PDA

View Full Version : Was Jesus born with Sinful nature or without sinful nature, and does it matter?



twspt
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:29 AM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.

I don't understand how this could be. It is hard to fathom how Jesus could be born with a sinful nature and not sin, even as a child!

If Jesus was born with Adams original nature (without the propensity to sin), before the fall, then His being able to live in human flesh and not sin seems so much more plausible.

So, does it reallly matter either way? The end result is that I believe, whatever the mechanism, Jesus lived a sinless life and through His life, death, and resurrection He has prepared a way for me and you to spend eternity with Him.

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:51 AM
Jesus was not born with a sinful nature.

No human is born with a sinful nature.

Hebrews 2:14-18
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Yukerboy
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:48 AM
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect,

Here's one respect....through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

So, Christ was made like his brothers in every respect. His brothers were made sinners through the disobedience of the one man (Adam). Therefore, Christ was made a sinner through the disobedience of the one man also, or Hebrews lies in saying He was made like His brothers in EVERY respect. Also, notice they did not choose to be, but were made to be.

So, not only did Christ have a sin nature, but Christ was a sinner, made perfect by God, by being God. Not that Christ was a sinner in that he sinned, but Christ having been come in the flesh was considered a sinner before the Father as a man, just by being man.

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 01:56 PM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.

I don't understand how this could be. It is hard to fathom how Jesus could be born with a sinful nature and not sin, even as a child!

If Jesus was born with Adams original nature (without the propensity to sin), before the fall, then His being able to live in human flesh and not sin seems so much more plausible.

So, does it reallly matter either way? The end result is that I believe, whatever the mechanism, Jesus lived a sinless life and through His life, death, and resurrection He has prepared a way for me and you to spend eternity with Him.



Admittingly I haven't really done any major research on this, but I believe that some Bible scholars have concluded that sin is passed on thru the male, via procreation.

When you stop to think about it, this seems somewhat logical. Every human to ever be born was born in this manner except one. I believe we all know whom that exception was. Christ was born of a woman, but wasn't procreated via a male.

So, if these Bible scholars are correct, neither was the first Adam nor the 2nd Adam born with any sin nature, since neither of these came thru both a man and a woman.

When you really think about it, Christ came thru the woman He created on day six. Not only did He come thru this woman, He also created a new woman from this woman, the church. It pretty much seems to me, the whole idea was to replace the old woman with the new woman, so to speak.

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:02 PM
Jesus was not born with a sinful nature.

No human is born with a sinful nature.

Hebrews 2:14-18

I very much disagree with you after Adam every human was born with sinful nature, every human was born with fallen body.
Why on earth you would even say such a thing even if you wre right which your not you cannot compared a human with Jesus. Yes Jesus was human and Jesus was also God no human has those qualities except Jesus.
It would be good for you to do some research into orginal sin.
God Bless
Randy

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:22 PM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.

I don't understand how this could be. It is hard to fathom how Jesus could be born with a sinful nature and not sin, even as a child!

If Jesus was born with Adams original nature (without the propensity to sin), before the fall, then His being able to live in human flesh and not sin seems so much more plausible.

So, does it reallly matter either way? The end result is that I believe, whatever the mechanism, Jesus lived a sinless life and through His life, death, and resurrection He has prepared a way for me and you to spend eternity with Him.




I think what we should be asking ourselves, not that whether Jesus was born with a sin nature, but whether Jesus possessed the ability to sin or not. I would say that Jesus did possess the ability to sin, yet He chose not to. In the same way, the first Adam also possessed the abilty to sin, and he chose to.

Don't we learn from the first Adam what sin really is? Isn't sin disobedience to God's will? Didn't Christ stay obedient to the Father's will, even unto death? Could this be the reason Christ didn't sin, because He chose to be obedient to the Father's will? Could this be the reason the first Adam sinned, because he chose not to stay obedient to the Lord God's will?

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:36 PM
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect,

Here's one respect....through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

So, Christ was made like his brothers in every respect. His brothers were made sinners through the disobedience of the one man (Adam). Therefore, Christ was made a sinner through the disobedience of the one man also, or Hebrews lies in saying He was made like His brothers in EVERY respect. Also, notice they did not choose to be, but were made to be.

So, not only did Christ have a sin nature, but Christ was a sinner, made perfect by God, by being God. Not that Christ was a sinner in that he sinned, but Christ having been come in the flesh was considered a sinner before the Father as a man, just by being man.

No your incorrect according to th Bible sin was always passed down through the father since Jesus was a virgin birth he had no sin.
God Bless
Randy

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:15 PM
So, not only did Christ have a sin nature, but Christ was a sinner, made perfect by God, by being God. Not that Christ was a sinner in that he sinned, but Christ having been come in the flesh was considered a sinner before the Father as a man, just by being man.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I STRONGLY disagree with this statement.....

