Jesus had a human nature?

Bingo! Jesus was tempted as we are...yet He never sinned, unlike we do. He had a human nature, just not a sin nature (ala Adam pre fall).

 

There are two words for tempted in Hebrews 4:15.

and

In James 1:13, there are also two words used for tempted where it states 'God cannot be tempted':

and

Jesus could not have been tempted to sin.

 

...because Christ was also 100% human...and humans CAN sin.

 

For one to be 100% human, would not one have to have two human parents?

Christ only had one human parent. Can it truly be said He was 100% human?

 

True, Jesus is God, but He is also a man. The reference in James must be to the Father, or the Spirit.

When Jesus was tempted (or tested) it wasn't like He was taking a true/false test.

BTW, looking at the Greek on Blue Letter Bible, it is clear that the two words are related. peirazo (tempted, when he is tempted, I am tempted, etc.) and apeirastos (cannot be tempted). Also, the same Greek word is used in Matthew 4 and Hebrews - peirazo. So, the idea of Jesus being tested and not tempted doesn't fly.

 

If He wasn't that throws the whole doctrine of Incarnation right out the window!!!

 

You're doing math, not theology.

He was/is fully God and fully human. There has not been one like Him before or since.

 

If it were possible for a cat to be mated with a dog, the outcome would not be a 100% cat/100% dog. It takes two of the same species to produce 100% of that species.

Why not the same equation for man? How can it be said one is 100% man if the human father's DNA is not used?

 

1.) You're not dealing with cats and dogs.
2.) The Incarnation (the Son becoming fully human while remaining fully God) is a miracle of God. We're not going to be able to explain it in terms of normal human activities.

Mathematical equations are not helpful when trying to express the nature of God. For example, one of the favorite Mormon "proofs" that Christians worship three gods instead of one God is their equation 1 (Father) + 1 (Son) + 1 (Spirit) = 3 gods. They fail to recognize a few things. First, we don't come to the theological understanding of the triune nature of God through mathematics, but through the revelation of the New Testament that teaches the doctrine. Second, we don't know the nature of "spirit", so we have no way of knowing if it actually is a problem to be 100% spirit (in terms of God's nature) and 100% human.

In the same way, we understand that Jesus was born fully human and yet still fully God. I can't explain how that works exactly, but I don't have the right to ignore or twist scripture that does not mesh with my limited understanding.

There are simply some truths that our minds caught in a limited material frame-of-reference cannot completely understand.

You're asking all of the good, classic questions regarding the Incarnation. These are things that everyone struggles with.

 

If Jesus was not 100% human, then (1) we are still in our sin, (2) the writer of Hebrews was inaccurate -- or just lying -- when he said Jesus was "touched" with our infirmities and "tempted just as we are," and (3) practically ALL the Early Church Fathers (not to mention the Apostles) were WRONG about His nature.

JDale

 

As was mentioned earlier, the understanding that Jesus Christ is both 100% human AND 100% God was settled by the Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. This truth is called the "hypostatic union." Jesus has two natures in one Person. He is both fully Divine and fully human. Every view that denies this truth since that time in Church history has been deemed heresy by ALL of the three divisions of "Christendom," Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

Jesus was conceived of the Virgin Mary, without human father. He got his human nature from his mother ("the seed of the woman"). When He was tempted, He was tempted as a human. That He was God did not make Him any less human, or any less susceptible to the temptations that humans fall heir to.

As to the tricky question, "COULD Jesus have sinned?" Someone started another thread somewhere today about being "comfortable with paradoxes." This is a case where we have a paradox in which we, as finite, limited human beings cannot reason nor rationalize the answer. The answer is yes -- and no. In His humanity He was heir to the weaknesses of the flesh, and His temptations were real and threatening. But as God, He could not be tempted -- at least not successfully.

We tend not to like paradoxes. That's especially true of theologians. In this case, however, we have to accept the mystery of the "God/Man," and of how He could/could not sin. I'll wait on Him to explain that to me when I go to be with Him. No one on this board -- or on this earth -- can adequately reveal all this truth entails.

JDale

 

I don't think it is heresy, as the human seed was not used. Christ is both God and man, I am not denying that. But because the Father was not human, but Spirit, to say He is fully man would be grasping, IMO.

Christ did not have the sin nature that man had. He could not sin, being sinless. Being Truth, He could not lie.

Even though He was in flesh form, in a human body, He could not be tempted with evil, for in Him was no evil.

I do not deny His deity, nor His virgin birth. I just have a problem with saying He was 100% man when it was not His nature to sin , unlike man who is born a sinner.

Had Christ been fully man, He would have to have been born a sinner just as all men born to man and woman are.

 

Jesus not being born with a sin nature has nothing to do with whether we are still in our sin or not.

Jesus was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, yes. That is speaking of His compassion toward us in our sickness. The word feeling in Hebrews 4:15 is the word 'sumpatheo' speaking of sympathy.

Church fathers have been wrong in many of their writings.

Can you give me a verse that says He was 100% man? That He had the nature to sin? That He struggled with sin as we do?

I cannot find it.

 

Another reason I do not like to say He was 100% man is because He, unlike you or me, was not born speaking lies.

Even as an infant, there was something He portrayed in His flesh that was unlike that of any other man on earth.

He certainly was 100% flesh, but not 100% man in that He did not have the sinful nature of man.

In Him was no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.

 

Ed, I agree with with your statement above; but will ask if you'ld really be offended if I post the heretic quiz now? :type: I said I wouldn't so as to spare you, and won't if you feel that strongly about it, but it does have some very thought provoking questions to consider, along with many theological terms within the results for evaluation on the subject (not that they are accurately assigned.) Just wondering.

 

My oh my, the things you see on a Baptist board. Unreal.
You are speaking eutichianism, apollinarianism or maybe nestorianism depending on where you go from here. As said before all of this was shot down in the early church.

You guys need to study church history. It's more then just boring facts. You can learn how the battles in theology have been fought before. The church spent years on this subject before they hammered out the hypostaitic union.

 

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether Christ COULD sin or not.
Does it?

 

What Church leaders wrote doesn't matter if it doesn't line up with God's Holy Word.

Scripture declares Christ was without sin. I believe it.

Scripture says He is God. I believe it.

Scripture says He was born in the flesh of the virgin Mary. I believe it.

Scripture says man born of a woman comes forth speaking lies. Do you think Jesus had this trait? Did He come forth lying?

I say He was 100% flesh, but not 100% man, for He did not come forth as man did speaking lies.

 

SFIC, how do you understand this passage in Heb. 2?

He had to have full humanity in order to be the sacrifice. This is what the passage tells us; there is no way around that, imo. Also, Jesus was called a descendant of David in several places, and the "second Adam."

I think one reason there is the debate as to the sin nature is because so many think the body is the locale of the sin nature. But I don't think there is a physical location for the sin nature; it's just a term for saying we have a tendency toward sin. I think people don't need their bodies to sin or have the tendency to sin; it comes from rebellion and pride, not being naturally submissive to God's will. So Jesus could be 100% man and not have the sin nature since he was also God.

 

Not sure what version you are using, Marcia, but my Bible does not say 'in all things.'

He was made like His brethren... in 100% flesh. But not the sinful nature... else when He was born, He would have come forth speaking lies.

He was born of a woman, was He not? Had He come forth speaking lies as Scripture declares, then He would not have been the sinless sacrifice needed for man's sin.