Christ's human nature...

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

"He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

What in this quote do you think suggests that Jesus was born with inherent propensities (like Adam's posterity)of disobedience?

For me it is in the words, "He was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted."

What are your, or anyone else's, thoughts about this?

I noticed that when the question is asked that the answer seems to only include the part of the quote that refers Christ taking on our nature but fails to note the word "but" when EGW begins her comparison of Jesus to the rest of Adam's posterity. This word connects the following thought with the just completed thought,and it occurs twice in the quote. Both times in reference to the difference between Jesus and the rest of Adam's posterity at birth.Jesus was not tempted (as far as what the Bible records) on suppressing the constant desire to indulge His natural sinful lusts.This distinction and the wording of the discussion is cause for most of the disagreement.I think Gerry has done a good job in trying to clarify some of the difficulties in translation. I would ask a return question if I may?Why do you think the position you take is important to understand? Why is Gerry's position unacceptable?

[pnattmbtc]

Pnat: First comment is that this is from the infamous Baker letter. This was a private letter, so it's very difficult to interpret, since we don't know the circumstances behind her writing it. Her counsel was that we consider her published works for determining her views on such things, but, inevitably, when the subject of Christology comes up, out pops the Baker letter.

Did you know there was a private letter where she spoke of Christ's having "evil tendencies"? That's right, but that one usually doesn't get discussed.

G:Infamous? If the revelation came first that He did not have inherent propensity to sin, how could it be infamous to express the same thought in a private letter.

[pnattmbtc]

p:God the Father was the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God from eternity, not because of the Holy Spirit's actions.

G:Let me repeat, we are discussing here Christ's HUMAN nature. As a HUMAN being, He became "Son of God" at conception.

[pnattmbtc]

Biologically speaking, it is impossible for ANY living thing to exist without DNA. Nor is it possible for humans to have only 23 chromosomes. Jesus had flesh, blood, & bones. These can function ONLY through DNA direction. Presumably only 23 of His came from human source and the other 23 must have been of Divine origin, the same One that gave Adam untainted DNA in the beginning. This ALONE should tell us that Jesus was not completely like us!

1.This would make His assumed human nature half sinless and half sinful.

2.Nobody says Jesus was completely like us. He was God, and had a sinless nature. Upon that sinless nature He took our sinful nature. That makes Him unique, not to mention the fact that He never sinned. However, He did have the same flesh the rest of us have.

[pnattmbtc]

Pnat: I guess you didn't understand the point. I'll try to be clearer.

If simply having fallen flesh means that one is morally depraved, then at the moment Elijah and Moses were translated (at which point they still had sinful flesh), they would be, by our definition, "morally depraved." I'm saying this doesn't make sense. The fact that they were translated means they were NOT morally depraved, which means that moral depravity is not dependent upon the flesh that one has.

:There's nothing in inspiration which suggests that "moral depravity" comes from one's flesh. If this were true, then Elijah and Moses were morally depraved when they were translated, as will be the 144,000.

Gerry:What you are telling me is that it is possible to get clean, pure, water from a tainted spring? Impossible! Jesus Himself said, ESV | Jn 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." That's why He HAD TO BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT FROM CONCEPTION. Adam became depraved because he chose to. We ARE depraved not only because we choose to but also because we ARE BORN depraved. That's why we need to be born again! If our present bodies can be modified to become holy, then then there would be no need for the new birth.

As for Moses, Elijah, and Enoch, they would have had to be glorified to be translated. They shed their sinful flesh during translation.

This isn't dealing with the point I made. The point is:

1.You said that having sinful flesh makes you morally depraved.

2.A person, right before translation, still has sinful flesh.

3.Therefore said person, according to your definition, would be morally depraved.

My point is that it doesn't make sense to say that Moses, Elijah, the 144,000, were/will be morally depraved as they are about to be translated.

Moral depravity has to do with character, not with flesh.

[pnattmbtc]

p:The SOP says that Christ accepted the workings of the great law of heredity, and that the results of this law are seen in His ancestors. What do you think this means? Do you think it means that if we look at Christ's ancestors we would see that they got tired?

G:I already told you that to me it means that Christ did not have the VITALITY that Adam had, but that He had the vitality of a body that was the victim of 4k+ years of inherited degeneracy, but had the MORAL PURITY that Adam was created with.

p:I know what you said, but I'm asking you about what Ellen White said here. She said that Christ accepted the working of the great law of heredity, and that the results of this law are seen in his ancestors. I'm asking you what you think the results which are seen in his ancestors are. What results?

G:I thought I made it clear, so let me try again. What Christ accepted was the result of the working of the great law of heredity that resulted in a body 4k+ yrs removed from the tree of life, i.e. lesser in stature, and more importantly, much less vitality. But He had the moral purity of Adam, not just because He did not commit a sin, but also that He did NOT have inherent propensity for sin.

