Was Jesus human like us or a different kind of human?

[HankD]

Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God - SO? Jesus said He was flesh and bone after His resurrection, so shall we be like Him.
We will (just as Jesus) be made alive by the Spirit of God not oxygenated blood and therefore fit to enter the eternal kingdom of God.

OK you have altered the terminology of the debate also - It not I with the wrong "interpretation" of Romans 1:12 and Psalm 51:5.

"More problematic, however, is how the idea of a third nature (a human nature common to man but foreign to Christ) applies to Christ."

Were you conceived of the Holy Ghost? This applies to Christ alone. He was not conceived according to Psalm 51:5.

Again let the readers decide.

 

[JonC]

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.

Perhaps we could look at a few other issues to help.

For example, it has been suggested that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to avoid this "sin nature". This suggests that sin is a biological issue rather than a response to temptation based on the desires of the flesh (James 1). Are there any passages that suggest sin is passed down genetically? Scripture speaks of the wicked as being of their father the Devil. Does this mean Satan or his demons actually fathered children (i.e., was Daniel Parker right)?

So the nature of sin needs to be explored (is it an act of the will in disobedience to God or is it a genetic predisposition passed down biologically).

Also, what we are referring to as "nature" needs to be addressed. Perhaps the reason this "sin nature" is foreign to Scripture is how the term is used (Scripture only refers to the "flesh" and the "spirit"). Maybe it is an issue of definitions.

 

[Darrell C]

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 agree. He, as a man, died on the behalf of men.

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).

I would agree with this as well: the end result was the new creature, not man in his original created condition.

Man is not "fallen" in the sense that now he sins, that was part of the original creation.

Adam was separated from God in the Fall and was cast out of the physical presence of God and the source of unending (physical) life.

God knew it would lead to something better, so allowing Adam to sin, in the long (eternal) run, was expedient for us.

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.

But when we are dealing with sin the more important issue is good and evil, rather than flesh and spirit.

Adam and Eve knew what was good, and what was evil, and they chose that which was evil (disobeying God).

Not sure I would attribute that to their spirit, because I think we fall into the trap of a "the body is evil, the spirit is good" and overlook the conditions men are in when commit evil or do good. Secondly, I think that attributes to the spirit something that isn't there. While men can, in their natural condition, do good, we have to remember that on a physical plane no man, not even Adam, is righteous, so the good he does has to be kept in that perspective. SO the point is that the spirit of man cannot exceed what it was created to do, but, in the case of Christ, we have Righteousness incarnate, as opposed to men simply doing good (or evil).

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).

And again I would suggest that conditions have to be considered. In Adam's case, the sin he committed was prompted first by the actions of Satan, and secondly by the actions of his wife. That is not an excuse, but, those elements are important.

I agree, men are not inherently evil, but, neither are they inherently Righteous. Not as God is. The only means of man being righteous is to be credited with the Righteousness that only God has. Everything else falls on that physical plane, and while we can judge between the good and evil among men, we cannot judge between the good of men and the Righteousness of God.

I actually love this topic, so excuse me for doing a little thinking out loud.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

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 point Paul makes is that because sin entered the world...all men died because all men sin.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that you and I "sinned" before we were even created.

And there is nothing in the text to suggest that men are conceived and born with "a sin nature."

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.

There is nothing to "deny," David simply states the conditions into which he was born into, a world fraught with sin and it's consequences.

He magnifies God's creation of men in the womb, and when they are born:


Psalm 22:10
King James Version (KJV)

10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.


Psalm 71:5-6
King James Version (KJV)

5 For thou art my hope, O Lord God: thou art my trust from my youth.

6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.


Psalm 139:13-16
King James Version (KJV)

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

What is in man that makes ALL of us reject God, and to go our own self willed ways? It's called our corrupted flesh, our sin natures!
Adam was spiritual right with God before the fall, not afterwards, what happened? he spiritually died, and had a sin nature come to him....
call it something else if you want, but all humans since Adam, save for jesus, had that same rotten flesh nature in them!

 

[Darrell C]

Perhaps we could look at a few other issues to help.

For example, it has been suggested that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to avoid this "sin nature".

I view the Virgin Birth to be a matter that it was God Who took up residence in a human body, whereas in procreation we have one man and woman becoming "one." In other words, had there not been a Virgin Birth, we would have had the spirit usually generated in procreation and the Spirit of God in the same flesh.

I do not view the Son of God as co-habitating with the "spirit of Jesus Christ," so to speak, but that He was fully God, and His body was fully human just as Adam's was when he was created.

This suggests that sin is a biological issue rather than a response to temptation based on the desires of the flesh (James 1).

Which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture.

