This conversation has gotten very interesting at this point.

I believe the age of reason is important to understand and how that applies to Christ in particular. I must admit, until now I have never thought about how the age of reason applies to Christ.

The angel told Mary that He is "that holy thing which shall be born of thee." Paul says He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Luke 1:30, Hebrews 7:26) And Ellen White speaks of His sinless babyhood:

"Christ was not like all children . His inclination to right was a constant gratification to His parents . No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children" {5BC 1117}

One temper tantrum would have made Him a sinner, and that would have destroyed Him as a Saviour. A sinful "savior" couldn't save anybody. The question is, Why was He so different even as a baby, before the age of moral reasoning?


The baby "that which is conceived in her (Mary) is of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 1:20
His name "they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" Matt. 1:22
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35

Was this baby different?
conceived by the Holy Spirit
holy
Son of God

John 1:1 the Word was God
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Heb. 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, ... a body hast thou prepared me:


Christ's identity did not begin at the incarnation.
He was God from the everlasting, He took on human flesh at the incarnation, He was God with us, who had taken on the liabilities of human flesh.

As a baby He was "that holy thing" He was a holy baby. He was not born with a carnal character as we are.
In His holy mind, evil was painful and repulsive. Goodness, love and caring came natural.
His trials were being ridiculed and cajoled and even bullied because of His goodness, and lack of evil and lack of desires for sin.

As He came to the age of moral reasoning, He came to understand more fully WHO He was.
Once He understood WHO He was He also began to realize that He had divine power which He must not use, He must remain on the level of a human.

The temptations to stop evil by using divine power must have been tremendous for Him as a young man. How it drove Him to His knees before the Father continually placing Himself under the Father's will.

Christ was fully Divine as well as fully human.
He didn't change who He was, when He came to earth.
He fully took on humanity, a body that God had prepared by taking Mary's genetic code and adding the other half (how, we don't know) to give him a fully human body.

There are so many things that are beyond our knowledge when it comes to the incarnation of Jesus. How does the Creator God, become a human embryo in the womb of an earthly mother, is in itself a mystery beyond human explanation.

How was He so much like us that He understands our situation perfectly, yet so fully God so we beheld the glory of God in Him, that He was God with us, though veiled in human flesh?

Dedi - why do you leave out all the other pertinent texts?

Example, you quote Luke 1:30 And the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. But you leave out Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) You quote: Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; but leave out Hebrews 2:16-18 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 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. You qoute: Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, you son of David, fear not to take to you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. But leave out: Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

You say: "He was God from the everlasting, He took on human flesh at the incarnation, He was God with us, who had taken on the liabilities of human flesh. " but you mean that his human flesh was not like our human flesh, but something different. So was not really touched with we are afflicted. You say He really did not share our heredity. But that is not what the Bible says. It says he Matthew 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses. He had our sickness. Ellen White agrees: It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

If Christ did not share our fallen sinful human nature, the the whole thing is a shame. You think sin is too powerful for God to take on Himself and wipe it out. You deny the whole plan of salvation! That if the implications of your belief. As EGW writes: He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. {MM 181.3} That is the key to salvation. The whole was NOT a sham. It was the real deal.

Yes there are mysteries we can not fathom! How did Christ take our sinful human nature, which He did, and not fall into sin? It did not start at some "age of accountability" which is a non-Biblical human idea. It started in the womb! And not once did he step over the line from conception to crucifixion.

There is only so much one can say in one post.

The first point we need to understand is that Christ is/was/is fully God, as well as having taken on a fully human body.

Why would anyone want so desperately to try and make Christ sinful? He was holy, undefiled, not just in actions but also in mind and character, every moment of His earthly life.

You also put a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say and twist things to make your point.
Where have I ever said that Christ took on different flesh from our flesh? Those are your words NOT MINE.
Why do you do that?



But as to your questions:

Comparing Christ as the "holy" one in Mary's womb,
with the command that every male that "opens the womb" is "holy unto the Lord" is confusing things.

The Bible speaks of consecrating many things to be holy unto the Lord, from first harvests of grain, to first born donkeys, to first born male children. That is totally different than saying CHRIST IS perfectly holy and undefiled.
A holy one in the womb of Mary.

Such confusion will never convince me that you are sharing truth with me.


True, Christ was born under the law.

But what does that mean?
It means that Christ had to be justified BY THE LAW,
there was no grace available for Him should He fall into sin.

