Well, it looks like the years we've spent talking about this topic has finally made Tom sick! Taking a break from us will surely help.


So would you say that for Jesus, "there were in him corrupt principles, tendencies to evil," in contrast to Adam?

Let's see about unfallen Adam's other characteristics: no indwelling sin, pure and upright, in His own image, faultless as the angels before the throne. Did Jesus come also "in contrast to" these characteristics?

She was careful to say, as Paul was, "the likeness of sinful flesh." The rest of us, OTOH, have actual sinful flesh. But more importantly, the contrast claimed to be made between Adam and Jesus have to do with much more than flesh, but the mind. Corrupt principles are the domain of the mind, not the body. Even Jones did not teach that Jesus had a sinful mind.

Welcome back from the dead, mate.

But I believe you missed her point, as most non-postlapsarians would.

Christ's "likeness of sinful flesh" is simply being contrasted with Adam's unfallen nature, which didn't have "indwelling sin," "corrupt principles," or "tendencies to evil."

Paulson explained it thus: indwelling sin or corrupt principles couldn't have applied to Jesus, but Christ's fallen flesh did possess tendencies to evil, otherwise this quotation doesn't present the intended contrast between Christ and Adam.

I gather you'll disagree with him, though still, in light of the clear historical record describing Ellen White and the Church's post-fall Christology, referred to in earlier posts, you'd nevertheless attempt to argue that this quotation and others are embedded with Original Sin?



Welcome back, anyway. Smiling.

William

Now let's try one that doesn't cause that baldness, and see if we can't accurately interpret Ellen White:

"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. BUT ["on the contrary" or "in contrast to"] Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."

Better?

William

Tx. William, I appreciate the freshness and the statements you bring on this thread. Poor Tom, he did have a rough time and I even contributed to some part of it. Now, I do appreciate that he never did quit.

In Regards to inheritance and genetics, well that's something I did learn through college and my profession. And that's how I came in this discussion and trying to apply what Rosangela and Arnold were saying versus the law of inheritance. Initially I was incline to believe that Jesus body, genetically was not like one of us, and half of his gametes was divine, making him different than us. However, through reading more scriptures, I was impressed that I was wrong.


Law of Inheritance
The Law of inheritance is well proven today. Some inheritance(genetic expression) are more focus toward the members of your body like diseases and tendencies like to alcoholism via the liver gene. However Character, fears, habits, and immoralities are more inherited/expressed via the brain structural genes. Just because you have the "sinful or degraded" gene doesn't mean that you will automatically become an alcoholic, get the disease, be a pervert, etc... The gene always needs an outside stimuli like the environment and brain impulse(united with a spirit) to be activate or expressed.

So that's why knowing that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from conception or birth(it could be either like Green pointed out), then the working of the Spirit maintain Jesus sinful inclined weak gene not to be expressed in a uncontrolling manner.

Now let me explain this with an example. Every human being are equipped with the ADH(Alcohol dehydrogenase)gene in their liver. You need that gene to live, it's part of the human genome makeup. Having this gene doesn't make you a sinner. However, exercising the strength of this gene by alcohol abuse, is a sin that destroys your body gradually. I come from a family inheritance that cannot hold alcohol and if we abuse, we end up hugging the toilet. However, my husband comes from a family of alcoholism. So his ADH gene is very strong and can handle massive loads of alcohol compare to my whimpy ADH gene. Now my husband inherited a predisposition and a tendencies towards alcoholism. Christ in him, can keep his loud ADH gene voice down, and by having Jesus's will power in him, Jesus will sanctified my husband faculties to a new lines of actions. Just because a person inherited a strong ADH gene, doesn't mean that he will become an alcoholic nor does it make him one. But let say that he joined the statistics and became an alcoholic, then just like any other sins, his only hopes is having Victory in Jesus.

So for Jesus, we know that from conception or birth, and through all his life, He was in continual submission to the will of God. His brain structure inherited from birth was renewed in lines of sinless actions and in every step, Christ grew in perfection reflecting the Father's will to us. He was perfect at every step of the way, but His mind increasingly got stronger in the lines of the works of His Father, and His knowledge of the Father increased and therefore proportionately reflect more of his Character that way, both in works and in knowledge.

So yes, I agree with Ellen when she said that Jesus never had any "taint of sin" which means that Jesus never sin in any dimension despite his weak genetic inheritance.

There she is, back from the salon! Hi Elle. Indeed, Tom also was my inspiration and reason for adding my comments to this forum. That's right.

I'll comment on your other excellent ideas a bit later, Elle. Now if we can only remove that tiny abscess from the sharpshooter's frontal lobe, I'd feel alot better (as would he)!

William

The way you have worded that one, William....tricky! Of course it is not a sin to be born! However, the following statement does imply that one can be born in sin.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

These were Paulson's comments, GC. However, I do agree that "it is not a sin to be born!"

Tricky Willy

I didn't email William, and I'm not ill. I guess there was some confusion somewhere. At any rate, I appreciate the concern.

The above line was supposed to be the tail-end of the obvious. Sorry, Tom. Definitely need to be more explicit with my dryish humor, eh?

Though, glad you're feeling better! (See what I mean?) My apologies to everyone for creating any confusion. Seriously. Sorry for any disrespect, mates.

William

Both Funny and naughty! Bad William! (smiles)