[pnattmbtc]

I noticed that when the question is asked that the answer seems to only include the part of the quote that refers Christ taking on our nature but fails to note the word "but" when EGW begins her comparison of Jesus to the rest of Adam's posterity. This word connects the following thought with the just completed thought,and it occurs twice in the quote. Both times in reference to the difference between Jesus and the rest of Adam's posterity at birth.

[Gerr]

Pnat: Gerry, you're not considering the question. She says what the results of this law, the great law of heredity, are shown in His ancestors. I'm asking you what you think the results which are seen in his ancestors are.

Obviously my answer was not specific enough, so let me elaborate. 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..

[Gerr]

Gerry:If He had a flesh full of sin as we do, then the passage, "in Him is no sin" could not be true.

Pnat:

Sure it could. He never sinned. That's what the passage means. This is how all our pioneers understood this.

Gerry:That cannot be!

But it is! This is, indeed, how all our pioneers understood this.

Were the pioneers correct in all their beliefs?

It took them a while to learn of the Sabbath, the Trinity, of clean & unclean foods.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh." That's why it MUST die, born again. To have the inherent propensity to sin means that sin has infected the organism. That's why the psalmist could say, "In sin did my mother conceive me." That's why every descendant of Adam was/is born a "child of wrath."

[Gerr]

I think the problem is that you are only seeing the contrast in the quote and failing to see that there is also a parallel. The parallel is that Christ being the Second Adam did NOT have inherent propensities to sin; He was pure & sinless just LIKE the first Adam. Then comes the contrast - the first Adam, created pure & sinless COULD have sinned, AND DID sin, BUT the Second Adam did not.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Pnat: Gerry, you're not considering the question. She says what the results of this law, the great law of heredity, are shown in His ancestors. I'm asking you what you think the results which are seen in his ancestors are.

Gerry:Obviously my answer was not specific enough, so let me elaborate. 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..

You're missing the point, Gerry. Here's the quote again:

Quote:

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)

One of Christ's ancestors was a prostitute. Others were murderers and adulterers. Every sort of vice and sin is what one sees in Christ's ancestors. This is her point here. Nobody would read this and conclude that she meant that Christ's ancestors got tired, or had a different lifespan. She was obviously not referring to that. The point is that Christ had the same heredity that we have in terms of having the same ancestors.

Here's the same point spelled out in detail: (CWCP = "The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, by A. T. Jones).

Quote:

If He took not the same flesh and blood that the children of men have with its liability to sin, then where could there be any philosophy or reason of any kind whatever in His genealogy as given in the Scriptures? He was descended from David; He was descended from Abraham; He was descended from Adam and, by being made of a woman, He reached even back of Adam to the beginning of sin in the world. {CWCP 42.2}

In that genealogy there are Jehoiakim, who for his wickedness was “buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 22:19); Manasseh, who caused Judah to do “worse than the heathen;” Ahaz, who “made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord;” Rehoboam, who was born of Solomon after Solomon turned from the Lord; Solomon himself, who was born of David and Bathsheba; there are also Ruth the Moabitess and Rahab; as well as Abraham, Isaac, Jesse, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah: the worst equally with the best. And the evil deeds of even the best are recorded equally with the good. And in this whole 43genealogy there is hardly one whose life is written upon at all of whom there is not some wrong act recorded. {CWCP 42.3}

Now it was at the end of such a genealogy as that that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” It was at the end of such a genealogy as that that He was made of a woman.” It was in such a line of descent as that that God sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” And such a descent, such a genealogy, meant something to Him, as it does to every other man, under the great law that the iniquities of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations. It meant everything to Him in the terrible temptations in the wilderness of temptation, as well as all the way through His life in the flesh. {CWCP 43.1}

[pnattmbtc]

Gerry:If He had a flesh full of sin as we do, then the passage, "in Him is no sin" could not be true.

pnat:Sure it could. He never sinned. That's what the passage means. This is how all our pioneers understood this.

Gerry:That cannot be!

pnat:But it is! This is, indeed, how all our pioneers understood this.

Gerry:Were the pioneers correct in all their beliefs?

It took them a while to learn of the Sabbath, the Trinity, of clean & unclean foods.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh." That's why it MUST die, born again. To have the inherent propensity to sin means that sin has infected the organism. That's why the psalmist could say, "In sin did my mother conceive me." That's why every descendant of Adam was/is born a "child of wrath."

[John317]

She wrote the following after one of the times they preached:

"Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." {5BC 1082.1}

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

"It is the greatest mixture of fanaticism in the truth that I ever have seen. I would not claim that we managed it the best way in everything, and yet I do not know where I made any mistake. We tried to do the very best we could, and had they not have talked against us and misrepresented our position, there would have been no confusion with the people. But when we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.

Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this: They believe that Christ took Adam's nature before He fell; so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden; and thus humanity was holy, and this was the humanity which Christ had; and now, they say, the particular time has come for us to become holy in that same sense, and then we will have 'translation faith'; and never die."(letter written to Ellen White, 9/25/00)

Haskell wrote in the Review and Herald one week later (10/2/00) the following:

"Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking his nature might overcome. Made in the likeness of sinful flesh, he lived a sinless life. Now by his divinity he lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by his humanity he reaches us." DA 311, 312

"This is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations. He who was as spotless while on earth as when in heaven took our nature, that he might lift man to the exaltation of himself by his righteousness."

The first paragraph is a quote from "The Desire of Ages," pages 311,312. The second is Haskell's comment. Ellen White was privy to this. If he was misquoting her, she'd have let him know.

Thanks for posting this, pnatt.

[pnattmbtc]

Usually in these conversations, all that's considered is what Ellen White said, and people try to parse out phrases involving "propensities" and so forth. Rarely to people look at what was happening historically. But this is the clearest way to see what her position actually was. There's no ambiguity when we consider the historical context.

(The same thing is true for Paul's theology as well. People have all sorts of ideas about what Paul meant, which are impossible if the historical context is taken into consideration. But that's another topic!)

[Gerr]

Pnat:You're missing the point, Gerry. Here's the quote again:

You don't think these are the result of degenerating heredity?

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..

Prostitution, murder, and adultery are manifestations of decisions that could be the result of a weakened will from thousands of years of degeneration or they may not. Adam decided to disobey God. There was nothing in his genetic make-up that would have prompted him to do it. Cain had no murderer for parents. Noah as far as we know did not have drunken parents. But there is no doubt in my mind that after the sin of Adam, it was easier for his diescendants to make the wrong decisions, but I doubt that the decision to become a murderer or adulterer is something that is inherited.

[Gerr]

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

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?

The psalmist plainly states he was conceived in sin. Presumably, so are we.

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. What does "holy" mean to you? Here is what it means to me:

40. &#7941;&#947;&#953;&#959;&#962; hágios; fem. hagía, neut. hágion (39), adj. from hágos (n.f.), any matter of religious awe, expiation, sacrifice. Holy, set apart, sanctified, consecrated, saint. It has a common root, hág-, with hagnós (53), chaste, pure. Its 40. &#7941;&#947;&#953;&#959;&#962; hágios; fem. hagía, neut. hágion (39), adj. from hágos (n.f.), any matter of religious awe, expiation, sacrifice. Holy, set apart, sanctified, consecrated, saint. It has a common root, hág-, with hagnós (53), chaste, pure. Its fundamental idea is separation, consecration, devotion to the service of Deity, sharing in God’s purity and abstaining from earth’s defilement.(I) Pure, clean, ceremonially or morally clean, including the idea of deserved respect, reverence.

(A) It particularly means perfect, without blemish (Rom. 12:1).

(Metaphorically it means morally pure, upright, blameless in heart and life, virtuous, holy.

Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

What it says to me is that one can't be morally clean and pure in heart if there's some inclination inside to commit murder or adultery or steal just waiting for the opportunity to take control. But according to you as I understand it, what really set Jesus apart from you & me is that He resisted it? One can't be holy, separate from the profane if at the core one is just like the rest of us.

[Gerr]

Pnat quoting DA: " Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ he lived a sinless life."

If EGW meant to say that Christ had sinful flesh, why did she quote Paul who used "likeness" meaning - resemblance, similitude?

One point which I have brought out at least on two occasions but have not seen you comment on it is these:

If Jesus had born with inherent propensity/inclination for sin, why then did He not sin before He is ABLE to say "No" to sin? Every descendant of Adam is born SELFISH, and sinned/sins before they know right from wrong. Was Jesus born selfish?

Every descendant of Adam were/are born "children of wrath." Was Jesus born a child of wrath?

Pnat quoting EGW: "Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man’s nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man’s behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature." {5BC 1082.1}

Was Adam a man? Was he tempted? Did he fall? It is totally erroneous to claim that if one had the pre-fallen nature of Adam that he/she would/could not be tempted or fall!!! Adam did fall. Even the covering cherub, Lucifer, fell!!!

[Guest]

If He took not the same flesh and blood that the children of men have with its liability to sin, then where could there be any philosophy or reason of any kind whatever in His genealogy as given in the Scriptures? {CWCP 42}

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)

Between these two quotes alone Gerry, it pretty well makes your notion that Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall, null and void.

