Tom, how about my other question?


Is this the nature you believe Jesus had?

One could just as well say:



"Evil" or "sinful," it's the same thing. He took our nature, "fallen," or "sinful," or "evil," or whatever you want to call it, upon His own sinless nature.

What about all the historical evidence I presented, Arnold?

Evil=sinful. I can agree with that, but not in all contexts. I don't think all instances of "evil" have identical meanings. (And there are postlapsarians, such as Priebe, who do not agree with that at all.)

Look again at the GC quote:
Are you saying that this sentence describes Jesus as it did fallen Adam?

Also, you say Jesus took "our nature." Look at this quote:
Is there anyone here whose nature is "not corrupted"? If not, then it cannot be said that Jesus had their nature, for His was not corrupted.


I have read the historical evidence, but the argument is inherently weak. Essentially, it is, "Person X taught this and EGW did not complain, therefore, she must have agreed." It is an argument based on silence.

Even taking into account that she endorsed the people, that should not imply that she agreed with everything they said. Furthermore, it does not imply that she agreed with what YOU think they meant.

For example, I have yet to see quotes where EGW endorses or even expresses the idea that Jesus had evil in His heart, or that He was in harmony with Satan in any way. However, you will find many quotes where she said that sinful men are in harmony with Satan.

In any case, I much prefer going by what she actually said, and from that determining what she taught, rather than "theology by association." I want to eliminate the middle man. And she wrote so much on the subject that we don't need the middle man.

Here's something that tells us that the sources of our temptations are not the same as Christ's.

I believe He endured every form of temptation we do, but He was not tempted by the evil in His own heart. The quote I posted says:

"Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But he could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. ... Yet it is written of Christ that he was tempted in all points like as we are." {GCB, February 25, 1895 par. 6}

Satan never found in the heart of Christ some point where he could gain a foothold. There was no sinful desire cherished, and this includes the sins human beings find the most difficult ones to overcome – all the addictions, evil habits, and sins of repetition. Christ never committed sins of repetition, yet He is able to succor us because He knows the strength of temptation, since the temptations He faced were a hundredfold stronger than the ones we face.

“The Son of God placed Himself in the sinner's stead, and passed over the ground where Adam fell, and endured the temptation in the wilderness which was a hundredfold stronger than was or ever will be brought to bear upon the human race.” {5MR 112.2}

Those temptations in the wilderness were a hundredfold stronger than was or ever will be brought to bear upon the human race. Do you consider that those three temptations were temptations from within?

That points to the often-overlooked fact that the strength of temptation is not always due to one's inherent sinfulness, since Jesus was sinless.

It hasn't been asserted that ours were the same as His! He was tempted in all points as we are, but His temptations were not limited to that.

But it does say that it is perverted to think that "He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man."

It has been asserted that He experienced all that we experience. That's clearly wrong. I experience sinful, corrupt propensities everyday.

That His temptations were not limited to what we experience is true, but a different point altogether.

Christ took our sin upon Him. He experienced our propensities in that way.

So Jesus "experienced" the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man, but did not "possess" the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man? Please clarify the difference.