Jesus had a human nature?

[Joe]

John 5:19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 3:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here are a few more verses which appear to indicate, Jesus could not sin upon being tempted. He could not sin because he does not seek his own will.

Jesus can do nothing of himself, which means he can't sin as man because he only does what the Father does.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The Bible does not say God sent Jesus in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh.

There is a difference.

Christ could not sin because no sin was in Him.

 

[Joe]

who are you talking to?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Benjamin had quoted the verses that point out God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh and bolded them.

I figured he must have been implying Jesus' flesh was sinful.

It was not.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin had quoted the verses that point out God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh and bolded them.

I figured he must have been implying Jesus' flesh was sinful.

It was not.

If that is all you got out of my post then you are not only sorely mistaken with your "cheap shot" but also showing you are unable back up your "view" rationally and will only answer with sarcasm and childish repeating of yourself while you disregard any or all legitimate rebuttals by any means necessary. I for one won't play your games.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If that is all you got out of my post then you are not only sorely mistaken with your "cheap shot" but also showing you are unable back up your "view" rationally and will only answer with sarcasm and childish repeating of yourself while you disregard any or all legitimate rebuttals by any means necessary. I for one won't play your games.

I have already backed up my view with Scripture.

 

[blackbird]

John 5:19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 3:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here are a few more verses which appear to indicate, Jesus could not sin upon being tempted. He could not sin because he does not seek his own will.

Jesus can do nothing of himself, which means he can't sin as man because he only does what the Father does.

BINGO!!!!:type:

 

[lbaker]

John 5:19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 3:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here are a few more verses which appear to indicate, Jesus could not sin upon being tempted. He could not sin because he does not seek his own will.

Jesus can do nothing of himself, which means he can't sin as man because he only does what the Father does.

Does this mean Jesus didn't have free will?

 

[Benjamin]

Does this mean Jesus didn't have free will?

I look at it as that IN His free will and “100%” human nature He was righteously obedient to His Father’s will, and always “only” seeking the Father’s will (this shows that He had true judgment.) Even in the garden, while facing what was to come about, when His human nature cast great fears and anguish over this situation (He was tempted, and this temptation to ask for another way was a reality) yet, His judgment remained obedient.

It isn’t about that He “couldn’t” sin in the human nature, but that He “wouldn’t” sin because of Who He is. It has everything to do with “only Him,” the Son, One person of our Trinitarian God, being perfect in judgment “because” of His 100% obedience to the One Person of the Father, even while 100% human. Remaining spotless through His 100% humanity and becoming the sacrificial Lamb in “true” righteousness, meaning truly done in ALL His humanity through ALL human aspects; it is by necessity a truth that can not be cut short by denying His ability to do otherwise while denying His humanity in any way. Therefore, for good reason, it is pure heresy to deny His 100% humanity. If one uses the semantic expression of “could not sin,” in the way it has been being used here, (meaning toward denying His full 100% humanity) well then… it is what it is.

 

[Aaron]

John 5:19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 3:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Here are a few more verses which appear to indicate, Jesus could not sin upon being tempted. He could not sin because he does not seek his own will.

Jesus can do nothing of himself, which means he can't sin as man because he only does what the Father does.

This is good.

Let's not forget something that the Scriptures say in a straightfoward, explicit manner that God cannot do. He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). That means that He cannot do anything that is contrary to His divine nature. It isn't that He simply isn't willing to be contrary (certainly He is not willing to be), it is that it is impossible for God to be contrary to His own nature. It is impossible for God to lie, Heb. 6:18.

The same is true for fallen men. The carnal mind is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, Rom. 8:7.

Jesus could not sin. As partakers of the divine nature, our new man cannot sin either, 1 John 3:9, though our old man can do no good.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Benjamin]

This is good.

...it is that it is impossible for God to be contrary to His own nature. It is impossible for God to lie, Heb. 6:18.

So what do you do with God becoming flesh, is that only divine nature? Now you have two natures, I don't really think you can put one over the other. While in the nature of the flesh Jesus did not know the day or hour, but only the Father. So would you deny that Jesus had limited Himself, in some way, to become a man?


