Was Jesus born with a sin nature?

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

8 hours ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

I was having a conversation with a friend yesterday and this topic came up.  I am already convinced by the Word and Spirit of God that the answer to this question is No.  But I am interested to hear what others think about this question.

Was Jesus born with a “sin nature,” like the rest of mankind?

 

 

You know how it says, the motions of sin (while in the flesh) are by the law and we know  Christ was made of a woman made under the law right? She (Mary) for example) had both a mother and a father (of the flesh) and wouldn't she be counted as in the flesh? So I am not sure if I am reasoning it as "other one" might be or not, but I would think he had to share in the weakness of our flesh.  In what way might not be clear, I am sort of on the fence with it. Because his sharing in our nature verses angels had more to do with suffering of death, but he was a partaker of our flesh and blood. 

[Stewardofthemystery]

18 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said:

You know how it says, the motions of sin (while in the flesh) are by the law and we know  Christ was made of a woman made under the law right? She (Mary) for example) had both a mother and a father (of the flesh) and wouldn't she be counted as in the flesh? So I am not sure if I am reasoning it as "other one" might be or not, but I would think he had to share in the weakness of our flesh.  In what way might not be clear, I am sort of on the fence with it. Because his sharing in our nature verses angels had more to do with suffering of death, but he was a partaker of our flesh and blood. 

Yes, I believe Mary was firstborn of “the flesh,” and had that Adam sin nature working in her, but not Jesus.

The reason being is that Jesus was firstborn (conceived) of the Holy Spirit, not having the Adam sin nature, but the Divine Holy nature of God.

Think about this, if Jesus had a sin nature like the rest of mankind then there would be a need for Him to be “born again of the Spirit.” But I don’t see that, because He was already born of the Spirit.
 

I believe Jesus felt all the same sufferings as all men do, like hunger, thirst, pain, etc. And was tempted by all the temptations that are in the world, as a man.  But like God, Jesus did not have a “sin nature”that would cause Him to sin.

 

 

[enoob57]

Jesus didn't have a sin nature because you must sin to have that... but His flesh was tempted as Scripture says and that as we to put anything created before God... yet this He did not do... we see it clearly in Gethsemane:
Matthew 26:41 (KJV)
[41] Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Paul spoke on this as well Rom 7... the magnificence of Jesus is He never gave in to the weakness of the flesh. This alone demands my devotion to Him as I fail often in myself and this only magnifies His Person to my devotion to Him... Yes King of Kings and Lord of Lords but in my heart Man of Men... He did what only God could do and He did it in flesh...
 

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

1 hour ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

Yes, I believe Mary was firstborn of “the flesh,” and had that Adam sin nature working in her, but not Jesus.

The reason being is that Jesus was firstborn (conceived) of the Holy Spirit, not having the Adam sin nature, but the Divine Holy nature of God.

Think about this, if Jesus had a sin nature like the rest of mankind then there would be a need for Him to be “born again of the Spirit.” But I don’t see that, because He was already born of the Spirit.
 

I believe Jesus felt all the same sufferings as all men do, like hunger, thirst, pain, etc. And was tempted by all the temptations that are in the world, as a man.  But like God, Jesus did not have a “sin nature”that would cause Him to sin.

 

 

I cant find "sin nature" in scripture to be able to use it appropriately, or the whole Adam's sin not transferable to a woman thing. And if I wanted to go there I would have to look at places like Isaac and then use that picture wrongly in order to, so I cant comment on it and be confident I would be correct.

It's good enough for me that Christ is come in the flesh, and to me it doesn't matter in he was born in the flesh (as it is) or just into the weakness of it, or into the woman (by the Holy Ghost) where Adam's sin somehow disappears from it. Or if the body that was prepared for him was that which was apart from them either (father and mother).  So it wouldn't change anything for me because we ourselves aren't to walk after the flesh but by the same Spirit, and yet we were not conceived by the Holy Spirit (in the womb) as He was. So if we are expected not to walk after the flesh (even though we were born with 2 parents according to the flesh) I could only guess that that would still be a piece of cake for Jesus (with just one parent after the flesh). So I don't see that as being problematic for him (or for me). 

Then he became sin, so I guess I am not really hung up on it to care too much either way.

Since all things are created by him I cannot at all reconcile with the thought that there was any potential that he could possibly lust after a woman (and sin that way). That is just a crazy thought. Its like if you make these clay figures and one day you enter into their little clay figure world right? Would you start lusting your clay figures?  That's a crazy thought, so I think I am more of the agreement with you on things like hunger, thirst, pain, he felt fear enough to cry out to be saved from death. Then  perhaps even being tempted as he was by the Pharisees at every turn in respects to his responses, provoking the Lord is spoken of , Moses was provoked and did not respond as he should have. I mean you do not see in the temptations of Satan pulling up a woman and trying to tempt him with something like that. So I am not sure what at every point he was tempted (or proved rather) as we might be are the same, unless its more in connection to the things pertaining to God (a little more specifically).

