Jesus had a human nature?

[Jarthur001]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether Christ COULD sin or not.
Does it?

that is fair....

Lets put it this way....

If sinning was picking up a rock, Christ had the power in his body to pick up that rock.

However, being that he was not from Adam but was the second Adam, and was not born with the sin nature, he had no desire to sin (pick up the rock) as we have.


Is that clear?

 

[Benjamin]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether Christ COULD sin or not.
Does it?

To add to your question:

Most of us will say Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God. So which part(s) died of the cross? Can God die? Can God suffer? On the other hand, could our sins be atoned for if He didn't?

I may respond later.

 

[nunatak]

I think one reason there is the debate as to the sin nature is because so many think the body is the locale of the sin nature. But I don't think there is a physical location for the sin nature; it's just a term for saying we have a tendency toward sin. I think people don't need their bodies to sin or have the tendency to sin; it comes from rebellion and pride, not being naturally submissive to God's will. So Jesus could be 100% man and not have the sin nature since he was also God.

According to this line of thought, Christ could not sin. Not to derail the thread, but doesn't this also imply that Christ did not have free will?

 

[Zenas]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether Christ COULD sin or not.
Does it?

Of course He could have sinned, just like Adam. Like Adam, Jesus was free of original sin but unlike Adam He did not sin. Adam left us with the curse of sin; Jesus took it away. That is why 1 Corinthians 15 refers to Jesus as the last Adam. After all He was fully a man. If Jesus was tempted (and he was), He could have sinned. Thank God, He did not or we would all be lost.

 

[nunatak]

To add to your question:

Most of us will say Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God. So which part(s) died of the cross? Can God die? Can God suffer? On the other hand, could our sins be atoned for if He didn't?

I may respond later.

Yeah, that's a good point. And what about his prayer in the garden?

 

[nunatak]

that is fair....

Lets put it this way....

If sinning was picking up a rock, Christ had the power in his body to pick up that rock.

However, being that he was not from Adam but was the second Adam, and was not born with the sin nature, he had no desire to sin (pick up the rock) as we have.


Is that clear?

Sort of, if sinning is someone throwing herself at Christ, he had no desire to "go there." So, then, how does the lack of sin nature work with the fact he was fully man? I understand he was fully God. But if one is fully man, doesn't that come with a sin nature? How can Christ be fully man, and not have a sin nature? I know he didn't, I just don't understand it.

 

[Marcia]

Not sure what version you are using, Marcia, but my Bible does not say 'in all things.'

He was made like His brethren... in 100% flesh. But not the sinful nature... else when He was born, He would have come forth speaking lies.

He was born of a woman, was He not? Had He come forth speaking lies as Scripture declares, then He would not have been the sinless sacrifice needed for man's sin.

That was the NASB. But it's the same in the King James:

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.
17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus did not just put on a body like a suit or something. That would mean he was not really human.

I'm not saying Jesus had a sin nature; he couldn't because he was God.

Where are you getting this "speaking lies" stuff? If it's from Ps. 5, that is about the wicked:

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

 

[nunatak]

Where are you getting this "speaking lies" stuff? If it's from Ps. 5, that is about the wicked:

Wouldn't that be everyone?

 

[Marcia]

Wouldn't that be everyone?

Just looking at that passage, no, it's specifically about a group called "the wicked."

I said it was from Ps. 5 but it's Ps. 58. SFIC was saying that the Bible says everyone comes forth from the womb speaking lies, but this passage says "the wicked." I think we should go by what the text says. I was trying to point that out.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus did not just put on a body like a suit or something. That would mean he was not really human.

Jesus said of the Father in Hebrews "a body Thou hast prepared me."

God had the body prepared for Him before He even was placed in the womb.

He was human in that He was flesh, bone, and blood.

But He did not have every trait of a human, for it was not in Him to sin as it is in you or I. So, in that respect, He was not 100% human even though He was 100% human flesh.

As nunatak pointed out, He had no desire to sin, none whatsoever. So that was missing from the human traits that Christ had.

 

[Jarthur001]

What Church leaders wrote doesn't matter if it doesn't line up with God's Holy Word.

Scripture declares Christ was without sin. I believe it.

You fail to see the value of Church history. These men just didn't pull things out of the air. They all studied them just as we do today. What you will see in history all the debates back with verses by both sides In some cases as many as 4 sides. If in the end it did not line up with the Bible it was thrown out. As you read the debates you two can take it or leave it based on if the writer backs his views with scripture. Never believe others only on there words. I see the very heart of our faith at times come under attack, only because they have never studied. Its not wrong to ask, but when it is shown over and over that some of these doctrines have been held by all Christians for 2000 years and yet they still do not believe, it puzzles me. All am saying is read some church books and will help not hurt you.

