The best practical illustration I can think of would be to give examples from Christ life. Here's one that touches me.

Simon was a leper whom Christ healed. He felt honor bound to have a party in Christ's honor. Mary Magdalene, his niece, whom he had had a hand in leading into a life of sin (The "Desire of Ages" brings this out), was present. Simon thought in his heart, "If He (Christ) were a prophet, He would know what manner of woman this in."

Christ knew Simon's thoughts, and responded by telling him a story, in which there were two debtors, one owing 500 denarii and another 50 (a denarius was a man's daily wage), as Simon, if both were forgiven, who would be more appreciative. Simon answered the one who owed 500.

The interesting thing about the story is that Simon was the one who owed 500, while Mary owed 50. Simon got the point. But no one else did, which is the beauty of Christ's story. Christ was able to reach Simon, pointing out his hypocrisy, in public no less, without anyone understanding this was happening, except for the one Christ was seeking to lead to repentance.

An ordinary religious person could with "righteous indignation" lay bare the hypocrisy of Simon, but Christ had a love for souls. How was Christ able to tell just the right story to reach Simon's heart? And do so in a way that won him over? It must have taken a lot of thought and prayer, as well as a close walk with God, to be able to do so.

This is a practical example of how God's character can be shown. We can see many such examples by going through the life of Christ point by point. As we meditate upon these examples, we may become changed into the same image.

Tom, that is a very nice story of Jesus and love his gentleness to woe sinners into repentance. Good illustration of God's love!

Now relating this to us, or 144,000, or those from the Great harvest described in Revelation, can you explain how are we going to show God's character?

Are we going to be changed? If so, what part of our being? And how much of it?

I don't think so. It means the same thing as "tendencies," such as when Haskell wrote, "this is fallen humanity, with its hereditary tendencies."



Yes. This is what it means to say that Christ accepted the workings of the great law of heredity. The nature He inherited is the same as ours. Otherwise it couldn't be said that like every other child of Adam, He accepted the workings of the law of heredity, assuming our sinful nature, after 4,000 years of sin.

It's important to note, however, that Christ Himself was not inclined towards sin, nor had a bent towards evil. He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, meaning that there was in His life a struggle, but a struggle in which He always chose the right path, never yielding to the promptings of our sinful nature.

It might be helpful to read "Christ and His Righteous," the chapter called "God manifest in the Flesh." Here's an excerpt:





In response to, in essence, this question, Ellen White wrote:



So, in answer to your question, I don't know. However, had Christ taken a nature with no tendencies to sin, there wouldn't be a mystery.

I'll ask again the same, unanswered question I've asked many times: Are you saying that Jesus "received the genetically passed hereditary inclinations of His ancestors" to be a harlot?

I can't imagine how a healthy man, with a normal sex drive, could date someone that they plan to marry and not feel a desire to have sex with that person. It seems very odd to me that someone would consider this to be sinful. Really odd. It would rather raise the question, "Why are planning to marry someone you are not sexually attracted to?" That doesn't seem like a very good idea.

The sin would come in feeding or acting upon a desire which cannot be appropriately be acted upon.

Regarding seeing the beautiful woman question, here's how I would describe it. There can be something about a woman which one can find sexually attractive. This is a normal function of the flesh. This doesn't necessarily mean one immediately has a desire to have sex with the woman, but it means there is the possibility that this could develop if one didn't take immediate action to prevent it. The action is to look away and think about something else. The temptation is to not look away, and feed the attraction. Or to look away, and feed the attraction, as one can lust without continuing to look.

The fact that one has a sexual attraction to someone is not sin. When the mind registers what is happening, the will enters into the question, and a person chooses to do an action, involving what to look at and what to think about. This is where sin enters.



In the case of one's family, there's a natural function which retards sexual attraction to one's family members, provided one has grown up with them. If the boy had never met his mother, and was introduced to her, that retardation wouldn't be present (you've heard the story of Oedipus no doubt).

No, she never used the words “depraved” and “corrupt(ed)” referring to Christ’s human nature, and the quote you posted doesn’t mean that there were no corrupt principles in Adam but they existed in Christ. She is drawing a parallel, as well as a contrast between them. As was the case with Adam, there also were no corrupt principles or tendencies to evil in Christ, but He bore the likeness of sinful flesh. I’m sure you remember the quote which says that Christ took our nature, “fallen, but not corrupted,” so it won’t be necessary to post it here.


So the concept of original sin is wrong because it involves the idea that simply the act of being requires a Savior, but the corporate concept involves the same idea, however it’s correct. What is the logic of this?


I’ve never heard anything so absurd! If Christ was born condemned, under the sentence of death, how is it that He didn’t need a savior, since that is the very reason why we need a savior? If He Himself must die, if He owed His own life, He could never have died in our place.


Ellen White says repeatedly that Christ was born subject to the law, but of course she never says He was born under the condemnation of the law.
Besides, it’s easy to see that the natural meaning in Gal. 4:21 is “subject to the law” and not “under the condemnation of the law.”


She uses the word “sin” referring to Seth’s sinful nature. This is easy to see and understand.


We discussed this two or three days ago, and I showed that Ellen White says the humanity Christ took (not His divinity nor the humanity He developed) was without a taint of sin.

“He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).

He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin. {20MR 324.1}


Tom, I know what “sexually attracted” means. My question was rhetoric, indicating that this is not a term that should apply to the behavior of a Christian.


Right.

I answered the question I thought you were asking. Your question, as written, doesn't make sense to me. I'm assuming by "harlot" you mean a female prostitute. Is this correct?

The point of that post was to point out that M. L. Andreasen, who many consider a hero for defending the view that Jesus had the same sinful tendencies we do, taught that when a person is sanctified on a particular point of sin, it "attracts him no more." More than that, "he is to become victorious over every sin" in order to be "ready for translation." This is fundamental to the "last generation theology" he espoused, and being carried on in some circles today.

So where does this leave us? Jesus had sinful tendencies, but in order to be sanctified, we must reach the point where sin does not attract us. Jesus - attracted to sin. Sanctified sinner - not attracted to sin.

Is there something wrong with that picture? I think so.

Over the years, I have received three different postlapsarian responses to that:

1) Andreasen was wrong regarding what it means to really overcome.
2) Andreasen didn't mean that EVERY sin is overcome in this way.
3) Andreasen may have a point regarding complete victory.

#1 can continue to believe that "Jesus had sinful tendencies like us" and still be logical.

#2 must limit the sinful tendencies Jesus had to those that are inherently impossible for us to overcome.

#3 must either believe that Jesus had no sinful tendencies, or that sinful man must achieve an experience of sanctification that Jesus did not experience.

That's all the time I have for now. I'll get to your questions/comments in another post, or maybe another thread, since it seems like a different topic.

Female prostitute mostly do it for the money, not because of sex.
However male prostitute would do it for just the reward of sex. To my opinion, there a lot more male prostitutes around than woman prostitutes.

Sorry for confusing you there. I was thinking of Rahab, the female prostitute who was Christ's ancestor. Let me rephrase in a less confusing way, to remove the temptation to be a woman: Are you saying that Jesus "received the genetically passed hereditary inclinations of His ancestors" to be a male prostitute?

But then, there are men today who are tempted to be women. I suppose some would teach that Jesus had that same sinful tendency. He did wear a "dress".....