Clearing my name!!

[Winman]

Winman....if you actually read the quotes you will notice that yes Jesus had a human nature......but not a fallen human nature like those dead in Adam.
You suggested such when you said this;

You did it again, you have absolutely misrepresented what I have said by only quoting PART of what I said. Here is what I have said.

This is why I object to the term "sin nature". Jesus had the same exact nature as us, he came in the "flesh". If we have a sin nature, then Jesus had one too. I refuse to accept this whatsoever. We are born "flesh" with lusts and desires. I believe it more accurate and scriptural to say we have a "temptation nature". Our flesh tempts us. But only when we obey our fleshly lusts and sin do we have a sin nature.

You have intentionally misrepresented me several times now. I did not say Jesus had a sin nature, I have repeatedly said I REFUSE to believe Jesus had a sin nature.

You posted this idea.....We do have a sin nature...so your statement based on your misunderstanding of several texts is error.
I asked you if you wanted to retract your statement...you declined saying you do not believe we have a sin nature.....

Total falsehood on your part. You quoted only PART of what I said to misrepresent me.

That is like someone who says.....well if God killed babies with a flood in Noah's day...I could not worship a god like that. We do not decide or change who God is. He does not change or compromise to make goats feel comfortable.

Well, I can understand your unscrupulous behavior now. If you believe God can do evil and it is OK, then you probably feel you can do the same.

Now you are whining that you are not being treated fairly

You added to hebrews 2:16.....I quoted the real King James verse that you claim you posted showing a lie....you have no comment???

I am hardly whining, just exposing you as the unscrupulous person you are. And I provided many quotes from scholars that supported my view and disagreed with yours.

Here it is again to refresh your mind.

Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. [winman version]

you then said;


but again here is the king James version;

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham

It does not say as you posted at all.....The winman paraphrase changes the intended meaning completely.....

This verse is a strong proof text for particular redemption. He took upon Himself the actual seed of Abraham...the actual promised people themselves..... It does not say he took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam,......it does not even say He took upon Himself the seed of Adam
That is what it is actually talking about. I use the King James...and study Hebrews more than any other book...so your error was spotted without much trouble.

Like I said... I would prefer to interact with someone who wants to discuss or learn. If you claim you are quoting a verse and cannot even quote the actual verse where is this all going??? P4T gave a solid description of what is taking place.....take some time and read back through the thread and see if he was correct.
You might not understand what i am saying to you...so i might not be able to help you. Maybe someone else can present it clearer.

I quoted half a dozen scholars that all said Jesus had the nature of a man. You can deny if you like, no one is fooled but yourself. You use deception so much, your mind cannot tell right from wrong.

 

[Winman]

Winman....if you actually read the quotes you will notice that yes Jesus had a human nature......but not a fallen human nature like those dead in Adam.
You suggested such when you said this;

You did it again, you have absolutely misrepresented what I have said by only quoting PART of what I said. Here is what I have said.

This is why I object to the term "sin nature". Jesus had the same exact nature as us, he came in the "flesh". If we have a sin nature, then Jesus had one too. I refuse to accept this whatsoever. We are born "flesh" with lusts and desires. I believe it more accurate and scriptural to say we have a "temptation nature". Our flesh tempts us. But only when we obey our fleshly lusts and sin do we have a sin nature.

You have intentionally misrepresented me several times now. I did not say Jesus had a sin nature, I have repeatedly said I REFUSE to believe Jesus had a sin nature.

You posted this idea.....We do have a sin nature...so your statement based on your misunderstanding of several texts is error.
I asked you if you wanted to retract your statement...you declined saying you do not believe we have a sin nature.....

Total falsehood on your part. You quoted only PART of what I said to misrepresent me.

That is like someone who says.....well if God killed babies with a flood in Noah's day...I could not worship a god like that. We do not decide or change who God is. He does not change or compromise to make goats feel comfortable.

Well, I can understand your unscrupulous behavior now. If you believe God can do evil and it is OK, then you probably feel you can do the same.

Now you are whining that you are not being treated fairly

You added to hebrews 2:16.....I quoted the real King James verse that you claim you posted showing a lie....you have no comment???