While one might call the fact that man will inevitably sin a "sin nature," the way I see it is that men sin because they do not have the ability to be righteous. They can do good, but, there is nothing stopping them from doing evil as well.

That is where the Eternal Indwelling comes in:

Ezekiel 36:27
King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works. It's not just a matter of us deciding to do good, it is a matter of God directing our paths. Jonah "did good" unwillingly, but completely lacked an eternal perspective in regards to the Ninevites. We, on the other hand, look into eternity and understand that a physical perspective doesn't over-shadow the eternal. We love our enemies because God loves them, and because He has placed love in our hearts.

Are there any passages that suggest sin is passed down genetically?

No.

Scripture speaks of the wicked as being of their father the Devil. Does this mean Satan or his demons actually fathered children (i.e., was Daniel Parker right)?

No.

It is no different than Abraham being a "father" to those who have faith, or Paul being a "father" to those he led to Christ. It is figurative. Satan was the father of lies, the originator, and they were just like their "father," liars.

So the nature of sin needs to be explored (is it an act of the will in disobedience to God or is it a genetic predisposition passed down biologically).

Here's something to consider: unknown sin. In other words, men can sin and not even know it. What is sin? It is the transgression of the will of God. How do we know not to sin? By knowing the will of God, first and foremost, and that is where we stand in a better position than most men: because God has shown us His will, and has placed His Spirit within us that we might fulfill that will.

How do men without the Spirit react to the authority of others? They mostly reject it. How much more true is that in regards to the will of God. "Don't tell me I can't __________(fill in the blank!" Don't tell me I have to __________(fill in the blank)!"

But if we have the mind of Christ, not only do we know that will, but...we agree with it. You couldn't have told me when I was young that there was anything wrong with my life. Hey, I was a pretty good guy. I didn't hurt anyone. But, the truth is that guy was someone I despise to this day. Why? Because God showed me the reality of who that person was.

I did "good" things sometimes. But, I didn't realize the sin in my life, and that sin was contrary to the will of God.

Also, what we are referring to as "nature" needs to be addressed.

I would start that topic out with saying that there are two natures in view, that which is natural (that we are born with), and that which we have when we are immersed into God in eternal union, and thus become new creatures. Just as the natural man can sometimes do good, even so the new creature can sometimes do evil. But these are two entirely different natures, because one has eternal life, and the other was dead.

Perhaps the reason this "sin nature" is foreign to Scripture is how the term is used (Scripture only refers to the "flesh" and the "spirit"). Maybe it is an issue of definitions.

Like I said, we can call natural man's proclivity to sin as a "sin nature," but, the reason he sins is because he is born separated from God. It is not something he is "born with" that causes him to sin, it is something he is born without. Rather, it is Someone he is born without.

The babe in the womb isn't destined for eternal judgment because they have sinned, they are destined for eternal judgment because they are separated from God. Praise God that in the case of babes who die in the womb we can trust the Just God to extend the same grace bestowed to Old Testament Saints, who also died still separated from God.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

Like I said, we can call natural man's proclivity to sin as a "sin nature," but, the reason he sins is because he is born separated from God. It is not something he is "born with" that causes him to sin, it is something he is born without. Rather, it is Someone he is born without.

I like how you worded this. My only objection is the term "sin nature" rather than "flesh", or "human nature". The reason is that Jesus had the same human nature as you and I. He had desires of the flesh but submitted his will to the Father. He also had/was what we needed - spiritual life.

 

[HankD]

The point Paul makes is that because sin entered the world...all men died because all men sin.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that you and I "sinned" before we were even created.

And there is nothing in the text to suggest that men are conceived and born with "a sin nature."

again - your "interpretation'.

You are wrong about the text

"sin entered'
"death passed"
"all sinned"

All indicative aorist active - the events all happened at the same time. We were all there.
Just because your human understanding can not completely understand or makes you feel uncomfortable it doesn't mean its not a fact.

There is nothing to "deny," David simply states the conditions into which he was born into, a world fraught with sin and it's consequences.

He magnifies God's creation of men in the womb, and when they are born:

Again that does not negate the fact of which Adam is guilty (by one man sin entered the world).

Also Psalm 51:5 says no such thing according to your interpretation.

David claims he was sin from his mothers conception and not from the world and its conditions and consequences which he was 9 months from entering. Those words are NOT even used in the text but a simple statement that he was sin from conception. There can be no other meaning.

True we are in His image and Likeness but again we have NOTHING to commend us to God not even as a fertilized human embryo.
We are sin from conception.

 

[Yeshua1]

I like how you worded this. My only objection is the term "sin nature" rather than "flesh", or "human nature". The reason is that Jesus had the same human nature as you and I. He had desires of the flesh but submitted his will to the Father. He also had/was what we needed - spiritual life.

