I don't know how the sinful nature is transmitted, but who said there is only a legal problem? From the beginning we are telling you that there is not just a legal problem. Your view is too narrow. Man's problem does not constitute the entirety of the great controversy.

"From the first, the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, and that His law was faulty, and that the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law, he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author. In the controversy it was to be shown whether the divine statutes were defective and subject to change, or perfect and immutable." {ST, November 4, 1908 par. 12}

Because the law is involved, and because forgiving without the payment of the penalty would be equivalent to changing the law, the penalty had to be paid in order for God to be enabled to forgive. That's why there is a legal problem involved here.

I ask the same to you. What do you make of John 14:30? “Nothing” is nothing. The fact is that our sins were imputed to Jesus, and in His body He bore the penalty of sin, the sentence pronounced against sinners (OFC 270.5).

"I don't know how a sinful nature is transmitted". How are brown eyes transmitted? How are 5 fingers transmitted? How is blond hair transmitted? Is a sinful nature something external to an individual are integral? Is there a "soul" that is separate from the body? NO. Why is it so hard to believe that our sinful nature is inherited, genetic?

We read in the 10 Commandments, Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; HOW does is the iniquity of the fathers visited on the children to the 3rd and 4th generation? HOW? It is genetic, and epigenetic. Epigenetic literally means above the genome. It is chemical switches that turn on and off genes. These epigenetic switches can be turned on or off and then inherited in the very next generation. The underlying genetic code does not change in this case, but the expression of those genes certainly does. EGW has spoken of this a several places, and has gotten a lot of flack for her comments.

• Their children often receive this stamp of character before their birth; for the appetites of the parents are often intensified in the children. Thus unborn generations are afflicted by the use of tobacco and liquor. Intellectual decay is entailed upon them, and their moral perceptions are blunted. Thus the world is being filled with paupers, lunatics, thieves, and murderers. Disease, imbecility, and crime, with private and public corruptions of every sort, are making the world a second Sodom. {HR, August 1, 1878 par. 9}

The Law - is the law a legal document, or is the law a design template? If violation of the law a legal problem, or a real problem? Are the consequences of violating the law extrinsically applied or is it intrinsic? When Adam and Eve transgressed, did they understand that punishment would be inherent to the transgression, or that God would kill them? This is a great controversy issue.

• The law of God is as sacred as God Himself. It is a revelation of His will, a transcript of His character, the expression of divine love and wisdom. The harmony of creation depends upon the perfect conformity of all beings, of everything, animate and inanimate, to the law of the Creator. God has ordained laws for the government, not only of living beings, but of all the operations of nature. Everything is under fixed laws, which cannot be disregarded. {PP 52.3}

• Like the angels, the dwellers in Eden had been placed upon probation; their happy estate could be retained only on condition of fidelity to the Creator's law. They could obey and live, or disobey and perish. God had made them the recipients of rich blessings; but should they disregard His will, He who spared not the angels that sinned, could not spare them; transgression would forfeit His gifts and bring upon them misery and ruin. {PP 53.1}

Is the ruin that happens intrinsic to violation of the law, or is it an imposed penalty? The answer is clear!

• Transgression of Nature's Laws Is Sin.--A continual transgression of nature’s laws is a continual transgression of the law of God. The present weight of suffering and anguish which we see everywhere, the present deformity, decrepitude, disease, and imbecility now flooding the world, make it, in comparison to what it might be and what God designed it should be, a lazar house; and the present generation are feeble in mental, moral, and physical power. All this misery has accumulated from generation to generation because fallen man will break the law of God. Sins of the greatest magnitude are committed through the indulgence of perverted appetite. {4T 30.2}

AMEN! I agree with EGW 100%. He bore the penalty of sin, because He carried our sin in His body on the tree! See Matthew 8:17. See Isaiah 53:3-4.

Hebrews 2:17-18 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

When did Jesus make the statement that Satan "has nothing in me"? When? Right before His crucifixion. He could no longer be tempted. He had, finished the work He was given to do, John 17:4.

So Rosangela, do you believe that Jesus had our sins in His body?