I am hardly whining, just exposing you as the unscrupulous person you are. And I provided many quotes from scholars that supported my view and disagreed with yours.

Here it is again to refresh your mind.

Verse 16 says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. [winman version]

you then said;


but again here is the king James version;

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham

It does not say as you posted at all.....The winman paraphrase changes the intended meaning completely.....

This verse is a strong proof text for particular redemption. He took upon Himself the actual seed of Abraham...the actual promised people themselves..... It does not say he took upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam,......it does not even say He took upon Himself the seed of Adam
That is what it is actually talking about. I use the King James...and study Hebrews more than any other book...so your error was spotted without much trouble.

Like I said... I would prefer to interact with someone who wants to discuss or learn. If you claim you are quoting a verse and cannot even quote the actual verse where is this all going??? P4T gave a solid description of what is taking place.....take some time and read back through the thread and see if he was correct.
You might not understand what i am saying to you...so i might not be able to help you. Maybe someone else can present it clearer.

I quoted half a dozen scholars that all said Jesus had the nature of a man. You can deny if you like, no one is fooled but yourself. You use deception so much, your mind cannot tell right from wrong.

 

[Winman]

And here is what Matthew Henry said concerning Heb 2:16. He repeatedly says Jesus took upon himself human nature.

I. The incarnation of Christ is asserted (v. 16): Verily he took not upon him the nature of angels, but he took upon him the seed of Abraham. He took part of flesh and blood. Though as God he pre-existed from all eternity, yet in the fulness of time he took our nature into union with his divine nature, and became really and truly man. He did not lay hold of angels, but he laid hold of the seed of Abraham. The angels fell, and he let them go, and lie under the desert, defilement, and dominion of their sin, without hope or help. Christ never designed to be the Saviour of the fallen angels; as their tree fell, so it lies, and must lie to eternity, and therefore he did not assume their nature. The nature of angels could not be an atoning sacrifice for the sin of man. Now Christ resolving to recover the seed of Abraham and raise them up from their fallen state, he took upon him the human nature from one descended from the loins of Abraham, that the same nature that had sinned might suffer, to restore human nature to a state of hope and trial, and all that accepted of mercy to a state of special favour and salvation. Now there is hope and help for the chief of sinners in and through Christ. Here is a price paid sufficient for all, and suitable to all, for it was in our nature. Let us all then know the day of our gracious visitation, and improve that distinguishing mercy which has been shown to fallen men, not to the fallen angels.

II. The reasons and designs of the incarnation of Christ are declared.

1. Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he must take part of the same, and he made like his brethren, v. 14, 15. For no higher nor lower nature than man’s that had sinned could so suffer for the sin of man as to satisfy the justice of God, and raise man up to a state of hope, and make believers the children of God, and so brethren to Christ.

Henry repeatedly says Jesus took on human nature in full agreement with what I have been saying.

What you cannot seem to comprehend is that this is a nature that can be TEMPTED. Adam and Eve could be tempted before the fall, and this is the nature Jesus took on himself. God in heaven cannot be tempted, but Jesus inherited a human nature from his mother and could be tempted. But temptation is not sin, and many here cannot seem to make that distinction. When we are tempted, we all obey at times and sin. When Jesus was tempted (and he was) he always resisted and NEVER SINNED.

But the scriptures say he had the exact same nature as us. He had what I call a "temptation nature". I have NEVER said Jesus had a sin nature, I have repeatedly said I do not like that term, it is never found in scriptures. The scriptures say we are "flesh" with desires and lusts. But desires and lusts are not sin unless they are acted upon. Jesus came in the flesh and also had lusts and desires, but he never acted on these desires when it would cause him to sin.

If you deny that Jesus came in the flesh you have denied the word of God. This is the spirit of antichrist.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

[DHK]

Let's clarify Winman's position (not the position of most non-Cal's), and then leave this thread alone if that is what it is going to be about.

Here is what he said:

Jesus had the same nature as us, if we have a sin nature, then so did Jesus.

Winman's primary premise is this:

Man is born without a sin nature.
--Please remember that. Unlike perhaps more than 90% of you this is where Winman disagrees, and where the confusion begins. He does not believe that man is born with a sin nature.