Scripture says He is God. I believe it.

yes

Scripture says He was born in the flesh of the virgin Mary. I believe it.

yes

Scripture says man born of a woman comes forth speaking lies. Do you think Jesus had this trait? Did He come forth lying?

Nope, but all other babies born came forth lying for one reason. They had a human father. The sin nature is past through man. This is clear as it is told in Gen.

I say He was 100% flesh, but not 100% man,

You can say what you want. Like the quote at the bottom of Benjamin's post....that don't make it right.

The fact is, they are both the same thing.

for He did not come forth as man did speaking lies.

:applause:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

They must've not studied enough. They not only missed on the fact that Jesus was not born with a sin nature, so therefore was not 100% human even though 100% God in a 100% flesh body.

They missed on election too. Maybe if they truly understood election, they would have understood the rest of what Christ wanted them to know.

 

[Baptist Believer]

They must've not studied enough. They not only missed on the fact that Jesus was not born with a sin nature, so therefore was not 100% human even though 100% God in a 100% flesh body.

Adam was 100% human, even though he was created without a sin nature.

 

[JDale]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether Christ COULD sin or not.
Does it?

I answered that question -- Post #31.

JDale

 

[Jarthur001]

Sort of, if sinning is someone throwing herself at Christ, he had no desire to "go there." So, then, how does the lack of sin nature work with the fact he was fully man? I understand he was fully God. But if one is fully man, doesn't that come with a sin nature? How can Christ be fully man, and not have a sin nature? I know he didn't, I just don't understand it.

I'm sure you know of the phrase "in Christ". The phrase is loaded with alot of meanings. But the one I want to point out here is the federal headship of Christ. What this means is that he was the 1st of a new race. The 1st Adam and Christ the 2nd Adam, both had a human nature. Adam sinned and his nature was a fallen nature or sin nature. Adam however was made pure with no sin.

Christ was the 2nd Adam ...the begining of the new man....a new race...a new people. Christ had the power in him to sin, but unlike Adam did not fall into sin. He had vicory over sin, and there by won the fight over death also.

The new race , or all that are born again or born from above, will leave the old man (Adam) and become sons of God in the new nation.

They go from (in Adam) to (in Christ)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The following is a reply I made in a thread about the theology quiz: "Um, I need some help here with the question about how many natures Jesus has?

The human nature is always sinful, yet Jesus was without sin in that he could not have ever sinned, so how is it the quiz determined that Jesus has the Divine nature which cannot sin, yet Jesus also has the human nature which IS sinful???

I never knew that taking on the form of a man made Jesus subject to sin according to human nature?

I believe we can see the subtility of the devil in the "correct" answer!

I scored 100% according to the Bible, but only 95% according to the quiz. Guess which question I "missed"?

If Jesus ever had two natures, the human nature subject to the flesh and the flesh at enmity with God and lusteth against the Spirit, then how could this quiz be theologicaly correct? It is not correct 100% in and of itsself."
__________________
Is there anyone else that sees the problem with, suggesting only, Jesus also having the human nature?

No one has responded to my post in that thread and think this is very worthy of discussion.

I do understand that he took on the form of man, yet Jesus was never even able to sin.

Jesus had two natures: Divine and Human. To believe Jesus was not fully human just as he is to be Sabalian.

 

[Amy.G]

Aren't "human nature" and "sin nature" usually used interchangeably?

If we say that Christ had a human nature, is that the same thing as saying He had a sin nature, since human nature is sinful?

 

[HankD]

Jesus said of the Father in Hebrews "a body Thou hast prepared me."

God had the body prepared for Him before He even was placed in the womb.

He was human in that He was flesh, bone, and blood.

But He did not have every trait of a human, for it was not in Him to sin as it is in you or I. So, in that respect, He was not 100% human even though He was 100% human flesh.

As nunatak pointed out, He had no desire to sin, none whatsoever. So that was missing from the human traits that Christ had.

And the Word was made flesh...

He was/is fully human/fully God.

Just because He cant/wont sin doesn't make Him less than human, it makes Him perfectly human.

NKJ Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.​

Flesh - sarx (look it up). He was born of woman, a mortal human being subject to death (obviously).

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.​

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.​

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

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.​

HankD

 

[Jarthur001]

They must've not studied enough. They not only missed on the fact that Jesus was not born with a sin nature, so therefore was not 100% human even though 100% God in a 100% flesh body.

just do a short study on the headship of Christ and maybe you will understand where i'm coming from.

They missed on election too. Maybe if they truly understood election, they would have understood the rest of what Christ wanted them to know.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is talking about election? And why bring it up? And what proof do you have to say such a thing?

 

[Jarthur001]

Aren't "human nature" and "sin nature" usually used interchangeably?

If we say that Christ had a human nature, is that the same thing as saying He had a sin nature, since human nature is sinful?

not at all...

see my post above.