sinners by nature

[webdog]

Basically you have. You won't admit it because of your denial of Original Sin, or the sin nature of man.

You don't get it...i never denied the sin nature of man. I've never called Christ a sinner either, never even hinted at it. Please stop with the false accusation. Denial of a Roman Catholic's theory of original sin is not even remotely close to calling Christ a sinner.

We are born with a sin nature that we inherit from Adam. That is what David had. Thus if Christ has David's nature then Christ has a sinful nature and therefore is a sinner.

Question begging...the very point being debated is the fact sin nature = guilty sinner. You claim they are one in the same. i don't believe they are.

That is the only logical conclusion that one can come to.

hardly.

 

[DHK]

You don't get it...i never denied the sin nature of man.

Are you sure?
Does a person between infancy and one year old have a sin nature.
(Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23)

I've never called Christ a sinner either, never even hinted at it. Please stop with the false accusation.

To deny the purpose of the virgin birth (that is to allow Christ not to have that Adamic nature) is as good as calling Christ a sinner.

Denial of a Roman Catholic's theory of original sin is not even remotely close to calling Christ a sinner.

Why not think about this "Roman Catholic" doctrine a bit more carefully before you start pointing fingers.
All Calvinistic Baptists believe in it.
Most non-Cals believe in it.
Almost every Protestant denomination believes in it.
The people who do not believe in what is called "original sin" are outside of orthodox Christianity historically. There are very few within evangelical Christianity that don't believe in "original sin," some of the Holiness groups, Charismatics, and those on the outer fringes of Christianity. To say that it is an RC doctrine is a grave error in judgment.

Question begging...the very point being debated is the fact sin nature = guilty sinner. You claim they are one in the same. i don't believe they are.
hardly.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
We have all sinned.
We all have sin natures. We are all sinners. From infancy onwards we are sinners.

 

[Iconoclast]

It doesn't appear that way in the Bible, the Bible says Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. David was a sinner born after the fall.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The Bible also says Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam) who was also a sinner born after the fall.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

So, I don't know where this author that Iconoclast parroted thinks Jesus should be conceived like Adam before the fall, but he didn't get this from the Bible.

Winman.......your streak of misunderstanding every verse you quote is intact......:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

First, God didn't die. Christ was deity.
Second, you are claiming that Christ was a sinner, and that is heresy.

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you sure?
Does a person between infancy and one year old have a sin nature.
(Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23)
To deny the purpose of the virgin birth (that is to allow Christ not to have that Adamic nature) is as good as calling Christ a sinner.
Why not think about this "Roman Catholic" doctrine a bit more carefully before you start pointing fingers.
All Calvinistic Baptists believe in it.
Most non-Cals believe in it.
Almost every Protestant denomination believes in it.
The people who do not believe in what is called "original sin" are outside of orthodox Christianity historically. There are very few within evangelical Christianity that don't believe in "original sin," some of the Holiness groups, Charismatics, and those on the outer fringes of Christianity. To say that it is an RC doctrine is a grave error in judgment.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
We have all sinned.
We all have sin natures. We are all sinners. From infancy onwards we are sinners.

:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

 

[Winman]

I understand it and accept it. But I don't accept many of the things that are being posted here.

Basically you have. You won't admit it because of your denial of Original Sin, or the sin nature of man. We are born with a sin nature that we inherit from Adam. That is what David had. Thus if Christ has David's nature then Christ has a sinful nature and therefore is a sinner. That is the only logical conclusion that one can come to.
But thankfully, those passages are not speaking of the "nature" of Christ, they are speaking of lineage and his right to be the heir of the throne of David. The "seed of David" simply means "offspring" in respect to "descendants," of which Christ was one. He was in the lineage of David and therefore a rightful heir.

But he was born of Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was not of the seed of Joseph. Why? Because he would have inherited the Adamic nature, the sin nature that is passed on through the seed of a man. Christ is born of the "seed of a woman," conceived of the Holy Spirit, and thus evading the Adamic sin nature. This is the primary purpose of the virgin birth.

