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

[JonC]

I showed,

• Informative and could have even said agree. Let me ask.

Because the Word was made flesh would you agree with me that Romans 7:14 could even apply to Jesus?

7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Was Jesus, of the flesh, sold under our sin?

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born [fn] of a woman, born under the law, Gal 4:4 NKJV

I think this is the whole point of the incarnation (the self-sacrifice of the Son, the giving of the Father) and Christ bearing our sins in His flesh, being made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

 

[percho]

I think Scriputre best describes nature two ways – “flesh” and “spirit”. That which is born flesh is flesh, and that which is born spirit is spirit. Human nature is the flesh. Christ took upon Himself this nature. It is the desires of the flesh. And there is biblical evidence that this desire is not always in accordance with the will of God (although not sin in itself). For example, Jesus was tempted to satisfy the desires of the flesh in the wilderness but He overcame temptation. He desired in the flesh not to suffer and die, praying that if possible the cup would pass but not His will but the Father’s be done.

Christ took upon Himself human nature when He became flesh - the Logos (the Word, the Life) becoming human. This is the One nature (the Life, spiritual life, the Word) taking on another (human nature). The Catholic Church argued, debated, and developed a philosophy about how these two natures existed without mixture (mostly a philosophical argument). But Scripture does not separate the two natures in Christ. He is God. He is man. And, although the Catholics will always reject the idea, Scripture teaches that God the Son suffered and died a physical death (not suffered “in His human nature”, but suffered).

Until discussing topics on this board I had never realized just how much RCC doctrine undermines much of contemporary Protestant thought.

I believe this passage from Hebrews 12 is a reference to Jesus in the garden. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

The human Jesus was striving against sin in the garden, He feared death. He suffered. And through it all he learned.

Heb 5:7,8 YLT who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,

What obedience?

Heb 12:2 YLT looking to the author and perfecter of (the) faith -- Jesus, who, over-against the joy set before him -- did endure a cross, shame having despised, on the right hand also of the throne of God did sit down;

Obedience of faith. Obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, is when faith was authored and perfected.
It is when, the faith, was reveled that brought righteousness of Gal 3:23,24

 

[JamesL]

I think this is the whole point of the incarnation (the self-sacrifice of the Son, the giving of the Father) and Christ bearing our sins in His flesh, being made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

That's why scripture poses the scenario of a hypostatic union. The seeming conflict...

The Word of God, who was God, and is God, and was with God - He who is exactly like God - took upon himself that which is exactly like us.

The sinless One wrapping Himself in sinful flesh, without static

 

[JamesL]

I think Scriputre best describes nature two ways – “flesh” and “spirit”. That which is born flesh is flesh, and that which is born spirit is spirit. Human nature is the flesh. Christ took upon Himself this nature. It is the desires of the flesh. And there is biblical evidence that this desire is not always in accordance with the will of God (although not sin in itself). For example, Jesus was tempted to satisfy the desires of the flesh in the wilderness but He overcame temptation. He desired in the flesh not to suffer and die, praying that if possible the cup would pass but not His will but the Father’s be done.

I agree that in Scripture nature is that which we are made of. It's an ontological term primarily. The New Testament talks about natural branches, the natural children of Abraham, the nature of intercourse, Etc... All having to do with our flesh. And then the mention of the divine nature, speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Christ took upon Himself human nature when He became flesh - the Logos (the Word, the Life) becoming human. This is the One nature (the Life, spiritual life, the Word) taking on another (human nature). The Catholic Church argued, debated, and developed a philosophy about how these two natures existed without mixture (mostly a philosophical argument). But Scripture does not separate the two natures in Christ. He is God. He is man. And, although the Catholics will always reject the idea, Scripture teaches that God the Son suffered and died a physical death (not suffered “in His human nature”, but suffered).

