the papal doctrine of original sin. That is a perverted use of the verse. The verse is all about our need for Christ because of ourselves we have no value.

I like the NASB translation of the verse.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

I don't see him talking about his nature at all but rather about his environment. If someone were to ask me why I eat corn I could reply, "I was brought forth in Iowa, and in the mid-west my mother conceived me." We eat a lot of corn in Iowa. One would expect me to eat corn if I was born in Iowa.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

...We are not told what tribe Mary came from, but we are told that her cousin Elizabeth was of the daughters of Levi. Mary could have been from the tribe of Levi.

Elizabeth and Mary were related, but it isn't necessary that they both have the same genealogy. In fact, they almost certainly did not have the same genealogy. Jesus was of the lineage of Judah, that is, of the same tribe as David, just as the prophecy had predicted hundreds of years beforehand. The fact that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives (Luke 1: 36), means that Elizabeth and Mary were possibly the offspring of siblings. Those siblings were no doubt married to people of different tribes, which would result in their being "daughters" of different tribes. But we really don't know how they were related since the Greek word [suggenes--Strongs #4773, literally "kinswoman"] may be understood in various ways.

Matthew 1:18 NAS

[Conception and Birth of Jesus] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows : when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Joseph contributed nothing, genetically, to the conception of Jesus. If Jesus connection to the tribe of Judah was through Joseph, then there wasn't any Davidic DNA involved.

I did not say that Mary was a Levite, I only said we are not told the tribe she was of and what if.

[John317]

Joseph contributed nothing, genetically, to the conception of Jesus. If Jesus connection to the tribe of Judah was through Joseph, then there wasn't any Davidic DNA involved.

Many Bible scholars believe that both Mary and Joseph were from the same tribe and had similar lineages. On this view, Luke gave the lineage of Mary going back to Adam and Matthew gave Joseph's going back to Abraham. But you are right that Joseph did not contribute any DNA to Jesus. Yet of course that doesn't mean Jesus had no human DNA from Mary. Jesus Himself says plainly that He was the root and offspring of David. That certainly means that He was physically related to David.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

Was Jesus the Passover Lamb? The answer to this question will tell us alot about the nature of Jesus.

G: Of course, He was! And that Lamb had to be WITHOUT blemish. Had He been tainted by inherited TENDENCY/PROPENSITY to/for sin, He would have been disqualified.

Exactly. If Christ was born with sinful flesh (DNA from a human being) He would have been disqualified as the spotless Lamb. The blood of the Passover Lamb purchased, for God, a kingdom. Jesus time on earth was the required scantification process, which demonstrated to heaven and earth that He was without spot or blemish. We also must go through the sanctification process, but in our case it is to expose spot and blemish, so that we may be cleansed through the action of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, the Spirit of Truth.

John 17:17 NAS

"Sanctify them in the truth ; Your word is truth.

John 17:19,20 NAS

"For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. Thy word is truth.

Revelation 5:9,10 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals ; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

"You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God ; and they will reign upon the earth."

Matthew 5:6 NAS

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied

Matthew 5:8 NAS

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Matthew 5:10 NAS

"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

1 John 3:7 NAS

Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous

[wayfinder]

If after his fall, Adam had sinful flesh and all were to receive this same sinful flesh when born, why does Jesus call Able righteous along with a host of others, in this statement?

Matthew 23:35 NAS

so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar

[John317]

Exactly. If Christ was born with sinful flesh (DNA from a human being) He would have been disqualified as the spotless Lamb.....

If Christ didn't have human DNA, he was a fake human. He would then only have looked human but not been human like you and me. He would then also not be our elder brother and not know what it is like to be tempted in all things like as we are.

I doubt Gerry believes Christ inherited no human DNA from Mary.

From my perspective, by making Christ without human DNA, you are doing the same thing as Roman Catholics do in making Mary immaculately conceived. Both theories want to make Christ exempt. But if Christ was exempt, Satan won and God lost-- because one of the main reasons Christ came was to demonstrate that humans are able to keep God's moral law. Satan accuses God of being unjust and unfair in making a law that no one can keep. So if the only reason Jesus was able to keep the law of God was that He was exempt, then the only thing He proved is that no human being born as we are or as Adam was made can keep God's law and that perfect obedience requires a special birth and a different nature from all other humans.

