Was Jesus born with exact same human nature as all of us?

[JonC]

I am saying Genesis lists precisely what happened during the fall.

This is the crux of the disagreement. Is Scripture sufficient or do we depend on additional theories?

What we have to ask is whether we can deal with God's Word without adding the myths and theories that comprise the foundation of Penal Substitution Theory. Does Scripture make sense without adding these things? I believe it does. Others here cannot make sense of Scripture without adding a mythology as a narrative to fill in what does not make sense to them.

That is my complaint against Calvinism. Scripture does not make sense to them so they have to weave a narrative into the text.

We have to remember that historic fiction is just as much fiction as it is history. The history does not negate the fiction.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am saying Genesis lists precisely what happened during the fall.
I am also saying Genesis says nothing about mankind becoming constitutionally altered at the core of his being.
Those are Theologically-driven assumptions.

It is enough for me that all men are obviously inclined towards sin, and that in time all humans will invariably sin at some point.

I have no need to say we have "sin natures" and no need to conjure up fanciful stories for how Christ side-stepped that sin nature. Those are Catholic relics adopted from Gnostic Philosophy carried over into Protestant assumptions.
Genesis says nothing about a "spiritual component" of man dying at the fall. The threat was death....normal death. And it happened. Man became subject to death. It may be perfectly decent Theological short-hand to speak of "Spiritual death" if it's helpful....but it isn't Biblical verbiage. It's Theological verbiage.

1. God said to Adam the moment that you eat, yoy shall surely die, so did he drop dead right then and there? Nope, but His spiritual relationship to God sure did change, as was now broken, and needed a coming Messiah to repair it again!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the crux of the disagreement. Is Scripture sufficient or do we depend on additional theories?

What we have to ask is whether we can deal with God's Word without adding the myths and theories that comprise the foundation of Penal Substitution Theory. Does Scripture make sense without adding these things? I believe it does. Others here cannot make sense of Scripture without adding a mythology as a narrative to fill in what does not make sense to them.

That is my complaint against Calvinism. Scripture does not make sense to them so they have to weave a narrative into the text.

We have to remember that historic fiction is just as much fiction as it is history. The history does not negate the fiction.

You then deny the Covenant of Works, correct?

 

[JonC]

You then deny the Covenant of Works, correct?

I affirm Scripture. There are extra biblical things I believe. But we cannot read that back into Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am saying Genesis lists precisely what happened during the fall.
I am also saying Genesis says nothing about mankind becoming constitutionally altered at the core of his being.
Those are Theologically-driven assumptions.

It is enough for me that all men are obviously inclined towards sin, and that in time all humans will invariably sin at some point.

I have no need to say we have "sin natures" and no need to conjure up fanciful stories for how Christ side-stepped that sin nature. Those are Catholic relics adopted from Gnostic Philosophy carried over into Protestant assumptions.
Genesis says nothing about a "spiritual component" of man dying at the fall. The threat was death....normal death. And it happened. Man became subject to death. It may be perfectly decent Theological short-hand to speak of "Spiritual death" if it's helpful....but it isn't Biblical verbiage. It's Theological verbiage.

Do you deny that Jesus had to come via the Virgin birth then?

 

[JonC]

1. God said to Adam the moment that you eat, yoy shall surely die, so did he drop dead right then and there? Nope, but His spiritual relationship to God sure did change, as was now broken, and needed a coming Messiah to repair it again!

The verse actually uses die twice. Any other time it would be accepted that this is emphatic (like "amen, amen" ). It is usually understood "dying you shall die".

 

[Yeshua1]

The verse actually uses die twice. Any other time it would be accepted that this is emphatic (like "amen, amen" ). It is usually understood "dying you shall die".

Which happened there spiritually, and later on physically!

 

[Yeshua1]

I affirm Scripture. There are extra biblical things I believe. But we cannot read that back into Scripture.

Can it be reasoned though from the scriptures?

 

[MartyF]

Scripture presents man as having a human nature which itself is not a sin.

I agree that being human in and of itself is not a sin.

Nowhere in Scripture is Adam said to have experienced a change in nature.

I hate vague words like nature.

Genesis 3:16 NLT
Then he said to the woman,
“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you. ”

The woman's physical nature changed.

Genesis 3:22 NLT
Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

Something else about humans changed as well.

I think I agree with you in that I don't see how Humans would be made not to sin but still somehow were able to sin. I think the ability to sin came happened from the beginning.

Genesis 6:5 NLT
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

I believe that there is a propensity to sin by Human beings.

 

[JonC]

I agree that being human in and of itself is not a sin.
I hate vague words like nature.

Genesis 3:16 NLT
Then he said to the woman,
“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you. ”

The woman's physical nature changed.

Genesis 3:22 NLT
Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

Something else about humans changed as well.

I think I agree with you in that I don't see how Humans would be made not to sin but still somehow were able to sin. I think the ability to sin came happened from the beginning.

Genesis 6:5 NLT
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil.

I believe that there is a propensity to sin by Human beings.

Nature is by definition philosophical term, and I agree it is vague.

Anyway, I agree. I believe that the Biblical view of sin (after desire has conceived it gives birth to sin) applied to Adam as well.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am aware that "have" is not in the Greek, but is supplied by translators as they sometimes need to do. They weren't foolish to do so.
I am also fully aware that it is in the aorist as well.
This does not mean that we have to read into this the notion that all of humanity at the same point in time subsequently committed the same sin at the same time as in with Adam.
That is a Theologically driven supposition with no warrant.
Naturally, I have read gazillions of commentators parroting this assumption and therefore do not need you to supply them. There are also Theologians who disagree that we should read that into the text. I agree with those who do not make these suppositions.
Naturally, you will agree with those commentators who share that belief with you. That doesn't make either you nor them correct.

