The Son of God and our sin nature … wow!

[fortytworc]

I think you probably meant 1 Timothy 1:4-7, not 1 Timothy 4:4-7:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
1 Timothy 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

The context of those verses is a warning about those who pervert the gospel and seek to bring converts back under the bondage of the law. They should not be allowed to teach their doctrine or to ask their foolish questions.

Stating that Jesus was the eternal Son of the Father would not fall under the "foolish question" category. However, all the "what if" questions would be definitely be considered "foolish", IMO.

God's Word isn't a book about "speculations".

Thank you for the reference correction.ITim1:4-7 was what I wanted.
As to the other stuff, it is the 'what ifs' I was talking about. Sometimes fun to discuss, but usually of no importance or relevance.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually, mary was the Mother of His Humanity, NOT Mother of God!

So what you are saying is that Mary did not give birth to the fulness of Jesus Christ that she only gave birth to his humanity thus Jesus wasn't God while he was in her womb? Which means you believe that Jesus is a man who later became possesed by divinity. Well, I'm glad to meet you Nestorius.

Oh and just to brush up on your Greek Theotokos means God barer.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. This had been the very first promise made after the first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Speaking of "the woman, and . . . her seed," God said that He "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). This prophecy was addressed to Satan, whose lie had elicited Eve's sin. This wonderful body would not grow from a man's seed, as in every other human birth, nor would it grow from a woman's egg, for in either case a sin-carrying and mutation-carrying embryo would necessarily result. It must instead be a seed specially formed by the Creator Himself, then planted in the virgin's womb, where it forthwith would become His "tabernacle" for thirty-three years as He lived on His planet Earth among those He had come to save.

I suppose this is a possible explanation, however, the problem is that Scriptures said that He was the 'seed of a woman'. So this may not necessarily be consistent with the idea that God created a zygote in Mary's womb without the use of her egg. Another possibility is that He used her egg (minus the nucleus which contains the genes), but created all the nuclear (genetic) material within the egg's cytoplasm thus forming a zygote that way.

I guess the way God accomplished this all depends on exactly HOW the sin nature is actually transmitted in the normal reproductive process. We can speculate, but I guess we can't know for sure. The good thing is that GOD knows. :thumbs:

 

[Walter]

Actually, mary was the Mother of His Humanity, NOT Mother of God!

Even the notoriously anti-Catholic CARM acknowledges that is heresy!

So you think Mary was "just a vessel, just an incubator" -- in other words, just a rather unfortunately necessary uterus, isn't that nice?

As T.S. said: Do you realize that belief is part of the Nestorian heresy, and that by proclaiming such a belief you have become a Nestorian?

 

[Yeshua1]

Even the notoriously anti-Catholic CARM acknowledges that is heresy!

So you think Mary was "just a vessel, just an incubator" -- in other words, just a rather unfortunately necessary uterus, isn't that nice?

As T.S. said: Do you realize that belief is part of the Nestorian heresy, and that by proclaiming such a belief you have become a Nestorian?

the Holy Spirit overshadowed mary, and the Diety, God the Son, in her womb became with humanity...

Mary did NOT beget the diety of Christ, He Always had that! She gave Him his human nature/humanity!

God was in her wobb, but the Lord had placed Himself in there!

 

[Yeshua1]

So what you are saying is that Mary did not give birth to the fulness of Jesus Christ that she only gave birth to his humanity thus Jesus wasn't God while he was in her womb? Which means you believe that Jesus is a man who later became possesed by divinity. Well, I'm glad to meet you Nestorius.
Saying that Mary carries BOTH of His natures in the One fetus, its just that she gave he Human nature in there, God the divine!

Oh and just to brush up on your Greek Theotokos means God barer.

I knew Theotokos meant that, believe that both God/man residing in her womb, but not saying that she begetted the divine side of jesus, God the father thru the Holy Spirit did!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I knew Theotokos meant that, believe that both God/man residing in her womb, but not saying that she begetted the divine side of jesus, God the father thru the Holy Spirit did!