That's good stuff

Until discussing topics on this board I had never realized just how much RCC doctrine undermines much of contemporary Protestant thought.

absolutely. When I was somewhat of a devotee of RC Sproul, he always set the Protestant teaching against the backdrop of Roman Catholicism. And he even said if you don't understand the Roman Catholic concept of justification, you will never understand the Protestant concept - or words to that effect - paraphrasing from memory

 

[agedman]

I think Scriputre best describes nature two ways – “flesh” and “spirit”. That which is born flesh is flesh, and that which is born spirit is spirit. Human nature is the flesh. Christ took upon Himself this nature. It is the desires of the flesh. And there is biblical evidence that this desire is not always in accordance with the will of God (although not sin in itself). For example, Jesus was tempted to satisfy the desires of the flesh in the wilderness but He overcame temptation. He desired in the flesh not to suffer and die, praying that if possible the cup would pass but not His will but the Father’s be done.

Christ took on the form (likeness) but there is not sufficient evidence in my opinion for supporting that the temptation in the wilderness in any manner enticed the Lord. He was already creator of all, sustainer of all, and such temptation as presented in the wilderness was offering nothing that He did not already have command. Remember the angelic attention?

In the garden, the statement of a will being conformed to the will of the Father is not presented as a contest of desires, but as a statement of compliance. I realize that more often the matter is presented as if Christ was in avoidance, but that would be placing a mark against the known character He revealed during the ministry years, and more the preparation statements made to the followers about what was going to take place. Again, notice the angelic attention.

Why then the physical manifestations of "sweat as drops of blood?" Why then, the cries and appeals as Hebrews 5 would show? These, too, are not presenting a combative scenario of desire and will as some (many) may assume, but both the demonstration of the human side responding to the future, and also the beginning of the blood cleansing that had to take place. Did the one who created all, and the sustainer of all, not have power over even His own body? What humans would see as combative and desire to avoid, the Scriptures would present as purposeful.

Realizing this is not the standard rendering presented in Luke (for we humans are often so dramatic in efforts to appeal) I expect some will push back. And that is just fine, for I rest upon the fact of the character and statements of the Christ prior to the events of the crucifixion, that He did not shrink back in even the hint of avoidance, but was thoroughly compliant and in agreement with the will of the Father.

Christ took upon Himself human nature when He became flesh - the Logos (the Word, the Life) becoming human. This is the One nature (the Life, spiritual life, the Word) taking on another (human nature). The Catholic Church argued, debated, and developed a philosophy about how these two natures existed without mixture (mostly a philosophical argument). But Scripture does not separate the two natures in Christ. He is God. He is man. And, although the Catholics will always reject the idea, Scripture teaches that God the Son suffered and died a physical death (not suffered “in His human nature”, but suffered).

Until discussing topics on this board I had never realized just how much RCC doctrine undermines much of contemporary Protestant thought.

Absolutely!

The "reformers" looked at reforming the RCC and were not "separatists" until forced into that position. Part of the most difficult area of concern is to embrace the "doctrines of Grace" and not be drawn into the "reformed" schemes that mimic the RCC.

Part of the RCC presentation of Luke embraces this conflict between desire and will. One reason that I reject such thinking.

Christ was all human in likeness (form). But He was all God.

Now, He was not as believers who have both a nature of the flesh which is prone to rebellion, and the nature of Christ which is prone to Godliness.

Christ had ONE nature. As I have often presented, He was not double minded, double willed, doubled in authority.

The human nature of rebellion that came through Adam was not present, and the will of the Father was that present.

Such will be the believers when in their new body.

One reason Paul states most remarkably, that such a condition is not yet realized but when it is "we shall be like Him." We will be clothed in that heavenly body that has no nature of rebellion.

 

[JonC]

Christ took on the form (likeness) but there is not sufficient evidence in my opinion for supporting that the temptation in the wilderness in any manner enticed the Lord. He was already creator of all, sustainer of all, and such temptation as presented in the wilderness was offering nothing that He did not already have command. Remember the angelic attention?

I am not sure that we are speaking of the same thing when we mention the “temptation”. I don’t mean that Jesus was enticed to sin, or that He was tempted to sin. I mean that the temptation was there (the opportunity) which appealed to a natural desire.

For example, if I am 3 days into a week-long fast and my wife offers to cook my favorite meal, I may not be tempted by the offer but the offer is nonetheless a temptation. My desire for food is not a sin. The presence of opportunity (the temptation) is not a sin. If I have vowed not to eat and put my desire for food (my desire of the flesh) over my commitment to God, however, then it is a sin.

