Jesus had a human nature?

[Joe]

Hi Joe,
Adam sinned because he transgressed the direct command of God to "not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil". He disobeyed God with full knowledge of the command, and full knowledge the consequences of disobedience.

Hello Amy.

He stuck by his wife, they became "one flesh" so if he would have left her alone in her sin, it would have been devistating. They would have been ripped apart, separated.

Maybe whatever choice he made, it would have been sin?

 

[webdog]

Hello Amy.

He stuck by his wife, they became "one flesh" so if he would have left her alone in her sin, it would have been devistating. They would have been ripped apart, separated.

Maybe whatever choice he made, it would have been sin?

Sin is transgressing God's Law...not the wife's Transgressing the wife's leads to sleeping on the couch.

 

[Marcia]

The passage from Romans 8 above doesn't actually say anything about Adam having a sin nature added to him after the Fall. I'm not arguing that we aren't sinful, or prone to sin - just that the tendency to sin was there all along, from the beginning and if Jesus was human He would have had the same nature to struggle with, only He was able to beat it.

Well, I never said Adam didn't have a sin nature, so it makes no sense to me to try to show how a sin nature was "added on." I guess I misunderstood your question/point.

I've always believed Adam could sin from the very beginning. I think when he sinned, then the tendency to sin and inability to not sin was passed on to all humanity. I think Jesus was able to not sin because He was God and because He was able to resist sin even with the human urges/tempations He had. At least, that's what I think now.

 

[Joe]

Sin is transgressing God's Law...not the wife's Transgressing the wife's leads to sleeping on the couch.

LOL!! :thumbs:
btw, my wife is home for the summer. She said you were a handsome fellow with a cute kid. Seriously, she said that yesterday.

 

[lbaker]

I've always believed Adam could sin from the very beginning. I think when he sinned, then the tendency to sin and inability to not sin was passed on to all humanity. I think Jesus was able to not sin because He was God and because He was able to resist sin even with the human urges/tempations He had. At least, that's what I think now.

Exactly!

I believe we have somehow blundered our way into agreement. ;-)

 

[Benjamin]

Jesus could not/would not sin.

Jesus was tempted in every point as we are but He never yielded.

The two are not mutally exclusive.

Nowhere that I know of does the Scripture say the source of Jesus temptations were internal.

They were always from an external source.

And that IMO is why the temptations were presented to Him.
To prove to the universe of His creation that He was incapable of yielding to any temptation - internal (of which there was nothing for satan to appeal to) or external.


HankD

Concerning separating the "could not" from the "would not" sin:

Jesus as 100% man had the Spirit of God; Jesus spoke the true and perfect Word of God, He did not receive the Spirit by measure, and in this was also fully God. He came from above in the nature of God and all things were given in His hand. That said:
.
On one hand Omnipotent God “could” and did truly come to earth in the nature of a man, in the Person of Jesus Christ, 100% flesh and blood man, and “could” as a truth be tempted to sin in this nature of a man, as this is a truth of the nature in which man exists from creation. (Something to look at is Jesus existed before creation as God, but not as a man.) Although, this subject (mystery) easily begins going beyond my comprehension; Jesus limited Himself in becoming man in order to truly fulfill the law, and Jesus Christ in His righteousness did fulfill it as a 100% man for this to be truth, but He did it IN the Spirit/Nature of God. It seems if to say Jesus “could not sin” it might be mistaken as a denial of Him being truly 100% man. I am not implying that you would ever say that Hank :saint: , but just trying to clarify. Your point of internal/external is well taken and looked at by me in the light of the “eternal.” (I agree with what I’ve heard concerning this, said, “That to deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.”)

On the other hand, Jesus was also 100% God and therefore “would not sin” as that is the true nature of God, (that He is only Good.) and part of the truth is Him having the 100% Spirit of God in the nature of a man. In that light, He would be incapable of sinning, and therefore, with the two natures combined I feel it could also be properly said that He “could not sin.”

1)Could Jesus sin? Yes and no. (One Person having two natures is a mystery to me, but true none the less.)
2)Would Jesus sin? No!

 

[JustChristian]

I also had a problem with that same question, Salamander.

The human nature is subject to sin. Christ was not.

But don't you believe that Jesus was tempted? The Bible clearly says that He was. Therefore, He was subject to sin. Unlike every other man who has ever lived He defeated sin completely, not only for Himself but for everyone who accepts Him as their Lord and Savior.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

But don't you believe that Jesus was tempted? The Bible clearly says that He was. Therefore, He was subject to sin. Unlike every other man who has ever lived He defeated sin completely, not only for Himself but for everyone who accepts Him as their Lord and Savior.

Not in the sense of being tempted to sin as we are, BB. Christ cannot sin and could not sin and therefore the testing in the wilderness was no real temptation to sin.

It was more of a test on satan's part to try to cause Christ to sin... of which he failed miserably.

 

[webdog]

Scripture says He was tempted in "every way" as we are. Temptation stems from desires of the flesh. Temptation is not sin. Christ had human flesh that was corruptible and ultimately died. To state Christ was not tempted, and He could not have sinned is to deny the plain teachings found in Scripture.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Scripture says He was tempted in "every way" as we are. Temptation stems from desires of the flesh. Temptation is not sin. Christ had human flesh that was corruptible and ultimately died. To state Christ was not tempted, and He could not have sinned is to deny the plain teachings found in Scripture.

Christ could not have sinned. To claim He could have sinned is to deny His deity.

