Understanding The Trinity ???

[musicworld]

Hi

I know this may sound a bit crazy even after all my time with GOD and reading his word, but I still can't fully understand the theology of the trinity. Farther Son and Holy spirit are all one and are all GOD at the same time, but when i pray I'm praying to the farther through Jesus, but while GOD sits on his throne in heaven, jesus sits at his right side while the holy spirit enters those who have faith in GOD. So how is it? Man is the head of the women, christ is the head of man, but GOD is the head of christ and everyone. if all three are GOD how can GOD be the head of christ if they are all one together, who exactly is the boss? :huh:

 

[Nomad]

Theologians have recognized long ago that the Bible teaches that there is a distinction to be made between what they call the 'ontological' Trinity and the 'economic' Trinity. That is, the members of the Trinity are equal when it comes to 'nature,' 'being' or 'essence.' There is however, a difference or priority when it comes to function or role in the scheme of redemption. The following link will take you to a very good article that does a great job explaining this concept in detail.

The Ontological and Economic Trinity

 

[Rach1370]

Hey! Good question. I would say that as humans, we will never understand all there is to know about God...it says so throughout the Bible. He has given us enough in His word to know of His love, His plan for salvation and for us to know Him and Jesus and the HS enough to love and worship Him.
As far as 'who is the head' goes, its not an issue of equality, only who's doing what. Yes, the man is the 'head' of the woman; that does not mean that he is superior to her, it just means they have different roles within the relationship. The man's role is to be head, to lead the family, make the tough decisions and take responsibility for what happens, good or bad.
In the same way God is not superior to Jesus...because Jesus IS God! But the Father is that, the Father, He leads, He judges and He give authority to Jesus. Jesus, as the Son came to earth to purchase salvation for us...that was His role, and the Holy Spirit, well, His role is helper! He is with us when we believe and gives us power to flee from sin.
So you see, all God, but different persons...different roles!

But as far as a more theological explanation goes, try reading some books, there's some really good ones out there! I'd recommed Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology".

 

[garyfromvernon]

I had the same confusion. I feel I found the truth in studying the Aramaic Christians belief and the 1rst century Christians. The NT says many times that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. To be begotten means that the substance of a male leaves his body, enters a womb and grows into a person. God does not have sex, nor was there a womb. Jesus is the substance of God, that came out of/was begotten of the Father. For myself, as I read all the trinitarian verses and the arian verses, this totally works with verses that seem to contradict each other. Jesus is eternal and uncreated, as all parts of God are, he is begotten/part of the Father. Picture Jesus Christ as truly being the Son of God. He was inside the Father, he is the same substance of the Father, some of God's substance and being became his Son. This worked for me, hope it helps.

 

[Nomad]

I had the same confusion. I feel I found the truth in studying the Aramaic Christians belief and the 1rst century Christians. The NT says many times that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. To be begotten means that the substance of a male leaves his body, enters a womb and grows into a person. God does not have sex, nor was there a womb. Jesus is the substance of God, that came out of/was begotten of the Father. For myself, as I read all the trinitarian verses and the arian verses, this totally works with verses that seem to contradict each other. Jesus is eternal and uncreated, as all parts of God are, he is begotten/part of the Father. Picture Jesus Christ as truly being the Son of God. He was inside the Father, he is the same substance of the Father, some of God's substance and being became his Son. This worked for me, hope it helps.

Hello Gary,

The problem with the idea you've presented is simply that it's based on the word 'begotten' which is a mistranslation of a Greek word in John 3:16. The study of Koine Greek has come a long way since the days of Erasmus. Here's something you may want to consider:

J. Oliver Buswell, Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, (Vol.1, p.110f.)

Careful lexicographical studies prove beyond a question that the word monogenes is not derived from the root gennao, to beget or generate, but is derived from genos, kind or class. The word therefore means 'in a class by himself,' 'the only one of his kind,' or in other words 'unique.' The French Bible correctly reads 'son fils unique' for our English 'his only begotten Son.' The word 'unique' would not be euphonious in English in John 3:16, but that would be the correct reading.

