As we didn't have church yesterday on account of a major snowstorm, we missed out on any discussion about any of this, however, I trust others here can share what happened in their respective Sabbath School discussions.

Your several posts are a little jumbled up, asygo and Tom, with right bits, wrong bits, and some poetic licence!

Jesus' humanity was sinful, defiled and degenerate, but his mind was "righteous", indwelled by his Father's Spirit from birth - an indwelling from such an age remaining a mystery equal to the incarnation and not for us to fathom.

What, asygo, of that 7 SDABC 926 quote by Tom, originally in manuscript 141, 1901, and cited in "Touched With Our Feelings"? Is it not perfectly unambiguous on the immoral state Jesus' humanity?

Then there's this

Jean Zurcher's book (mentioned above) may well have ended the debate proper on this, so I don't need to say much more here, but you appear to think it's not over, or just needs better wording?

As for "not currupted", this is a matter of choice, as that letter without context, to Baker, points out that corruption "did not rest on him". Perhaps Tom was showing how "defiled" and "degraded" are clearly understood as descriptions of a state of morality, whereas "corruption" is known as a matter of choice: the wrong context changes meaning.

We now have a 3rd entrant.

Tom: Jesus' humanity was amoral.
Arnold: Jesus' humanity was moral.
Colin: Jesus' humanity was immoral.

I'd sooner go with Tom's assertion of amorality than with the idea that Jesus was immoral in any way, aside from our immorality that was imputed to Him as the Lamb.

Immoral has the same meaning as sinful, not so: I prefer sinful nature - we exist in a state of sinfulness, but was resorting to immoral to emphasise the point while you two were using the root word - won't use it again due to how it confuses you who appear to hold to the new theology.

What of that quote???...

I was mistaken: She does not remove the worthy sacrifice, for she merely confirms that indeed divinity is immortal...while she also believed that the Son of God himself died.

Here is a most basic statement regarding the pre-incarnate Christ, the Son of God, and what he did - he died...


This simple statement she clarified in the same letter

She is distinguishing divine nature from the divine Son, and describing - nearly explaining! - how God's own divine Son managed to offer himself as the atoning sacrifice for sinners. I hadn't got this clear in my own head last week, but there it is!

Here is another quote, clear as day


The divine nature, the Godhead, is immortal, but "God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" facilitated the death of his Son, since God alone could save and only the Son of the Most High did save us by dying for us.

Oh, I really ought to include this one, for it says it so well.

We prefer to be called "those who have learned a thing or two over the past century and a half" as opposed to those who have remained stagnant in "old error," or more often, "erroneous ideas of what the old theology really was."

It is better to stick to theology, as mud-slinging is an old skill I'd rather not dredge up.

NO ANSWER???

Here's a reminder

As for your opinion of yourself, you're welcome to it, but you remain a new school of thought...theological thought.

Written in the 20th century, not her precise wording, but you reckon Francis Nicol, Kenneth Wood and Herbert Douglass got it wrong, or just the no-called Independent Ministries?

I can now refer you to my latest post, for her statements that the Son of God himself died while divine nature did not. That's why my point above here has a footing, though not expressed directly here.


These trinitarian allegations? - with pleasure...: please read it all on the trinity thread where I'm posting introductory details.


Yes, Jesus' deity didn't die, by the pre-existent Son of God did - he himself died as a man, which is the point that DebbieB made earlier: two natures in one Man, so that two personages, Son of God and Son of man, lived and died together as one Man.

What does this mean to you? What I believe is that Christ's divinity remained in the tomb, unconscious - but not dead. In much the same way as when Christ was sleeping.

Christ's divinity didn't die - that's all I seek to express, and it may well be as you described it. Christ, the Son of God, died, since only God could save us from death, and that's what he did and how he did it. He who came from heaven, God with us, died for us by having taken on humanity.

One must simply differentiate between Christ as God and his deity, for that is how EGW sorts it out in talking of his sacrifice as God.