The comparison is,
1. Adam could fall, but he didn’t have a taint of sin upon him.
2. Christ could fall, but not for a moment was there an evil propensity in Him.

In other words, they were similar. Christ is the second Adam.

In Christ were united the divine and the human--the Creator and the creature. The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus--the Son of God, and the Son of man.(7 SDABC 926)

Blue eyes do not fit, for they can only be inherited; she had to find an expression which could be applied at the same time to something that can be either inherited or acquired, as is the case of propensities/inclinations/tendencies. You could say, for instance, "not for one moment have I been rich", which means you neither were born rich nor ever became rich. Or you could say, "not for one moment have I had the HIV virus in my body", which means you neither were born with it nor ever acquired it.

What? A Christian minister who believes that Christ wasn’t divine and that He sinned? Are you kidding?
Of course Baker’s problem could only be that he believed Christ had sinful propensities.

That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know.

R: In other words, they were similar. Christ is the second Adam.

T: Not in terms of nature. She makes this clear in several places.

If her point was that Christ never had an evil propensity because he never acquired one, what she said makes perfect sense. If her point was that Christ never had an evil propensity because He was genetically different than the rest of us, what she wrote doesn't make sense.

There's no doubt that Baker was teaching that Christ had evil propensities. But what exactly was Baker asserting? Was he asserting the same thing that Haskell was when he explained "The Desire of Ages" in the Review and Herald as saying that Christ took fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations? This seems unlikely, since Ellen White said nothing about this. Or did she mean something else, like Christ sinned? This seems more plausible, since it fits in with other things we know, such as what EGW wrote elsewhere, her endorsements of Jones, Waggoner and Prescott, the understanding of her contemporaries, etc.

Ok, let me try again. Is it your position that Christ could receive "good" tendencies from heredity, but not bad ones? So God filtered (in some unknown way) the inclinations that Christ received from heredity, so He had no inclinations toward anything negative?

I don't believe one passes character genetically. I don't see how this would be possible. Would you explain this please?

Prescott wrote, or said, what Christ did as us without our choice He now wants to do in us with our choice. This was a continuation of the representation concept. Do you agree with this?

Sometime I get confused as to what the disagreement is over. No postlapsarian had "mind" in mind when speaking of Christ's taking our sinful flesh.

R: In other words, they were similar. Christ is the second Adam.

T: Not in terms of nature. She makes this clear in several places.

R:Ellen White compares Christ with Adam, and at the same time contrasts Him with Adam's posterity:

But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family.

Adam was tempted at the very first on the question of appetite. Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." Heb. 2:11. He has come into the family, identified Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. Jesus Christ made the connection between God and man, that the divine spirit might rest upon humanity. He made the way for humanity.

Her point was both things - that Christ wasn't born with any evil propensities and that He never acquired any through transgressing. And the expression is adequate to express both things simultaneously with the fewest possible words and with the maximum possible emphasis.

If anyone believes that Christ sinned, either he is nuts or he is not a Christian. You must believe that Baker was nuts, then (since he was a Christian)?

Adoptionism, also called dynamic monarchianism, was a minority Christian belief that Jesus was born merely human and that he became divine later in his life. By these accounts, Jesus earned the title Christ through his sinless devotion to the will of God, thereby becoming the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity. Adoptionists typically portray two key points in Jesus' life as stages in Jesus' theosis: his baptism and his resurrection. They consider God to have given Jesus his miraculous power and divine authority after Jesus proved his holiness.

Rosangela, your statements like "are you kidding" and "he is nuts" and "you must believe that Baker was nuts" would be better left unsaid. They're unpleasant, and add nothing to the discussion. Please just make whatever points you wish to make without any unpleasantries.

M: True, but this insight does not mean we inherit the sinful characters our parents cultivated. Character is not inherited.

R: Of course I disagree. When Ellen White says that character is not inherited, she obviously means that a noble, righteous character is not inherited, as the context of these types of quotes makes abundantly clear. We cannot inherit a righteous character from sinful parents.

The traits of character (tendencies) we inherit at birth compose the nucleous of our character; after that it will be developed according to the direction we give to it. That's why Adam was created with a righteous character and we are born with a sinful character.