If Christ had a sin nature and was a sinner.. then the Atoning Work on that bloody tree is a 'farse'... Christ then died a sinner.. the unjust for the unjust... but Scripture delcares.. He died on that bloody tree..

the JUST for the unjust.....

If He was a sinner and had a sin nature then.. My faith is in vain... and He is not risen from the dead.. as He arose from the dead thru the Spirit of Holiness...

Scripture also declares that He 'knew' NO SIN.. and that He was without SPOT OR BLEMISH... the Lamb Slain before the foundation of the world....

Why do you think God sent Him directly from Heaven.. and into a virgin? The Incarnation.. done by the Holy Ghost.. who is God.. who does not sin..

Jesus declared right before He was to be crucified that the prince of this world was about to come to Him.. and that He had 'nothing' in Him or On Him... which means Jesus was not tainted by 'sin'.. neither was He a sinner... nor did He 'know' any sin... Pure and Perfect...

The Pharisees were always trying to catch Him.. and He responded..

Which one of you can convince Me of any sin or doing any sin... they couldnt'.. cause He 'didn't'!!!

Jesus the Christ was Pure.. He was God in the flesh... God does not sin.. He can't... He is Holy.. He has always been... and even thru the Incarnation.. God puttin on flesh in the Person of Jesus the Christ.. God did not have a 'sin nature' nor did He sin...

If He did .. then the atoning work is of no value... and He is not risen from the dead...

which I know personally and many others.. that is not TRUE!

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:19 PM
So, not only did Christ have a sin nature, but Christ was a sinner, made perfect by God, by being God. Not that Christ was a sinner in that he sinned, but Christ having been come in the flesh was considered a sinner before the Father as a man, just by being man.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I STRONGLY disagree with this statement.....

If Christ had a sin nature and was a sinner.. then the Atoning Work on that bloody tree is a 'farse'... Christ then died a sinner.. the unjust for the unjust... but Scripture delcares.. He died on that bloody tree..

the JUST for the unjust.....

If He was a sinner and had a sin nature then.. My faith is in vain... and He is not risen from the dead.. as He arose from the dead thru the Spirit of Holiness...

Scripture also declares that He 'knew' NO SIN.. and that He was without SPOT OR BLEMISH... the Lamb Slain before the foundation of the world....

Why do you think God sent Him directly from Heaven.. and into a virgin? The Incarnation.. done by the Holy Ghost.. who is God.. who does not sin..

Jesus declared right before He was to be crucified that the prince of this world was about to come to Him.. and that He had 'nothing' in Him or On Him... which means Jesus was not tainted by 'sin'.. neither was He a sinner... nor did He 'know' any sin... Pure and Perfect...

The Pharisees were always trying to catch Him.. and He responded..

Which one of you can convince Me of any sin or doing any sin... they couldnt'.. cause He 'didn't'!!!

Jesus the Christ was Pure.. He was God in the flesh... God does not sin.. He can't... He is Holy.. He has always been... and even thru the Incarnation.. God puttin on flesh in the Person of Jesus the Christ.. God did not have a 'sin nature' nor did He sin...

If He did .. then the atoning work is of no value... and He is not risen from the dead...

which I know personally and many others.. that is not TRUE!

Exactly I am so surpised with this thread it goes against all Christiany.
Begining with no orginal sin passed on from Adam to Jesus having a sin nature. Sounds more like a cult than a christian forum on this issue.
God Bless
Randy

apothanein kerdos
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:32 PM
There is so much bad theology in this thread...

Hebrews 2 sets up the context, that when it coms to human physicality, emotions, psychology, etc, Jesus was made just like we are. However, Corinthians makes it even clearer that the difference between the human nature of Jesus and our nature is that He was made into the perfect image of God - this would me that He lacked the sin nature that we humans do possess.

Hebrews, however, is just saying that in human essence, Jesus became the same. He did not become the same with the sinful by-products of humanity, mainly because our sin nature is contrary to being in the image of God.

Original sin (human desire to sin) is inherent within all humans, but was no inherent within Christ because He was a morally perfect human, meaning this foreign nature was removed. If anything, this would make Christ MORE human than even we are human, in that He was complete and took on a form that humans were always intended to have.

(as a side note, when I refer to Christ 'being made perfect,' I am not teaching the heresy that Christ was created. He existed in the Trinity for eternity's past, but His flesh did come into existence at the incarnation - this is what I mean by "create")

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:38 PM
There is so much bad theology in this thread...

Hebrews 2 sets up the context, that when it coms to human physicality, emotions, psychology, etc, Jesus was made just like we are. However, Corinthians makes it even clearer that the difference between the human nature of Jesus and our nature is that He was made into the perfect image of God - this would me that He lacked the sin nature that we humans do possess.