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by AFlameOfFire
corrected my sentences

[Stewardofthemystery]

50 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said:

I cant find "sin nature" in scripture to be able to use it appropriately, or the whole Adam's sin not transferable to a woman thing. And if I wanted to go there I would have to look at places like Isaac and then use that picture wrongly in order to, so I cant comment on it and be confident I would be correct.

It's good enough for me that Christ is come in the flesh, and to me it doesn't matter in he was born in the flesh (as it is) or just into the weakness of it, or into the woman (by the Holy Ghost) where Adam's sin somehow disappears from it. Or if the body that was prepared for him was that which was apart from them either (father and mother).  So it wouldn't change anything for me because we ourselves aren't to walk after the flesh but by the same Spirit, and yet we were not conceived by the Holy Spirit (in the womb) as He was. So if we are expected not to walk after the flesh (even though we were born with 2 parents according to the flesh) I could only guess that that would still be a piece of cake for Jesus (with just one parent after the flesh). So I don't see that as being problematic for him (or for me). 

Then he became sin, so I guess I am not really hung up on it to care too much either way.

Since all things are created by him I cannot at all reconcile with the thought that there was any potential that he could possibly lust after a woman (and sin that way). That is just a crazy thought. Its like if you make these clay figures and one day you enter into their little clay figure world right? Would you start lusting your clay figures?  That's a crazy thought, so I think I am more of the agreement with you on things like hunger, thirst, pain, he felt fear enough to cry out to be saved from death. Then  perhaps even being tempted as he was by the Pharisees at every turn in respects to his responses, provoking the Lord is spoken of , Moses was provoked and did not respond as he should have. I mean you do not see in the temptations of Satan pulling up a woman and trying to tempt him with something like that. So I am not sure what at every point he was tempted (or proved rather) as we might be are the same, unless its more in connection to the things pertaining to God (a little more specifically).

 

 

Here is what I would call a “sin nature”….

Ephesians 2:3

Among whom also ((we all))had our conversation in times past in ((the lusts of our flesh,))fulfilling ((the desires of the flesh))and of the mind; and were ((by nature)) the children ((of wrath,))even as others.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

26 minutes ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

Here is what I would call a “sin nature”….

Ephesians 2:3

Among whom also ((we all))had our conversation in times past in ((the lusts of our flesh,))fulfilling ((the desires of the flesh))and of the mind; and were ((by nature)) the children ((of wrath,))even as others.

I knew you would bring a better one up, thanks. I would not attribute to him as being controlled by anything in the flesh given He was not alone but the Father was with Him. And being led by the Spirit is what we are called to do (and we have two parents according the flesh) so we can be in the flesh (after a carnal truth or physical reality) but not in the flesh after a spiritual truth (or reality, if so be the Spirit of Christ be in us). That does not require us to be born of the Holy Ghost at birth (even though Jesus was) he still had one parent (Mary) in (and after) the flesh which would hold all the DNA of Adam (after a carnal truth)

I am not going to be able to "go there"

The use of "likeness" is sometimes used too, he come, not in real flesh but "the likeness of"  one might say

Using this verse for example, 

Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men

Even other men can be (falsely understood) to be referred to as gods coming down (as they describe it) "in the likeness of" men

For example, those of Iconium about Paul when they saw a miracle, but even they are truly men of ordinary flesh

Acts 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are  come down to us in the likeness of men.

And yet it was just Paul in human flesh obviously, but the wording, whether it was just Paul in human flesh (called the likeness of men) or Jesus who come in the flesh (but it is referred to as made "the likeness of men". In both places the same wording is shown used. 

See what I mean jellybean?
 

Edited December 2, 2023 by AFlameOfFire

[JohnD]

22 hours ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

Good verse.  But just because Jesus was “tempted,”it does not mean Jesus had a “sin nature”.  Notice the last part of that verse “yet without sin”

 

Adam and Eve were without sin until they sinned. The temptation came before the sin.

[JohnD]

I know this sounds wrong at first, but it does answer a lot of the puzzling aspects of the incarnation.

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Adam 1 was the prototype human being (even Eve came from his side). It is logical deduce that the verse refers to

human prototypes. And according to the gist of the passage context, a contrast is being made between the physical

and spiritual (terrestrial versus celestial).

Adam 2 is the prototype resurrected human being.

But what if there is a deeper meaning under the surface?

It is clear in scripture that Adam 1 was created by God the Word (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Isaiah 44:24, Genesis 1:1). God the Word 

became God the Son the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14). Thus Adam 1 and Adam 2 have different Creators.

But let's go even deeper...

In the creation of the body of the Son Jesus (Hebrews 10:5 / Hebrews 1:5), did the Father create only the male conceptus to fertilize Mary's conceptus? 

Or did he create a fully functioning embryo which the Holy Spirit placed into the virgin womb of Mary?

