A Human Sacrifice that Saves Those Under the Law by the Shed Blood of the Son of God

Jesus was born with the "human nature" (i.e., the "flesh") that we have. I already told you that there are only two natures mentioned in the Bible and I had no interest in a hypothetical third one.

 

No. Not a sin nature but the "flesh". And yes, the flesh as subject to corruption.

 

First study these biblical teachings:

God subjected all of Creation to futility. Animals die. Disease spreads. This earth will pass away. All flesh perishes.The Logos became flesh. Jesus was born in "corruptible flesh". God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Then realize that is what I'm saying.

 

Your argument is with Scripture, not me. Scripture says that Jesus was born as we are. He was born "flesh". Scripture gives us two natures - the "spirit" and the "flesh". Scripture says Jesus came in "corruptible" flesh. Scripture says God sent His Son in the likeness of "sinful flesh".

You say had the Jews not killed Jesus that Jesus would have lived forever. You say that we have a different "human nature" than Jesus. You introduce a hypothetical nature absent Scripture.

I already told you that I am not interested in philosophical arguments. I don't care if you hold them, but I'm just not interested. You can't fault me for believing that Scripture is correct in stating Jesus came as the Son of Man. You can't fault me for saying Jesus came in "corruptible flesh". You can't fault me for saying that God sent Him in the likeness of sinful flesh. You can't even fault me for believing that Jesus was subject to the same ailments that are common to mankind as God subjected all Creation to futility.

I just have no interest in your philosophy. I'm not faulting you for your ideas (except perhaps in ignoring a few doctrines of Scripture, but they are not something I'd bother arguing).

 

You are confusing morality (which has to do with the will) with biology. Morality is not an aspect of one's nature but rather what one does with that nature.

 

According to the Bible there are only TWO natures, the flesh and the spirit.....you know this, correct?

 

If we are fallible and if continued special revelation has ended, then it is a mistake to rely on "what we know" apart from what is actually revealed in Scripture.....correct? And Scripture only offers the "spirit" and the "flesh" as the two natures...correct?

 

No passage says that Adam's flesh was changed after the Fall. No verse says Adam's nature changed. We should not rely on human conclusion and hypothesis but on God's Word...correct?

 

Scripture does not say that there was a moral corruption upon all flesh, but that all sinned. Where are you getting these ideas about a third nature (a "sin nature") that is morally corrupt in and of itself (apart from sin)?

 

Everyone is born morally perfect. "Moral" is an adverb that has to do with principles of behavior or character. Unless you are suggesting that birth itself is an immoral behavior or that being human in and of itself is sinful then you have no ground (no biblical ground) upon which to stand.

This is the problem when we start getting into the hypothetical by engaging philosophical arguments. You are forced to reconcile Scripture to those arguments as the doctrines themselves are absent from the Bible. And this is why I have been telling you that my interest here starts and ends with Scripture (not philosophy). I have no interest in even entertaining the idea that sin is a biological issue.