The part I bolded is clearly refuted by scripture. Scripture says Jesus was the fruit of David's loins. The fruit of one's loins is physical children.

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

It is clear that Jesus shared David's flesh, Jesus was a PHYSICAL descendant of David.

You are simply denying scripture. It is impossible for Jesus not to have shared the flesh of Mary's parents. Science knows that we receive an equal portion of our DNA from both parents.

50% of a person;s DNA comes from the mother, 50% from the father. This means that your mother, your father, your daughter, your son each SHARE 50% of the same DNA as yourself. Siblings also share 50%; however, IDENTICAL twins have essentially the SAME DNA. [However, as DNA changes in EACH individual as we age, the older the twins, the less their DNA would match.] Following this out, each grandparent or each grandchild would share 25% of your DNA.
Aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, as with grandparents and grandchildren, each share 25% of your DNA.
Great-grandparents, great-grandchildren, great-nieces/nephews AND first cousins all share 12.5% of your DNA.
Great-great-grandparents/children and first cousins once removed each share 6.25% of your DNA.
Second cousins 3.125%; second cousin once-removed 1.563%; second cousins twice-removed, 0.781%.
If you go out to ancestors and descendants, each succeeding generation would have 1/2 the shared DNA as the previos generation.
SOURCE: "Trace Your Roots with DNA Using Genetic Tests to Explore Your Family Tree" by Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak and Ann Turner.
Radiation (including natural radiation, present everywhere) CHANGES everyone's DNA, which is the cause of Mutations, etc. Then you get into dominant genes and recessive genes. As you know, both parents came have black hair, all 4 grandparents can have black hair and a child can be born with red hair (happened to my brother), blond hair or even WHITE (platinum blond) hair. The same with eyes; everyone can have brown eyes (parents, grandparents) and the child can be born with hazel, green, gray or blue eyes.
So, the short answer is those percentages; this last part is the complicated answer. There is so much more; check out a good book on DNA or check websites, such as www.familytreedna.com.
Source(s):
genealogy research

True science agrees with scripture, Jesus was the SEED of David and the fruit of his loins through his mother Mary, he received David's DNA, as well as Adam's DNA.

Your view is nothing but superstition, Jesus was born of a virgin as a SIGN, there is not one word of scripture to support Jesus was born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. That is a man-made invention.

 

[DHK]

The part I bolded is clearly refuted by scripture. Scripture says Jesus was the fruit of David's loins. The fruit of one's loins is physical children.

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

It is clear that Jesus shared David's flesh, Jesus was a PHYSICAL descendant of David.

You are simply denying scripture. It is impossible for Jesus not to have shared the flesh of Mary's parents. Science knows that we receive an equal portion of our DNA from both parents.

True science agrees with scripture, Jesus was the SEED of David and the fruit of his loins through his mother Mary, he received David's DNA, as well as Adam's DNA.

I like how you mix "true science" with the Bible, the miraculous--Mary, being a virgin, giving birth to Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Then you try to use what you call "true science" to substantiate that.

Here also is "true science":
In 300 B.C Hippocrates proposed that all diseases resulted from an imbalance of four humors (body fluids)--black bile, blood, phlegm, and yellow bile. The theory led to bloodletting--The drawing of blood from a vein of a sick person so the disease would flow out with the blood.
For many centuries, bloodletting was standard medical treatment. In the late 1700's and early 1800's, a number of doctors, prescribed bloodletting to treat most illnesses.
--World Book Encyclopedia

This "true science" of bloodletting is what killed President Washington when they let out too much of his blood (or life). We now know that it is not "true science" just as evolution is not "true science," though it claims to be.

The fact is that "science" changes; but Jesus never. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Likewise, the Word of God. It never changes. The Word of God is our standard, not "true science."

In an attempt to mix your "true science" with the miraculous virgin birth of Christ you fall into Biblical error. Your inference that Christ had a human father is blasphemy. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by David. Your human reasoning you have put as a greater authority than the Bible. You refuse to believe the miraculous saying God cannot do the miraculous because "true science" requires...blah, blah, blah. That is a shame that you believe in blah blah blah more than in God.