 

[webdog]

Christ could not have sinned. To claim He could have sinned is to deny His deity.

No, I an confirming His deity in that He didn't sin unlike other humans.

 

[Benjamin]

Christ could not have sinned. To claim He could have sinned is to deny His deity.

You clearly attempt to diminish Christ’ humanity because of His Divinity.

For one to be 100% human, would not one have to have two human parents?

Christ only had one human parent. Can it truly be said He was 100% human?

If it were possible for a cat to be mated with a dog, the outcome would not be a 100% cat/100% dog. It takes two of the same species to produce 100% of that species.

Why not the same equation for man? How can it be said one is 100% man if the human father's DNA is not used?

Church fathers have been wrong in many of their writings.

Can you give me a verse that says He was 100% man? That He had the nature to sin? That He struggled with sin as we do?

I cannot find it.

Another reason I do not like to say He was 100% man is because He, unlike you or me, was not born speaking lies.

Even as an infant, there was something He portrayed in His flesh that was unlike that of any other man on earth.

He certainly was 100% flesh, but not 100% man in that He did not have the sinful nature of man.

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

I say He was 100% flesh, but not 100% man, for He did not come forth as man did speaking lies.

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.

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.

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.

The first Adam was of the earth, earthy (dusty and dirty, soil-like); the second Adam was the Lord from heaven.

From this verse, it would appear Christ's flesh was not the same as ours... even though it was flesh.

In Him was no sin because it was not His nature to sin.

Christ was human in that He was born in the human race with a flesh, blood and bone body. But He was not born with that nature to choose between good and evil.

In denying His full humanity you have… BIG problems.

Originally posted by Amy.G:
I agree that it was not "sinful" flesh, but it was human flesh none the less. It was the same body that we are born with.

Amen. Amazing isn’t it, but true none the less.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In saying Christ could have sinned, one has much bigger problems.

They put Him on the same level as the false gods of mythology who were prone to mistakes.

Christ said He could do nothing except that which He saw His Father doing and that He came to do the Father's will

Now, if one claims that Christ could have sinned, that one is in all essence claiming that God sins. For Christ can do nothing except that which He sees the Father doing.

 

[4His_glory]

SFIC,

What you seem to be indicating sounds like Apollinariansim. This was the teaching of bishop in Laodicea around 361 A.D. It is the idea that Christ has a human body but not a human mind or spirit.

Heb 2:17 clearly rejects this notion. Christ was made like His brethren in all things, This was necessary because Christ had to be fully man if He was to deliver man completely because the human mind and spirit must be delivered from sin as well.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

SFIC,

What you seem to be indicating sounds like Apollinariansim. This was the teaching of bishop in Laodicea around 361 A.D. It is the idea that Christ has a human body but not a human mind or spirit.

Heb 2:17 clearly rejects this notion. Christ was made like His brethren in all things, This was necessary because Christ had to be fully man if He was to deliver man completely because the human mind and spirit must be delivered from sin as well.

Christ did not have a sin nature. He did not have the propensity to sin.

He came to do the Father's will. He could do nothing but that which God sent Him for.

He could not sin.

 

[4His_glory]

Christ did not have a sin nature. He did not have the propensity to sin.

He came to do the Father's will. He could do nothing but that which God sent Him for.

He could not sin.

I agree that Christ did not have a sin nature. He was not positively bent toward sin like the unregenerate man. The Bible seems pretty clear though that He was completely man, even experiencing our temptations in the same manner in which we experience them.

This is one of those paradoxes that we must embrace in faith. Christ was human, but he was not corrupted by sin.

 

[Marcia]

Not in the sense of being tempted to sin as we are, BB. Christ cannot sin and could not sin and therefore the testing in the wilderness was no real temptation to sin.

It was more of a test on satan's part to try to cause Christ to sin... of which he failed miserably.

But if Christ couldn't sin, then Satan's attempts would of course fail, no matter how hard Satan tried. That doesn't make it much of a test. It's like saying you are trying to make butter into cream by just looking at it. It will not happen.

Besides, the bible doesn't say it was a test of Satan; it says the Spirit drew Jesus into the wilderness where He was tempted/tested. Jesus is the direct object of that - not Satan.

Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness. 13 And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him. Mark 1.12

 

[standingfirminChrist]

But if Christ couldn't sin, then Satan's attempts would of course fail, no matter how hard Satan tried. That doesn't make it much of a test. It's like saying you are trying to make butter into cream by just looking at it. It will not happen.

Besides, the bible doesn't say it was a test of Satan; it says the Spirit drew Jesus into the wilderness where He was tempted/tested. Jesus is the direct object of that - not Satan.

The fact that Jesus said at age 12 "I must be about my Father's business," and the fact that during the last 4 years of His ministry (which I believe started at 12 years of age) Jesus stated He could do nothing except what He saw the Father doing, tells me He could not sin.

He did not say He came to prove that He could choose to sin or not to sin. He said He came to do the will of God and could not do otherwise.

He did not have the propensity to sin whatsoever.

 

[Amy.G]

The fact that Jesus said at age 12 "I must be about my Father's business," and the fact that during the last 4 years of His ministry (which I believe started at 12 years of age) Jesus stated He could do nothing except what He saw the Father doing, tells me He could not sin.

He did not say He came to prove that He could choose to sin or not to sin. He said He came to do the will of God and could not do otherwise.

He did not have the propensity to sin whatsoever.

Did Christ have a human nature?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Did Christ have a human nature?

He had a human nature in that He ate, slept, etc.

But He did not have a sinful nature.