• All come forth from their graves the same in stature as when they entered the tomb. Adam, who stands among the risen throng, is of lofty height and majestic form, in stature but little below the Son of God. He presents a marked contrast to the people of later generations; in this one respect is shown the great degeneracy of the race. But all arise with the freshness and vigor of eternal youth. In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but in form and feature. Sin defaced and almost obliterated the divine image; but Christ came to restore that which had been lost. He will change our vile bodies and fashion them like unto His glorious body. The mortal, corruptible form, devoid of comeliness, once polluted with sin, becomes perfect, beautiful, and immortal. All blemishes and deformities are left in the grave. Restored to the tree of life in the long-lost Eden, the redeemed will "grow up" (Malachi 4:2) to the full stature of the race in its primeval glory. The last lingering traces of the curse of sin will be removed, and Christ's faithful ones will appear in "the beauty of the Lord our God," in mind and soul and body reflecting the perfect image of their Lord. Oh, wonderful redemption! long talked of, long hoped for, contemplated with eager anticipation, but never fully understood. {GC 644.3}

How are these traits of our vile body transmitted from generation to the next? It is Genetic. Even more, what does a man contribute? 23 chromosomes. That's it! No cytoplasm, no mitochondria, no cellular organelles, no nucleus. Those all from from the Woman. So, the INFORMATION on how an organism is built, is in the genetic code. And this genetic code has been corrupted. And again, from what I read in science, the corrupting element can be identified. And unravelling the problem is of a complexity that is unfathomable.

Is sin is legal problem, then acquital, pardon, would solve the problem. But it does not, and it can't. Sin must be removed. We literally must be born again. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "Truly truly I say to you", This is talk that means that something is literal just as in Daniel prophesies, when something is literal, it is identified as "the thing is true". Look into the genetic code.

I think it's better to drop this subject, but I must reply to this point:


He could no longer be tempted? You are completely wrong.

Even while hanging on the cross, assailed by Satan with his fiercest temptations, Christ was victorious. . . . With His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." The battle had been won. ... The blood of the innocent had been shed for the guilty. By the life that He gave, man was ransomed from eternal death, and the doom of him who had the power of death was sealed. {RC 60.2}

In the wilderness of temptation, in the garden of Gethsemane, and on the cross, our Saviour measured weapons with the prince of darkness. {RH, July 18, 1882 par. 12}

The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. So great was this agony that His physical pain was hardly felt. Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. {DA 753.1, 2}

Throwing temptations and being tempted are not the same thing. Yes, the devil pulled out all the stops.

"The prince of this world cometh," said Jesus, "and hath nothing in Me." There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan's sophistry. He did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So may it be with us. {ST, August 23, 1905 par. 7}

Completely wrong?

Then what was the work he finished? Finished before His crucifixion! What?

And you did not answer the question if you believe he had out sin in His body? (yes or no)

And did God kill Jesus? (yes or no)

Nothing was finished before the crucifixion. Christ was speaking of His whole mission on earth, including, obviously, the cross. Please pay attention to this quote, which speaks of the words "It is finished" He pronounced on the cross:

Well, then, might the angels rejoice as they looked upon the Saviour's cross; for though they did not then understand all, they knew that the destruction of sin and Satan was forever made certain, that the redemption of man was assured, and that the universe was made eternally secure. Christ Himself fully comprehended the results of the sacrifice made upon Calvary. To all these He looked forward when upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished" (DA 764).


Of course No, because if Christ had had any sin in His body He would have had something of Satan in Him.
The expression "to bear sin/iniquity" is an expression used to indicate that the person is responsible for the sin committed and liable to punishment (see Ex. 28:43; Lev. 19:8; 20:17). The fact that Jesus bore our sins means He became responsible for our sins and received in His body the penalty for them.


Christ suffered the agony of the second death under God's wrath, the penalty for sin.

"He died of a broken heart. His heart was broken by mental anguish. He was slain by the sin of the world." {DA 772.2}

The sense of the sinfulness of sin kills the sinner, but only when he feels that God condemns his sin. So both elements are necessary to produce the death of the sinner.

Rosangela - I take the Bible as it reads. That is why I have come to the conclusions that I have.

John 17:4 I have glorified you on the earth: I have finished the work which you gave me to do.

Something was finished before the cross, what was it? You say NOTHING was finished before the crucifixion, but that is not what my Bible says. Certainly not everything was finished before the cross or even after. There is still work to be done. Christ is our High Priest now doing work in the Heavenly Sanctuary in our behalf.

