Featured The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

Are you on drugs or drunk?

What are you talking about?

 

Why should I care about what you reject?

That isn't in dispute and thus does not qualify as an "alternative view". What Christian anywhere ever suggested that Jesus had a fallen nature? That would be massively heretical.

That's a massive part of the story but the virgin birth also gives an explanation that is both reasonable and consistent with the biblical material as to how the incarnation was accomplished without Jesus inheriting the very problem He came here to fix.

 

Genesis 2:9 for starters.
Genesis 2:17.
Genesis 3:5.
Genesis 3:22.
And all of what it has to do with mankind's sinful condition.

 

You need to start making sense.

 

But I did.
Genesis 2:9 for starters.
Genesis 2:17.
Genesis 3:5.
Genesis 3:22.
And all of what it has to do with mankind's sinful condition.

You know I could add the references quotes. Then it wouldn't help you understand it.

 

It seems @CJP69 wanted to make an issue about Jesus not having an human father in order to not have a sin nature?

 

That is precisely what I said. The sin nature is passed through the father. This is how Jesus could be born of a woman and not have a fallen nature.

 

So how do you explain the incarnate Son in Hebrews 4:15, . . . was in all points tempted like as we are, . . .?"

 

Enough to tell them the truth, even when it hurts their feelings.

The fact that everyone's human father is also their biological father does not prove that the passing of their spiritual nature is passed biologically. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. It doesn't matter in regards to my doctrine. You want to focus on biology. I see no reason to do so. I don't care whether the process by which the fallen nature is passed is biological in nature or not. Perhaps its entirely spiritual. I don't know. What I do know is that, whether biologically or otherwise, the sin nature passes through the father.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Even if that were the case, which I very much doubt that you could establish, it is not relevant. In fact, I'd tend to intuitively, (and therefore very tentatively) accept that the transfer of our spiritual condition is not accomplished by purely physical (i.e. biological) means.

You cannot know this.

Regardless, once again, whether the transmission is biological or not, it is paternal.

 

What's there to explain?

 

Excellent point!

Jesus is the last Adam!

It is sin that corrupts, not flesh. In fact, sin is simply a corruption of what are otherwise righteous and godly fleshly desires. It is not sin to eat. It is a sin to be a glutton. It is not a sin to desire nice things. It is a sin to covet or to steal.

Thus, there is no conflict inherent in the idea of God become flesh.

 

You really do not know?

James 1:13, . . . for God cannot be tempted with evil, . . .".
The incarnate Son of God did not cease to be fully God.

 

Once again. This is not relevant. I simply do not care whether its biological or not.

Having said that, Genesis 3:7 has nothing to do with how the sin nature is passed to Adam and Eve's children and therefore does not even support, never mind establish, your thesis.

Widely held? Who here beside me is making such an assertion?

In other words, you use of language doesn't impress me. Stop trying to sound intellectual and talk like a regular human being.

That is not the basis and no one has ever received "original sin". The doctrine of original sin is blasphemy of the highest order and cannot be rationally supported by anyone by any means. God is just, therefore the doctrine of oringinal sin is a lie.

Further, Jesus was decended from Adam through his mother Eve. Our fallen nature is not passed through the mother but through the father, by whatever means. This is why it is your father's sir name that you inherit and it is the father who names their children (biblically speaking and in most cases). Jesus' Father was God the Father. His Father is who named Him and because He had no earthly father, He did not have a fallen nature as do all the rest of us who were all begotten of an heir of Adam.

First the argument misstates what Romans 5:12 says. What it does convey is that Adam brought about sin (the consequence of Adam's sin) entering the world (humanity). Not in dispute. And Jesus is certainly a biological descendant of Adam. Also not in dispute. Now to the actual issue. Was Jesus ever "in Adam" and what does being "in Adam" mean. Basically if you are Christ, you are not in Adam, and if you are in Christ (a born anew believer sibling of Christ) you are not in Adam.

This is Calvinist gobbledygook that is not biblical. It is based on the Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of original sin. It is perfectly in sync with their disgusting notion that God is arbitrary rather than just and the whole concept falls into dust after one single reading of Ezekiel 18 (the entire chapter).

God is just! Therefore, no one will die as a punishment of Adam's sin (other than Adam perhaps). The man who sins shall die but he who does not sin be preserved alive (spiritually speaking). This is made possible in spite of the problem of our fallen natures by means of Christ's death. Thus, Paul does not say that he was born spiritually dead but just the opposite! He rightly declares that , "I was alive once, without the law, but when the law came, sin revived and I died."

 

I am responding with the same level of laziness as your posts exemplify.

And so you believe that James contradicts the author of Hebrews? LOL!!!!

People who read the bible as though it were only one volume of a whole stack of law books, crack me up!

Which do you deny, that Jesus is God or that Jesus was tempted?

 

A couple of scripture examples;

"For he was yet in the loins of his father,
when Melchisedec met him." Hebrews 7:10

"...have a commandment to take tithes of the people
according to the law, that is, of their brethren,
though they come out of the loins of Abraham:" Hebrews 7:5b.

"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt,
which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives,
all the souls were threescore and six;" Genesis 46:26.
...

A comment;

Jesus' body was part of what was Elected
and Prepared for Him to Assume, in the womb of Mary.

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast thou prepared Me:" Hebrews 10:5.