Hebrews, however, is just saying that in human essence, Jesus became the same. He did not become the same with the sinful by-products of humanity, mainly because our sin nature is contrary to being in the image of God.

Original sin (human desire to sin) is inherent within all humans, but was no inherent within Christ because He was a morally perfect human, meaning this foreign nature was removed. If anything, this would make Christ MORE human than even we are human, in that He was complete and took on a form that humans were always intended to have.

(as a side note, when I refer to Christ 'being made perfect,' I am not teaching the heresy that Christ was created. He existed in the Trinity for eternity's past, but His flesh did come into existence at the incarnation - this is what I mean by "create")

Yes I cannot see how any christian could believe such nonsense.
It really discounts Jesus and God. Shameful
God Bless
Randy

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:10 PM
Yes I cannot see how any christian could believe such nonsense.
It really discounts Jesus and God. Shameful
God Bless
Randy



Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


This passage clearly tells us that it was the Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Why? To be tested. To be tested by whom? To be tested by the Father. This is what I believe also happened in the garden. The man was tested by God, by being tempted of the devil. The first Adam failed this test, the 2nd Adam didn't.

And as far as Jesus being born with a sin nature, I too believe that to be nonsense, but I do believe Jesus had the ability to sin. How? By choosing to do His own will, and not His Father's will. Who's will did He choose to fullfill? His Father's will. Did anyone make Him choose to do the Father's will? No. He, like all other humans, since He was also fully human, chose to be obedient to the Father by His own choosing. No one made Him be obedient. He chose to be obedient. That is why His sacrifice was perfect, and that He was without sin.

For anyone to even suggest that the Father cheated by making it where Jesus couldn't sin, that is just plain wrong. Jesus Himself had to pass all of the tests fairly, in order to be the perfect sacrifice. It's too bad most people don't understand this.

Diolectic
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:24 PM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.Actualy, no one is born with a sinful nature.


I don't understand how this could be. It is hard to fathom how Jesus could be born with a sinful nature and not sin, even as a child! That is good you are having trouble fathoming it, because it ain't true.
The reason that Jesus lived a sinnless life is not because HE is God, or because HE didn't have a so called "sin nature", it was because HE loved the Father.


If Jesus was born with Adams original nature (without the propensity to sin), before the fall, then His being able to live in human flesh and not sin seems so much more plausible.All mankind is born with a human nature which Adam originaly had, and continued to have after he sinned.
Sin can not change ones nature.

Jesus didn't have a propensity(a natural inclination or tendency) to sin, niether do we.
All mankind, including Jesus had weak flesh that was able to be used for sin.
The reason that we sin is because we choose to put our affections on other thing beside Christ.
If one has their affection on things other than Christ, that one will eventualy sin. it ain't about nature, but ones affections.

Understand that which is made "with hands" is temporal, that which is "made without hands" is eternal.
Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple (Jesus' body) that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
2Corinth 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (our body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Now, if Jesus had a Body wich is temporal (made with hands) as HE never sinned and not "totaly depraved", their is no reason to think that our body is temporal because of our sinfulness.
All mankind's bodies are temporal because Romans 8:20-21; This ''vanity''(temperaryness or "not eternal") along with the ''bondage of corruption'' is not because of Adam's sin and the curse of the ground that followed, but because of Him(God) who has subjected it in hope of the adoption, that is, the redemption of our bodies which is the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The flesh was never meant to be eternal.
If Adam had never sinned, he would have died a natural death if he never have eaten from the Tree of Life.
WE all die because the way to the Tree of Life is cut off so that we who know good and evil lest we put forth our hand, and have take also of the tree of life to eat and lived for ever(Gen 3:22)

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:35 PM
Actualy, no one is born with a sinful nature.

That is good you are having trouble fathoming it, because it ain't true.
The reason that Jesus lived a sinnless life is not because HE is God, or because HE didn't have a so called "sin nature", it was because HE loved the Father.

All mankind is born with a human nature which Adam originaly had, and continued to have after he sinned.
Sin can not change ones nature.

Jesus didn't have a propensity(a natural inclination or tendency) to sin, niether do we.
All mankind, including Jesus had weak flesh that was able to be used for sin.
The reason that we sin is because we choose to put our affections on other thing beside Christ.
If one has their affection on things other than Christ, that one will eventualy sin. it ain't about nature, but ones affections.