One more thing:

He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13).

Did He lie when He said He didn't know that day?

 

[Aaron]

So what do you do with God becoming flesh, is that only divine nature?

As I see it, flesh and blood is not evil. It is good, but what animated Christ's flesh and blood? Was it a created spirit, as Adam's, or was it a begotten spirit? Adam was created, not begotten. He was created good, yes, but he was not created incorruptible. He was not a partaker of the divine nature. Christ was not created, He was begotten of the Father, incorruptible God begotten of incorruptible God, who was for a time clothed in flesh.

Now you have two natures, I don't really think you can put one over the other.

I don't see that Christ has two natures. He is the only begotten of the Father, and has one, incorruptible divine nature. He just put a robe of flesh over it for a while.

While in the nature of the flesh Jesus did not know the day or hour, but only the Father. So would you deny that Jesus had limited Himself, in some way, to become a man?

Christ was willingly subject to weakness, yes, but I wouldn't word it the way you did. What does "in the nature of the flesh" mean? That He had the spirit of a man? I cannot agree with that.

One more thing:

Did He lie when He said He didn't know that day?

Of course not. I'm not sure what you're point is with that question.

 

[Joe]

Does this mean Jesus didn't have free will?

Our Lord states: "I and My father are One" John 14:10

God/Jesus offers mankind free will so we can use our free will to choose to accept or reject him.

There is no need for free will regarding Jesus. I am not sure how he would be able to choose to reject himself

 

[Joe]

This is good.

Let's not forget something that the Scriptures say in a straightfoward, explicit manner that God cannot do. He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). That means that He cannot do anything that is contrary to His divine nature. It isn't that He simply isn't willing to be contrary (certainly He is not willing to be), it is that it is impossible for God to be contrary to His own nature. It is impossible for God to lie, Heb. 6:18.

The same is true for fallen men. The carnal mind is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, Rom. 8:7.

Jesus could not sin. As partakers of the divine nature, our new man cannot sin either, 1 John 3:9, though our old man can do no good.

That's how I see it anyway.

ha ha Is there an echo in here?
See my post- #136
Good additions, thanks

 

[Benjamin]

As I see it, flesh and blood is not evil. It is good, but what animated Christ's flesh and blood? Was it a created spirit, as Adam's, or was it a begotten spirit? Adam was created, not begotten. He was created good, yes, but he was not created incorruptible. He was not a partaker of the divine nature. Christ was not created, He was begotten of the Father, incorruptible God begotten of incorruptible God, who was for a time clothed in flesh.

I don't see that Christ has two natures. He is the only begotten of the Father, and has one, incorruptible divine nature. He just put a robe of flesh over it for a while.

Christ was willingly subject to weakness, yes, but I wouldn't word it the way you did. What does "in the nature of the flesh" mean? That He had the spirit of a man? I cannot agree with that.


Of course not. I'm not sure what you're point is with that question.

My point is that I look at it as Jesus Christ had two natures. I would reject any teaching that denied either one of His natures as 100%; typically it is said that He was 100% human and 100% divine in One Person, the Son. If He only had one incorruptible nature then which part(s) died on the cross? Can God die? Or suffer? Can the atonement be sufficient to cleanse of our sins if all that died was “a robe of flesh” … this flesh being separated out and belittled to the point of a staged act??? I don’t know how He did it, other than He is God, but He did come in the “likeness” of sinful flesh, yet undoubtedly He had the Spirit of God in the flesh and did not sin because of His Divine nature. Regardless, the humanitarian nature had to also be 100% real.

I don’t know if you read all the tread but I said I agreed with the statement that, “That to deny the humanity of Christ is just as much a heresy as to deny His Divinity.”

I see no way to deny either nature as 100% or put one above the other and not run into major complications. I believe in the history of church the same conclusion was settled on; One person-two natures, for good reason.

P.S. I agree flesh and blood is not evil, and would hold that man becomes evil through his judgment of good and evil. I don't have enough time to get into the incoruptible begotten aspect right now, but may to to reply about that later.