He was God incarnate, and there was NOTHING in His flesh/human nature that sinning appealed to, unlike us, who face that daily!
he had no inclination to sin, but we are born with a bent towards sinning!

 

[Darrell C]

I like how you worded this. My only objection is the term "sin nature" rather than "flesh", or "human nature". The reason is that Jesus had the same human nature as you and I. He had desires of the flesh but submitted his will to the Father. He also had/was what we needed - spiritual life.

First, I would ask, where do you see Christ having "desires of the flesh?"

Secondly, I don't see "flesh" as a compatible term in this discussion, because we are primarily dealing with the Body God inhabited, which looks at the physical. When "flesh" is used figuratively to represent a sinful proclivity it becomes, in my view, irrelevant to Christ, because I do not view Him as at all inclined to sin.

When someone gets hungry, they respond to the "flesh." It is the response that determines whether sin arises. A man gets something from the fridge, no sin (and this guy is getting healthy food, lol, a few carrots, let's say). A man is hungry and goes into an unknown house, kills the man living there, and raids the fridge...sin.

Lastly, perhaps we could distinguish two "human natures" when the context is the Incarnation: the first being physical, the second pertaining to man's proclivity towards sin. Christ had the first...but not the second. Because He was God.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

again - your "interpretation'.

You are wrong about the text

"sin entered'
"death passed"
"all sinned"

All indicative aorist active - the events all happened at the same time. We were all there.
Just because your human understanding can not completely understand or makes you feel uncomfortable it doesn't mean its not a fact.



Again that does not negate the fact of which Adam is guilty (by one man sin entered the world).

Also Psalm 51:5 says no such thing according to your interpretation.

David claims he was sin from his mothers conception and not from the world and its conditions and consequences which he was 9 months from entering. Those words are NOT even used in the text but a simple statement that he was sin from conception. There can be no other meaning.

True we are in His image and Likeness but again we have NOTHING to commend us to God not even as a fertilized human embryo.
We are sin from conception.

SOMETHING happened to the very nature of Adam after the fall, as he was no longer obeying God fully, and was aware of his own sinfulness!

 

[JonC]

First, I would ask, where do you see Christ having "desires of the flesh?"

Secondly, I don't see "flesh" as a compatible term in this discussion, because we are primarily dealing with the Body God inhabited, which looks at the physical. When "flesh" is used figuratively to represent a sinful proclivity it becomes, in my view, irrelevant to Christ, because I do not view Him as at all inclined to sin.

When someone gets hungry, they respond to the "flesh." It is the response that determines whether sin arises. A man gets something from the fridge, no sin (and this guy is getting healthy food, lol, a few carrots, let's say). A man is hungry and goes into an unknown house, kills the man living there, and raids the fridge...sin.

Lastly, perhaps we could distinguish two "human natures" when the context is the Incarnation: the first being physical, the second pertaining to man's proclivity towards sin. Christ had the first...but not the second. Because He was God.


God bless.

Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. How does Scripture define "temptation"? It defines it as appealing to our desires.

Note, I am not speaking of unnatural desires of the flesh, but the natural. To deny Jesus natural desires is to deny his humanity.

 

[Darrell C]

again - your "interpretation'.

You are wrong about the text

"sin entered'
"death passed"
"all sinned"

All indicative aorist active - the events all happened at the same time. We were all there.
Just because your human understanding can not completely understand or makes you feel uncomfortable it doesn't mean its not a fact.

Paul is speaking of those who sinned, of course it is in the past tense.

You impose into that a universal past tense that isn't there.

And if you think "You are wrong!" and "You have human understanding!" makes your case...think again.

Sin entered the world...not men.

Death passed to all men...not sin.

Again that does not negate the fact of which Adam is guilty (by one man sin entered the world).

Also Psalm 51:5 says no such thing according to your interpretation.

David claims he was sin from his mothers conception and not from the world and its conditions and consequences which he was 9 months from entering. Those words are NOT even used in the text but a simple statement that he was sin from conception. There can be no other meaning.

And I quote "...those words are not even used in the text."

I agree.

True we are in His image and Likeness but again we have NOTHING to commend us to God not even as a fertilized human embryo.
We are sin from conception.

Yes, Adam was guilty...for his own sin. You are guilty for yours, and will answer for it, not Adam's. I am guilty of mine, and will answer for it...not Adam's.


Romans 5:13-14
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


It states right there that theses men...are not guilty of Adam's sin.

And we are not created (conception and birth) in the image and likeness of God:


Genesis 5
King James Version (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


I'd like to know, apart from this "sin nature" you think is physically passed down, what sin you could possibly charge the unborn child with. Kicking his mother? Making her sick? What is it? What sin does the babe in the womb commit?