Understand that which is made "with hands" is temporal, that which is "made without hands" is eternal.
Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple (Jesus' body) that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
2Corinth 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (our body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Now, if Jesus had a Body wich is temporal (made with hands) as HE never sinned and not "totaly depraved", their is no reason to think that our body is temporal because of our sinfulness.
All mankind's bodies are temporal because Romans 8:20-21; This ''vanity''(temperaryness or "not eternal") along with the ''bondage of corruption'' is not because of Adam's sin and the curse of the ground that followed, but because of Him(God) who has subjected it in hope of the adoption, that is, the redemption of our bodies which is the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The flesh was never meant to be eternal.
If Adam had never sinned, he would have died a natural death if he never have eaten from the Tree of Life.
WE all die because the way to the Tree of Life is cut off so that we who know good and evil lest we put forth our hand, and have take also of the tree of life to eat and lived for ever(Gen 3:22)

You sir with respect are very confused and your thinking is not one of a true Christian. You speak much more like a guy touting the emerging churching the New Spirituality than a Bible beliving Christian Iheard the same from these so called Christians before. It goes against Gods word on almost every important doctrine.
God Bless
Randy

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:40 PM
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


This passage clearly tells us that it was the Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Why? To be tested. To be tested by whom? To be tested by the Father. This is what I believe also happened in the garden. The man was tested by God, by being tempted of the devil. The first Adam failed this test, the 2nd Adam didn't.

And as far as Jesus being born with a sin nature, I too believe that to be nonsense, but I do believe Jesus had the ability to sin. How? By choosing to do His own will, and not His Father's will. Who's will did He choose to fullfill? His Father's will. Did anyone make Him choose to do the Father's will? No. He, like all other humans, since He was also fully human, chose to be obedient to the Father by His own choosing. No one made Him be obedient. He chose to be obedient. That is why His sacrifice was perfect, and that He was without sin.

For anyone to even suggest that the Father cheated by making it where Jesus couldn't sin, that is just plain wrong. Jesus Himself had to pass all of the tests fairly, in order to be the perfect sacrifice. It's too bad most people don't understand this.
Yes but I and others here never once said that Jesus could not sin. the point wasand is Jesus was without a sin nature. Itall started with Adam. Adam and Eve were the only 2 humans to have free will and sinless at the same time. they both got is wrong and did not obey God.
Mow comes along Jesus who also had free will and a sinless nature but Jesu got it right and obeyed God- This is in part what Jesus did on the cross for us acceptable in Gods eyes because Jesus had free will to not obey God but he did not and obeyed.
God Bless
Randy

Yukerboy
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:41 PM
Do you believe that God is tempted by sin?

Yet, Christ, as a man, had to be made like his brothers in every way, and because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

To be tempted by sin, would you agree that you would need a sin nature? If you do not have a sin nature, then temptation is no longer temptation. Jesus didn't sin, not because He couldn't, but because He wouldn't. Jesus suffered when tempted. He didn't just shrug temptation off.

divaD
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:50 PM
Yes but I and others here never once said that Jesus could not sin. the point wasand is Jesus was without a sin nature. Itall started with Adam. Adam and Eve were the only 2 humans to have free will and sinless at the same time. they both got is wrong and did not obey God.
Mow comes along Jesus who also had free will and a sinless nature but Jesu got it right and obeyed God- This is in part what Jesus did on the cross for us acceptable in Gods eyes because Jesus had free will to not obey God but he did not and obeyed.
God Bless
Randy



I believe where the misunderstanding is coming from, even tho I addressed your post, I wasn't addressing you specifically. I was speaking in general. From what I can tell, it appears that you and I pretty much see this the same way. Neither of us believe that Jesus was born with a sin nature, and even tho I can't speak for you on this, I don't believe that the first Adam was created with a sin nature either. So how was he able to sin? By being disobedient to the Lord God's will.

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:52 PM
Do you believe that God is tempted by sin?

Yet, Christ, as a man, had to be made like his brothers in every way, and because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

To be tempted by sin, would you agree that you would need a sin nature? If you do not have a sin nature, then temptation is no longer temptation. Jesus didn't sin, not because He couldn't, but because He wouldn't. Jesus suffered when tempted. He didn't just shrug temptation off.

Nomy firend you got it wrong.Listen please Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature there was no sin but yet wer tempted and diobeyed God.
You do not have to have a sin nature to be tempted Adam showed al of us that truth.
God Bless
Randy

Yukerboy
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:54 PM
Diolectic is another who doesn't care what the Scriptures say, but continues to stick to his guns. See Total Depravity for a full view on the truth of all men being made sinners as a result of one man's trespass.

Sinful nature - we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death., the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Now, one thing that Diolectic says which actually screams of truth is "Sin can not change ones nature." So, when you now abide in Christ, sin cannot change your nature. You will remain in Christ.

Diolectic will now tell you that sin can change one's nature and that he made a mistake.

It's ok. Backtracking seems to be the order of the week for those who disagree with the doctrine of Scripture.