You can't have both God and man in her womb and claim she only gave birth to one aspect. She gave birth to the Completed Christ who is both God and man. In no way does Theotokos mean Mary Created God. She did not but she gave birth to the fullness of his incarnation which is both human and divine to say anything else messes with the Nature of who Jesus is. Which is the problem Nestorius faced. Mary had with in her womb the very God who created her. He was incarnate within her womb. Thus she is the Theotokos. And since she carried the very God/man or the 2nd person of the Trinity's very presence in his incarnation with in her womb she can be nothing other than theotokos.

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't have both God and man in her womb and claim she only gave birth to one aspect. She gave birth to the Completed Christ who is both God and man. In no way does Theotokos mean Mary Created God. She did not but she gave birth to the fullness of his incarnation which is both human and divine to say anything else messes with the Nature of who Jesus is. Which is the problem Nestorius faced. Mary had with in her womb the very God who created her. He was incarnate within her womb. Thus she is the Theotokos. And since she carried the very God/man or the 2nd person of the Trinity's very presence in his incarnation with in her womb she can be nothing other than theotokos.

I agree with what you stated here, perhaps just had a wrong understanding of how the RCC calls mary"Mother of God"...

I was reacting to that meaning She had begotten the divine nature of jesus, that she had given birth in the negginning sense to God the Son...

IF you hold it to meaning what was posted here, fully agree with you!

 

[Walter]

I agree with what you stated here, perhaps just had a wrong understanding of how the RCC calls mary"Mother of God"...

I was reacting to that meaning She had begotten the divine nature of jesus, that she had given birth in the negginning sense to God the Son...

IF you hold it to meaning what was posted here, fully agree with you!

Yep, I had that same 'wrong understanding' for many years. I also reacted to the title 'Mother of God' in the same way.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

1. Mary was never called God-bearer (Theotokos) anywhere in Scripture. The term does not exist in the canon of Scripture. It was at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD where the term "Theotokos" was first applied to Mary, mother of Jesus.

2 Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man ("the Word made flesh" - John 1:14), not the "God-bearer" of His eternal deity as the only begotten Son of God, Who had no beginning (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).

3. Are you folks Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox? What else do you believe about Mary?

To deny that Mary is Theotokos (God-bearer) does NOT mess with the nature of Who Jesus is...He is the 2nd person of the Tri-une Godhead, fully God and fully man. Mary was blessed above other women to have had the privilege of bringing the Savior into the world, but this allows no foundation for calling her the Theotokos (God-bearer)...and in some instances, "Mother of God" (which is another term for Theotokos). She is neither.

 

[Walter]

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

1. Mary was never called God-bearer (Theotokos) anywhere in Scripture. The term does not exist in the canon of Scripture. It was at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD where the term "Theotokos" was first applied to Mary, mother of Jesus.

2 Mary was the mother of Jesus as a man ("the Word made flesh" - John 1:14), not the "God-bearer" of His eternal deity as the only begotten Son of God, Who had no beginning (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).

3. Are you folks Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox? What else do you believe about Mary?

To deny that Mary is Theotokos (God-bearer) does NOT mess with the nature of Who Jesus is...He is the 2nd person of the Tri-une Godhead, fully God and fully man. Mary was blessed above other women to have had the privilege of bringing the Savior into the world, but this allows no foundation for calling her the Theotokos (God-bearer)...and in some instances, "Mother of God" (which is another term for Theotokos). She is neither.

Your denying what Holy Scripture says about Mary. She is clearly Theotokos whether the word is found in scripture or not. Trintiy and incarnation are words not in scripture either but I'm betting you believe in them. Let's see what the word says about Mary:

Luke 1:43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."

Luke 1:35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

 

[billwald]

>Several Scripture verses tell us that Jesus never sinned, that He was without sin. This sinless human called “Jesus” actually had some so-called “parents”.
His mother was Mary, who had man's sin nature.
His “father” was the Holy Spirit (i.e. God), who did NOT have man's sin nature.
So, this is why Jesus’ name/title “Son of God” is NOT so crazy after all.
Jesus “father” really was God ... technically, He was God's Son, Jesus really WAS the Son of God.