True we are in His image and Likeness but again we have NOTHING to commend us to God not even as a fertilized human embryo.
We are sin from conception.

And I quote "...those words are not even used in the text."


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. How does Scripture define "temptation"? It defines it as appealing to our desires.

Note, I am not speaking of unnatural desires of the flesh, but the natural. To deny Jesus natural desires is to deny his humanity.

He was tempted to sin, but there was nothing in Him that sin could anchor into, as God cannot sin!

 

[Yeshua1]

Paul is speaking of those who sinned, of course it is in the past tense.

You impose into that a universal past tense that isn't there.

And if you think "You are wrong!" and "You have human understanding!" makes your case...think again.

Sin entered the world...not men.

Death passed to all men...not sin.




And I quote "...those words are not even used in the text."

I agree.




Yes, Adam was guilty...for his own sin. You are guilty for yours, and will answer for it, not Adam's. I am guilty of mine, and will answer for it...not Adam's.


Romans 5:13-14
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


And we are not created (conception and birth) in the image and likeness of God:


Genesis 5
King James Version (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


I'd like to know, apart from this "sin nature" you think is physically passed down, what sin you could possibly charge the unborn child with. Kicking his mother? Making her sick? What is it? What sin does the babe in the womb commit?




And I quote "...those words are not even used in the text."


God bless.

Adam stood before God in his test as our personal representative, so when he failed the test, we all fell with Him. Jesus was second Adam. passed the test, and so all in Him saved!

 

[Darrell C]

Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. How does Scripture define "temptation"? It defines it as appealing to our desires.

Note, I am not speaking of unnatural desires of the flesh, but the natural. To deny Jesus natural desires is to deny his humanity.

No, actually it is not, because we are not dealing with "a human," we are dealing with the Eternal Son of God, God Himself.

That He was tempted is, from my perspective, no different than the temptations of Satan. There was no possibility that He would have made bread out of stones (He was fasting for a purpose), or that He would cast Himself off a high place, or that He would bow down to Satan. He was tempted, but, there was never a possibility that He would succumb to those temptations. That would be like tempting a blind man with free sunglasses.




God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, actually it is not, because we are not dealing with "a human," we are dealing with the Eternal Son of God, God Himself.

That He was tempted is, from my perspective, no different than the temptations of Satan. There was no possibility that He would have made bread out of stones (He was fasting for a purpose), or that He would cast Himself off a high place, or that He would bow down to Satan. He was tempted, but, there was never a possibility that He would succumb to those temptations. That would be like tempting a blind man with free sunglasses.




God bless.

Jesus is God, so would not even be able to sin.....
Does not mean that he was not tempted and tried, as he would experience it much harder than any of us, as he is Holy, we are not!

 

[JonC]

No, actually it is not, because we are not dealing with "a human," we are dealing with the Eternal Son of God, God Himself.

That He was tempted is, from my perspective, no different than the temptations of Satan. There was no possibility that He would have made bread out of stones (He was fasting for a purpose), or that He would cast Himself off a high place, or that He would bow down to Satan. He was tempted, but, there was never a possibility that He would succumb to those temptations. That would be like tempting a blind man with free sunglasses.




God bless.

I disagree. IMHO the belief that Jesus was a man (a human) is essential. I don't mean this in a way that diminishes his divinity, but the notion Jesus wasn't human denies his qualification to represent humans. He has to be "one of us".

The Temptation is a good example. Jesus could have eaten (satisfied the desires of the flesh) but he came to do the Father's will. The same is true when he was tempted by Peter's remark ("may it never be").

 

[percho]

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.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:
That which is born of the flesh is flesh;

A. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
B. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Your thoughts? Just how human was he?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev 3:21
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Rev 21:7

 

[Darrell C]

I disagree. IMHO the belief that Jesus was a man (a human) is essential. I don't mean this in a way that diminishes his divinity, but the notion Jesus wasn't human denies his qualification to represent humans. He has to be "one of us".

You misunderstand, I wasn't denying His humanity, I was pointing out that He was not just human, lol.

The Temptation is a good example. Jesus could have eaten (satisfied the desires of the flesh) but he came to do the Father's will. The same is true when he was tempted by Peter's remark ("may it never be").

And that is the one point brought up in the other threads on this issue, it makes no sense to think that what Christ came to do could have somehow been jeopardized by His actions, lol.

There was never, not while He was alive, nor in eternity past, the chance that Christ would succumb to temptations. That He can have compassion on us is one thing, but, that He could have somehow yielded to temptation is contrary to the Nature of God.


God bless.