Yukerboy
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:57 PM
I can admit when I'm wrong, however.

To have a sin nature, it would be impossible to please God.

Jesus pleased God.

Therefore, Jesus did not have a sin nature.

Adam and Eve were created.

Creation was good and pleased God.

Therefore, Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature.

My bad. :blush:

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:00 PM
I can admit when I'm wrong, however.

To have a sin nature, it would be impossible to please God.

Jesus pleased God.

Therefore, Jesus did not have a sin nature.

Adam and Eve were created.

Creation was good and pleased God.

Therefore, Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature.

My bad. :blush:

No brother it is your good that wrote this.
God Bless
Randy

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:06 PM
I can admit when I'm wrong, however.

To have a sin nature, it would be impossible to please God.

Jesus pleased God.

Therefore, Jesus did not have a sin nature.

Adam and Eve were created.

Creation was good and pleased God.

Therefore, Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature.

My bad. :blush:
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yuke... your not bad.. we're still learning and being instructed.. we can learn from each other... as well as the Holy Ghost who is our instructor.. keep pressing forward! God loves you!!!

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:10 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yuke... your not bad.. we're still learning and being instructed.. we can learn from each other... as well as the Holy Ghost who is our instructor.. keep pressing forward! God loves you!!!

Right on actually Yuke is showing signs of a mature christian certainly refreshing for me on these forums to see.
Keep up the good work.
God Bless
Randy

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:28 PM
Romans 5:15-21
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This portion of Romans is comparing Adam to Christ: specifically the result of what each did. The point that Paul is making is that the work of Christ has greater effect than the work of Adam. Notice the words used here. “If many died through one man’s trespass” vs “much more have the grace of God.” So Christ’s work reaches further than Adam’s.
Another part to look at here is the use of parallelism. Verse 19 uses the phrase “the many” for both those who became sinners and for those who will be made righteous. In other words – the impact of Christ is upon the very same people as of Adam. If you want to interpret this passage as saying all men are automatically sinners because of Adam, then it would have to mean that all men will automatically be made righteous because of Christ.
Interpreting this passage to mean that mankind inherits sin, or a sin nature, or sinful tendencies from Adam is not being true to the text. That is a concept that first must be assumed, then applied to the passage. That is improper hermeneutics.

apothanein kerdos
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:47 PM
Do you believe that God is tempted by sin?

Yet, Christ, as a man, had to be made like his brothers in every way, and because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

To be tempted by sin, would you agree that you would need a sin nature? If you do not have a sin nature, then temptation is no longer temptation. Jesus didn't sin, not because He couldn't, but because He wouldn't. Jesus suffered when tempted. He didn't just shrug temptation off.

No, you need to be a free moral agent in order to sin, you don't have to have a sin nature. After all, Adam wasn't created with a sin nature, but still chose to sin. To say we have a sin nature simply means we have a propensity to sin that we simply cannot escape (even the OT teaches this).

If we had no sin nature then it would be possible for humans to perfect themselves without needing Jesus to save them. Thus, the life and death of Jesus serves better as an example for us to follow rather than an atoning act that redeemed us from our sin.


See Total Depravity for a full view on the truth of all men being made sinners as a result of one man's trespass.
Perhaps you should study Total Depravity. :)

Total Depravity simply means that humans, since Adam, have been spiritually separated from God since birth. Calvin makes a point to emphasize that both Adam and Christ are the only two humans to not begin in this default position as enemies of God. To say that Christ suffered from Total Depravity or had a sin nature is to say that Christ was separated from God at birth.

Do you really believe that?

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:51 PM
Romans 5:15-21

This portion of Romans is comparing Adam to Christ: specifically the result of what each did. The point that Paul is making is that the work of Christ has greater effect than the work of Adam. Notice the words used here. “If many died through one man’s trespass” vs “much more have the grace of God.” So Christ’s work reaches further than Adam’s.
Another part to look at here is the use of parallelism. Verse 19 uses the phrase “the many” for both those who became sinners and for those who will be made righteous. In other words – the impact of Christ is upon the very same people as of Adam. If you want to interpret this passage as saying all men are automatically sinners because of Adam, then it would have to mean that all men will automatically be made righteous because of Christ.
Interpreting this passage to mean that mankind inherits sin, or a sin nature, or sinful tendencies from Adam is not being true to the text. That is a concept that first must be assumed, then applied to the passage. That is improper hermeneutics.

