You can just say, "I don't know." It's much more gracious than the "why do you ask that?" evasion you and others use.

John the Baptist was born filled with the Spirit. But you claim that he was born without the ability to think, and therefore, no character. That means character is not required for being filled with the Spirit. That is the conclusion of the position you've taken.

Yes, animals don't have self-awareness, which is common to infants as well. I think we normally become self-aware around age 4, but I'm sure that varies from person to person.

lets see,

a baby has to have thoughts

so that it can have character

and that is the only way it could be filled with the Holy Spirit.


i guess he had thoughts long before he had neurons and brain synapses according to this:

hmmmmwhich is why i asked,to your question,

Yes, John was filled with the Spirit at birth. Does such filling happen without character?

As for the infants with no neurons or synapses, you must resist the temptation to believe that scientists have it all down pat. I've spent enough years doing science to know better. There are many things science cannot explain. So don't be surprised if character can exist without all the neurons and synapses being in place.


That's a good quote. Let's look at it closer.

You highlighted two important parts: Zacharias and Elizabeth helped FORM John's character, and they helped DEVELOP John's character.

Is it possible that John's character was already FORMED at birth, then DEVELOPED as he grew older? That's what happened with his quadriceps, right? Nobody would argue that since John's quadriceps needed to be developed as he grew older, that he must not have had quadriceps when he was born.

Yet, that is exactly the argument proposed by some of our posters here. They will post quote upon quote that we DEVELOP character by our choices, habits, etc., and from that conclude that there must have been no character to begin with. But that's a fallacy, as anyone who has ever felt a baby's underdeveloped quadriceps can tell you.

Here's another quote to ponder:
The image and likeness of God, which was given to man, included character. Are babies born in the image of God, even a little bit? Yes, that image has been marred and well-nigh obliterated, but is there something left of God's image in infants?

Let's see if we can get this back on track...


Here's the quote we were wrestling with:
It is clear that we suffer from #2 on your list. I say Jesus did not.

You question how Jesus could have endured every trial we have to endure if He did not suffer #2 as we do. My answer is that He endured it just like He endured being raised by a godless mother, as many of us do. Many are born to godless parents. Did Jesus endure that also? In the same way, He could endure our unwillingnes to submit to God.

Look at that quote again. Where does the "real difficulty" come from? The "corruption of an unsanctified heart." Did Jesus have the same "corruption of an unsanctified heart" that many of us suffer? Did He endure that?

Getting closer to the title of the thread, what was Jesus' nature? Let's look at two statements regarding human nature - one before the Fall, and one after:
Which "nature" was Jesus' nature like? The one in harmony with God, or the one in harmony with Satan?

I choose #1.

Arnold, when quoting a list, where you're speaking of items 2 and 3, it would be good to quote the list, at least item 1. You quoted "2.These are due to an unwillingness on our part." without any reference to what "these" is.

1.She's speaking about our not making excuses for our defects of
character.
2.These are due to an unwillingness on our part.
3.Jesus Christ never chose to sin.
4.To overcome He had to confront and overcome the same fallen nature that we do.



No I don't. I've not asserted this. Perhaps you could quote something I wrote which gave you this impression, and I could comment on that?

I've said He could not have endured every trial we have to endure if He were not tempted in all points as we are. I've said He could not have endured every trial we have to endure if He did not have sinful flesh, such as we have, with its tendencies. Perhaps you had this in mind? If so, this is not the same thing you are claiming I said, which I hope is clear.

I've not said anything different than what our pioneers said. My view is not at all different than Jones, Waggoner, or Prescott, whom Ellen White quoted. It is my conviction that Ellen White's was the same as those whom she was endorsing (on this same subject).



We're told that Christ took "our sinful nature" upon His sinless nature. His sinless nature was sinless. The "our sinful nature" which He took upon His sinless nature was not.

If you ask which nature was Jesus' like, my assumption, without your giving any further qualification (it's rather vaguely worded, given the subject at hand) would be His nature was sinless. It was like God's. However, the human nature which He took upon "His sinless nature" was "our sinful nature."

Regarding the question you ask, how do you think Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott would have answered?

the quote leads one to believe that he was filled with the HS while in his mothers womb. you read it as saying "from birth". that one is up for grabs.

this seems to be basing a conclusion on speculation.this is what was stated:this seems to be getting into more dealing with the person than the issue.i wasnt discussing "character". you are.

i am pointing out that for a baby to have thoughts....(already addressed)

continued

you seem to be contradicting yourself here.here you are comparing the babys physical state with the babys mental, or moral, state. i dont know that i can consider that a valid comparison. having quadriceps at birth does not, for me, prove that a baby has thoughts at birth.

most babies have a brain at birth as it does quadriceps, both need to be developed. physical with physical.this appears to be touching more on the person and the disagreement of the two sides than the issue.

in conclusion:

i cant see how anything you have said proves that babies are capable of thoughts....

nor do i see how a baby having thoughts or not would be necessary for your argument, if there is any validity to your argument.

Teresa,

Where in Mrs. White's writings do you find that an unborn baby has no thoughts? If you find her saying it, I will believe it. As for the science you presented, it appears to ignore a multitude of others who say differently. Here are just two of the many quotes I found online. I have yet to find even one statement saying babies are born without synapses, or that thoughts start after birth.





In contrast to a synapse-less condition, it appears that there may be far more synapses than are put to use.

Regardless of the science, Biblically-speaking we are sinners from the moment of conception.



This, of course, is one reason the Catholic church has promoted the idea that Mary was conceived sin-free, so that Jesus would not be conceived "in sin." But this doesn't make much sense, because it seems Mary's mother would have had to have been so-conceived for Mary to not have been thus ill-conceived, and so on up the line. So much for immaculate conception theory.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.