Secondly, if man is born without a sin nature, then Jesus can be born with the nature of man and still not have a sin nature, for man never had a sin nature in the first place.

He believes: Jesus had the same nature as us.
He could have the same nature of us and not have a sin nature, because man is not born with a sin nature. That is his belief. You may not agree with it. But he is entitled to it.

In no way is he saying that Christ had or has a sin nature!
--Do not accuse him of that. It is a false accusation.

Your belief that man does have a sin nature (whoever you may be) colors your conclusion of what Winman believes about the human nature of Christ. Be objective. Read carefully what he has written. Don't jump to hasty conclusions.
Thank you.

 

[The Archangel]

The problem you are having, Winman, is that you are trying to deny something with words that you are affirming with words.

Your quote:

This is why I object to the term "sin nature". Jesus had the same exact nature as us, he came in the "flesh". If we have a sin nature, then Jesus had one too. I refuse to accept this whatsoever. We are born "flesh" with lusts and desires. I believe it more accurate and scriptural to say we have a "temptation nature". Our flesh tempts us. But only when we obey our fleshly lusts and sin do we have a sin nature.

OK. You can object to the term "sin nature." But you never say to whom you object this term being applied to.

Do you object to humans having a sin nature?

Do you object to Christ having a sin nature? I think you would, as we all do.

The problem is that you claim that "Jesus had the same nature as us" (at least that is what you're appearing to argue).

So, if you are, in fact, claiming that Jesus and humanity had the exact same nature you have, in fact, claimed that He had a sin nature.

Furthermore, if you claim that Jesus had the same exact nature as we do, you completely minimize the Divinity of Christ.

The truth of the matter is this: Your words--especially in the quote you posted--seem to be coming out of both sides of your mouth. The words are confusing. Rather than rail against the rest of us, clarify what you are trying to say.

What is more, it must be the case that Jesus, while similar to us, is still completely different because He is simultaneous God and Man and we are only Man--fallen man at that.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

And here is what Matthew Henry said concerning Heb 2:16. He repeatedly says Jesus took upon himself human nature.

But, you fail to realize or mention that Henry, likely, makes a distinction between "human nature" and "sin nature."

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Let's clarify Winman's position (not the position of most non-Cal's), and then leave this thread alone if that is what it is going to be about.

Here is what he said:

Winman's primary premise is this:

Man is born without a sin nature.
--Please remember that. Unlike perhaps more than 90% of you this is where Winman disagrees, and where the confusion begins. He does not believe that man is born with a sin nature.

Secondly, if man is born without a sin nature, then Jesus can be born with the nature of man and still not have a sin nature, for man never had a sin nature in the first place.

He believes: Jesus had the same nature as us.
He could have the same nature of us and not have a sin nature, because man is not born with a sin nature. That is his belief. You may not agree with it. But he is entitled to it.

In no way is he saying that Christ had or has a sin nature!
--Do not accuse him of that. It is a false accusation.

Your belief that man does have a sin nature (whoever you may be) colors your conclusion of what Winman believes about the human nature of Christ. Be objective. Read carefully what he has written. Don't jump to hasty conclusions.
Thank you.

Thank you DHK, you are one of the few here that seems to have comprehension skills and understands what I am truly saying.

I do not believe man has a sin nature. This is a term not found in scripture. The scriptures say we are flesh. The flesh is weak and easily tempted. That is why I prefer to call it a "temptation nature".

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mat 26:41 represents what I believe the scriptures say about man's nature. This was spoken concerning the disciples before they received the Holy Spirit. Jesus said their spirit was willing. They truly wanted to stay awake and pray as Jesus had told them, but their "flesh" was tired and pulled and tugged at them to fall asleep.

This is what Paul is describing in Romans 7. He is speaking as an unsaved man there. He delights in the law of God in his mind, but sin in his members fights and resists his will and he is brought into dominion of his flesh.

And this is exactly what Jesus is saying. Men are not utterly depraved as Calvinism teaches, the disciples truly were willing to obey Jesus, but their flesh was weak and caused them to fail.