Glad you are aware of the facts. I believe what it says.
Where do you envision spiritual death taking place as it has spread to all men?
Or do you deny that exists as well?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Glad you are aware of the facts. I believe what it says.
Where do you envision spiritual death taking place as it has spread to all men?
Or do you deny that exists as well?

I believe it as well. I also do not read verses of Scripture as though they were independent thought units containing complete Scriptural truths divorced from the surrounding context and the intent of the author. Romans 3:23 is a clause embedded in a letter to a specific people, not an historical treatise on the historical fall.

If you insist on the Theological phrase "Spritual Death", it occurs when one sins.

Jas 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:

Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jas 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

I do not believe in Original Guilt wherein by the mere nature of being human one incurs the guilt of Adam's transgression. We will die for our sins no one else's unless we find life in Christ.
Although, usually, "death" means "death" not surprisingly, not "spiritual death".

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Do you deny that Jesus had to come via the Virgin birth then?

Jesus came via a virgin as a sign according to Scripture.
That is the only thing I then assert about it. The sign of the Messiah is that a virgin would conceive. That is enough for me.

 

[percho]

There was a reason I started the thread, Mary's firstborn, in General Baptist Discussions.

Could Mary's firstborn have been brought forth in iniquity?

IMHO

He was holy having been conceived out of Spirit.

1:20 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδού, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾽ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαβίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου

What if Joseph had, known, his wife, before, that in her conceived out of Spirit, had been brought forth? Would he have been named Jesus?

'Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she (the virgin) shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.'

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive; Gal 4:4,5

What woman, born, made did come ; What law, born, made, did come under the redeemer?
What law brought the need for the redeemer?

And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves.
and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know that they are naked, and they sew fig-leaves, and make to themselves girdles.
and he saith, 'Thy sound I have heard in the garden, and I am afraid, for I am naked, and I hide myself.' And He saith, 'Who hath declared to thee that thou art naked? of the tree of which I have commanded thee not to eat, hast thou eaten?'


Please remember that it was foreordained before the foundation of the world there would be a redeemer. He would need to shed his precious blood wherein would be the soul being of the flesh.

 

[percho]

Here is a thought and a question.

he who is doing the sin, of the devil he is, because from the beginning the devil doth sin; for this was the Son of God manifested, that he may break up the works of the devil; 1 John 3:8 YLT
Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil -- Heb 2:14 YLT

I wonder what would have become of the devil and his works had the Son of God been manifested through Eve?

 

[Iconoclast]

I believe it as well. I also do not read verses of Scripture as though they were independent thought units containing complete Scriptural truths divorced from the surrounding context and the intent of the author. Romans 3:23 is a clause embedded in a letter to a specific people, not an historical treatise on the historical fall.

If you insist on the Theological phrase "Spritual Death", it occurs when one sins.

Jas 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:

Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Jas 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

I do not believe in Original Guilt wherein by the mere nature of being human one incurs the guilt of Adam's transgression. We will die for our sins no one else's unless we find life in Christ.
Although, usually, "death" means "death" not surprisingly, not "spiritual death".

I would like to offer a caution.
Most errors theology from a wrong view of scripture, or a wrong understanding of the fall.
Your post in the second group.
I would you to re-examine your understanding as it is not
correct foundation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I would like to offer a caution.
Most errors theology from a wrong view of scripture, or a wrong understanding of the fall.
Your post in the second group.
I would you to re-examine your understanding as it is not
correct foundation.

Icon.....I'm not a Calvinist.
I do not need you to "caution" me about not accepting the unbiblical theological presuppositions Calvinist philosophy imports into their reading of the text.
I believe what the Bible teaches about the fall. That is contained in the Genesis narrative. Paul was not rewriting what occurred in Romans 3.
I understand that Calvinists (indeed most Western Christians) seek some kind of explanation for the overwhelming temptation to sin and therefore believe that something about man has somehow changed. Indeed, in Erickson's Systematic he says something "MUST" explain our overwhelming and certain fall into sin.
I understand that compulsion. I used to assume it as well. But the Bible simply doesn't say that mankind was in any particular way fundamentally, psychologically mentally constitutionally or otherwise compromised when Adam sinned.
That is the belief of many Christians and they believe they see it in passages like Romans 3 23 and others.

We don't need to say anything about "natures" that man inherits after the fall. The Bible doesn't teach it, although I have heard it taught and assumed all my life, it isn't there. My pastor, whom I respect highly even stated over this last Christmas that Christ had to be born a virgin to avoid the sin nature etc...because it's passed by the male of the species.....et. al. I used to believe precisely that as well. It is because of reflective reexamination of the Biblical text that I now reject the view you espouse, not because I haven't considered it.

I don't buy it Icon.
It's Catholicism, it's pagan Gnosticism and it isn't necessary.

 

[1689Dave]

or was the Virgin Birth required for Him to bypass that happening?

Jesus did not have a human spirit, the seat of sin. His Spirit is God. He had a human mind and body through Mary.

 

[Jesus Saves!]

Mary was the vessel chosen to carry the seed of God. Because he was born from a woman, He is called the Son of Man. But, He was of God’s seed, so He is the Son of God. We could even say He is God the Son. He had to be born of a fleshly woman to be born under the law, so he could redeem us who was under the curse. He was subject to like passions as we are but without sin. He fulfilled God’s law and cried It is finished. The way is now accomplished that through Christ mankind can be saved from the curse of sin and death.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus did not have a human spirit, the seat of sin. His Spirit is God. He had a human mind and body through Mary.

Jesus was fully man,fully God