Was satisfying hunger a sin for Jesus? No, of course not. But during that fast it would have been sin. What about assuming His rightful place over the nations? Again, not in itself for this is what is going to take place as every knee will bow. But at that time it would have been a sin as it was not the will of the Father. What about avoiding suffering? Again, this is not a sin. It is a normal human response. But it would have been a sin to avoid the Cross.

But to be clear, I am not suggesting that Jesus was being enticed or tempted to give in to these natural desires, these desires that in themselves were not sinful. Instead, I am suggesting that Jesus was successful in obedience where we falter.

In the garden, the statement of a will being conformed to the will of the Father is not presented as a contest of desires, but as a statement of compliance. I realize that more often the matter is presented as if Christ was in avoidance, but that would be placing a mark against the known character He revealed during the ministry years, and more the preparation statements made to the followers about what was going to take place. Again, notice the angelic attention.

Why then the physical manifestations of "sweat as drops of blood?" Why then, the cries and appeals as Hebrews 5 would show? These, too, are not presenting a combative scenario of desire and will as some (many) may assume, but both the demonstration of the human side responding to the future, and also the beginning of the blood cleansing that had to take place. Did the one who created all, and the sustainer of all, not have power over even His own body? What humans would see as combative and desire to avoid, the Scriptures would present as purposeful.

Realizing this is not the standard rendering presented in Luke (for we humans are often so dramatic in efforts to appeal) I expect some will push back. And that is just fine, for I rest upon the fact of the character and statements of the Christ prior to the events of the crucifixion, that He did not shrink back in even the hint of avoidance, but was thoroughly compliant and in agreement with the will of the Father.

I may disagree with you partly on this point. Some of this disagreement (?) I hope I’ve clarified by explaining my terms more clearly (my apologies for not doing so at the start).

While I do not see the Garden narrative to present a conflict or dichotomy between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, I do see it as presenting a conflict in terms of “warring” with the flesh. Jesus desired to redeem mankind. He lay down His own life, and throughout His ministry He explained that this was of His own accord. This was also the will of the Father, who sent His Son that all who believed would be saved. But at the same time Jesus had natural desires of the flesh. This is why, I believe, He prayed that if possible the cup would pass. The desire of the flesh would be not to suffer, not to be humiliated, not to be nailed on a cross. The desire of the spirit would be the will of the Father.

Upon retrospect, we may agree here and be wording it differently. Jesus’ entire earthly life was one of submission and faith in the Father.

The "reformers" looked at reforming the RCC and were not "separatists" until forced into that position. Part of the most difficult area of concern is to embrace the "doctrines of Grace" and not be drawn into the "reformed" schemes that mimic the RCC.

Part of the RCC presentation of Luke embraces this conflict between desire and will. One reason that I reject such thinking.

Christ was all human in likeness (form). But He was all God.

Now, He was not as believers who have both a nature of the flesh which is prone to rebellion, and the nature of Christ which is prone to Godliness.

Christ had ONE nature. As I have often presented, He was not double minded, double willed, doubled in authority.

The human nature of rebellion that came through Adam was not present, and the will of the Father was that present.

Such will be the believers when in their new body.

One reason Paul states most remarkably, that such a condition is not yet realized but when it is "we shall be like Him." We will be clothed in that heavenly body that has no nature of rebellion.

I do not believe that human nature itself is one of rebellion. I think in the Bible when we speak of nature we are speaking of the “flesh” and the “spirit”. The difference between our positions are not, however, that far off. While I believe that we had the same human nature that Christ had, we don’t have the same mind. This is why, IMHO, Paul encourages us to have the same mind that Christ had – that He sought equality with God as something not to be grasped but humbled Himself in obedience even to death.

It’s what we do with our desires – how we respond to them, to an extent, anyway. I do believe that sin is like an addiction and we end up with desires that are unnatural - either the desires themselves (e.g., homosexuality, pornography) or in power (e.g., gluttony, excess). This is why I try to emphasize that Jesus had natural desires of the flesh which, while contributing to His suffering, He submitted to the will of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong. The curse of Adam brought physical death. Are you suggesting Jesus didn't actually die?

He did upon the Cross, but ONLY due to Him allowing us to kill Him off, as Jesus had to permit that to happen, being very God Himself...