No matter what you say if you say that no man is born with a sin nature your dead wrong. If you say that Jesus was born with sin you better start praying. I afraid your the one making outlangish assumptions.
God Bless
Randy

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 06:57 PM
If we had no sin nature then it would be possible for humans to perfect themselves without needing Jesus to save them. Thus, the life and death of Jesus serves better as an example for us to follow rather than an atoning act that redeemed us from our sin.
It isn't a "sin nature" that necessitates our dependence upon Christ.
1) Mankind was created for fellowship with God. How can we have fellowship with God if we don't include Him in our lives? Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."
2) Christ gave himself as an atonement for our sin, not for a "sin nature". Someone who is guilty of breaking the law cannot make himself "unguilty". It is impossible for us to atone for our own sins. It's not a matter of making ourselves perfect. No matter how "good" I make myself, I can't escape the fact that I am guilty.

There is no need to hold to a doctrine of a sinful nature.

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:02 PM
No matter what you say if you say that no man is born with a sin nature your dead wrong. If you say that Jesus was born with sin you better start praying. I afraid your the one making outlangish assumptions.
God Bless
Randy
It's not a matter of my saying that no man is born with a sin nature. The issue is that the Bible doesn't say that mankind is born with a sinful nature. It's an assumption that must be forced into Scripture.


I'm not making an assumption, then trying to place it into a passage. I'm trying to be true to what Scripture says without reading something into the text.

By the way - I want to make myself quite clear that I completely reject any wild notion of Jesus being born with sin. Please don't try to imply that I'm making such a claim.

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:03 PM
Total Depravity simply means that humans, since Adam, have been spiritually separated from God since birth.

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement!

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:09 PM
It's not a matter of my saying tha no man is born with a sin nature. The issue is that the Bible doesn't say that mankind iis born with a sinful nature. It's an assumption that must be forced into Scripture.

I'm not making an assumption, then trying to place it into a passage. I'm trying to be true to what Scripture says without reading something into the text.

By the way - I want to make myself quite clear that I completely reject any wild notion of Jesus being born with sin. Please don't try to imply that I'm making such a claim.

Sorry did not mean to imply that got you mixed up with somone else.
But our dead wrong about passing on sin nature from Adam.
What makes this so important is Adam was the only man that had free will.
Since Adam everyman was born to sin with the exception of Jesus of course.The sins are pass on from the father. read your Bible it is in their.
God Bless
Randy

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:14 PM
Since Adam everyman was born to sin with the exception of Jesus of course.The sins are pass on from the father. read your Bible it is in their.
God Bless
Randy
Please don't imply that I don't read the Bible. I've been a student of God's word for over 30 years. By the way - there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that sins are passed on from the father to the child. And the statement of "everyman was born to sin" is an assumption. It is not derived from Scripture, it is read into Scripture.

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:36 PM
Please don't imply that I don't read the Bible. I've been a student of God's word for over 30 years. By the way - there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that sins are passed on from the father to the child. And the statement of "everyman was born to sin" is an assumption. It is not derived from Scripture, it is read into Scripture.

Ok but for 30 years you must have skip over orginal sin.
Read on
n Psalm 51:5, when David said he was shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin, what did he mean? We know that his parents were married when he was conceived, therefore the circumstance of his conception was not in sin. Rather, David his saying that from the moment he was conceived, he was a sinner. That an unborn child who has never committed any acts of sin is generally hard for most people to believe. But David did not say he had personally committed any acts of sin but that he was a sinner.To illustrate, let's consider that all right-thinking Christians believe that every unborn child in the United States should have it's life protected by law against abortion. The reason is because no American citizen or any other person should be deprived of life without due process of law. Therefore, even though the child has not done anything yet he is an American. Notice that American and sinner are both nouns not verbs. Just as the child is an American because his parents are American, likewise, that same child is a sinner (noun) because his parents are sinners.
Why do we believe the child is a sinner before he has committed any acts of sin? The answer is found in Romans 5:12-19.
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Sin entered the world when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. God told Adam ".... of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Ge 2:17
Not only did Adam die but his death passed upon all men. And the reason all men die is because we all have sinned. Romans Ro 5:19 concludes, For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
There you have it. By one man's disobedience many (in this case everyone who is a descendant of Adam, which excludes no one), in other words everyone, became a sinner. Even infants die. Romans 5:12 tells us the reason is because they are sinners not necessarily by action but by nature. When the scripture says, "for all have sinned," it means we sinned in Adam or were in Adam when he sinned and are therefore sinners. The sin nature is passed down from generation to generation, all the way from Adam to this present generation. Only Jesus Christ can change a person's sin nature through the new birth of the Holy Spirit.


What your saying goes complely against Gods word but what is worst what your saying goes against Gods plan for man.
Anyway I will not continue this discussion because most of us kno what orginal sin is.
Your luck if you can find another person to agree wth you on this it is a insane idea IMO
God bless
Randy



God Bless
Randy

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 08:12 PM
Psalm 51:5 is clearly NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

1st - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.