[wayfinder]

That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is this. God made Adam of the earth and breathed into his nostriles the breath of life and Adam became a living being, neither righteous or unrighteous. Righteousness is the demonstration of doing what is right (law abiding). When Adam disobeyed God's law he demonstrated unrighteousness and by law was to be put to death (second death). He and Eve had a stay of execution, but lost the privilege of access to the tree of life.

Righteousness was, is and always will be an action, not a desease or malady that one catches or inheirits. Able was called righteous by Jesus (see my previous post), he was righteous because of his obedience to God by bringing the required offering. Cain was unrighteous for several reasons. One for not bring the firstfruits of his labors and second for murder.

Christ was executed first to redeem that which was lost when Adam disobeyed. Satan became the ruler of this world with the disobedient act and the Son of God redeemed the world by a righteous (obedience) action. He also purchased the righteous out of the world so that the evil one would have no legal claim upon them. The righteous are in the world, but not of the world.

The main reason the Bridegroom is delaying His coming is that He is waiting for the required few to complete the sanctification process and be born again by the Spirit of God.

[John317]

I agree with almost all of your post here, Wayfinder. :-)

[wayfinder]

:)

[Gerr]

W: Exactly. If Christ was born with sinful flesh (DNA from a human being) He would have been disqualified as the spotless Lamb

G: I would have to disagree with you that Jesus did not have human DNA. He would not have been human if He didn't. The Bible is clear that He is the "Son of Man", born of "flesh & blood", but conceived of the Spirit. How this could all happen is indeed a mystery. Adam & Eve were created lower than angels. They were weaker than angels. And there was not an angel that was on the same level as Lucifer before he fell. So having a weaker, lower level nature in itself does not mean corruption with/by sin. Jesus being the product of degenerate human heredity but without the inherent propensities to sin does not necessarily mean He was tainted by sin if the sin principle had not infected Him at conception or at birth. Therefore He could still be the spotless Passover Lamb.

[Gerr]

Jn: If Christ didn't have human DNA, he was a fake human. He would then only have looked human but not been human like you and me. He would then also not be our elder brother and not know what it is like to be tempted in all things like as we are.

G: That has the scent of gnosticism to me.

[Gerr]

Jn: From my perspective, by making Christ without human DNA, you are doing the same thing as Roman Catholics do in making Mary immaculately conceived. Both theories want to make Christ exempt. But if Christ was exempt, Satan won and God lost-- because one of the main reasons Christ came was to demonstrate that humans are able to keep God's moral law. Satan accuses God of being unjust and unfair in making a law that no one can keep. So if the only reason Jesus was able to keep the law of God was that He was exempt, then the only thing He proved is that no human being born as we are or as Adam was made can keep God's law and that perfect obedience requires a special birth and a different nature from all other humans.

G: It IS true that even born again sinners cannot truly meet the requirements of the law. That is why believers are not under law but under grace. The ONLY way that we can keep the law is through His imputed righteousness. Walking in the Spirit (sanctification), we will never measure up (as Robert used to say & I believe he was right on this), but grace says that if we act by love, even if it falls short, is by grace through the merits of Christ accepted as fulfillment of what the law requires. That's how I understand it.

[Tom Wetmore]

The error in focusing only on Jesus' humanness, i.e., his human DNA, as the basis for Christ demonstrating that humans are able to keep God's moral law, is that it tends to miss, overlook, or minimize the most essential ingredient that in fact made Jesus uniquely able to live sinlessly in reality here on earth. It was only by being both born in the flesh (human DNA) joined fully with the divine DNA (born of or conceived by the Holy Spirit of God just as he told Nicodemus) that he was able to show us the only way it could be done. It is only by being united with God that man can live without sin. That which Jesus did in reality, we can only do by faith, since our DNA is only joined figuratively in a supreme act of trust (faith) when we believe and accept by faith what he did by being "born again." Just as He was born again, conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb, joining the Divine seed with the human DNA, so must we be born again. It will only be a reality for us at the second coming when we all will be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye. There will be a huge grin on the face of God and a bright twinkle in his eye when that which we hold onto now in faith will be a reality, we will be sons and daughters of God, completely and wholly holy. That which was conceived of in the mind of God will then be a reality.