 

[Aaron]

I was just explaining it the way I see it. The mystery of the Incarnation is too big to wrap around with our feeble little minds. Naturally, there will be questions that none of us can answer to the satisfaction of the minds of men. We would be more successful attempting to bail out the sea with measuring cup.

 

[Salamander]

Do you have a scripture for that?

My take is that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God at the same time.

The book says He was tempted just like us. If that's true he had to have the same sinful nature that we have, otherwise His temptation was just a joke and He wasn't completely human.

Um, the devil only thought he could tempt Jesus to sin failing to see Jesus is God who cannot sin.

Dumb devil huh?

The only thing that changed when Adam ate the fruit was that he gained a knowledge of good and evil. At least that is all I find in scripture. Maybe that is what Paul refers to as the sinful nature. Or, maybe the SN was something Adam was created with - perhaps something to do with free will? Obviously Adam was created able to sin, since he (or they) did.

Yet Jesus could not sin.

Heb 4:15 For 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.

I Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth

 

[standingfirminChrist]

From today's Days of Praise Devotional:

Made of a Woman
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. | Jul. 26, 2008

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." (Galatians 4:4)

This is a key verse related to the incarnation, and therefore to the whole plan of salvation. The promise was made in the very beginning, when God promised that the seed of the woman would bring salvation from sin and Satan (Genesis 3:15). But it would be at least four thousand years before God's "fullness of the time was come."

But, right on God's schedule, He came, miraculously conceived and born of "a |literally 'the'| virgin" (Isaiah 7:14). Paul, carefully choosing his words, says He was "made of a woman." The word rendered "made" (Greek, ginomai) is not the usual word for "born" (gennao). Paul did not say He was born of a woman, but made of a woman, evidently to emphasize that the human birth of Jesus was unique—different from all other human births. In fact, His human body had to be specially "prepared" by God (Hebrews 10:5) so that He could be born without either an inherent sin-nature or any inherited genetic defects from either parent. In order to "redeem them that were under the law" (Galatians 4:5), the Son must Himself be "without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19).

Not only was He "made of a woman" so as to be without inherited sin, but He was "made under the law" so that He could be shown to live without committing sin. It is only through God's written law that we really know what sin is. "By the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). And we know that we cannot possibly "keep the whole law" (James 2:10).

But Christ did! Therefore, since He was "made under the law" and had come "to fulfill" the law (Matthew 5:17), He can indeed redeem every sinner who will come to Him in repentance and faith. HMM

 

[Aaron]

Dr. Morris is a better biologist than a theologian, and he has forgotten the fact that Mary conceived in her womb. Jesus was not only born of a woman, he was conceived in her as well. Her flesh was used to make Christ's body.

He also has a false impression of sin. He sees it as something that is passed on by the parents like a genetic trait. As a biologist, he should think of sin like a genetic mutation, which is not the addition of genetic information, but the loss thereof. In the same way sin is not a thing, but the lack of a thing, and that thing is spiritual life. It is something that our natural parents cannot give us.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate of the forbidden fruit, they died just as God said they would. Therefore, every one of their offspring are stillborn. Spiritually speaking, we're all monsters. A spiritual freakshow if you will. We have to remember that Mary was part of that freakshow, being dead in sins and trespasses as well. She was just as powerless to impart innocence as well.

Christ's sinlessness is a virtue of who He was, is and always will be—God, so it was not of necessity that Christ was born of a Virgin as if the sin nature is something that is "passed" by the male only, or that some special creation had to occur to leave it out. That kind of thinking leads to such superstitious thinking like the Immaculate Conception (in reference to Mary's sinlessless), and DeHaan's "divine blood" foolishness (which denies Christ's humanity), and even worse, God's DNA.

Christ was indeed born of a virgin, but that had nothing to do with His sinlessless, or His divinity, except as a sign.

 

[Aaron]

ha ha Is there an echo in here?
See my post- #136
Good additions, thanks

I guess there is and echo! :laugh: But I don't agree with your statements about Adam's desires prior to the Fall. I don't think we can understand sinless pathos, all of ours are inordinate and monstrous not only in the way we act upon them, but in their very nature as well.