We have above examined all the instances in which 'begotten' or 'born' or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about 'begetting' as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

The suggestion that we completely drop the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is somewhat revolutionary. We might be misunderstood. Some would not see that we should thus clarify the absolute essential equality of the Son with the Father. Yet, the only individuals who would understand the meaning are those who ought to understand the reason. I can personally accept the ancient creeds without equivocation, for when one says 'begotten but not created,' he is reducing the word begotten to absolute zero. Yet I do believe that the 'eternal generation' doctrine should be dropped.

If we drop eternal generation, what then shall we say of eternal Sonship? That is an entirely different matter. There can be no doubt -- and we have presented sufficient evidence above for the meaning of the phrase, 'Son of God' --; that the 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' are words intended by the writers of the Scriptures to indicate eternal relationships within the Triune Godhead. All that is necessary for us to retain the full richness of the meaning of Sonship without retaining the non-Scriptural doctrine of eternal generation, is for us to understand and assimilate what has been said above of the doctrine of Sonship. The Son is not presented as generated, as a subordinate, or an inferior in any sense. But when Jesus called Himself Son of God, and claimed that God was His own Father, this was, in the language in which it was understood, 'making himself equal with God' (John 5:18).

NET Bible
tn Or "of the unique one." Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12; Luke 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14; 1:18; 3:16, and 3:18).

Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology also has an article on monogenes. It's too lengthy to post here without breaking copyright. If anyone has his ST the article can be found on p.1233 and is entitled Appendix 6: The monogenes controversy: "Only" or "Only Begotten"?

 

[garyfromvernon]

Always good posts from you Nomad, smart guy. In what sense is Jesus the Son of God? Would you say, he is literally the Son, in the sense that he somehow came from the Father as a Son does, as a Son comes from the substance of their Father, I always figured that because Heb 1:5, I always thought that verse was referring to when Jesus came out of the Father as a Son does. Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[John1]

Nomad

Another excellent post. I might purchase that work if it is available.

The NewGuy

 

[veteran]

John 5:18
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
(KJV)

That's obviously how the Jews understood Christ when He proclaimed Himself as The Son of God.


But it's really much more simple.

Heb 2:9-18
9 But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare Thy name unto My brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given Me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted.
(KJV)

The idea of Christ Jesus as The Son of God was for His being born through woman for the sufferring of death so as to defeat death and the devil for us, bringing us to The Father as sons, and as His brethren. Christ could not do that if He was born in a different type body than the rest of us. The flesh is of the flesh, but the spirit is of The Spirit. Christ was always uncreated in Spirit with God, and is God, even when He was walking on this earth in a flesh body like ours. This is why in Matthew 1 and Isaiah His Name is Immanuel, which means with us is God. The more some Churches allow pagan philosophy into their congregation, the more type of superstitious ideas will come forth from those pagan ideologies against this simple Biblical Truth of why Christ is called The Son of God, even while being God.

 

[Anastacia]

Christ was always uncreated in Spirit with God, and is God, even when He was walking on this earth in a flesh body like ours.

Jesus is eternal and uncreated, as all parts of God are, he is begotten/part of the Father.

As many of you, I am trying to understand. So please understand that while I post. I have the utmost fear and respect while I try to study and understand. Let me make this clear from the start, that I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. That God came to earth as a man, to save us. Jesus is the visible of the invisible God.

My thoughts here are....why is it wrong to say Jesus was created? Do not the scriptures say Jesus was created? Is not being "born" the same as being created?Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.


Before Jesus came to earth in the flesh, didn't he exist in heaven with God, with the glorified body he returned to God with, after he ascended to heaven?


John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.


Is not Jesus God's firstborn, before the earth was created? Before any thing was created. So that Jesus would be the first of all creation, and so that all things would be made by him, through him, and to him. God had planned our salvation, through Jesus Christ, even before the creation of the world. Jesus didn't just exist when he came to the world.

