I answered this before the other one. All I've seen is this:



Was this what you had in mind? Or something else?

I think this sentence is very well stated, in terms of what "sinful flesh" is, and in terms of the logic as to why it was necessary for Christ to have sinful flesh (if you look at the context of the above sentence).

Saying that our tendencies to sin are in the body is the same as saying that our character traits are in the body (when they obviously are in the mind).

Aren't they in the DNA? Is DNA a mind thing, or a physical thing?

It seems to me that "mind" has to do with things like, how we think, decisions we make, our paradigm, things like that, not our DNA.

When we say that Christ took our sinful nature, we're saying that His DNA was like ours. IIRC, you agreed with this statement (i.e., you agree that this is what it means to say that Christ took our sinful nature, and you agree that His DNA was like ours). I'm remembering this correctly?

Before the fall human beings were keeping the law. In which way keeping the law proves that it cannot be kept?????


All those who saw billions of angels - the highest creatures in the universe - break the law and justify themselves saying that the law of God was faulty and could not be kept.


That was an additional argument, not the only one.


Does man's fallen nature include his mind? That's the point.

Like personality traits, character traits are inherited, but they have to do with the mind, and they determine, partly at least, how we think and the decisions we make.

If our DNA determines the decisions we make, how do we have free will?

After the fall Satan declared that man, who was fallen, could not keep the law. Christ came, and proved that the sons and daughters of Adam, which is fallen man, could keep the law. He did this by taking the nature of fallen man.

Satan was no arguing that man, as he was created, could not keep the law, but that fallen man could not keep the law, which is why Christ's taking fallen man's nature, and keeping the law in that nature, put the lie to this argument.



None of the those, the trillions of those of the "millions of worlds," who saw this believed this. Only man believed Satan, and this wasn't the argument that Satan presented, but rather Satan argued that God didn't have their best interests in mind, and that God was not telling the truth when He said that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit.



It's the only argument that is reasonable. When there are millions of worlds, with trillions of inhabitants, keeping the law, it's pretty silly to argue that it can't be kept.



The 1888 Messengers were clear on this point. For example:

Oh, I see. Thank you for clarifying. In what ways do you think our connection differs from the connection A&E enjoyed before the Fall? And, how does it differ from the connection Jesus had while here in the "likeness of sinful flesh"? also, how does it relate to RBF?

Because we are not just our DNA; we are also our experiences.

This is not silly at all, but very clever. It's one thing to keep the law for a time; it's quite another to keep it forever. Satan himself had kept it for a long time, until the moment he decided to rebel against it. The same had happened to man. And the same could happen to anyone. He hoped to instill these thoughts in the minds of other creatures: Is the law faulty and oppressive, like Lucifer said, and, if so, why should we continue to obey it? Is it restrictive of our liberty? Why do we need a law, anyway? Why can't we set it aside, like he did? Does the law make forgiveness impossible? Is God selfish for requiring us to obey it? If they did not receive an adequate answer, these questions would lead to the spreading of sin to the worlds above.

"In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. ... When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner."{DA 761.4}


Fallen man in his natural state really can't keep the law. Everybody knows this and this isn't something which needs to be "proved."


What I'm asking is, Does man's fallen nature include his mind? Yes or No?