Did Jesus Have the Same nature as Adam. Or All of Us then?

[Yeshua1]

But this is not what Paul teaches. It is not what the author of Hebrews teaches. It is not what Jesus taught. It isn't what Peter taught. Where exactly are you getting this sin passed through physical genetics stuff anyway?

You then deny that God condemned all save jesus for being included in the fall of Adam? That We took on the likeness of Adam, spiritual and physical death? So there is really no difference between jesus and us in our humanity, other than Jesus was able to freewill resist ever sinning? Could any of us do likewise, since same nature as him?

 

[loDebar]

This is wrong thinking.

No one is born righteous.

Ezekiel is addressing the matter of payment for sin, not in what condition one is born.

The sin of my father is not held against me is what Ezekiel is contending.

But neither is my father's righteousness held in trust for me.

I bear "the iniquity" of my own, and the righteousness of Christ given to me is not based upon race, creed, heritage, blood type, language, health, wealth, social standing, ... It is a gift given specifically to me, irregardless of any predilection of precondition.

One is born infused in the will of the flesh, therefore they are born in Sin. Such as ALL are born in Sin.

It is the nature in which one is born.

I don't sin because of my father, but because that is the nature of who I am as a human.

This is why when one is "born from above" they are a NEW creature. They have a new will, a new body waiting for them, and all things pass away from the old.

you were not bormn ri

This is wrong thinking.

No one is born righteous.

Ezekiel is addressing the matter of payment for sin, not in what condition one is born.

The sin of my father is not held against me is what Ezekiel is contending.

But neither is my father's righteousness held in trust for me.

I bear "the iniquity" of my own, and the righteousness of Christ given to me is not based upon race, creed, heritage, blood type, language, health, wealth, social standing, ... It is a gift given specifically to me, irregardless of any predilection of precondition.

One is born infused in the will of the flesh, therefore they are born in Sin. Such as ALL are born in Sin.

It is the nature in which one is born.

I don't sin because of my father, but because that is the nature of who I am as a human.

This is why when one is "born from above" they are a NEW creature. They have a new will, a new body waiting for them, and all things pass away from the old.

The verse does not say you were righteous, you just didn't get the sin of your father.
you got your sin by yourself

 

[Yeshua1]

you were not bormn ri



The verse does not say you were righteous, you just didn't get the sin of your father.
you got your sin by yourself

Zeke was NOT addressing the fall here at all, was just saying that God will let each person reap what they sow in the physical sense here.

 

[loDebar]

Zeke was NOT addressing the fall here at all, was just saying that God will let each person reap what they sow in the physical sense here.

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him


If I did not receive a sin debt from my father how is the fall still in effect?

 

[loDebar]

The fall was not spiritual, it was physical. Sinful beings were already here.

 

[JonC]

You then deny that God condemned all save jesus for being included in the fall of Adam? That We took on the likeness of Adam, spiritual and physical death? So there is really no difference between jesus and us in our humanity, other than Jesus was able to freewill resist ever sinning? Could any of us do likewise, since same nature as him?

You are arguing against Jesus, Paul, the Apostles and the author of Hebrews...not me. All I know is that Jesus took upon Himself our nature. You can keep your philosophies. I'm content with God's Word. But thank you for your concern.

 

[agedman]

You are arguing against Jesus, Paul, the Apostles and the author of Hebrews...not me. All I know is that Jesus took upon Himself our nature. You can keep your philosophies. I'm content with God's Word. But thank you for your concern.

The presentation of Scripture is that in every physical way, the Christ was physical. Bones, sinew, blood, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain, eyes,...

The presentation of Scripture was that Christ was made in every aspect as a human, yet not sinful, or sin inclined.

One of the interesting verses on this is Philippians’s:

4Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, (God is Spirit)
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

​

There was never a time Christ was not God. But there was a time God was not in human form.

That said, because the Scriptures place the condemnation as flowing through the males (the first Adam) then it follows the genetic core of sin of the flesh is bound to being born of the flesh with the desires and passions of that fallen flesh.

Therefore, I see consistency in both your thinking and that of Yeshua1.

The difference perhaps is more upon emphasis rather then substantive dispute.

Jesus taking on “our nature” is as a physical attribute manner. This is as Phillipeans presents. However, as God, He did not have the spirit of humankind, could not have that fallen nature of prone to sin and already sinful.​

 

[agedman]

The fall was not spiritual, it was physical. Sinful beings were already here.

Where did you devise that thinking?

The fall was both spiritual and physical.

One cannot rebel against God and not expect both spiritual and physical results.

