If Christ got a fully sinful human nature, from his fully sinful mother then how could he be without sin?
Not possible.
As for the Atonement, recall the “Passover Lamb without blemish”? Christ bore our sins because he was perfect, because he was sinless. Else the whole kit’n’kaboodle doesn’t work.
>>As for the Atonement, recall the “Passover Lamb without blemish”? Christ bore our sins because he was perfect, because he was sinless<<
He was sinless but was susceptible to sin because of His human side. He did not sin. Satan would not have tried to tempt Him if he didn’t think Jesus was at least capable. That interaction would not have meant anything if He wasn’t. Ya, Ya, I know. I don’t fully understand either but God’s ways are not our ways and God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.
“Christ bore our sins because he was perfect, because he was sinless.” ~ BenKenobi
As opposed to his creation, which he prounced “good” - not perfect.
What did God mean in Genesis 1:31 when He pronounced His Creation “very good?” Did He mean perfect in every sense of the word as some people suggest? Or did He mean very good at fulfilling its purpose? The Greek word in the LXX is kalos, which suggests the latter. It is primarily used to portray an external or fulfilling goodness. Consider the Hebrew phrase as well. The phrase tov meod is found four times in the OT (Judg. 18:9; and Jer. 24:2-3). In the Book of Judges, five valiant warriors from the Tribe of Dan set out for Laish to spy on that land to take it as part of their inheritance. When they came back to report, they urged their fellow Danites to take the land saying, “we have seen the land (erets), and behold (hinneh), it is very good (tovah meod).” This phrasing sounds very similar to Genesis 1. First, we see that erets is properly translated as the local term “land” rather than the nonsensical global “earth”. Second we have an attention getting hinneh. This is followed by the phrase very good. What did the Danites consider the land to be? Surely not an unblemished, perfect tract of land with no possibility of an earthquake, volcano or anything else that might prove detrimental to human life. No, rather the land was fit for them to call home, it was “spacious” and “there is no lack of anything” (Judg. 18:10).
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul says in 1Tim. 4:4 that “everything created by God is good (kalos).” Specifically referring to the institution of marriage and to food, Paul says that these things (and everything else which God created) are good. Paul does not mention that these were once good and because of man’s sin they ceased being good when God cursed them. No, the Bible teaches that God’s Creation WAS and IS good. Again, the word kalos refers to a useful or outwardly-appearing goodness. Paul certainly felt that the things God created were still good in his day.
Therefore since the Bible teaches that Creation is still good at the present, we should be careful not to read more into Scripture than what is truly there. Despite their great contributions to the Church, men like Luther, Calvin, Wesley and their modern day followers have failed to realize the real-world implications of their stance on the “goodness” of God’s Creation. It seems their lack of knowledge about how God’s Creation works led them to a faulty understanding of His Word. A world without the so-called natural evils of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, landslides, tides, etc… is not a “good” world: it is a dead world. These are all consequences of plate tectonics
These natural processes are largely responsible for things like fertile soils, ore deposits, accumulations of oil and natural gas among other things. Without plate tectonics we would have little to none of the above mentioned products. We can either view them as products of sin or the long-term provision of God.
The implications...are thus: 1.) with the existence of plate tectonics in the original Creation there is a possibility of animal death via an earthquake or volcanic eruption or some other catastrophe, 2:) if plate tectonics and animal death occurred before the Fall and the Flood then we would expect hydrocarbon accumulations before the Flood (and this is a biblical fact in Genesis 6:14 (pitch: LXX-asphaltos – a biodegraded oil), and 3:) if these circumstances existed before Adam’s sin then it follows that the natural world was largely unaffected by the Curse of Genesis 3. These implications may be hard to swallow for some, but I believe the teaching of Scripture is clear. There is no possible way to fathom a “very good” world that did not contain such natural phenomena without creating a mystical fairy tale world in which the following are impossible: a sheep falling off a cliff and dying, a fruit fly being swallowed by a larger animal, an ant being stepped on, rainwater collecting and slurrying down the side of a hill and drowning an insect, a fish being trapped on a shoal as the tide goes out and suffocating, etc... Such situations just happen. There is no need to think that they only happen because of sin. There is no biblical basis for that position. Creation is still “very good.” Only a “very good” Creation can clearly display the divine attributes of the Creator “since the creation of the world” (Rom. 1:20).
http://thestonescryout.com/creation
Because his father is/was God...Jesus in the flesh had the proclivity to sin...Had he not, he wouldn't have been fully man...Jesus would have been God just walking around with a covering made of flesh instead of a sheet...