Your view is nothing but superstition, Jesus was born of a virgin as a SIGN, there is not one word of scripture to support Jesus was born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. That is a man-made invention.

It was more than a sign. It had a purpose. God did not need such a great miracle simply to give a sign. He was born of a virgin to avoid inheriting a sin nature. But look carefully at what you said.
You are calling a miracle of God a superstition. That is really shameful on your part.

 

[Winman]

I like how you mix "true science" with the Bible, the miraculous--Mary, being a virgin, giving birth to Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Then you try to use what you call "true science" to substantiate that.

Here also is "true science":
In 300 B.C Hippocrates proposed that all diseases resulted from an imbalance of four humors (body fluids)--black bile, blood, phlegm, and yellow bile. The theory led to bloodletting--The drawing of blood from a vein of a sick person so the disease would flow out with the blood.
For many centuries, bloodletting was standard medical treatment. In the late 1700's and early 1800's, a number of doctors, prescribed bloodletting to treat most illnesses.
--World Book Encyclopedia

This "true science" of bloodletting is what killed President Washington when they let out too much of his blood (or life). We now know that it is not "true science" just as evolution is not "true science," though it claims to be.

The fact is that "science" changes; but Jesus never. He is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Likewise, the Word of God. It never changes. The Word of God is our standard, not "true science."

In an attempt to mix your "true science" with the miraculous virgin birth of Christ you fall into Biblical error. Your inference that Christ had a human father is blasphemy. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by David. Your human reasoning you have put as a greater authority than the Bible. You refuse to believe the miraculous saying God cannot do the miraculous because "true science" requires...blah, blah, blah. That is a shame that you believe in blah blah blah more than in God.
It was more than a sign. It had a purpose. God did not need such a great miracle simply to give a sign. He was born of a virgin to avoid inheriting a sin nature. But look carefully at what you said.
You are calling a miracle of God a superstition. That is really shameful on your part.

Answer me this question DHK, could Jesus have married a virgin and started a race of sinless people?

If you really believe the sin nature is passed by the father only, then your answer must be YES.

So tell me, could Jesus have married a virgin (or several virgins) and produced races of sinless people?

I dare you to answer that honestly. Shows how ridiculous this superstition of yours is, and the conclusions it naturally leads to.

 

[Winman]

And what is shameful is how you attack a person who believes the scriptures as literal. The scriptures say Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David. They don't say he was simply related to David, he was actually constructed of David's flesh. We know today that information is passed through the DNA, and that every person receives an equal share of both their father and mother's DNA. So, when Jesus received his mother's flesh, he received part of her father's DNA. This is true scientific fact.

True science is not evil, and does not disagree with scripture.

The scriptures plainly say David was Jesus's father.

Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The angel didn't tell Mary that God would give the throne to her father David, but HIS (Jesus's) father David. Scripture shows that David was literally the other father (grandfather) of Jesus, our Heavenly Father being his other father.

 

[webdog]

Answer me this question DHK, could Jesus have married a virgin and started a race of sinless people?

If you really believe the sin nature is passed by the father only, then your answer must be YES.

So tell me, could Jesus have married a virgin (or several virgins) and produced races of sinless people?

I dare you to answer that honestly. Shows how ridiculous this superstition of yours is, and the conclusions it naturally leads to.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Answer me this question DHK, could Jesus have married a virgin and started a race of sinless people?

If you really believe the sin nature is passed by the father only, then your answer must be YES.

So tell me, could Jesus have married a virgin (or several virgins) and produced races of sinless people?

I dare you to answer that honestly. Shows how ridiculous this superstition of yours is, and the conclusions it naturally leads to.

Jesus is God, deity. God doesn't marry, unless your a Mormon who believes Christ is a created being and not God at all. If Mormonism is your religion you might have a case.