Colossians 1:16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


I would like to know what others here think and believe, and why, according to the scriptures. I think we will all agree that this is a very hard discussion.

 

[Nomad]

Always good posts from you Nomad, smart guy. In what sense is Jesus the Son of God? Would you say, he is literally the Son, in the sense that he somehow came from the Father as a Son does, as a Son comes from the substance of their Father, I always figured that because Heb 1:5, I always thought that verse was referring to when Jesus came out of the Father as a Son does. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Thanks for the kind words Gary. Let me get back to you tomorrow on this. I want to do a bit more research so I can give you accurate information.

 

[Nomad]

. . .My thoughts here are....why is it wrong to say Jesus was created? Do not the scriptures say Jesus was created? Is not being "born" the same as being created?Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

The man Jesus was created like any other human being, but the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity was not. So no, it's not wrong to say that Jesus was created in that sense. Keep in mind that Jesus was one person with two natures--divine and human. Also, the idea behind the use of the term 'firstborn' to describe Jesus is one of 'preeminence' and not 'first created' as some think, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm pressed for time so let me flesh this out for you tomorrow.

 

[Anastacia]

The man Jesus was created like any other human being, but the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity was not. So no, it's not wrong to say that Jesus was created in that sense. Keep in mind that Jesus was one person with two natures--divine and human. Also, the idea behind the use of the term 'firstborn' to describe Jesus is one of 'preeminence' and not 'first created' as some think, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm pressed for time so let me flesh this out for you tomorrow.

You say "the second person of the Holy Trinity was not" (in reference to my question about Jesus being the firstborn over all creation). So, my question is why do you say that Jesus wasn't born as the second person of the Trinity? Do not the scriptures say that Jesus was firstborn over all creation?

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.


You say "the idea behind the use of the term 'firstborn' to describe Jesus is one of 'preeminence' and not 'first created," but doesn't being firstborn is what also makes one preeminent? Now, I do want to say that I know the Jehovah's Witnesses are a false relgion, and that they believe Jesus was an angel in heaven before Jesus came to earth.

I will look for your posts on this tomorrow. Though I do want to say....I almost just want to delete all I've posted on this so far. It is very stressful to think about.

 

[veteran]

My thoughts here are....why is it wrong to say Jesus was created? Do not the scriptures say Jesus was created? Is not being "born" the same as being created?Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.


Before Jesus came to earth in the flesh, didn't he exist in heaven with God, with the glorified body he returned to God with, after he ascended to heaven?

Was our Lord Jesus Christ created BEFORE He came in the flesh? No. Were the angels created, even though they've never been born in the flesh like our Lord Jesus? Yes, the angels were created beings, even without flesh. That's why it's wrong to assign the idea of a created being to our Lord Jesus, for His Being was and is Eternal, while the angels were not. It's really a matter of understanding the difference between flesh and spirit.

There's also a difference with Christ's glorified Body compared to His type Body before He came in the flesh. His flesh body was transfigured to show the marks of His crucifixion always as a memory for what He did for us as our Redeemer.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.


Is not Jesus God's firstborn, before the earth was created? Before any thing was created. So that Jesus would be the first of all creation, and so that all things would be made by him, through him, and to him. God had planned our salvation, through Jesus Christ, even before the creation of the world. Jesus didn't just exist when he came to the world.

The idea of Christ becoming the firstfruit of the resurrection is about His death and resurrection, not of any idea of being created before He came in the flesh. As written, all things were created through Christ in the beginning (Hebrews; John). That's a direct pointer that Christ is GOD, and is Eternal with The Father.

And what man could save us, except God come in the flesh?

 

[John1]

Nomad

The man Jesus was created like any other human being, but the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity was not.

I don't think so! The man Jesus had no earthly Father who had relations with His mother. I do not see Him as created like any other man.

The NewGuy

 

[Anastacia]

My replies to veteran in blue.

