I do Mike, thank you for the welcome.

There are many mysteries here I feel, but I have found in my own walk, that understanding about being "dead" to sin and self has opened a "tiny" glimpse of this topic up.

Mark :-)

Mark, yes, when we consider the human nature of Jesus in light of righteousness by faith, especially the righteousness He empowers us to experience personally in our daily walk with Him, it makes the topic come alive and meaningful. Seems like most people believe being like Jesus, being kind and loving and compassionate, a life of "continual obedience", is impossible. The reason some give as to why they think it is impossible is they believe our sinful flesh nature prevents it.

Jesus was the perfect example of walking by Faith.

By Faith, He was dead to the flesh, by Faith, He was full of the Spirit. By Faith He performed Gods will.

This also can be our experience...

Mark :-)

So you are contending that LK, just a couple of years ago, was preaching against the idea that Jesus did not have a human mind? You are saying that when LK spoke about Jesus not being significantly different from us "from the neck up" (and he did it quite often) he was simply arguing for the truth that Jesus had a human mind?

Exactly who, in that last few hundred years, would LK have been arguing against? Tom, you are grasping at straws. LK is no fool. He's not going to waste his time arguing against ghosts. As you say, it is a moot point. And I guarantee you that he is much too busy to spend so much time giving sermons and writing articles to argue against a moot point.

But if what you are claiming about his statements is true, he could have easily straightened that out with me. He could have sent a quick email: Oh, I'm simply saying that Jesus had a human mind. That would have been the end of it.

But he did not. He had to think about it. I've been waiting for several years for his reply. It is not as simple as you would like us to believe, Tom. He and I wrestled over this for years, and I can tell you that he is not arguing what you claim he was.

If you want to dispute that, go ahead and email him. I'm sure he's very active on the GCO list. I would like to see him say it for himself.

Tom, LK said, "I do most of my thinking from the neck up. I do most of my decision making from the neck up." He did NOT say, "I do most of my decision making with a human mind." He was not arguing for a human mind. He was arguing for a sinful mind vs a sinless mind.

I think what you are saying is just wishful thinking on your part. It is your way of trying to justify and make sense of the various postlaps arguments out there. The error in LGT runs very deep.

LK was arguing against the idea that Christ did not assume a fallen human nature.



In the context of his article, it looks like what LK had in mind was that Christ was not omniscient.



Don't know what your point is here.



The point I made is I doubt he was disagreeing with what Jones wrote. You can ask him to be sure.



That he doesn't disagree with Jones?



That Christ had a sinful mind? The opposite of what Jones said? That sounds doubtful to me.



Just as there are weird pre-lapsarian ideas, I have no doubt there are also weird post-lapsarian ideas. I haven't been trying to argue there aren't weird post-lapsarian ideas.



I think their emphasis on behavior, as opposed to God's character, is off-base. I haven't read things they have written in regards to the human nature which Christ took which would lead me to believe they disagreed with Jones & Waggoner in regards to Christ's assumed human nature.

I see no reason why things would have worked differently in Adam's case. Besides, EGW is comparing - not contrasting - what happened in Adam's case and what happens with the rest of humanity. It's clear that she refers to the same process: "The tendencies thus cultivated are transmitted to the offspring, as Adam's disobedience was transmitted to the human family." {ST, May 27, 1897 par. 8}


Whether by DNA or not, EGW says they are transmitted to our children.


I don't know if the things you mentioned are passed on. What I'm speaking about is moral qualities, character traits, and EGW definitely says these are passed on, and not just through the mother. That was how Adam transmitted disobedience to the human family.


And I have already provided an example. One of Judas' inherited tendencies was covetousness. What does this mean? That he had an inherent inclination to this particular behavior, which means this particular behavior was instinctive to him. It would have been an innate neural pathway.


Although they may see there are bad consequences, people still sin because they think they will derive something good - some kind of pleasure or advantage - from what they do, and that the pleasure or advantage is greater than the bad consequences. This is the trick. At that moment they are unable to see that that pleasure or advantage isn't worthwhile. It's like poisoned candy.


This is funny. What all of us inherit is sinful tendencies. And sinful tendencies involve evil desires. There is no other way to say it. Ellen White says they are satanic tendencies. One couldn't say it in a more emphatic way than that.

Amen! But when? When can it be our experience? After years of sinning and repenting less and less until we eventually cease sinning?

There are the stages of the Christian experience we have to go through which was given in the chronology of the Disciples experience.

It all relates to the Holy Spirit.

1. They walked with Jesus for 3 1/2 years, but did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2. They received the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit in the upper room, after Christ's ascencsion (the former rain).

3. They prayed and fasted for 40 days and were taught about the "kingdom of God" by Jesus (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).

4. They then received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (the latter rain), which was to give them power for evangelism.


Now most of our brethren are still in stage 1.

Some of us have moved to stage 2 & 3.

When we have learnt stage 3, we will be ready for stage 4.

The outpouring.

At that time, the Loud Cry swells and goes to the whole world.


So we have to figure out individually where we are and where we should be...

As I was recently made aware of, do you know what season Israel has between the early rains and the late rains?


The rainy season!

That's right. And for him, human nature includes the part from the neck up.

For you and Jones, the human nature that Jesus took did NOT include the part from the neck up. LK disagrees with you. I know because I talked to him directly about it.


I did. You are just guessing at what LK thinks. I actually talked to him about it. And I did ask him whether or not he disagreed with Jones. You know, it only takes two keystrokes to type No. But he did not. He has not yet answered my query. The evidence simply does not support what you are postulating.


There's a simple explanation for that. Whenever you see something that disagrees with your idea of J&W, you simply blur your eyes and say, "They didn't really mean that. What they really meant was [fill in with something that suits your ideas]."

Just look at this particular point that we're discussing. LK said Jesus was the same as fallen man from the neck up. "He was talking about Jesus having a human mind. He was talking about Jesus not being omniscient." You would propose that he was talking about all sorts of things, other than what he actually said. But when I asked him point blank, he did not give the concise reply that would have sufficed if he was really talking about what you claim he was.

Tom, it is time for you to concede the point. You told Rosangela that nobody is claiming that Jesus had a sinful mind. There's a whole group of them.

And not only do they say that Jesus had a sinful mind. They also say that Jesus had inner selfish desires. The only difference, they say, is that Jesus never succumbed to those desires. And they will tell you that if it turns out that Jesus did not have the same selfishness that they wrestle with, they will give up Christianity because He cannot be their example in all things.

Let me tie that in to RBF. These poor souls do not walk by faith. It is not good enough for them that Jesus said, "Be holy for I am holy." God's word is not sufficient for them. They cannot have faith in God unless they first see a physical demonstration. They say that they cannot, they will not be holy unless Jesus first shows them that He can be holy with the same disadvantages that they have. They do not, will not take that leap of faith. It is righteousness by emulation.

Righteousness by faith is a completely different concept. We are to walk by faith, not by sight. We believe, not because we have seen, but because God has said. Like Jesus during the wilderness temptations, we trust God's word over what our senses tell us.

Jesus assumed a human nature that requires us to lay hold of Him by faith, rather than having our foundation in what we can see.