Bur Christ, the Son of God, the Creator of all things, could not marry. He came to do the will of His Father. Your question is therefore completely ridiculous, and pure speculation, the kind of question that Paul would not allow Timothy to speculate on. It is vain speculations. Avoid all such.

 

[Winman]

Double post

 

[Winman]

Jesus is God, deity. God doesn't marry, unless your a Mormon who believes Christ is a created being and not God at all. If Mormonism is your religion you might have a case.

Bur Christ, the Son of God, the Creator of all things, could not marry. He came to do the will of His Father. Your question is therefore completely ridiculous, and pure speculation, the kind of question that Paul would not allow Timothy to speculate on. It is vain speculations. Avoid all such.

It's not a ridiculous question and you know it. If the sin nature is passed through the father only, could Jesus have married virgins and produced races of people who would be born without a sin nature and could never sin?

Could the DNA of two females be combined to produce people without a sin nature?

That is where your superstition naturally leads. Sin is not a physical problem, and is not something you can inherit from someone else. Sin is a moral problem, a choice.

The scriptures are clear that Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David according to the flesh. He was not just related to David as you claim.

What you are doing is denying scripture.

 

[DHK]

It's not a ridiculous question and you know it. If the sin nature is passed through the father only, could Jesus have married virgins and produced races of people who would be born without a sin nature and could never sin?

You have your Mormon and Islamic doctrines mixed up.
The Muslims (men only) believe they will go to paradise and be served by many virgins (not married to them though).
However, Mormons, can marry many virgins on this earth.
Christians don't do this; it was forbidden by the law of Moses, and still is today. It is abhorrent that you would even think that Christ would do such a thing. Polygamy is not legal.

That is where your superstition naturally leads. Sin is not a physical problem, and is not something you can inherit from someone else. Sin is a moral problem, a choice.

One doesn't inherit sin. They inherit a sinful nature. The Adamic nature, the nature that God gave to Adam at creation was marred by sin and has been passed on from generation to generation. If it wasn't then man's nature would be perfect and born in innocence but he isn't. That evidence is all around us.
It is in nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves it.
Even the harmony of nature has been disrupted. The ground gives forth thorns and thistles whereas before it didn't. Before the curse mosquitoes didn't bite, neither did they cause malaria or the dengue.
If children were born perfect they would not be prone to sickness. But they are. Sickness is a necessary evil. It is part of the curse.
The Bible says:
"The whole creation groans and travails in pain until now." Like we the entire creation is awaiting the coming of Christ. It is under the curse, subject to the destructive laws of nature. It waits for the time when Christ will remove the curse.
Every person born into this world is born under that curse, with a sin nature. As the old McGuffey Reader put it: "In Adam's fall; we sinned all."

The scriptures are clear that Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David according to the flesh. He was not just related to David as you claim.

What you are doing is denying scripture.

Why are you denying Scripture.
You fail to explain Genesis 3:15, the very first Messianic promise which says that Christ will be born of the seed of a woman? I haven't heard your explanation of that. That verse speaks of his birth.
The verses you quote don't refer to his birth at all. They refer to his ancestry, that Christ will one day sit on the throne of David. He is rightful heir to that throne. David is not the father of Christ. To suggest such is blasphemy. The Father of Christ, during the time spent on earth, was God the Father, who he submitted to. He said:
"I come to do the will of my Father." Who does he mean? Not David.
David's wife did was not in labor for a thousand years as you superstitiously believe, clinging to the unrealistic idea that Christ was born of David. He wasn't.

 

[Winman]

You have your Mormon and Islamic doctrines mixed up.
The Muslims (men only) believe they will go to paradise and be served by many virgins (not married to them though).
However, Mormons, can marry many virgins on this earth.
Christians don't do this; it was forbidden by the law of Moses, and still is today. It is abhorrent that you would even think that Christ would do such a thing. Polygamy is not legal.