Was our Lord Jesus Christ created BEFORE He came in the flesh? No. The scriptures tell us Jesus was "firstborn over all creation" Colossians 1:15. Were the angels created, even though they've never been born in the flesh like our Lord Jesus? Yes, the angels were created beings, even without flesh. Jesus created the angels, and everything visible and invisible. Colossians 1:16. That's why it's wrong to assign the idea of a created being to our Lord Jesus, for His Being was and is Eternal, while the angels were not. It's really a matter of understanding the difference between flesh and spirit. The Bible says Jesus was the first and the last.

There's also a difference with Christ's glorified Body compared to His type Body before He came in the flesh. His flesh body was transfigured to show the marks of His crucifixion always as a memory for what He did for us as our Redeemer. In Revelation, we are told what Jesus looks like.
Revelation 1:12-16 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, [sup]13[/sup] and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[sup][a][/sup] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. [sup]14[/sup] The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. [sup]15[/sup] His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. [sup]16[/sup] In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.



The idea of Christ becoming the firstfruit of the resurrection is about His death and resurrection, not of any idea of being created before He came in the flesh. As written, all things were created through Christ in the beginning (Hebrews; John). That's a direct pointer that Christ is GOD, and is Eternal with The Father. I believe that Christ is God, and is eternal with the Father. And I know the scriptures that Jesus was the firstborn of the brothers---the firstfruit. But the scriptures also say that Jesus is the firstborn over all creation.

And what man could save us, except God come in the flesh?

Amen.

 

[bud02]

The man Jesus was created like any other human being, but the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity was not. So no, it's not wrong to say that Jesus was created in that sense. Keep in mind that Jesus was one person with two natures--divine and human. Also, the idea behind the use of the term 'firstborn' to describe Jesus is one of 'preeminence' and not 'first created' as some think, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm pressed for time so let me flesh this out for you tomorrow.

Hello Gary,

The problem with the idea you've presented is simply that it's based on the word 'begotten' which is a mistranslation of a Greek word in John 3:16. The study of Koine Greek has come a long way since the days of Erasmus. Here's something you may want to consider:

Informed JW will also point this out in cases of sola scripture and in their interpretation of Jesus deity.
Thats how I first became aware of the use of begotten.

This definition of Jesus is very important, I would agree you are on the right track. But as you also point out some think differently.
Like for instance Mary being immaculately conceived also puts Jesus into a class differently defined than what I presume your flushing out will revel. Jesus was not insulated from the flesh of mankind but shared in it.

I keep two principles in mind 1] a works based salvation, and 2] denying Jesus was both human and divine.
The human part is evident in Hebrews. He shared in our flesh our weakness a view many don't understand. Like you have pointed out, The man Jesus was created like any other human being, but the eternal Son of God, I urge everyone to keep this in view, you won't be deceived and your testimony will stand.

Heb 2:14
Heb 2:17-18
Heb 5:7
Phil 2:7-8
Heb 4:15-16
John 1:14
Luke 22:27-28

[font="Verdana][size="2"]It can be a can of worms, defining the trinity. Im glad you took the project on. As always there will be opposition.
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]false prophets draw the person away from the truth concerning Jesus Christ ; this is done in a number of ways:[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](1) By denying Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](2) By identifying Jesus with other bible characters or spiritual people e.g. by saying that instead He is the archangel Michael or Satan's brother conceived when the Father had sex with Mary.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](3) By saying that Jesus was god with a small g and that we all can become god, as the Mormons (Latter Day Saints) believe. [/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"] (4) By saying God is "The Force" or some sort of creating/evolving energy, not personal, does not possess the ability to love, forgive, hold judgment etc. [/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](5) By saying Jesus did not come in the flesh but is instead a divine principle a Cosmic Christ or other such being.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"] (6) By seeing Christ as just human nature achieving at top potential - human potential. we all have "Christ in us" and our job is to "get in contact with it" and achieve our inner potential. However this "Christ" is not a historical person but [/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](7) Jesus not historical - " Christ consciousness" is substituted for faith in a historical Jesus.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](8) Jesus not God, became the Christ when he attained Christ-consciousness at age 30.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](9) Two Jesus theory - outer historical and inner mystical Jesus.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](10) Jesus one of many ascended masters[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](11) Jesus just a good man, prophet or teacher.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"](12) Holy Spirit not God but a force emanating from God.[/size][/font]




