"His sinful flesh nature" - I don't think she ever wrote that.

"fallen, defiled, degraded" - She may have used those words, but not to mean that He had the same faults and imperfections we do. Her words, but not her meaning. That is a significant distinction.

It should be to us a cause of continual gratitude and rejoicing that Jesus knows our weakness and is acquainted with our temptations. We are too much in the habit of thinking that the Son of God was a being so entirely exalted above us that it is an impossibility for him to enter into our trials and temptations, and that he can have no sympathy with us in our weakness and frailties. This is because we do not take in the fact of his oneness with humanity. He took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, and was made in all points like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God. He has engaged himself to save every son and daughter of Adam who will consent to be saved in God's appointed way. {ST, May 16, 1895 par. 7}

He took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to endure that He has not endured. . . . Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.--Ms. 113, 1902, pp. 1, 2 (See DA 117).

Do you take this to mean that Jesus was of less moral worth than unfallen Adam?

Are you certain she used those words to describe His humanity?

Yes, I'm pretty sure. It is unlikely that EGW was contrasting apples and oranges and making a point of it. Does one really need heightened spiritual perceptions to notice the contrast between a worm and an eagle?

In any case, to say that Christ's humanity was faulty and imperfect would push you past the edge of orthodoxy. The defenders of the FB would be displeased.

Christ took on Himself, our fallen condition. Amazing, is it not?

What's amazing is that anyone would believe that Jesus was morally inferior to sinless Adam.

Why did EGW write this then?

The Bible testimony is clear - "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3). "He took upon himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." {YI, December 20, 1900 par. 7}

After probation closes the 144,000 will be tempted from within by their sinful flesh nature without incurring guilt or condemnation, so too, Jesus was tempted from within by His sinful flesh nature without incurring guilt or condemnation.

Again, the fact the 144,000 will, after probation closes, be tempted from within by their sinful flesh nature with impunity is proof Jesus did not incur guilt or condemnation because His sinful flesh nature tempted Him from within.