EGW: In the intercessory prayer of Jesus with his Father, he claimed that he had fulfilled the conditions which made it obligatory upon the Father to fulfill his part of the contract made in Heaven, with regard to fallen man. He prayed: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. [That is, he had wrought out a righteous character on earth as an example for men to follow.] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." In this prayer he farther goes on to state what is comprehended by the work which he has accomplished, and which has given him all those who believe on his name. {6Red 77.3} [quoted as printed]

EGW: In the prayer that He offered for His disciples just before His trial and crucifixion, He declared, "I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do. . . . I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world" [John 17:4, 6]. [emphasis supplied]

My Bible says: 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

Rosangela says, NO, He did not carry our sins in His body.

We have little idea of the strength that would be ours if we would connect with the Source of all strength. We fall into sin again and again, and think it must always be so. We cling to our infirmities as if they were something to be proud of. Christ tells us that we must set our face as a flint if we would overcome. He has borne our sins in His own body on the tree; and through the power He has given us, we may resist the world, the flesh, and the devil. {AG 262.2}

Christ made an end of sin, bearing its heavy curse in His own body on the tree, and He hath taken away the curse from all those who believe in Him as a personal Saviour. {1SM 394.3}

On the question, did God kill Jesus, Rosangela I think, said no. I would agree if that is so. God destroys no man. All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1} If we really want to know how God will treat sinners, all we need to do is look at Jesus. How did Jesus treat the worst sinner? Who was the worst sinner? Judas! Jesus treated Judas with respect and care all the way to the end. Did God kill Judas? Nope. Will God kill Judas in the Judgement? No, God destroys no man. The wages that sin pays, is death. it is not an execution by God. Sinners will die. And we need to understand how God is involved.

I don't think you do. You take the Bible to say what you desire it to say, and if at the moment your preference is literal, it is easy to say that you take it as it reads. There are many places in the Bible that I am certain you would not choose to take it "as it reads" with no further interpretation beyond the text itself.

Furthermore, if you take the Bible as it reads, does it not seem inconsistent to you that you do not take Mrs. White as she reads? For example, I remember you disagreed with a literal reading of the following:



If it is meritorious to "take it as it reads," why not do so here also?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well Green - let the Bible be its own expositor. There are times when the Bible is symbolic, and times when it is literal. So compare scripture with scipture.

And when you search the Scriptures with an earnest desire to know the truth, God will breathe his Spirit into your heart, and impress your mind with the light of his word. The Bible is its own interpreter, one passage explaining another. By comparing scriptures referring to the same subject, you will see harmony and beauty of which you have never dreamed. There is no other book whose perusal strengthens and enlarges, elevates and ennobles, the mind as does the perusal of this Book of books. {YI, June 30, 1898 par. 4}

It is a most difficult task to get away from old customs and established ideas... {YI, June 30, 1898 par. 7}

The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. {GC 598.3}

Take the book of Daniel. It is very symbolic, would you agree? But is it always symbolic? NO. Daniel 6, Did Darius literally sign a degree, Daniel 6:12, "this thing is true". 3 times, it is told to us that Daniel 11 is literal. Daniel 10:1, 21; 11:2. The words “true” and “truth” come from the same Hebrew word which is used at least 113 times in the Old Testament to mean literal truth or literally true. Take Daniel 7, a symbolic vision is given. Daniel 7:16 I came near to one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. Daniel 7 then continues to explain "the truth", as it literally would happen.

Fast forward to the NT. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Is this a symbolic statement or a literal statement. Most say this is symbolic. But does it match the Bible when it speaks of literal things? Yes it does. Being "born again" is a literal process, not symbolic.

You interpret this to say, God aribitrarily punished Nadab and Abihu. When you compare EGW with EGW, this view caues a disconnect. "God destroys no man", but then you say God destroyed Nadab and Abihu. It can't be both. Nadab and Abihu went into the sanctuary without the protection of the incense. In this case they entered into God’s presence with their own fire, their own righteousness, which cannot endure before Him. God did not arbitrarily punish them. They are making a fundamental statement of intent to stand on their own and in defiance of God’s righteousness as their only covering they boldly try to come before Him on their own merits. God honors their final choice in the matter, and in dramatic fasion, they are “consumed,” not in a physical rapid oxidation from great heat, but they die immediately by the cessation of God’s sustaining power within their being. Just a Romans 1 speaks of God's wrath as God giving them up, letting them go.