And this is what Jesus was born with, a human nature that pulled and tugged him in the wrong direction toward sin. It tempted him. But he always fought and resisted this human nature and was victorious. He never sinned.

 

[quantumfaith]

Let's clarify Winman's position (not the position of most non-Cal's), and then leave this thread alone if that is what it is going to be about.

Here is what he said:

Winman's primary premise is this:

Man is born without a sin nature.
--Please remember that. Unlike perhaps more than 90% of you this is where Winman disagrees, and where the confusion begins. He does not believe that man is born with a sin nature.

Secondly, if man is born without a sin nature, then Jesus can be born with the nature of man and still not have a sin nature, for man never had a sin nature in the first place.

He believes: Jesus had the same nature as us.
He could have the same nature of us and not have a sin nature, because man is not born with a sin nature. That is his belief. You may not agree with it. But he is entitled to it.

In no way is he saying that Christ had or has a sin nature!
--Do not accuse him of that. It is a false accusation.

Your belief that man does have a sin nature (whoever you may be) colors your conclusion of what Winman believes about the human nature of Christ. Be objective. Read carefully what he has written. Don't jump to hasty conclusions.
Thank you.

:applause::applause::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Winman]

But, you fail to realize or mention that Henry, likely, makes a distinction between "human nature" and "sin nature."

The Archangel

Ok, explain to me the difference between "human nature" and "sin nature".

And remember, Heb 2:16 said he took upon himself the seed of Abraham. It does not say he took upon himself the nature of Adam.

So explain this difference between sin nature and human nature.

 

[Iconoclast]

The problem you are having, Winman, is that you are trying to deny something with words that you are affirming with words.

Your quote:



OK. You can object to the term "sin nature." But you never say to whom you object this term being applied to.

Do you object to humans having a sin nature?

Do you object to Christ having a sin nature? I think you would, as we all do.

The problem is that you claim that "Jesus had the same nature as us" (at least that is what you're appearing to argue).

So, if you are, in fact, claiming that Jesus and humanity had the exact same nature you have, in fact, claimed that He had a sin nature.

Furthermore, if you claim that Jesus had the same exact nature as we do, you completely minimize the Divinity of Christ.

The truth of the matter is this: Your words--especially in the quote you posted--seem to be coming out of both sides of your mouth. The words are confusing. Rather than rail against the rest of us, clarify what you are trying to say.What is more, it must be the case that Jesus, while similar to us, is still completely different because He is simultaneous God and Man and we are only Man--fallen man at that.

The Archangel

:thumbs::applause::applause::thumbs: Thats why i asked him if he wanted to retract his statement.....between your post and what DHK clarified, zeros in on the confusion,

 

[Iconoclast]

But, you fail to realize or mention that Henry, likely, makes a distinction between "human nature" and "sin nature."

The Archangel

Yes ...exactly what i tried to say to him. Thanks for clarifying more.

DHK....thanks for attempting to clarify the statement.:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Yes ...exactly what i tried to say to him. Thanks for clarifying more.

DHK....thanks for attempting to clarify the statement.:thumbs:

Ok, what is the difference between sin nature and human nature?

And again, the scriptures say Jesus took the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam.

Were Abraham and all his descendants sinners?

So what is the difference between sin nature and human nature?

I will await your answer.

 

[righteousdude2]

Then It's Shoutin' Time in Heaven, and Here....

Boy, them words right thar are SHOUTIN's words!!!

....on earth! Let's shout His Praise and lift His name up real high!

Love you brother!

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, I'm interested to know if you believe Jesus' nature was corruptible (able to be corrupted), like Adam's was?

If not, what makes his nature "human?"

No.....Jesus at no time gave up His Divinity.....he added , or clothed himself in the likeness of a servant...so He could die for His people. Phil2

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What makes Jesus human was in taking a real body of flesh and blood to identify with His elect......at no time did he he act independant of the Fathers will....

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

HOLY ,HARMLESS, UNDEFILED, SEPERATE FROM SINNERS.

The first Adam fell by acting independantly of the Fathers will.....The last Adam never listened to satan ...lk4.

Ironically.....winman offered many of these verses after the confusing part of his posts....

