Arnold, It's difficult to believe that he would say if you looked at things in too much detail you would become confused. Perhaps you understood his intent, which I know you've done with me. Citing the part of the post where he says what you claimed seems like it would be OK. If you think not, you could PM it to me.

She was preaching with Jones and Waggoner. The "same nature as man" is in reference to what Jones and Waggoner preached. Those who heard the message responded, "If Christ had taken our fallen nature, He would have fallen under the same temptations we fall under." Many have this same idea today.

That "Christ could not have the same nature of man" does not mean simply "human nature" is easily seen not to be a viable possibility. No one would make the argument "Christ could not have had human nature (i.e. simply human nature, like unfallen Adam, as opposed to fallen human nature), because if He did, He would have fallen under the same temptations we do."

So to understand "human nature" as anything other than "fallen human nature" not only ignores the historical reality of the statement (Jones and Waggoner's preaching regarding Christ's taking human nature) but would force those to whom Ellen White was responding to make an argument no one would make.

O, how Christ longed, how his heart burned, to open to the priests the greater treasures of the truth! But their minds had been cast in such a mold that it was next to an impossibility to reveal to them the truths relating to his kingdom. The Scriptures had not been read aright. The Jews had been looking for the advent of the Messiah, but they had thought he must come in all the glory that will attend his second appearing. Because he did not come with all the majesty of a king, they utterly refused him. But it was not simply because he did not come in splendor that they refused him. It was because he was the embodiment of purity, and they were impure. He walked the earth a man of spotless integrity. Such a character in the midst of degradation and evil, was out of harmony with their desires, and he was abused and despised. His spotless life flashed light upon the hearts of men, and discovered iniquity to them in its odious character. {RH, February 18, 1890 par. 5}
The Son of God was assaulted at every step by the powers of darkness. After his baptism he was driven of the Spirit into the wilderness, and suffered temptation for forty days. Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. {RH, February 18, 1890 par. 6}

That "Christ could not have the same nature of man" does not mean simply "human nature" is easily seen not to be a viable possibility. No one would make the argument "Christ could not have had human nature (i.e. simply human nature, like unfallen Adam, as opposed to fallen human nature), because if He did, He would have fallen under the same temptations we do."

A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden, and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5. (Christ And His Righteousness)

1.I pointed out the following:



So just from the question they were raising, it's easy to see that "Christ could not have the same nature of man" means "Christ could not have taken the fallen nature of man." Else the argument doesn't make sense. They weren't arguing that Christ wasn't human, because if He were human, He would have fallen under the same temptation that humans do, but that Christ did not take our fallen human nature, because had He done so, He would have fallen under similar temptations. This latter is an argument people still make. Nobody makes the other argument.

2.She was preaching with both Jones and Waggoner. Waggoner wrote the following in 1889:



http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteou...st-in-the-flesh has more of this if interested.

According to Froom, Waggoner's wife took notes of his 1888 talks, and these talks were printed in Signs of the Times articles, which were later compiled in the book "Christ Our Righteousness" (which was later renamed "Christ And His Righteousness"). The 1888 message of righteousness by faith itself included Christ's human nature.

I'm not remembering the statement off-hand where there were some who believed Christ only appeared to have human nature, or something to that effect, and that is how i have read her comments.

In the context, I don't see your point but that she is making another point.

By thus taking humanity, he honored humanity. Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision he has made for it, and by becoming partaker of the divine nature. (1888 Mat. 1561)

Talmudic, eh???...

Sounds like KP is taking Sister White's advice not to delve deeper into justification and sanctification than is necessary for our salvation. You and he appear to differ on what is enough depth, but he is standing firm, having studied out Adventism and confronted non-Adventist views as he has, including Des Ford, not so(?).

Isn't the reality of sinful humanity - for us and for Jesus, principly the spiritual victory of mind over matter, following the Spirit of Jesus rather than the inclination of the flesh to sin, thus righteous by faith in practice? Christ pioneered that victory of faith over sinful flesh and its assist to every temptation, and that's it. What more should we distinguish on matters of sin, righteousness and faith?

Regarding character/nature, I believe it's similar to the one which goes something like "Just what He was in human nature, you may be by faith in Him."

Regarding character, character is developed, so a newborn would have very little, if any, character.