To be justified by the law means one must not fail, not in childhood or adulthood, not in the least particular against the law, one must be totally holy, the law fully lived out in ones life, no infractions of any kind, to be justified under the law.

Without a Savior, none of us could ever be justified, we are all condemned under the law, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

But because Christ was perfectly holy, nothing sinful in His character, because He lived a life that was fully justified by the law == having NO sin against the law whatsoever, and because He gives us HIS righteousness, we are justified WITHOUT the law, as Romans chapter three so forcefully tells us, we are justified by grace through His righteousness.

Only by living under the law, and being fully justified by the law, could Christ redeem them that were condemned under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons and daughters of God.

He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature

Can't you see the dual nature there.
He was fully God -- with a sinless nature
and fully human with human flesh with it's liabilities.

We don't take upon our sinless nature human flesh with it's liabilities. We are born with a selfish carnal nature.
We must be born again.

Apl wrote: You think sin is too powerful for God to take on Himself.

Hmmm... but aren't you saying that Christ wasn't God, (He left that part behind) and was totally like us while on earth. Yet truth is that sin is too powerful for humans in their fallen state to take on, they all fall long before they even reach the age of reason. They need to be converted, born again.

Christ never sinned not even as an infant. Yes, He was HOLY from conception.

Dedication: There is only so much one can say in one post. 

APL:So slant it as far one way as you can!

The first point we need to understand is that Christ is/was/is fully God, as well as having taken on a fully human body.

Have this ever been denied? Nope. But when you say "fully human", you mean like Adam, not like us. Christ never could have had any bad inherited traits because He would not be God? No. Christ took our FALLEN SINFUL nature on Himself and condemned "sin in the flesh".

Why would anyone want so desperately to try and make Christ sinful? He was holy, undefiled, not just in actions but also in mind and character, every moment of His earthly life.

Sinful in what way? Did Christ take our "SINFUL NATURE"? Yes or no? You say no. EGW says YES.

You also put a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say and twist things to make your point.

What you have said is that Christ cannot have possible taken fallen SINFUL human nature. That is just not the case.

Where have I ever said that Christ took on different flesh from our flesh? Those are your words NOT MINE.
Why do you do that?

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

You have repeatedly said this does not mean what it says. You turn "likeness" into "unlikeness". You turn "SINFUL FLESH" in to "SINLESS FLESH". You say He was exempt from ANY inheritance that causes us to fall. Why? Because God is not powerful enough defeat the same sin that we are encumbered with? Not true.

True, Christ was born under the law.

But what does that mean? 

Romans 7:18-25 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You claim that Christ could not have the same defects in His human body that Paul speaks about. But that then makes the whole thing a sham.

Sorry, but you make Christ a sinner.
If you think Romans seven describes the nature of Christ, you make Christ a sinner.

This "age of reasoning" thing seems a little odd to me.

It sounds like you are saying that before the age of 30, people shouldn't be held responsible for one's decisions and actions.

Therefore, you're so saying, Christ did not do anything morally wrong before 30, but all the rest of us did. Since He would not be responsible, but yet did no wrong, therefore He did not have our same nature.

(Personally, I think you should drop the "age of reasoning" thing in your argument. It leads you to taking odd and difficult to support positions)

Obviously you are on a totally different thought path than me.
I have not taken ANY position that you suggest.

Christ did NOT sin -- His life was holy and good and pure.
It has nothing to do with "not responsible" where did you get that idea? He did not sin -- He was holy, sinless, all His life.

We -- us sinful human beings -- collect a whole binful of sins before we even reach the age of reason. We are born carnal full of sin, and have to be born again. It's only by God's grace and forgiveness that we are not held responsible for sins we commit without having the ability of knowing it is sin. We are responsible at every point of maturity for what we can know is wrong or right.

Jesus was born spiritual -- He was a real human being, Who was holy, good and pure, every day of His life.

He took upon His SINLESS NATURE a body of flesh with all its liabilities.

We have NO sinless nature, but come with a carnal nature in a body of flesh with all its liabilities.

We must be born again.

Then you make the Lord's messenger in EGW out to be a false prophet, and the plan of redemption a sham. Christ never participated in our sin. Yet He was made to be sin (2 Corinthians 5:21), does that make Him a sinner in your eyes? He bore our sin IN HIS BODY (1 Peter 2:24), does that make Him a sinner? I guess so in your eyes. Not in mine. It makes Him one who intimately knows our struggle first hand and can save us to the uttermost.