He was just as Adam was as a Human being before Adamfell, as in having sinless humanity, no curse/taint from the fall!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Human Sacrifice that Saves Those Under the Law by the Shed Blood of the Son of God
- Thread starter Steven Yeadon
- Start date
- Status
But not like we are...in the likeness of Adam (in his original state) but not in the likeness of "sinful flesh" (i.e., corruptible flesh subject to death and sickness)?
That would about right!
Adam was a sinless state human who failed the test to sin and dosobeyed God, Jesus was a perfect sinless Man who passed the test....
What passage would you offer those who believe Jesus did come in the likeness of "sinful flesh" as a "son of Adam" (those who teach Jesus was like us, except being like us He didn't sin)?
Virgin Birth, allowing him to bypass the Fall of Adam!
Do you think that being born a virgin (a concept common to many religions) will be enough to change the minds of those who believe He came, as they like to say, "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (will they see it as a proof Jesus was human but not human like us)?
Also, what do you think the significance, if any, is of the title "son of man" (or "son of Adam")?
Jesus had to be Virgin Born in order to avoid the taint/corruptness in our flesh the fall gave to all of us after Adam!
I understand what you are saying. Had Jesus not been virgin born he would have inherited a sinful nature from an earthly father. But I am one of those who believe that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and I find it very important that the title Jesus most often used was "son of man" (I believe that Jesus chose this title to indicate His coming in the flesh, like we are in the flesh).
So my question was two fold - since you do not believe Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh", do you believe that offering Jesus being born of a virgin disproves that meaning given by those like me to the Incarnation? Also, what (if any) significance do you find in the title "son of man" (or "son of Adam")?
Son of Man was his identification with the Divine figure prophet Daniel saw in a Vision, the One to whom God gave an eternal kingdom/dominion to...
And I believe in the Incarnation, as Jesus was Fully God and Fully man, but a Human without a sin nature, so in that regard different than any of us!
Thanks. I did not consider that interpretation.
What I understand you to be saying is that Jesus is not the Son of Man in terms of coming in the likeness of sinful flesh (as I believe) but in coming in the likeness of perfected flesh (an uncorrupted man) to inherit God's Kingdom as prophesied in Daniel. Is that right?
Yes, Jesus self identified Himself in a direct connection to that being who would be given an everlasting Kingdom by God.
I understand, and thanks for the explanation. What verse would you provide to denounce the idea that God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh in favor of God sending Jesus in the likeness of perfected flesh?
The totality of the NT teaches to us that all were in Adam and shared His judgement of now being sinners, but in Christ there was no sin found, and his nature was that of the second Adam, sinless perfected humanity.
That would be the passage for me, where paul contrasted the first and second Adam, as both of them had sinless perfect humanity, and yet Adam fell, while Jesus did not!
Although "the entire NT" does not cut it because we both believe Jesus was without sin (and I could argue that Paul taught that Jeaus came in the likeness of sinful flesh), I appreciate the effort.
His theology on the first and second adam would indeed "cut in though" paul would agree that Jesus was fully human, NEVER that Jesus was having a sin nature as we all do!
I was referencing Paul's statement that God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh in Romans 8.
Likeness of us, as Him being fully human, but NOT that Jesus had a sin nature when conceived, as all of us did!
Scripture only speaks of two "natures" - the spirit and the flesh. Paul was not speaking about looking like us except perfect. He was speaking of that which is spirit (the "Logos") being made flesh so that that which is flesh can be born of the Spirit.
So we disagree. But thanks for the interaction.
Jesus was sinless human nature, and God nature, correct?
If Josephs had been his biological Father,Hhe would have been born a sinner, correct?
In His humanity Jesus is no more or less human than us.
In His divinity He is no more or less God than is the Father.
It's difficult for us to reconcile, and very easy to err on one side or the other. Your error is common, and at least it's on the side that mistakes His humanity and not His divinity.
- Status