Then who was the angel's (Satan's) "parents?" Were they not 100% created by the Holy Spirit?


Genesis 6:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Exactly whom were the "Sons of God?" (some say space aliens <G>)

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus was/is the eternal Son of the Father, as to His divinity and God nature, while his humanity was created within womb of His Mother mary, and He is now both God and Man!

How could Christ the man be called the "son of" Adam and Abraham and David, if his humanity was created in the womb rather than conceived through the "seed" or egg of the woman? Does not Genesis 3;15 predict that he would originate from the "seed of the woman" rather than merely be created in the womb of the woman as though she were merely an incubater??

 

[Yeshua1]

How could Christ the man be called the "son of" Adam and Abraham and David, if his humanity was created in the womb rather than conceived through the "seed" or egg of the woman? Does not Genesis 3;15 predict that he would originate from the "seed of the woman" rather than merely be created in the womb of the woman as though she were merely an incubater??

God the Son always existed from eternity, and He was incarnated as the Person of jesus, so jesus was eternal as to his divinity, being fully God, but His humanity/human nature came into existence at time of the Holy Conception!

As Isaiah prophecied concerning Him 'A Son was given, a child was born"

God always existed, and became the Man Jesus at the Incarnation event!

 

[TCassidy]

This debate is the very reason that the teaching of the seminal headship of Adam must give way to the federal headship of Adam when discussing the transmission of the sin nature.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

How could Christ the man be called the "son of" Adam and Abraham and David, if his humanity was created in the womb rather than conceived through the "seed" or egg of the woman? Does not Genesis 3;15 predict that he would originate from the "seed of the woman" rather than merely be created in the womb of the woman as though she were merely an incubater??

The "seed of the woman" is not in reference to her egg. If it were, Genesis 3:15 would make no sense whatsoever.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy egg and her egg; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel??????

The idea that "seed" in that verse refers to a woman's egg is ludicrous. Eggs do not have feet or a head.

 

[Yeshua1]

The "seed of the woman" is not in reference to her egg. If it were, Genesis 3:15 would make no sense whatsoever.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy egg and her egg; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel??????

The idea that "seed" in that verse refers to a woman's egg is ludicrous. Eggs do not have feet or a head.

The "Seed" would be the physical descendant to come of Eve, son of Adam of God, Jesus!

Abrahams "Seed" would be the physical descendant to come, born as a Jewish man, who would be the Messiah!

 

[Fred's Wife]

The "seed of the woman" is not in reference to her egg. If it were, Genesis 3:15 would make no sense whatsoever.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy egg and her egg; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel??????

The idea that "seed" in that verse refers to a woman's egg is ludicrous. Eggs do not have feet or a head.

Neither do women have "seeds"! The "seed" of the woman is speaking of Christ, not her "egg".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Neither do women have "seeds"! The "seed" of the woman is speaking of Christ, not her "egg".

Just to throw in some twist if seed is speaking of Jesus Christ and a future decendent then what is meant by Genesis 38?

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

? certainly sounds like genetic material.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Just to throw in some twist if seed is speaking of Jesus Christ and a future decendent then what is meant by Genesis 38? ? certainly sounds like genetic material.

In that verse you quoted, "seed" is referring to that which proceeds out of a man during the intimate relationship between husband and wife.

The "seed" of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of a coming Redeemer..

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb*, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

(*Conception always takes place in the fallopian tubes, not in the womb.)

God promised that a man would come who would be injured by Satan but who would destroy Satan ultimately. Jesus Christ was bruised on the cross, but it was only a heel wound because He rose from the dead. Through Christ's death, Satan's destruction is guaranteed:

Hebrews 2:14 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;

The fact that Jesus would be the seed of a woman instead of a man foretold His virgin birth.