No, divinity is immortal, but what does "lay my life down" mean? God dying for us because of our sin is a mystery, but what does that statement by Jesus mean??

Colin,

The Bible is not the greater light. The greater light is Christ Jesus. The "greater light of the Bible" is Jesus. He it was He who said, "Search the scriptures...and they are they which testify of me." John chapter one is clear that Jesus is THE LIGHT "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

This statement is an interesting one...


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

While what you say is true, that article is not talking about that. To make it say what you wish it said is putting words into EGW's mouth.


You seem to be arguing against someone who is not here. You and DebbieB seem to have something against these Trinitarians and their alleged doctrines. But the current point of contention is whether or not Jesus' divinity died. Some of us believe EGW taught that it did not.

1) You seem to have missed the verse I referenced, saying that Adam, who was fully human and only human, was also the son of God.

2) Your implication that the "greater light" of the Bible will fix the, I suppose, darkness of EGW is disturbing.

Didn't unfallen Adam have "sarx" as well?

In any case, Rom 8:3 does not say Jesus came in sinful flesh. It says He came in the "homoioma" of sinful flesh. Had Paul intended to say that He came in sinful flesh, he would have said just that. But he didn't.

Fallen, but not corrupted is the right way to think about it.


It is neither surprising nor wrong. But he did not say Jesus came in "our fallen nature." He said, "The question concerning the human nature of Jesus is not whether He was a sinner or not but whether He took a fallen human nature without being or becoming a sinner." Fallen, yes, but not corrupted.

As for his guidance in spiritual matters, it holds as much weight with me as Goldstein or Priebe or Adams or Kirkpatrick. They all have to go through the law and the testimony. They may be right, but the could also be wrong.


The immediate quote suggests that she believed corruption to be a possible constituent of one's nature. That Jesus did not have that constituent, while the rest of us do, is often overlooked by the post-fall camp.

Yes, His humanity was fallen and degenerated. But I do not believe it was morally damaged in any way. If you can find an inspired text for that, I'd like to see it. (There's one I can think of, but I won't say where. )

Let's consider briefly what happened to Adam when he fell. Did his transgression create physical, intellectual, and moral imperfection in him? I say yes on all three counts.

But Jesus was morally perfect. Therefore, He was not like Adam after the Fall. And I would guess that everybody reading this is also like Adam after the Fall, imperfect in all three aspects.

Of course, pre-fall Adam was perfect in all three aspects. But Jesus was damaged physically, and probably intellectually also. So He was not like pre-fall Adam.

Therefore, I agree with the statement from the lesson: No other human being has been, is, or will be exactly like Him.

Not the "sarx" of the time that 1 John was written.



This argument is easily disproved. In Phil. 2 we read:



By the same logic you are suggesting, if Paul had intended to say Christ was a man, he would have said just that. But he didn't.

The word "Homoioma" means "like," not "different from." A better argument is that Paul said "likeness of sinful flesh," to indicate that while Christ took flesh like ours, Christ was not exactly like us, just like although Christ was made in the "likeness of men," He was not exactly like other men. How was He different?

In the language of Ellen White, He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. That's different! None of us has a sinless nature upon which to take a sinful nature. That being said, that nature, or flesh, which He took, it "like" our nature, or "flesh."



How about "fallen, but not defiled"? Would that be the way to think of it. Or "fallen, but not degraded."?





I can understand Rodriguez, Goldstien, Priebe and any other contemporary of ours not carrying weight, but I don't understand how the contemporaries of Ellen White would have no weight. For example, S. N. Haskell read the following from "The Desire of Ages,"



Haskell then said:



In regards to W. W. Prescott's sermon, "The Word Made Flesh" (a sermon regarding Christ's taking the nature of Adam after the fall) Ellen White wrote:



This sermon was from beginning to end a post-lapsarian sermon! This was deemed "truth," "separated from error."



This isn't relevant. One could also say, "But Jesus was God. Therefore, He was not like Adam after the Fall."

Our flesh is not a matter of morality.



Christ took the same flesh we have, but never responded to the temptations of the flesh; thus He was morally perfect. He was unlike Adam after the fall in terms of His performance, but not in terms of His flesh, or nature.





Everybody agrees with this.

That's where the Christology of many postlapsarians falls so far short of present truth. You guys speak of "nature" in only its amoral aspects, then claim that Jesus took such a "nature."

I can't think of anyone who does not agree that Jesus' human nature was like ours in its amoral aspects, even identical. You are defending an undisputed, and I would say irrelevant, point. You place so much emphasis and expend so much energy on that which "is not a matter of morality." That's probably why Ralph Larson's son can tell a room full of postlapsarians to "get a life."

In contrast, others, such as myself and EGW, sometimes speak of "nature" in terms which include moral aspects. In my case, that's the overwhelming majority of the time. That's why I spend so much time and effort, not in telling people how much we are like Jesus, but telling them that we need to get on the ball because we are NOT like Jesus.

The only reason I spend any time talking about Jesus' human nature is because of its moral implications. If it is amoral, as you claim it is, then there is no reason to spend any significant "theological" time on the topic.

Neither does it mean "identical" is my conclusion based on Paul's use of homoioma.

How is this different from what I have been saying? I must not be expressing myself very well.


Is this "sinless nature" a human nature, upon which He took our sinful human nature, giving Him two human natures? That would be different alright. Very different.


Your suggested modifications are obviously wrong, as your quote points out. That's why I said "fallen, but not corrupted" is the right way to think about it. Your suggestions are the wrong way to think about it. Why you would even suggest them is beyond me, except for the purpose of setting up a straw man.

BTW, does anyone have any reports from yesterday's SS discussions? Anything new come up?