As for Romans 5:12 -

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, it should be translated "on the ground of", "by reason of", "on the condition of", "because of". The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (because of death). In that case, the phrase should be translated "because of which" or "upon which condition." With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated "because of which all sinned" and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of the death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin. So, I think a more accurate translation should be, "“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because of which (death)all sinned”

It does not teach that all sinned because Adam sinned.

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 08:22 PM
Ok but for 30 years you must have skip over orginal sin. There is no need to "skip over" something that isn't there.

when David said he was shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin, what did he mean? We know that his parents were married when he was conceived, therefore the circumstance of his conception was not in sin.

There is indeed indication that his mother was considered "unclean". There is indication that David's mother was not the same mother to his older brothers, and that she had at one time been married to a heathen, thereby making her "unclean" in the eyes of Judaism.

Some passages you might want to read are:
1 Chronicles 2:13-16
2 Samuel 17:25
1 Samuel 11:1
1 Samuel 12:12

Pay careful attention to all of the people mentioned there and their relationships with each other.

looking4jesus
Nov 22nd 2008, 09:42 PM
There is no need to "skip over" something that isn't there.


There is indeed indication that his mother was considered "unclean". There is indication that David's mother was not the same mother to his older brothers, and that she had at one time been married to a heathen, thereby making her "unclean" in the eyes of Judaism.

Some passages you might want to read are:
1 Chronicles 2:13-16
2 Samuel 17:25
1 Samuel 11:1
1 Samuel 12:12

Pay careful attention to all of the people mentioned there and their relationships with each other.

No more comments your just blinded sir you cannot see the forest because of the trees.
Take cre
God Bless
Randy

holyrokker
Nov 22nd 2008, 10:27 PM
No more comments your just blinded sir you cannot see the forest because of the trees.
Take cre
God Bless
Randy
I'm truly sorry that you have that opinion without examining what I've proposed. All I'm trying to do is to examine what Scripture says without placing a presumed meaning into it. There's no blindness in that.

Lamplighter
Nov 23rd 2008, 12:57 AM
Quick easy answer.

Was Christ tempted by Satan to sin, yes he was.

Could Christ sin, no he could not. Christ is 100% God, and God can't sin.

Christ is the Logos, the God man, the Only Begotten of God, and he can't sin. He's 100% God and 100% man, which makes him 100% unique, and the unblemished lamb of God.

Alaska
Nov 23rd 2008, 02:59 AM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.

I don't understand how this could be. It is hard to fathom how Jesus could be born with a sinful nature and not sin, even as a child!

If Jesus was born with Adams original nature (without the propensity to sin), before the fall, then His being able to live in human flesh and not sin seems so much more plausible.

So, does it reallly matter either way? The end result is that I believe, whatever the mechanism, Jesus lived a sinless life and through His life, death, and resurrection He has prepared a way for me and you to spend eternity with Him.

It would matter a great deal since Him being in the flesh (that relates to him overcoming sin by the power of God in Him) is the basis of the test question that determines whether or not we are of the spirit of the antichrist.
The antichrist gospel popular in many churches states that Christ in us the hope of Glory cannot overcome sin making his flesh different than ours making those holding that view antichrist according to the Apostle John.
The defeatist antchrist gospel says sin cannot be overcome in our flesh.

Butch5
Nov 23rd 2008, 03:11 AM
Psalm 51:5 is clearly NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

1st - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.


As for Romans 5:12 -

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, it should be translated "on the ground of", "by reason of", "on the condition of", "because of". The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (because of death). In that case, the phrase should be translated "because of which" or "upon which condition." With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated "because of which all sinned" and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of the death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin. So, I think a more accurate translation should be, "“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because of which (death)all sinned”

It does not teach that all sinned because Adam sinned.


Well said my friend,

:amen:

DIZZY
Nov 23rd 2008, 10:52 PM
Why start a thread asking whether Jesus was born with sin. We know the bible says that He was without sin, He did not have Adams blood flowing through his viens, He had a Virgins blood and the Spirit of God. He was pure, Holy, set apart from all humans so that He could be the perfect sacrifice for sinful man.

Hebrews 4:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=4&verse=15&version=50&context=verse)
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

The first sacrifice for sin was in the garden of Eden, an animal had to die to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. Out of its coat God made clothing for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness.

We know that the blood of animals can not take away our sins, the blood of animals was just a covering for our sins, just like the skin of the animal was a covering for the nakedness of Adam and Eve.

Now the blood of Christ is a different story, His blood was and is and will always be an efficient atonement for our sins. Being a human, without sin made Jesus the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all mankind.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Hebrews 10:4-6
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:


“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.

Christ was able to give His own life because He was the only one in the world who was born without the sinful nature.

