-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was Jesus human like us or a different kind of human?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Jesus cn the same physical flesh Adam had when created, one without a sin nature!
And before sin and the fall, was no death, so jesus being liek the First Adam before the fall, would have lived on!
But Jesus was not human like we are human...correct?
By this I mean Jesus didn't get sick, catch a cold, and couldn't die unless he was killed.....right?
neither would have adam before he sinned and fell!
This is a hypothetical statement. Have you ever considered that the Fall was always a part of God's plan?
To illustrate, God placed a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his promise. BUT we can't say that had God not made the promise there would be no rainbow.
Did not our Lord teach quite extensively that to plan sin.....is sin.
What was Paul referring to here?:
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body`s sake, which is the church; Col 1
Last edited:
Actually, I was thinking of Isaiah 53 and Hebrews 4:15. Isaiah presents Christ as sharing in our weaknesses while the author of Hebrews looks to Jesus as truly being one of us as a qualification for his office of High Priest.
I'm not saying to plan sin. I am saying that the Fall was a part of God's plan (not that God caused Adam to sin but that Adam was never designed to be above the need of a spiritual birth).
While we don't know all, I think that there is enough revealed in Scripture to answer the OP. Here is what we do know:
We know that Jesus was made "flesh" like we are "flesh".
We know that Scripture only offers two natures: "flesh" and "spirit"
We know that Jesus shared in our weakness.
We know that in order for Jesus to be our High Priest he had to have been one of us.
We know that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are.
We know the nature of temptation is an appeal to the flesh.
We know that Jesus came in "corruptible" flesh.
We know that Jesus suffered in his flesh the things that we suffer.
We know that Jesus grew, as we grow.
We know that Jesus aged.
We know that Jesus grew weak, hungered, grew thirsty.
We know that Jesus possessed a "will of the flesh", but that he submitted this will to the will of the Father.
And, of course, we know that Jesus was without sin.
There is much mystery to the Incarnation, but not so much as we need to think of Jesus as having a pseudo-human nature (when compared to mankind).
Even without this argument, God subjected all of creation to futility. Jesus came in a created (physical) body - a part of creation. He would have been subject to the same suffering as creation.
Jesus came to us in the flesh (sarx) but He did come to us in a manner in which none of us did.
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.
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.
Jesus can share in our weaknesses, as he was fully human, but he did not need to have the sin nature that we all have to do that!
In fact, if Jesus was born with the same sin nature all of us have after the fall, He would not qualify to be the Messiah!
Yes, as he was not tied into the corrupted flesh all of us have as the result of the Fall!
The problem is that you have not shown, via Scripture, that there is even such a thing as a "sin nature". Scripture speaks of two natures - the flesh and the spirit. We do not sin because we have a "sin nature" but because, when tempted by the things that appeals to the flesh, we choose the flesh (we choose ourselves). Is there a reason you can offer to adopt your hypothesis over James 1?
Oh yes he/we have, you just choose to take a different view of these proof texts.
Romans 5:12 (Young's Literal Translation)
Because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;
Not "all will sin" but "all did sin", the "did sin" is aorist tense along with "death did pass", we all "did sin".
The result:
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Deny all you wish, alter our interpretation all you wish, we disagree.
let the readers decide.
First, I am not altering your interpretation - I'm rejecting it (not those passages, but your interpretation of those passages).
Second, an interpretation is not proof. Proof would be a passage denying James 1. Proof would be biblical affirmation of this "third" nature. Proof would be even one verse where Jesus speaks of three natures - two kinds of flesh and the spirit.
Scripture tells us that the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God. That is enough to justify why we will not inherit the kingdom (because the Bible says so). But no where does Scripture tell us that we sin because we are created to sin (because we have been made with a "sin nature").
More problematic, however, is how the idea of a third nature (a human nature common to man but foreign to Christ) applies to Christ.
Yes. As you state later He became hungry, tired, and thirsty. He felt pain. He felt emotion, anger, sadness, compassion.
I take the view He was identical to us in physical composition. I will say, though, based on the unique manner of His conception, that He may have been more like unto Adam when man was originally created, because that is what God did in the womb of Mary, He created the body He would inhabit.
I view that as incorrect in regards to His physical body. Where He differs is in Him being, not a created spirit as we are, but The Spirit. God.
We know He was subject to adverse condition imposed on His physical structure.
I would suggest that He, knowing the folly of a poor diet, probably ate in a healthy manner. That is a likely reason we do not hear about Him getting sick, lol.
Not a part of His plan, but known to Him in advance, just as the end result, an everlasting People of God was.
If He had not caused it to rain there would be no rainbow, lol.
Of course I'm guessing on that with a limited understanding of rainbows.
God bless.
The "lacking" can be attributed to the Body, not to Christ.
Paul is suffering on their behalf, rather than the concept that Christ did not suffer enough.
God bless.
- Status