Today the practice of gestational surrogacy is almost commonplace.

This is where the objections tend to arise.

1 .  Then Jesus would not be the kinsman to humanity (kinsman redeemer).

2.  He would not have the bloodline of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or David.

3.  Sounds like blasphemy... etc.

Most things like this sound revolting to the ear and nauseating to the mind at first. I remember how revolting it was to hear that the stork didn't bring me to

my parents and the "disgusting" thing they did to bring me into the world. Well, we know nothing like that took place here (sorry Mormons, you're also wrong about

Elohim having sex with the virgin Mary). ← they don't parade it, but LDS actually teaches that...

Remember, God the Word created Adam 1 from dirt. He created Eve from Adam 1's side. Sexuality and procreation antics came after to perpetuate the species.

And all human beings born heirs to Adam 1 inherited the sin nature of Adam 1. There is no stipulation that we get it from just our fathers (so the concept that since Jesus'

Father was not human does not negate the fact that Jesus' mother is an heir of Adam 1). It stands to reason that Jesus has to be a prototype of an entirely separate human

race (population: Jesus). And he laid that entire human race down for our entire sinful human race. He himself having no sin or sin nature.

What solves the kinsman / redeemer / Son of David / Son of Abraham / Son of Judah / Son of Israel (being a Jew) is the fact that Adam 2 was created as an embryo rather

than as a fully functioning adult on day one like Adam 1 was crated. This way Jesus has all the [legal] heritage and rights of the Son of all of the above.

The Law addresses the heir as the one who "opens the matrix." That the child is strictly the product of Adam 1 is only implied not stipulated. 

It would solve the fact that Jesus is sinless and never had a sin nature.

Jesus replied to his adversaries, "...which of you convicts me of sin?"

Enoob already quoted the passage that states Jesus was tempted like us but without sin.

Food for thought.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a human being;

the last Adam was made (by the Father see John 1:14) of the life giving Spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45) 

God the Word is the Word of life (John 1:1-2 / 1 John 1:1-2) in him is life (John 1:4) the way the truth... and the life... (John 14:6).

[Stewardofthemystery]

13 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

I would not attribute to him as being controlled by anything in the flesh given He was not alone but the Father was with Him. And being led by the Spirit is what we are called to do (and we have two parents according the flesh) so we can be in the flesh (after a carnal truth or physical reality) but not in the flesh after a spiritual truth (or reality, if so be the Spirit of Christ be in us). That does not require us to be born of the Holy Ghost at birth (even though Jesus was) he still had one parent (Mary) in (and after) the flesh which would hold all the DNA of Adam (after a carnal truth)

I am not going to be able to "go there"

The use of "likeness" is sometimes used too, he come, not in real flesh but "the likeness of"  one might say

Using this verse for example, 

Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men

Even other men can be (falsely understood) to be referred to as gods coming down (as they describe it) "in the likeness of" men

For example, those of Iconium about Paul when they saw a miracle, but even they are truly men of ordinary flesh

Acts 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are  come down to us in the likeness of men.

And yet it was just Paul in human flesh obviously, but the wording, whether it was just Paul in human flesh (called the likeness of men) or Jesus who come in the flesh (but it is referred to as made "the likeness of men". In both places the same wording is shown used. 

See what I mean jellybean?
 

That is a good distinction to make, because the “nature” in the man is not defined by the fleshy physical body, but rather by the “spirit” that is  “in” the man.

For instance, when we are born again of the Holy Spirit our physical fleshy bodies do not change, but rather our heart/mind/spirit is changed.

Paul said in 

Romans 8:9

But ye (((are not in the flesh,)))but (((in the Spirit,))if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

 

So being in “the flesh” is not always talking about the physical body, but rather being “in that sin nature” because of the spirit/sin nature that entered “into”the world and “into” mankind by way of Adam.

 

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man “sin”entered “into” the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

This spirit/sin nature that is “in” the world is “of” the Devil, and is at “enmity”against the Spirit of God.

 

Romans 8:7

Because ((the carnal mind is enmity)) against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

But Jesus was not “of” this world, nor  “of” the spirit of this world.

 

John 8:23

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are “of”this world; I am not “of”this world.

 

So when we are born again from “above” by the Spirit we no longer have that same spirit/sin nature that is “in” the world, but the “divine nature”of He that is from above.

 

1 John 4:4

Ye are “of”God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is “in”you, than he that is “in”the world.

 

2 Peter 1:4

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of ((the divine nature)), having escaped the corruption that is “in”the world through lust

 

Peace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

Jesus was born perfect without a sin nature. He had to be without a sin nature as God and in order to be the sacrifice for the whole human race. That was the whole reason behind the virgin birth. Unfortunately many Christian churches have severely compromised the word of God so that surveys of Christians nationwide not only believe Jesus was born with a sin nature like us, but also that Jesus actually sinned. Many doctrines have been corrupted by the compromising church.