I am not quite understanding what your statement means when you posted, “Sinful beings were already here.”

Are you referring to the serpent?

If you are, then perhaps you are mistaking that estate of angels and that creation in which God breathed “the breath of life.”

 

[JonC]

The presentation of Scripture is that in every physical way, the Christ was physical. Bones, sinew, blood, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain, eyes,...

The presentation of Scripture was that Christ was made in every aspect as a human, yet not sinful, or sin inclined.

One of the interesting verses on this is Philippians’s:

4Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6who, though he was in the form of God, (God is Spirit)
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

​

There was never a time Christ was not God. But there was a time God was not in human form.

That said, because the Scriptures place the condemnation as flowing through the males (the first Adam) then it follows the genetic core of sin of the flesh is bound to being born of the flesh with the desires and passions of that fallen flesh.

Therefore, I see consistency in both your thinking and that of Yeshua1.

The difference perhaps is more upon emphasis rather then substantive dispute.

Jesus taking on “our nature” is as a physical attribute manner. This is as Phillipeans presents. However, as God, He did not have the spirit of humankind, could not have that fallen nature of prone to sin and already sinful.​

I agree with you in part (I was saying “Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles said….” because that was Y1’s normal argument….just having a little fun ).

I agree with the passage that you provide, and I agree with the commentary that you give for that passage. Jesus is indeed fully God and fully man.

Where I think that I may disagree is that I believe Jesus took upon himself humanity in it’s fullest form (both physical and having a human nature – that is, a nature tempted by the desires of the flesh). The reason I say this is that Scripture informs us that Jesus was not only tempted but that he had a will (a will of the flesh) that desired something contrary to what the Father willed (that Jesus did not desire to be beaten and crucified, even to the extent that He prayed if it were possible for such to pass). The difference, I believe, was not in the nature but in the will. Jesus submitted His will to the will of the Father.

Adam had a human nature as well. And without a “fallen nature” Adam sinned against God (that first sin). The only thing that Scripture says changed in Adam and Eve was that their “eyes were opened” so that they had a knowledge of good and evil as God has a knowledge of good and evil. Nowhere does Scripture present Adam as being given a nature contrary to the nature with which he was born. And nowhere does Scripture present the descendants of Adam as having a nature contrary to Adam’s nature. I suggest that this is the meaning of the Incarnation – that God became man, Jesus emptied Himself and was born in the likeness of men, was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin, and can sympathize with our state because He took this state upon Himself. I think this necessary as a high priest is chosen not from some “unfallen” type of man but from fallen men to represent the men of whose nature he shares. Likewise our High Priest was chosen from men, sharing our infirmities, bearing our sins.

 

[JonC]

You then deny that God condemned all save jesus for being included in the fall of Adam? That We took on the likeness of Adam, spiritual and physical death? So there is really no difference between jesus and us in our humanity, other than Jesus was able to freewill resist ever sinning? Could any of us do likewise, since same nature as him?

Yes, Jesus was made in the likeness of man. He took upon Himself our humanity - the flesh and the desires of the flesh. The author of Hebrews explains that this is the criteria Jesus met in terms of being our High Priest - not that he looked like us, or had a nature kind of like us, but that He shared our exact nature. It is from this group that high priests are chosen - out of sinful flesh, flesh that has a desire that can be at a dichotomy to God's will (like when Jesus desired that the cup pass, yet submitted to the will of the Father).

Could any of us do likewise? Yes, we could - if we would yield our will to the will of God in all things. Yet we are unable, just as Adam was unable, because we are unwilling.

The issue is that we create contexts through which we can understand certain events. You've chosen of your will to believe a theological system. Rather than allowing Scripture to form your theology you are understanding Scripture through your theology. You do realize that there is no passage that describes Adam's nature as changing don't you? You do realize that there are passages stating that Jesus shared in our humanity but no passages stating this was somehow a different type of humanity, right?

 

[agedman]

Yes, Jesus was made in the likeness of man. He took upon Himself our humanity - the flesh and the desires of the flesh. The author of Hebrews explains that this is the criteria Jesus met in terms of being our High Priest - not that he looked like us, or had a nature kind of like us, but that He shared our exact nature. It is from this group that high priests are chosen - out of sinful flesh, flesh that has a desire that can be at a dichotomy to God's will (like when Jesus desired that the cup pass, yet submitted to the will of the Father).

Could any of us do likewise? Yes, we could - if we would yield our will to the will of God in all things. Yet we are unable, just as Adam was unable, because we are unwilling.

There is a difference between our will and the will of Christ.