The human race do not stand in the righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation.{ST, June 11, 1894 par. 11}

God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. {AG 344.3}

God's character was reflected in the character of Adam. {YI, June 2, 1898 par. 2}

God gave our first parents a pure and upright character, in harmony with His law; and had they remained obedient, they would have bequeathed the same character to their posterity. {BEcho, July 29, 1895 par. 2}

5. The Character
The character is composed of habitual thoughts, feelings, motives, words, and behavior. We develop specific traits of character as we repeatedly react and respond to the various influences of God and Satan. Apart from Christ, before we are born again, all we can do is develop sinful traits of character. We are not born with character. Sinful character is the result of hard work, the product of sinning over and over again, a compilation of hundreds and thousands of sins. To cultivate sinless traits of character we must be born again and partake of the divine nature. In judgment, it is character that ultimately determines our eternal destiny.

(Begin quotes) If the thoughts are wrong the feelings will be wrong, and the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character. (5T 310) The ideal of Christian character is Christlikeness. As the Son of man was perfect in His life, so His followers are to be perfect in their life. (FLB 44)

A change will be seen in the character, the habits, the pursuits. The contrast will be clear and decided between what they have been and what they are. The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts. (SC 57) Any one act, either good or evil, does not form the character; but thoughts and feelings indulged prepare the way for acts and deeds of the same kind. It is . . . by a repetition of acts that habits are established and character confirmed. (CG 199) It is not through one act that the character is formed, but by a repetition of acts that habits are established and character confirmed. (ST 4-30-1894)

Character does not come by chance. It is not determined by one outburst of temper, one step in the wrong direction. It is the repetition of the act that causes it to become habit, and molds the character either for good or for evil. (CG 164) A well-balanced character is formed by single acts well performed. One defect, cultivated instead of being overcome, makes the man imperfect, and closes against him the gate of the Holy City. (FLB 44) Mental ability and genius are not character, for these are often possessed by those who have the very opposite of a good character. Reputation is not character. True character is a quality of the soul, revealing itself in the conduct. (CG 161) (End quotes)

We are thoroughly familiar with our cultivated sinful traits of character. We have had to fight long and hard “kicking against the pricks”, shamefully going against our conscience, cherishing and cultivating thoughts and feelings we know to be wrong and harmful. “A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies.” (COL 331)

Our former, nobler traits of character are sanctified when we are born again. And although we are born again morally perfect we are not, however, born again morally mature. The “new man” enables us to partake of the divine nature, which, in turn, empowers us to mature morally as we gradually grow in grace. So long as we are walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man we grow from faith to faith, from glory to glory, from grace to grace – not from greater sins to lesser sins.

A: Did Jesus have an "old man" (i.e. cultivated sinful traits and habits of character)?

M: No! And neither do believers who are abiding in Jesus, as it is written -

Romans
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Ephesians
4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Do you agree?

A: I agree that the old man is crucified in the believer. But I do not agree that it is nonexistent.

But let's assume that the status of the old man in Jesus is identical to the believer. That means that all of this talk about Jesus being like fallen man should be strictly off-limits to the unconverted, right? IOW, this conversation is of no use in the work of turning sinners to saints; it only counts once one is already a saint.

This is completely speculative, but in case spiritual inclinations are transmitted through genes (which I doubt), I don't think there must necessarily have been a filtering - just the right combination of chromosomes, not forgetting that the chromosomes provided by God would have been entirely without sin.

Don't you believe character traits are transmitted? Ellen White says this clearly. And character traits make up the character.

Prescott wrote, or said, what Christ did as us without our choice He now wants to do in us with our choice. This was a continuation of the representation concept. Do you agree with this?

What does this refer to? Justification and sanctification?

T:Sometime I get confused as to what the disagreement is over. No postlapsarian had "mind" in mind when speaking of Christ's taking our sinful flesh.

R:The disagreement is over the fact that postlapsarians don't think sinful tendencies are transmitted to the mind.

This is completely speculative . . . the chromosomes provided by God would have been entirely without sin.

Don't you believe character traits are transmitted? Ellen White says this clearly. And character traits make up the character.