I posted this in the traditional section but nobody seems interested in the topic. Thought maybe it was better suited for this section.
There is two views commonly held within the church concerning the nature Jesus took during the incarnation:
1. Jesus took Adams unfallen nature but inherited a body that degenerated since the fall. That if Jesus had taken a fallen nature then He would have in turn needed a Savior.
2. That Jesus took a fallen nature, but He Himself did not sin. If He hadn't taken a fallen nature then we could never hope to overcome sin in His name.
The church expouses both views without making a stance. I was hoping to encourage discussion on both views to bring out truths on the subject.
There is two views commonly held within the church concerning the nature Jesus took during the incarnation:
1. Jesus took Adams unfallen nature but inherited a body that degenerated since the fall. That if Jesus had taken a fallen nature then He would have in turn needed a Savior.
2. That Jesus took a fallen nature, but He Himself did not sin. If He hadn't taken a fallen nature then we could never hope to overcome sin in His name.
The church expouses both views without making a stance. I was hoping to encourage discussion on both views to bring out truths on the subject.
