Jarthur001 said:
Christ did not have a sin nature, so was not like us in that way. Nor did Eve have a sin nature before the moment of sin.....just as npetreley has said.
I never said Christ had a sin nature, He does not. What I disagreed with was idea that it wasn't the
" least bit difficult for Jesus". And what I said was that believe it was a difficult ordeal to go through, and that, He had the ability to sin and had to fight off the temptations.
I am posting some writing on this topic, that I believe is interesting, that some of you might enjoy reading.
"To obtain, if we can, a clearer understanding of this subject, two points must be kept in view. Christ's was real, though unfallen Human Nature; and Christ's Human was in inseparable union with His Divine Nature. We are not attempting to explain these mysteries, nor at present to vindicate them; we are only arguing from the standpoint of the Gospels and Apostolic teaching, which proceeds on these premisses-and proceeding on them, we are trying to understand the Temptation of Christ. Now it is clear, that human nature. that of Adam before his fall, was created both sinless and peccable. If Christ's Human Nature was not like ours, but, morally, like that of Adam before his fall, then must it be likewise have been both sinless and in itself peccable. We say, in itself-for there is a great difference between the statement that human nature, as Adman and Christ had it, was capable of sinning, and this other, that Christ was peccable. From the latter the Christian mind instinctively recoils, even as it is metaphysically impossible to imagine the Son of God peccable. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself human nature with all its infirmities and weaknesses-but without taint of the Fall: without sin. It was human nature, in itself capable of sinning, but not having sinned. If He was absolutely sinless, He must have been unfallen. The position of the first Adam was that of being capable of not sinning, not that of being incapable of sinning. The Second Adam also had a nature capable of not sinning, but not incapable of sinning. This explains the possibility of "temptation" or assault upon Him, just as Adam could be tempted before there was in him any inward consensus to it. The first Adam would have been "perfected"-or passed from the capability of not sinning to the incapability of sinning-by obedience. That "obedience"-or absolute submission to the Will of God-was the grand outstanding characteristic of Christ's work; but it was so, because God was His Father, therefore He must be about His business, which was to do the Will of His Father. With a peccable Human Nature He was impeccable; not because He obeyed, but being impeccable He so obeyed, because His Human was inseparably connected with His Divine nature. To keep this Union of the two Nature out of view would be Nestorianism. To sum up:The Second Adam, morally unfallen, though voluntarily subject to all the conditions of our Nature, was, with a peccable Human Nature, absolutely impeccable as being also the Son of God-a peccable Nature. yet an impeccable person: the God-Man. "tempted in regard to all (things) in like manner (as we), without (excepting) sin."
-------- Alfred Edersheim
