Was Jesus human like us or a different kind of human?

Did Jesus truly "share in our infirmities"? Was he flesh in the sense he had a human nature as is common to man, or was he human in a different way (a different kind of humanity from us)?

 

But Jesus was not human like we are human...correct?

By this I mean Jesus didn't get sick, catch a cold, and couldn't die unless he was killed.....right?

 

This is a hypothetical statement. Have you ever considered that the Fall was always a part of God's plan?

To illustrate, God placed a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his promise. BUT we can't say that had God not made the promise there would be no rainbow.

 

Actually, I was thinking of Isaiah 53 and Hebrews 4:15. Isaiah presents Christ as sharing in our weaknesses while the author of Hebrews looks to Jesus as truly being one of us as a qualification for his office of High Priest.

 

I'm not saying to plan sin. I am saying that the Fall was a part of God's plan (not that God caused Adam to sin but that Adam was never designed to be above the need of a spiritual birth).

 

While we don't know all, I think that there is enough revealed in Scripture to answer the OP. Here is what we do know:

We know that Jesus was made "flesh" like we are "flesh".
We know that Scripture only offers two natures: "flesh" and "spirit"
We know that Jesus shared in our weakness.
We know that in order for Jesus to be our High Priest he had to have been one of us.
We know that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are.
We know the nature of temptation is an appeal to the flesh.
We know that Jesus came in "corruptible" flesh.
We know that Jesus suffered in his flesh the things that we suffer.
We know that Jesus grew, as we grow.
We know that Jesus aged.
We know that Jesus grew weak, hungered, grew thirsty.
We know that Jesus possessed a "will of the flesh", but that he submitted this will to the will of the Father.
And, of course, we know that Jesus was without sin.

There is much mystery to the Incarnation, but not so much as we need to think of Jesus as having a pseudo-human nature (when compared to mankind).

Even without this argument, God subjected all of creation to futility. Jesus came in a created (physical) body - a part of creation. He would have been subject to the same suffering as creation.

 

The problem is that you have not shown, via Scripture, that there is even such a thing as a "sin nature". Scripture speaks of two natures - the flesh and the spirit. We do not sin because we have a "sin nature" but because, when tempted by the things that appeals to the flesh, we choose the flesh (we choose ourselves). Is there a reason you can offer to adopt your hypothesis over James 1?

 

First, I am not altering your interpretation - I'm rejecting it (not those passages, but your interpretation of those passages).
Second, an interpretation is not proof. Proof would be a passage denying James 1. Proof would be biblical affirmation of this "third" nature. Proof would be even one verse where Jesus speaks of three natures - two kinds of flesh and the spirit.

Scripture tells us that the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God. That is enough to justify why we will not inherit the kingdom (because the Bible says so). But no where does Scripture tell us that we sin because we are created to sin (because we have been made with a "sin nature").

More problematic, however, is how the idea of a third nature (a human nature common to man but foreign to Christ) applies to Christ.