The will of the human nature is fallen, a rebelliousness that may be broken into submission or subdued by the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the believer in all truth.

The will of Christ was never a fallen will. It did not need broken into submission, rather a continuation of submission from eternity past through to the final bowing to the God in Revelation.

Your statement, "Could any of us do likewise? Yes..." Is incorrect.

There is no ability to take what is fallen into the presence of God for eternity. Even in our prayers, the Spirit makes them acceptable to God, not our own fleshly will. Humanity cannot attain to such not because of being unwilling but because the willing is as corrupt and rebellious as any other "part" of the human. This is also why no human can willingly accept the things of Christ but must have a change (or addition) made to the core of who they are and in that change to the core the belief is implanted.

Because Christ never had a fallen will, but the will of the Creator (Himself) and was not in a state of rebellion, for can the Creator have a rebellion against Himself, then Christ could attain what no human effort could in yielding. He could express the desire of avoiding the crucifixion and yet that not be a state of rebellion against the will of the Father.

Imo, too often in human terms the rebellion against God is not seen as the issue in the first Adam. Such a rebellion as desires all constraints of what is righteous to be discarded. This is why God's focus is upon the first Adam and not the first Eve. Adam was not tricked, he was not deceived, and he certainly was not unaware of the consequences. He rebelled and such is born in the natural estate of all. At the first demand of that conceived in the womb taking from the mother, the rebellion is bound in the heart.

Christ had no such heart, no such rebellion, therefore, He, alone, could do what no human could no matter the level of human submission.

 

[JonC]

There is a difference between our will and the will of Christ.

The will of the human nature is fallen, a rebelliousness that may be broken into submission or subdued by the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the believer in all truth.

The will of Christ was never a fallen will. It did not need broken into submission, rather a continuation of submission from eternity past through to the final bowing to the God in Revelation.

Your statement, "Could any of us do likewise? Yes..." Is incorrect.

There is no ability to take what is fallen into the presence of God for eternity. Even in our prayers, the Spirit makes them acceptable to God, not our own fleshly will. Humanity cannot attain to such not because of being unwilling but because the willing is as corrupt and rebellious as any other "part" of the human. This is also why no human can willingly accept the things of Christ but must have a change (or addition) made to the core of who they are and in that change to the core the belief is implanted.

Because Christ never had a fallen will, but the will of the Creator (Himself) and was not in a state of rebellion, for can the Creator have a rebellion against Himself, then Christ could attain what no human effort could in yielding. He could express the desire of avoiding the crucifixion and yet that not be a state of rebellion against the will of the Father.

Imo, too often in human terms the rebellion against God is not seen as the issue in the first Adam. Such a rebellion as desires all constraints of what is righteous to be discarded. This is why God's focus is upon the first Adam and not the first Eve. Adam was not tricked, he was not deceived, and he certainly was not unaware of the consequences. He rebelled and such is born in the natural estate of all. At the first demand of that conceived in the womb taking from the mother, the rebellion is bound in the heart.

Christ had no such heart, no such rebellion, therefore, He, alone, could do what no human could no matter the level of human submission.

While I understand your logic, I disagree. We are guilty because, like Adam, it is in our power not to sin yet we find ourselves unable because we are unwilling. We look to ourselves and not to God, to our desires over God's will. Christ had the same natural desires of the flesh but submitted to the will of the Father. The difference is not natures but obedience (an unwavering faith in God).

 

[Yeshua1]

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him


If I did not receive a sin debt from my father how is the fall still in effect?

You received it from your physical father Adam as ALL in Him are born into Sin and spiritual death, while ALL those in Christ have now eternal life!

 

[Yeshua1]

The fall was not spiritual, it was physical. Sinful beings were already here.

NOT before the Fall, Adam and Eve were still in their morally perfect/innocence, spiritually connected to god stage!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you in part (I was saying “Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles said….” because that was Y1’s normal argument….just having a little fun ).

I agree with the passage that you provide, and I agree with the commentary that you give for that passage. Jesus is indeed fully God and fully man.

Where I think that I may disagree is that I believe Jesus took upon himself humanity in it’s fullest form (both physical and having a human nature – that is, a nature tempted by the desires of the flesh). The reason I say this is that Scripture informs us that Jesus was not only tempted but that he had a will (a will of the flesh) that desired something contrary to what the Father willed (that Jesus did not desire to be beaten and crucified, even to the extent that He prayed if it were possible for such to pass). The difference, I believe, was not in the nature but in the will. Jesus submitted His will to the will of the Father.