Skan, ......anything , or anyone ....who even suggests that Jesus could have sinned.....is like touching the third rail spiritually.....this is not opinion, but rather it is taking into account our supernatural Saviour.
I cannot even understand anyone who wants to speculate on this question...read revelation 4-5 the scene of worship around the throne...read Isa.6...really carefully.....then consider anyone posting that Jesus might have been corrupted....or corruptible.
there was nothing in Him that would be drawn to sin or corruption.....the fact that he sweat blood in the garden when the sin bearing work approached shows how His Holy soul loathed anything remotely associated with sin.

As sinners...I do not think we can grasp this truth mentally or spiritually...you can tell by our relative lack of any high level of holiness in the life.

5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

 

[righteousdude2]

Let Me Give You My Take on This Subject!

It has always been my understanding that while Jesus was without sin, the perfect man, when He took our sin upon Himself on the cross, He became sin (had to if our sin was to be lifted from our shoulders and covered by His shed blood), and that is evidenced when the Father turned away from His Son as He hung on the cross. This thought is further evidenced in the words of Jesus himself when He cried out, "Father, why has thou rejected me?" :tear:

He did not have a sin nature. He simply became sin's atonement while He was on the cross, and that is my understanding. :thumbs:

I sure hope I don't get jumped on and blasted for my interpretation, but if I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen to any reasonable rebuttable and spiritually chew on the new info before I ingest and digest it as a fact of life! :laugh:

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[Iconoclast]

Ok, what is the difference between sin nature and human nature?

And again, the scriptures say Jesus took the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam.

Were Abraham and all his descendants sinners?

So what is the difference between sin nature and human nature?

I will await your answer.

Winman.......
I will try one more time....

1]human nature.....man before the fall....

2]sin nature......all humans after the fall....dead in Adam.....seperated from God....grow up rebellious to God unable to welcome truth.

3] Virgin birth, allowed jesus to come sinless, human nature, not tainted by the fall...see my response to Skan...

4] You are not correctly understanding hebrews 2;14-16.....
it does not say...he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham

5] it does say...he does not take on Him the nature of angels...the passage is showing..starting at verse 4....through17....Jesus comes down to elevate the elect or promised seed of Abraham...above angelic beings...who in Chap 1 are described as those who minister to the heirs of salvation.

6] When it says he took on Him the seed of Abraham....the word used was like when Peter was sinking in the water....he laid hold of him....he took hold of him.....it is not, not saying in any way....that to do this he had to take upon himself our sinful nature......this is where I came after you.....your wording as posted implies this is possible....which it is not.

7] the hebrews 2 passage is one of the strongest passages in the bible teaching particular, definate, or limited atonement.

8] If the passage said he took on Him the seed of adam....it would say that Jesus took on everyones sin in the world....like some of you have been taught.

9] But ...it says he took on Him the seed of Abraham...which we learn in reality...is Jesus...and those In HIm....by covenant promise..GAL3:16-28

10] this passage is not speaking about our sin nature .....all the Hebrews verses you offered trying to attack what I was saying about your post....I agree with, when understood in the context of the Covenant death Jesus dies.
Hebrews 10:10-25....if you could see this...we could progress trying to understand it and do good for our souls.....

11] to miss this teaching...like the teaching in Romans 5.... aperson will never really come to truth in this life.

12] This is most of how I see this passage in the readers digest form...anything else gets technical real fast .

13] if I am not being clear to you in this post...maybe Archangel writes clearer than I do..or some of the other men are trying to unravel where we have spun out of control here.

14] I am glad to see you deny Jesus had a sin nature....but I think Archangel and DHK have done a better job of sorting out the wording of your post..re-read those two posts without over -reacting.

 

[The Archangel]

Ok, what is the difference between sin nature and human nature?

And again, the scriptures say Jesus took the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam.

Were Abraham and all his descendants sinners?

So what is the difference between sin nature and human nature?

I will await your answer.

The difference between human nature and sin nature is based in a proper understanding of Adam before the Fall and after the Fall.

Before the Fall, Adam had a human nature. In his nature, Adam was able to sin and able not to sin. He chose to sin and rebel against God.

