Well, I just quoted a small paragraph, so, of course, I wasn't asking if it was the totality of what you believed. I was asking if you agreed with what it said. I think you do.



Let's look at what she said:



She speaks of taking man's nature, accepting humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. So that sounds like she's saying taking the same nature that man had after 4,000 years.

Then she says that "like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." This sounds like genetically Christ's human nature was the same as every other human being. As we receive our human nature, so Christ received His, by means of genes and chromosomes.

Then she says, "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." Here she speaks of the results being shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. A common SDA formula of the time was to bring out that Christ's ancestors included prostitutes, and others of low repute. The "results being shown in the history of His earthly ancestors" could hardly be speaking of their being hungry and tired. No one would read what she wrote her that way.



I think it's made clearly in the passage itself. This passage makes some similar points. It brings out the humiliation aspect more clearly, but not that Christ accepted the law of heredity like every other child of Adam. It would be quite odd to think that "the lowest depths of degradation" would be referring to hunger and fatigue.



In Matthew 5:28, looking to lust is an act of the will. In James, "is tempted" is not an act of the will. Sin is only conceived when an act of the will takes place, acceding to the temptation. Doesn't that make sense? Or do you think merely having the temptation is a sin?

Sorry to ask this again, if you already answered it. Do you think Christ was ever tempted sexually? Did He ever feel a desire to have sex?

Are you saying that Jesus received "prostituteness" as part of "the working of the great law of heredity"?

He received the genetically passed hereditary inclinations of His ancestors. The results of the working of the law of heredity (the working out of these hereditary inclinations) is shown in these ancestors.

Salut all, Rosangela you said "our sinful nature" does not include the moral or spiritual nature and it wasn't physical.

However, the moral decision or will comes from our brain frontal processing which can be label as our moral faculty. But our moral faculty needs to be married to a "spirit". So I agree with you that the spiritual nature is the basis of sin.

Isn't the essence of sin --> Rebellion?

I think we can't prove to what extend Christ was human with genetics because of His conception was not like ours. He could of been fully human, but we all know that He was Christ incarnate, so He was fully God at the same time.

Can God be Rebellious to God?


I think it is interesting the wording EGW used to describe Christ moral inheritance. She said He inherited moral decreased in "worth". Not in powers or nor strenght.

I like to compare man as a hi-tech computer with hardware and software that enables to use the 5 sences, but with wheels. So imagine a hi-tech computerized car. However, the car needs to have a driver. You can choose to put your car on automation, however, it has limitation. And ideally whether you realize it or not, you need a driver.

Jesus makes clear that we cannot serve two masters. So the car can only be driven by One driver, either by God or by evil spirits.


These scriptures makes clear to me that man needs a driver and he is driven by a "Spirit". Christ clearly made us aware, that He had a driver and it was the Father.

Why not? He began life, as a human being, as a zygote, just like another other human. One could have seen Him as a single-celled organism. It blows the mind that God could do that, but there you are.

The SOP tells us that like every child of Adam, He accepted the workings of the great law of heredity.



God cannot be tempted (James tells us this). But man can be. As man, Christ was tempted as man is tempted, and was able to fall, just as anyone else.

From another thread:



This is another instance making clear that assuming a sinful nature means a human nature with tendencies to sin.

We've gone over this ground before, but I'm still not sure what you are asserting.

"He received the genetically passed hereditary inclinations of His ancestors."

I say, and I believe R agrees, that your quote means Jesus was weak and infirm, as all fallen people are - He suffered from the amoral frailties of man. You agree with that, but say that it goes further.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asserting on this point. You've said what you said many times, but it is vague every time. Are you saying that Jesus "received the genetically passed hereditary inclinations of His ancestors" to be a harlot?

Regarding DA 49, the quote cannot simply be asserting that Jesus was able to become hungry and tired. Nobody doubts this (that Jesus became hungry and tired).

The quote says that Christ accepted the working of the law of heredity, like every child of Adam; that He accepted human nature after 4,000 years of sin. We all know what this human nature is like, as we all have it. She's asserting that Christ took the human nature we have, in the same we take it, and says that the results of this nature are evident in His ancestors.

No one looks at His ancestors and says, "Oh, David got hungry and tired, just like I do."

He received the genetically passed hereditary inclinations of His ancestors.

Here is an excerpt from M. L. Andreasen's chapter, The Last Generation: "There are few Christians who have not gained the mastery over some sin that formerly greatly annoyed them and overcame them. Many a man who has been a slave to the tobacco habit has gained the victory over the habit and rejoices in his victory. Tobacco has ceased to be a temptation. It attracts him no more. He has the victory. On that point he is sanctified. As he has been victorious over one besetment, so he is to become victorious over every sin. When the work is completed, when he has gained the victory over pride, ambition, love of the world-over all evil-he is ready for translation."

His description of victory/sanctification includes a point in the Christian's experience when each temptation "has ceased to be a temptation. It attracts him no more."

A zygote requires two cells from two individuals. Typically a man and a woman. The egg of a woman alone is incomplete. Let's assume God took all of Mary's genetics, then by taking one cell, you create a "Clone". That is what cloning is all about-- an exact replica. Jesus was not a clone of Mary. First he was male and second, I'm sure He was different than Mary in many ways, since the Bible never said that Jesus was like Mary. So His other half of His genetics came from God. Which will make Him totally different from you and me and anyone else on earth including Adam.


There's a difference between being tempted and being Rebellious. I brought out the point that the essence of sin and the nature of man is Rebellion to God. Is there Bible text or SOP that says that Jesus was Rebellious?