Yes, He took a human body that was weakened by 4000 years of sin-- with it's hungers and physical weaknesses, there is nothing wrong with hunger -- as long as it is held in control of the "higher power". Yes, our Lord kept those "hungers" perfectly in check in righteousness.

Being tempted in all "points" or "principles", does not mean Christ's temptations were identical to ours.

A man consents to work with a group of people infected with a deadly virus. (HIV or ebola) The man has the same type of body as the infected people; he is a man like they, he needs to eat, sleep, just like them. He looks just like them, he befriends them, talks with them, etc. He is susceptible to the disease. But there is one major difference. He does NOT have the disease.

Just like alcoholic's pass on a hunger for alcohol to their children,...

As a child, Jesus manifested a peculiar loveliness of disposition. His willing hands were ever ready to serve others. He manifested a patience that nothing could disturb, and a truthfulness that would never sacrifice integrity. In principle firm as a rock, His life revealed the grace of unselfish courtesy. {DA 68.3}
With deep earnestness the mother of Jesus watched the unfolding of His powers, and beheld the impress of perfection upon His character. With delight she sought to encourage that bright, receptive mind. Through the Holy Spirit she received wisdom to co-operate with the heavenly agencies in the development of this child, who could claim only God as His Father. {DA 69.1}

"Jesus was misunderstood by His brothers because He was not like them....The example of Jesus was to them a continual irritation. He hated but one thing in the world, and that was sin. He could not witness a wrong act without pain which it was impossible to disguise....
Because the life of Jesus condemned evil, He was opposed, both at home and abroad. His unselfishness and integrity were commented on with a sneer. His forbearance and kindness were termed cowardice.
Of the bitterness that falls to the lot of humanity, there was no part which Christ did not taste. There were those who tried to cast contempt upon Him because of His birth, and even in His childhood He had to meet their scornful looks and evil whisperings. If He had responded by an impatient word or look, if He had conceded to His brothers by even one wrong act, He would have failed of being a perfect example. Thus He would have failed of carrying out the plan for our redemption. {DA 88}

Chapter 1: Do We Have A Problem?

Yes! Here we have a Baby different from any other ever born into this world. This little Fellow is pure, sinless, sweet, unselfish, no temper tantrums. As a Baby, no problem to His mother. And according to Isaiah 9:6 (which tells us "unto us a child is born") "the government" of earth and heaven is laid "upon His shoulder."

Get it? That's the shoulder of a helpless Infant who can't yet hold His bottle! If He as a Child falls into our universal sin, that "government" will crash. Everything has come to depend on Him and His perfect sinlessness, while He is born "unto us" who all are sinners.

How and why is He so different from all other babies?

Roman Catholicism claims it has the answer, "His sinlessness is because He has been born of a sinless Mother who experienced an Immaculate Conception in the womb of her mother. This broke the genetic link and gave her a sinless nature all her life so she never knew sexual desire. Thus she gave to Him her sinless, sexless flesh or nature."

Some Seventh-day Adventists also answer that Jesus couldn't be sinless as a baby unless He had been "exempt" from the common genetic inheritance all our babies have to share.

Could there be another solution? "Though he was in the form of God," Christ left His home in heaven and "emptied himself" to be "born in the likeness of men [and] humbled himself" (Philippians 2:7-8, RSV) Is it possible that He "took" or "assumed" the same heredity of fallen, sinful flesh, the same nature that all humanity has, and yet was sinless as a baby?

The angel told the Virgin 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 because He would then have had "an evil propensity." A sinful "savior" couldn't save anybody. The question is, Why was He so different as a baby?

The problem is not trivial. It's way beyond mere theological contention. Ellen White tells us that "the humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to God" {1SM 144} It must have something important to do with our day to day Christian living.

Our Roman Catholic friends also think they see "the humanity of the Son of God" as "everything" to them. They have been pondering this problem for well over a thousand years. That's why they came up with their idea of an "Immaculate Conception" for His mother. For them, this must be a pre-programmed genetic "exemption" from the hereditary stream of fallen mankind. Their idea is a holy separation, the opposite of identity with us. He must not be allowed to come too close to the problem of human sin.

In other words, Mary must have holy flesh so she can pass it on to her Son, so He can come into the world with a sinless nature unlike ours. For Roman Catholics, this answers our question, as a baby Christ couldn't help being good, long before He could reason or think. There was no genetic link with the fallen Adam.

We naturally assume a baby can't reason, can't judge between right and wrong, and it's also true that all our babies are born sinners, by nature selfish. So, do we need that "exemption" for Jesus that excused Him from the legacy that all other babies receive?

Thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists are perplexed. Some see no way for Christ to have been sinless as a baby unless He was "exempt" from our heredity. This idea is usually designated as "pre-Fall," that is, Christ "had" the sinless spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall, unlike ours.

Others (equally thoughtful) see that Christ accepted our full human heredity from the beginning of His incarnation and "took" upon Himself the same burden of our genetic download of sinfulness, yet was holy and sinless even as a baby, and all His life. This is known as the "post-Fall" position, and is identical to the 1888 message view.

Protestants in general say they reject the Immaculate Conception dogma, but they also demand some "exemption" somewhere in the genetic line for Jesus. They still carry considerable baggage from Rome such as Sunday sacredness and the natural immortality of the soul. Is their view of Christ's humanity also borrowed from Rome?

The Bible and Ellen White's writings are clear. Jesus "took" or "assumed" our fallen, sinful nature, an idea diametrically opposed to both the Immaculate Conception and the "exempt" idea. The problem that has occupied centuries of discussion finds its focus in Christ's sinlessness as a baby. How could "the government" be upon His "shoulder" even then? Let us reverently inquire why. If there is an answer to our question, it must be part of the Good News of the gospel.

There were no temper tantrums --
What is the cause of temper tantrums?
Isn't it an emotional demonstration to get one's own will?

One can have one's own will before the "age of reasoning"?
Maybe define what you mean by age of reasoning.