After the Fall, Adam had a fallen human nature...a sin nature. In his fallen human, sinful nature, Adam was not able not to sin. His rebellion became ingrained in him and his progeny.

So, when we talk about Jesus' human nature is was a nature that was equivalent to a pre-Fall human being. Jesus' nature was not fallen; He was not sinful; He had no sin nature.

By the nature of Jesus' being human, His human nature could be hungry, sweat, etc. So, how does this related to His being tempted and being not able to sin (He was impeccable).

Jesus, in His human nature, was never separated from His divinity. Therefore, since God cannot be tempted with evil, Jesus could not have sinned. But, it wasn't His humanity that was impeccable, it was His divinity.

And, as far as "Jesus took the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam" goes, get a better translation. The words there are much closer to the ESV translation which says, "He helps the offspring of Abraham." This is to say, especially in contrast to the first part of the verse, that Jesus helps humanity, not angels. And, the descendants of Abraham are not just Jews. The descendants of Abraham are all those who believe in Christ, which is a fulfillment of the covenant promise that God made to him in Genesis.

So, that verse is certainly not saying that Jesus took on the seed of Abraham in a way that takes on fallen human nature. While Abraham and all his descendants were indeed sinners, Jesus did not have a human father and was, therefore, without the sin nature that plagues us all.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

It has always been my understanding that while Jesus was without sin, the perfect man, when He took our sin upon Himself on the cross, He became sin (had to if our sin was to be lifted from our shoulders and covered by His shed blood), and that is evidenced when the Father turned away from His Son as He hung on the cross. This thought is further evidenced in the words of Jesus himself when He cried out, "Father, why has thou rejected me?" :tear:

He did not have a sin nature. He simply became sin's atonement while He was on the cross, and that is my understanding. :thumbs:

I sure hope I don't get jumped on and blasted for my interpretation, but if I'm wrong, I'm willing to listen to any reasonable rebuttable and spiritually chew on the new info before I ingest and digest it as a fact of life! :laugh:

Shalom,

:applause:

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
[/QUOTE...........................

 

[Iconoclast]

The difference between human nature and sin nature is based in a proper understanding of Adam before the Fall and after the Fall.

Before the Fall, Adam had a human nature. In his nature, Adam was able to sin and able not to sin. He chose to sin and rebel against God.

After the Fall, Adam had a fallen human nature...a sin nature. In his fallen human, sinful nature, Adam was not able not to sin. His rebellion became ingrained in him and his progeny.

So, when we talk about Jesus' human nature is was a nature that was equivalent to a pre-Fall human being. Jesus' nature was not fallen; He was not sinful; He had no sin nature.

By the nature of Jesus' being human, His human nature could be hungry, sweat, etc. So, how does this related to His being tempted and being not able to sin (He was impeccable).

Jesus, in His human nature, was never separated from His divinity. Therefore, since God cannot be tempted with evil, Jesus could not have sinned. But, it wasn't His humanity that was impeccable, it was His divinity.

And, as far as "Jesus took the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam" goes, get a better translation. The words there are much closer to the ESV translation which says, "He helps the offspring of Abraham." This is to say, especially in contrast to the first part of the verse, that Jesus helps humanity, not angels. And, the descendants of Abraham are not just Jews. The descendants of Abraham are all those who believe in Christ, which is a fulfillment of the covenant promise that God made to him in Genesis.

So, that verse is certainly not saying that Jesus took on the seed of Abraham in a way that takes on fallen human nature. While Abraham and all his descendants were indeed sinners, Jesus did not have a human father and was, therefore, without the sin nature that plagues us all.

The Archangel

I offered this in the first post:

16for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,

 

[Winman]

That explanation fails on two points.

#1 Verse 17 elaborates on verse 16 and says Jesus was in ALL THINGS made like unto his brethren the Jews.

#2 Adam could be tempted and sin. In fact, that is exactly what happened to him.

So, the scriptures do not say Jesus was made like Adam. I KNEW you would try to argue that.

But even if Jesus was made like Adam (which he wasn't), Adam had the ability to be tempted and sin.

Try again.