[font="Verdana][size="2"] [/size][/font]

 

[John1]

bud02

This definition of Jesus is very important, I would agree you are on the right track. But as you also point out some think differently.
Like for instance Mary being immaculately conceived also puts Jesus into a class differently defined than what I presume your flushing out will revel. Jesus was not insulated from the flesh of mankind but shared in it.

There are unique characteristics that make Jesus distinct from those He lived among.

1.) He was born with out a fallen nature. His ability to reason wasn't damaged by the fall thus giving Him perfect clarity.

2.) The fullness of the God Head dwelt in Him in bodily form and I am sure that this wasn't the case with Adam.

While Christ was Human and He faced the same temptations I believe that it is dangerous to say that He was just like us.

The NewGuy

 

[bud02]

bud02



There are unique characteristics that make Jesus distinct from those He lived among.

1.) He was born with out a fallen nature. His ability to reason wasn't damaged by the fall thus giving Him perfect clarity.

While Christ was Human and He faced the same temptations I believe that it is dangerous to say that He was just like us.

The NewGuy

I never said he was just like us. I said He shared in our likeness. Like it says in Hebrews.

Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

Heb 2:17-18 17 Therefore he had nto be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest pin the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Phil 2:7-8 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Heb 4:15-16 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 iLet us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Just were does it say Jesus was born without a fallen nature?
I would say His perfect clarity came from His Father. But his human nature "flesh" came from his mother.
100% man 100% God

While Christ was Human and He faced the same temptations I believe that it is dangerous to say that He was just like us.

I think its dangerous to think other wise. 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7

 

[John1]

bud02

I never said he was just like us. I said He shared in our likeness.

Thank you for the clarification

I think its dangerous to think other wise. 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 7

1 John 4:2-3

Are you aware that this is a double accusative construction and is very difficult to translate.

First the confession comes in two parts. The confession that Jesus is the Christ and that He has come in the flesh. This text does not simply suggest that we need to believe that Jesus has come in the Flesh but it takes us back to John 1 and the Word became flesh. I recognize that 1 John is dealing with Gnostics who did not believe that Christ was flesh but John also saw the danger of simply believing that Jesus Christ was flesh. So that axe we swing has a sharp edges in both direction. There is a danger in saying that He was just like us. 1 John 4:2-3 does not even remotely suggest that He was like us.

The NewGuy

 

[bud02]

bud02



Thank you for the clarification



1 John 4:2-3

Are you aware that this is a double accusative construction and is very difficult to translate.

First the confession comes in two parts. The confession that Jesus is the Christ and that He has come in the flesh. This text does not simply suggest that we need to believe that Jesus has come in the Flesh but it takes us back to John 1 and the Word became flesh. I recognize that 1 John is dealing with Gnostics who did not believe that Christ was flesh but John also saw the danger of simply believing that Jesus Christ was flesh. So that axe we swing has a sharp edges in both direction. There is a danger in saying that He was just like us. 1 John 4:2-3 does not even remotely suggest that He was like us.

The NewGuy

There is a danger in saying that He was just like us. 1 John 4:2-3 does not even remotely suggest that He was like us.

So then what do all those other verse say I posted? or 2 John 7

Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

Heb 2:17-18 17 Therefore he had nto be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest pin the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Phil 2:7-8 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Heb 4:15-16 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 iLet us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

BTW I haven't seen a verse that says Jesus was born without the fallen nature. Just where was that?

1.) He was born with out a fallen nature. His ability to reason wasn't damaged by the fall thus giving Him perfect clarity.

Just the same believe what you like.