Adam had a human nature as well. And without a “fallen nature” Adam sinned against God (that first sin). The only thing that Scripture says changed in Adam and Eve was that their “eyes were opened” so that they had a knowledge of good and evil as God has a knowledge of good and evil. Nowhere does Scripture present Adam as being given a nature contrary to the nature with which he was born. And nowhere does Scripture present the descendants of Adam as having a nature contrary to Adam’s nature. I suggest that this is the meaning of the Incarnation – that God became man, Jesus emptied Himself and was born in the likeness of men, was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin, and can sympathize with our state because He took this state upon Himself. I think this necessary as a high priest is chosen not from some “unfallen” type of man but from fallen men to represent the men of whose nature he shares. Likewise our High Priest was chosen from men, sharing our infirmities, bearing our sins.

Adam still has that potential to sin , but Jesus as being God, could have never sinned.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a difference between our will and the will of Christ.

The will of the human nature is fallen, a rebelliousness that may be broken into submission or subdued by the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the believer in all truth.

The will of Christ was never a fallen will. It did not need broken into submission, rather a continuation of submission from eternity past through to the final bowing to the God in Revelation.

Your statement, "Could any of us do likewise? Yes..." Is incorrect.

There is no ability to take what is fallen into the presence of God for eternity. Even in our prayers, the Spirit makes them acceptable to God, not our own fleshly will. Humanity cannot attain to such not because of being unwilling but because the willing is as corrupt and rebellious as any other "part" of the human. This is also why no human can willingly accept the things of Christ but must have a change (or addition) made to the core of who they are and in that change to the core the belief is implanted.

Because Christ never had a fallen will, but the will of the Creator (Himself) and was not in a state of rebellion, for can the Creator have a rebellion against Himself, then Christ could attain what no human effort could in yielding. He could express the desire of avoiding the crucifixion and yet that not be a state of rebellion against the will of the Father.

Imo, too often in human terms the rebellion against God is not seen as the issue in the first Adam. Such a rebellion as desires all constraints of what is righteous to be discarded. This is why God's focus is upon the first Adam and not the first Eve. Adam was not tricked, he was not deceived, and he certainly was not unaware of the consequences. He rebelled and such is born in the natural estate of all. At the first demand of that conceived in the womb taking from the mother, the rebellion is bound in the heart.

Christ had no such heart, no such rebellion, therefore, He, alone, could do what no human could no matter the level of human submission.

There is THE big difference between His humanity and all of ours, as Jesus was just as you described Him in being in His very person, and so he would not have even the capacity have sinned against the Father.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, Jesus was made in the likeness of man. He took upon Himself our humanity - the flesh and the desires of the flesh. The author of Hebrews explains that this is the criteria Jesus met in terms of being our High Priest - not that he looked like us, or had a nature kind of like us, but that He shared our exact nature. It is from this group that high priests are chosen - out of sinful flesh, flesh that has a desire that can be at a dichotomy to God's will (like when Jesus desired that the cup pass, yet submitted to the will of the Father).

Could any of us do likewise? Yes, we could - if we would yield our will to the will of God in all things. Yet we are unable, just as Adam was unable, because we are unwilling.

The issue is that we create contexts through which we can understand certain events. You've chosen of your will to believe a theological system. Rather than allowing Scripture to form your theology you are understanding Scripture through your theology. You do realize that there is no passage that describes Adam's nature as changing don't you? You do realize that there are passages stating that Jesus shared in our humanity but no passages stating this was somehow a different type of humanity, right?

Jesus was born with any sin in His nature, can anyone else evr born in History claim that, and so why was his humanity exactly like ours than?

 

[Yeshua1]

While I understand your logic, I disagree. We are guilty because, like Adam, it is in our power not to sin yet we find ourselves unable because we are unwilling. We look to ourselves and not to God, to our desires over God's will. Christ had the same natural desires of the flesh but submitted to the will of the Father. The difference is not natures but obedience (an unwavering faith in God).

We have the wreak from the Fall to deal with, and as a rsult, are spiritual dead and lost in sins as born sinners, did Jesus have all of that also?

 

[JonC]

Adam still has that potential to sin , but Jesus as being God, could have never sinned.

That is philosophy. Scripture presents Jesus as not desiring to suffer on the Cross. He submitted his will to the will of the Father, becoming obedient even to death. I see no merit in arguing that Jesus had no choice in the matter.

 

[JonC]

We have the wreak from the Fall to deal with, and as a rsult, are spiritual dead and lost in sins as born sinners, did Jesus have all of that also?

The only "wreck" the Bible speaks of is God subjecting creation to futility. Did you ever consider the possibility that God had redemption in view before He ever created man?