Tom, what about the "corrupt channels" we inherit? Did Jesus inherit them too? Can they commit a sin? Does possessing them make us guilty before God in judgment?

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God's right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ's propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned. {1SM 344.2}

Because I quoted something *you* said. It is post #112364 (04/28/09 11:52 AM), near the beginning of this thread. Look it up.


Now that we have settled that it was your question, let's look at your answer. It seems you are saying that Jesus took our sinful nature, bore our sin in that sinful nature, but He did not have the same "unwillingness" that we sinners do. Correct?

I said:
tq replied:
And you're claiming *she* was asking questions? We must have different hermeneutics. From my angle, it seems *I* was asking questions, and she was the one who started with the "invalid arguments" business.

It seems tq can't take anywhere near as much as she gives. And now comes her knight in shining armor, unsurprisingly.

Tom, take off your glasses. You've been blinded. For the past few weeks you've complained about certain aspects of certain individuals' posts, while saying nothing about the same aspects in tq's posts. Maybe you've addressed her privately. If you have, the result has merely been that as soon as she receives a rebuttal to her attacks, she hides behind the "dealing with the person as opposed to the issue" shield. And here you are, right on cue, enabling her.

You'll probably report this post as a "personal attack." I'll save you the trouble.

I wonder if tq will report you for taking the thread off-topic, in spite of Will's noble attempt. I doubt it. She's got glasses, too.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend." You and tq need to be friends with each other.

Our nature is fallen and corrupt. Christ's nature was fallen, but not corrupt.

How is it not corrupt? He was ever in the image of God - love. In fallen man, like in fallen Adam, selfishness took the place of love.

"He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature." He also took upon Himself our sin. Yet, we correctly say He was sinless. Took our sin, yet sinless. Why can't we say He took our sinful nature, yet was sinless in nature?

Moderator Hat On

In a number of recent cases in this topic, criticisms have been leveled at others which have made mountains of molehills, and distract all from the topic. Should this continue to occur, this thread will get a break. Posts are being and will be dealt with which do not conform to the forum rules.

The following words apply to all of us.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Moderator Hat Off

No, GC, I'm not saying that. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

There's a quote, quoted recently, where EGW said that Christ took our nature, which was "degraded and defiled by sin." I was pointing out that "degraded" and "defiled" are synonyms for "corrupted." Therefore Ellen White must have had a special meaning in mind for the word "corrupted." Otherwise she'd be contradicting herself, because she said in one place that Christ's assumed human nature was "defiled" and "degraded," but in another place she said that it was not "corrupted."

Was that clearer? Hope so. Sorry for the confusion.

I also pointed out that from my reading of her writings, it appears to me that she uses "corrupted" to imply a participation in sin. (i.e., one's volition is involved)



I think this is correct, with the important caveat that it implies sin in the sense of participating in sin. If Jesus had a corrupt nature, that would mean that He had sinned, and would thus be a sinner.

This is interesting. Did you report yourself?

Christ had the same sinful flesh we do, with its temptations and tendencies. He shared in our heredity, and was tempted in all points as we are. So Christ's flesh was like ours.

Insofar as Christ's decisions are concerned, He never chose to sin. However, He confronted the same temptations we do, by virtue of coming in sinful flesh and bearing our sins. In the words of Ellen White:

Yes, he did.

That's pretty funny!

Arnold, given you reported yourself, I have no further comment (unless you want to ask me something again).