He was talking about that which is passed genetically.



You mean as opposed to saying that Christ took our spiritual and moral nature and overcame with that? For example, Christ was selfish? And overcame that? That doesn't seem like a viable interpretation.

You didn't add any information, but just repeated a known statement. So I'm still not sure what it is you're trying to clarify.

I do not see the distinction between inheriting "inclinations to sin" and "inclinations which tempt you to sin." That seems to be what you're clarifying from my statement.

Further, are these inclinations, whichever incarnation of the inclinations you prefer, passed on through the genes/chromosomes? If so, that would mean that my sin causes a physical mutation in my cells such that I can pass it on to my progeny. Anything short of that would be a non-genetic mode of inheritance.

No, I wasn't commenting on this. I was commenting on the fact that Ellen White said that Christ was born without a taint of sin. I said that might be due to the fact that she didn't agree with the Catholic doctrine of original sin in general. That is, Catholics teach that a taint of sin is passed from parent to child, and baptism is necessary to remove this. As Adventists, we don't have a concept like this (or, at least during her time the concept that a taint of sin was passed genetically from parent to child didn't exist).

Another possibility is that she is referring to Christ's own sinless nature. Upon reflection, it seems to me this is likely what she had in mind. For example, she says that Christ took upon His own sinless nature our sinful nature. This seems like a similar thought. Of course, we don't have our own sinless nature to take our sinful nature upon, so Christ is different than we are in this respect. The sinful nature He took is the same, but the sinless nature He had we don't have inherently, so that's different.

I take it that you have your own kids and know exactly what I'm talking about.

Those are non-answers. You seem to be saying Yes, but not quite ready to commit fully to it. Are you saying Yes to both questions?

Re: the DA quote, we are talking about Christ's nature. Look at that quote again and see what it says about Christ's nature. Are we talking flesh here, as you postulate that the SOP means whenever EGW used "nature" regarding Christ? By extension, should we then take Haskell's quote as a statement on Christ's flesh?

I restated what I said. It seems very clear to me. You're asking me if I was saying things about things I wasn't commenting on, so I explained that I wasn't commenting on those things.



You brought up this distinction. I made no comment on this. I simply said that Christ received inherited inclinations like the rest of us, inclinations which tempt us, and Him, to sin.



Yes.



Why?



Why?

Regarding inheritance, it involves both genetic and non-genetic factors. The genetic factors were the same, as is made clear by such statements as, "like every child of God, He accepted the workings of the great law of heredity." The results of this is shown in Christ's ancestors.

I asked you about two points, one being Haskell's explanation that the DA quote he was reading was "fallen humanity, with all its hereditary inclinations, which you commented on. The other point is that evil propensities are not hereditary inclinations. You agreed with this point, but I don't know why. Please explain why.

That seems more likely to me as well.

And don't forget that EGW said Christ's "finite nature was pure and spotless." So it's not just His divinity.

They're not non-answers. I'm trying to clarity what you're asking. I don't see why there would be any confusion with what Haskell said. It seems to me that "this is fallen humanity with all its hereditary inclinations" is an easily understandable statement. The inclinations receive genetically are those which Christ received.



I explained that the idea that she was referring to Christ's spiritual nature did not look to be a viable interpretation and explain why. I asked you if you thought it was a viable interpretation.

Probably what I should have done before commenting was to ask you what you meant, so I'll ask now. What do you mean by Christ's taking our moral nature, or His taking our spiritual nature? From my perspective, this doesn't make any sense to me, but I don't know what you mean by it.

Let's consider this aspect.

Jesus had no evil propensities. It seems we're all agreed on that (at least the current participants).

Did Adam have evil propensities BEFORE he fell? Did Adam have evil propensities AFTER he fell?

My answers have always been No and Yes to these two questions. And when comparing Jesus in this respect, He was like Adam before he fell.

So, if we're talking "human nature" in a sense that includes our propensities - IOW, our moral faculties - Jesus was like the pre-lapse Adam.

Doesn't this make sense? And this is in full harmony with the plain reading of the Baker Letter.

No one is corrupted or contaminated simply because their fallen flesh tempts them from within to cherish or act out the unholy thoughts and feelings (i.e. lusts and desires) it generates and communicates to their conscious mind. Such thoughts and feelings originate with sinful flesh - not with them. So long as they do not own them (i.e. cherish or out out in thought, word, or deed) they are not guilty of sinning. God distinguishes between 1) the unholy thoughts and feelings they are tempted to cherish and act out, and 2) the ones they own and actually cherish or act out. These same dynamics played out in the mind and flesh Jesus possessed while He was here.

Do you agree?