 

[Yeshua1]

I was thinking the same. What @Yeshua1 is suggesting is an old heresy just wrapped in more deceptive language. Saying Jesus was human (but not human like us) is just as much a denial of Christ's humanity as saying Jesus has a divine nature (just not like God) is a denial of His divinity.

No, do not appreciate you trying to label me as teaching heresy here, for I see that your denierl of the Pst by irself to be worse than anything I am teaching here on this issue! I am just stating that the Bible teaches that Jesus came in the likeness of a Human being, that he was a human, but that He did NOTY receive as a human the sinners natures that all of us have been born wirth after the Fall! Do I deny jesus was a real man. human being. NO! He was/is God Incarnate, but the scriptures do deny that in his humanity that was exactly as we are, in the sense of having a sinner natures!
And those here who deny the original Sin theology are also committing really bad theology!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not sure that we are speaking of the same thing when we mention the “temptation”. I don’t mean that Jesus was enticed to sin, or that He was tempted to sin. I mean that the temptation was there (the opportunity) which appealed to a natural desire.

For example, if I am 3 days into a week-long fast and my wife offers to cook my favorite meal, I may not be tempted by the offer but the offer is nonetheless a temptation. My desire for food is not a sin. The presence of opportunity (the temptation) is not a sin. If I have vowed not to eat and put my desire for food (my desire of the flesh) over my commitment to God, however, then it is a sin.

Was satisfying hunger a sin for Jesus? No, of course not. But during that fast it would have been sin. What about assuming His rightful place over the nations? Again, not in itself for this is what is going to take place as every knee will bow. But at that time it would have been a sin as it was not the will of the Father. What about avoiding suffering? Again, this is not a sin. It is a normal human response. But it would have been a sin to avoid the Cross.

But to be clear, I am not suggesting that Jesus was being enticed or tempted to give in to these natural desires, these desires that in themselves were not sinful. Instead, I am suggesting that Jesus was successful in obedience where we falter.I may disagree with you partly on this point. Some of this disagreement (?) I hope I’ve clarified by explaining my terms more clearly (my apologies for not doing so at the start).

While I do not see the Garden narrative to present a conflict or dichotomy between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, I do see it as presenting a conflict in terms of “warring” with the flesh. Jesus desired to redeem mankind. He lay down His own life, and throughout His ministry He explained that this was of His own accord. This was also the will of the Father, who sent His Son that all who believed would be saved. But at the same time Jesus had natural desires of the flesh. This is why, I believe, He prayed that if possible the cup would pass. The desire of the flesh would be not to suffer, not to be humiliated, not to be nailed on a cross. The desire of the spirit would be the will of the Father.

Upon retrospect, we may agree here and be wording it differently. Jesus’ entire earthly life was one of submission and faith in the Father.I do not believe that human nature itself is one of rebellion. I think in the Bible when we speak of nature we are speaking of the “flesh” and the “spirit”. The difference between our positions are not, however, that far off. While I believe that we had the same human nature that Christ had, we don’t have the same mind. This is why, IMHO, Paul encourages us to have the same mind that Christ had – that He sought equality with God as something not to be grasped but humbled Himself in obedience even to death.

It’s what we do with our desires – how we respond to them, to an extent, anyway. I do believe that sin is like an addiction and we end up with desires that are unnatural - either the desires themselves (e.g., homosexuality, pornography) or in power (e.g., gluttony, excess). This is why I try to emphasize that Jesus had natural desires of the flesh which, while contributing to His suffering, He submitted to the will of God.

BIG difference between the temptations of Jesus and me is that while tempted, NOTHING within Him in His nature would give in to that and commit sin, but my sin natures wants to give into it!

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. And I believe all those old heresies shared one common faulty foundation.