[Gerr]

Pnat: This looks to be saying that Christ could have sinned; He could have fallen, but He didn't. It's contrasting that Adam could sin, and did, with the fact that Christ could have sinned, but didn't. Also, she writes that "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." As I've explained to Gerry, it doesn't make sense to say this in regards to that which comes from DNA. She says we need not retain any sinful propensities. If these propensities were dealing with DNA, we would have to retain them

Did you not notice my post where I said that it is apparent that EGW was using propensity in the sense of 1) inherent - being born with it as a result of Adam's sin, and 2) acquired - the result of practised sinning? The former you cannot escape from until glorification when we receive a new body, and the latter are actions that pass through the will, and therefore by grace do not have to be retained?

Pnat: This is making the same point as the paragraph a few paragraphs earlier (the one quoted above). The first Adam fell, but the second Adam didn't. You can see how the paragraph contrasts Adam's actions with Christ's.

Again, you keep seeing ONLY the contrast and fail to see the parallel comparison. Here it is again:

"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through

transgressing. because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. ".

That's the parallel comparison - the first Adam was created pure & sinless, without a taint of sin. The Second Adam did not have any propensity to sin just LIKE the first Adam. TWO ADAMS COMPARED. Now for the contrast: "He could fall, and he did fall through

transgressing. because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."

I don't know what you have against parsing what she said when you were trying to do the same with what he said? Furthermore, don't we do the same thing with the Bible?

[Gerr]

Regarding the product of heredity, here's what I said:

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..

Prostitution, murder, and adultery are manifestations of decisions that could be the result of a weakened will from thousands of years of degeneration or they may not. Adam decided to disobey God. There was nothing in his genetic make-up that would have prompted him to do it. Cain had no murderer for parents. Noah as far as we know did not have drunken parents. But there is no doubt in my mind that after the sin of Adam, it was easier for his diescendants to make the wrong decisions, but I doubt that the decision to become a murderer or adulterer is something that is inherited.

Richard: Between these two quotes alone Gerry, it pretty well makes your notion that Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall, null and void.

And totally disregard Lk 1:35? That ALONE should tell us that as one conceived through the Holy Spirit and called "holy" from conception, should be enough to tell us He did not have sinful inclinations.

And also totally disregard the Baker letter where she plainly says that He did not have the inherent propensity?

And BTW, I can't seem to find the first quote you presented.

[Gerr]

Pnat: There was a movement around the turn of the 20th century that argued like this:

1.Christ did not have sinful flesh (<== typical pre-lapsarian position).

2.To be ready for translation, we need to be like Christ, and also not have sinful flesh.

Actually, the perfectionists argument that I have come across with is that:

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. And that's what many believe that those who will be translated alive when Jesus comes will have achieved, specifically the 144,000.

[Gerr]

Between these two quotes alone Gerry, it pretty well makes your notion that Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall, null and void.

"If He took not the same flesh and blood that the children of men have with its liability to sin, then where could there be any philosophy or reason of any kind whatever in His genealogy as given in the Scriptures? He was descended from David; He was descended from Abraham; He was descended from Adam and, by being made of a woman, He reached even back of Adam to the beginning of sin in the world." {CWCP 42.2}

I just saw where this was posted and attributed to A.T. Jones. That's why I couldn't find it in my EGW disc. Sorry, but I don't use Jones for authority. Besides, I don't see that Christ having >4k yrs of degenerated heredity minus the sinful flesh means that He was above temptation and not more liable to sin than Adam. Adam himself, in his sinless purity was NOT above temptation. Lucifer himself was NOT above sinning! Of course, Christ would have been more liable/likely to have sinned since He had degenerated vitality even if He had the moral purity of Adam.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Ellen G. White

If He took not the same flesh and blood that the children of men have with its liability to sin, then where could there be any philosophy or reason of any kind whatever in His genealogy as given in the Scriptures? {CWCP 42}

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. (DA 49)

Between these two quotes alone Gerry, it pretty well makes your notion that Jesus had the nature of Adam before the fall, null and void.

I'd say so..

[Dr. Shane]

This issue is so simply and easy to understand, I don't know why Adventists argue among themselves about it. Jesus was fully man (with a sinful nature) and fully God (with a divine nature). Why is that so hard to understand?

[doug yowell]

As I've explained to Gerry, it doesn't make sense to say this in regards to that which comes from DNA. She says we need not retain any sinful propensities. If these propensities were dealing with DNA, we would have to retain

DNA.SHMEENA,Mrs. White does not address the DNA factor and I don't think Gerry rests his case on it either. She simply states that Christ "not for one moment"had an evil propensity in Him. This I take to simply mean that at birth,at the ages of 2,5,8,11,and 33(not for one moment) He had no such propensity. Your "need not retain any sinful propensity',when applied to her previous statement,makes her say that,having the same fallen(sinful?)nature as Adam's posterity,Jesus did not "retain" His sinful propensities.One cannot retain what one does not have. And propensity at birth cannot be a bent towards something that has been acted on.