John 10:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=18&version=50&context=verse)
No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

MLC
Nov 24th 2008, 11:38 PM
There is indeed indication that his mother was considered "unclean". There is indication that David's mother was not the same mother to his older brothers, and that she had at one time been married to a heathen, thereby making her "unclean" in the eyes of Judaism.

Some passages you might want to read are:
1 Chronicles 2:13-16
2 Samuel 17:25
1 Samuel 11:1
1 Samuel 12:12

Pay careful attention to all of the people mentioned there and their relationships with each other.

Hmm, thats interesting, i have never heard that before. I guess you are saying that Abigail had a different father than David and his brothers. But even if that is true, where would it possibly indicate that David had a different mother than his older brothers, and had the same mother as Abigail? Or am I misunderstanding you completely?

Teke
Nov 25th 2008, 08:10 PM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.


A more direct question would be, "what is sinful nature", or 'what is nature'?

I'll quote some of the posters in this thread who's statements I agree with.

"All mankind is born with a human nature which Adam originaly had, and continued to have after he sinned.
Sin can not change ones nature."

"To be tempted by sin, would you agree that you would need a sin nature?"
I disagree, all you'd need is a human "nature".


"No, you need to be a free moral agent in order to sin, you don't have to have a sin nature.

If we had no sin nature then it would be possible for humans to perfect themselves without needing Jesus to save them. Thus, the life and death of Jesus serves better as an example for us to follow rather than an atoning act that redeemed us from our sin."

I see the "saving" part as both parties participating in the perfecting. As a transforming/ transfiguring of creation, so to speak, as God encompasses all.
It was his plan all along, even before sin.

DIZZY
Nov 25th 2008, 08:43 PM
God can not dwell were sin is dwelling, so to ask if Christ had a sinful nature, the answer would be no.

God came down in the flesh so that He could save sinful man, this was the only way God could save us sinners.

If Christ had a sinful nature then He was not the perfect sacrifice for us, the sacrifice had to be pure unblemished without spot.

God started with animal sacrifice so that it would show us that something had to die for our sins.


Hebrews 10:1-3
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.


1 Peter 1:18-20
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

He was fully man and fully God, He could identify with the problems we had with sin because He also was tempted by Satan. Not because He had a sinful nature.

Matthew 4:5-7
5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:


‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,’

and,


‘ In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”

Luke 4:8-10
8 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”
9 Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. 10 For it is written:


‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you,’


It does not matter what other people say about Jesus and His nature, what does the Bible say.

It says He was without sin, spotless the perfect sacrifice.

Forth the March
Nov 25th 2008, 11:07 PM
In the old testament lambs without blemishes were used.

Jesus had no "blemishes" (sin) or else he could not have been used as the sacrifice.

Teke
Nov 26th 2008, 02:22 PM
Throughout scripture, whether during the temple times or before, lambs were representative of peace. When there was peace between parties there was the lamb in the midst, which they partook of (ate together), signifying the peace between the two parties.

jim- dandy
Jun 29th 2013, 01:56 AM
Yes I cannot see how any christian could believe such nonsense.
It really discounts Jesus and God. Shameful
God Bless
Randy

Here is the problem. Man IS born into a sinful nature, which means Jesus WAS subject to the same temptations as we are. That was God's wisdom and justification. We can NOT complain that Jesus had an advantage on us when we stand before Him. I know what you're feeling, my initial reaction to you saying that my sweet five year old granddaughter was of a sinful nature wouldn't set well, and she ain't our Lord. He demonstrated in a sinful nature that we can satisfy the first covenant, but our hearts are not in it. He was SINLESS in his walk before God. He was tempted by Satan who IS the god of this world for now and did have the legal right to tempt our Lord with it. Jesus denied himself because his heart was into US. This does not diminish the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, this shows his glory. God bless you.

ChangedByHim
Jun 29th 2013, 02:11 AM
The first page of this old thread made my head hurt....... very bad

David777 in love
Jan 21st 2016, 07:43 AM
Hello,

Some say that in order for Jesus to be able to save humanity, He had to be born with a sinful nature.

I don't understand how this could be. It is hard to fathom how Jesus could be born with a sinful nature and not sin, even as a child!

If Jesus was born with Adams original nature (without the propensity to sin), before the fall, then His being able to live in human flesh and not sin seems so much more plausible.

So, does it reallly matter either way? The end result is that I believe, whatever the mechanism, Jesus lived a sinless life and through His life, death, and resurrection He has prepared a way for me and you to spend eternity with Him.
I don't know but it stands to reason that if Jesus was to truly defeat sin, he'd have to be born with a sinful nature, or else what kind of battle was it then?

Stonesoffire
Jan 22nd 2016, 06:53 AM
That would be saying that God was under the power of the kingdom of darkness, and it's ruler.

He could not redeem man from it, being a part of it, could He David?