Every one of them thought it was impossible for a sinless spirit to indwell a sinful body without that Spirit becoming sinful. That has contributed to almost all the error regarding this issue

That's why the Roman Catholics made up the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. They just couldn't understand how the sinless Christ could indwell a sinful body. But they knew that his body at least was descended from Mary who also had a sinful body. Wallah now all of a sudden she's born without a sinful body

But one thing I don't think any of them took into account then or even now, is the indwelling of The Believer by the Holy Spirit. Peter said we become partakers of the divine nature, which means the sinless spirit of God indwells our sinful and corrupt body even today. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit becomes a sinner

Unless there was the Virgin Birth of jesus, he would have been born under the Fall curse, into sinful flesh, and would have born as a sinner, as ALL of us here were!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think this is the whole point of the incarnation (the self-sacrifice of the Son, the giving of the Father) and Christ bearing our sins in His flesh, being made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

What was sinful in his flesh then? Sin nature or what?

 

[JonC]

No, do not appreciate you trying to label me as teaching heresy here, for I see that your denierl of the Pst by irself to be worse than anything I am teaching here on this issue! I am just stating that the Bible teaches that Jesus came in the likeness of a Human being, that he was a human, but that He did NOTY receive as a human the sinners natures that all of us have been born wirth after the Fall! Do I deny jesus was a real man. human being. NO! He was/is God Incarnate, but the scriptures do deny that in his humanity that was exactly as we are, in the sense of having a sinner natures!
And those here who deny the original Sin theology are also committing really bad theology!

Hey Y1. I wasn't labeling you, but I am labeling the belief that Jesus had a "human nature" but not a "human nature like we have" as essentially saying Christ did not have a human nature. It is a heresy just worded differently. You are denying that Jesus was a "real man" like we are "real men". If you were to read Paul in Ephesians you would realize that the difference is not our natures but that our corruption comes from sin corrupting our desires.

Why should I reject the teachings of Jesus, Paul, James, and the author of Hebrews for your theory?

 

[JonC]

What was sinful in his flesh then? Sin nature or what?

Nothing. That's the point. When Paul said that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh he was not saying that Christ was sinful because he was human. But Christ had desires of the flesh that he did not before the Incarnation. And if Christ yielded to the flesh above obedience to God then it would be sin. Christ was human, yet without sin.

 

[JonC]

Unless there was the Virgin Birth of jesus, he would have been born under the Fall curse, into sinful flesh, and would have born as a sinner, as ALL of us here were!

He was born under the fall curse.

Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

 

[Yeshua1]

That's why scripture poses the scenario of a hypostatic union. The seeming conflict...

The Word of God, who was God, and is God, and was with God - He who is exactly like God - took upon himself that which is exactly like us.

The sinless One wrapping Himself in sinful flesh, without static

Without possessing the same sin nature that all of us had, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Y1. I wasn't labeling you, but I am labeling the belief that Jesus had a "human nature" but not a "human nature like we have" as essentially saying Christ did not have a human nature. It is a heresy just worded differently. You are denying that Jesus was a "real man" like we are "real men". If you were to read Paul in Ephesians you would realize that the difference is not our natures but that our corruption comes from sin corrupting our desires.

Why should I reject the teachings of Jesus, Paul, James, and the author of Hebrews for your theory?

The scriptures themselves affirm to us though in in the Fall, ALL born afterwards were tainted and had a real sin nature from birth, all of us were made spiritually dead and with a sin nature that had us from birth abent away from God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Nothing. That's the point. When Paul said that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh he was not saying that Christ was sinful because he was human. But Christ had desires of the flesh that he did not before the Incarnation. And if Christ yielded to the flesh above obedience to God then it would be sin. Christ was human, yet without sin.

All of us here were born though with sin natures, and a will bent on getting away from God, do you deny than the the Fall made all of us into sinners by birth and by choice than?

 

[JonC]

The scriptures themselves affirm to us though in in the Fall, ALL born afterwards were tainted and had a real sin nature from birth, all of us were made spiritually dead and with a sin nature that had us from birth abent away from God!

Which passage are you referring to ?

 

[Yeshua1]

He was born under the fall curse.

Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Not possible for the Creator to ever be subject to His creations own curse though!
What happened at the Fall? Do you see God has bringing upon all humanity the results of us now being born as sinners, or not?

 

[JonC]

All of us here were born though with sin natures, and a will bent on getting away from God, do you deny than the the Fall made all of us into sinners by birth and by choice than?

We all have human natures and we all sin (by placing our desires above God's will). Jesus had a human nature but didn't sin (he was obedient to the Father even unto death).