I love the way you attempt to slander those who refute your views. Now I am a Mormon or Muslim? Of course, we all know who the accuser of the brethren is. :thumbsup:

One doesn't inherit sin. They inherit a sinful nature. The Adamic nature, the nature that God gave to Adam at creation was marred by sin and has been passed on from generation to generation. If it wasn't then man's nature would be perfect and born in innocence but he isn't. That evidence is all around us.
It is in nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves it.
Even the harmony of nature has been disrupted. The ground gives forth thorns and thistles whereas before it didn't. Before the curse mosquitoes didn't bite, neither did they cause malaria or the dengue.
If children were born perfect they would not be prone to sickness. But they are. Sickness is a necessary evil. It is part of the curse.
The Bible says:
"The whole creation groans and travails in pain until now." Like we the entire creation is awaiting the coming of Christ. It is under the curse, subject to the destructive laws of nature. It waits for the time when Christ will remove the curse.
Every person born into this world is born under that curse, with a sin nature. As the old McGuffey Reader put it: "In Adam's fall; we sinned all."

The curse was on the ground. There is not one word that says man's moral nature was affected or cursed. Yes, thorns and thistles sprang up, and it became more difficult to farm. Things do grow old and fade away. But there is not one word that says man suddenly became a sinner and MUST sin.

Why are you denying Scripture.
You fail to explain Genesis 3:15, the very first Messianic promise which says that Christ will be born of the seed of a woman? I haven't heard your explanation of that. That verse speaks of his birth.

I believe Jesus was born of a virgin. But it is identified as a sign so we could identify that person. There is not one word in scripture to support your superstition that sin is passed by the male only.

The verses you quote don't refer to his birth at all. They refer to his ancestry, that Christ will one day sit on the throne of David. He is rightful heir to that throne. David is not the father of Christ. To suggest such is blasphemy. The Father of Christ, during the time spent on earth, was God the Father, who he submitted to. He said:
"I come to do the will of my Father." Who does he mean? Not David.
David's wife did was not in labor for a thousand years as you superstitiously believe, clinging to the unrealistic idea that Christ was born of David. He wasn't.

Totally false, Romans 1:3 says Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David according to the FLESH. It doesn't get any clearer than that, Jesus was a direct descendant of David according to his flesh. He inherited some of David's DNA, as well as all of Mary's fathers all the way back to Adam.

Romans 1:3 doesn't simply say Jesus was related to David, it says he was MADE OF HIS SEED. It is you that is ignoring and denying scripture.

The part about David's wife being in labor a thousand years is a laugh. You must think the people that read these threads are pure idiots to fall for that. :laugh:

What a joke, what do folks who argue Original Sin claim as proof? The story of Levi paying tithes in Abraham's loins in Hebrews. But when the scriptures directly say Jesus was from the loins of David according to the flesh you deny it. You want your cake and to eat it too. Laughable and hypocritical.

 

[DHK]

I love the way you attempt to slander those who refute your views. Now I am a Mormon or Muslim? Of course, we all know who the accuser of the brethren is. :thumbsup:

First of all, you are the one calling me names.
Secondly, I attacked your ideas, not you.
Notice that I compared what you said to the belief system of Islam and Mormonism; I didn't say you were either of those. But you didn't hesitate in calling me "the accuser of the brethren." Nor did you hesitate to accuse me of slandering others, when I simply used a comparison.

The curse was on the ground. There is not one word that says man's moral nature was affected or cursed. Yes, thorns and thistles sprang up, and it became more difficult to farm. Things do grow old and fade away. But there is not one word that says man suddenly became a sinner and MUST sin.

It is referred to as "The Curse" for a good reason. The Lord "cursed" Adam, Eve, the ground, and Satan. That curse will not be lifted until the Lord comes and sets up his kingdom.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
--Everyone falls under the curse; no one can keep the law.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
--Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
--All are under sin. Faith in Christ is the only way to be saved.

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Who is under the curse?
The creature shall be delivered from bondage (animals and such).
The whole of creation groans and travails (everything that God has made).
Then, lastly, man himself is under the curse, and waits for the redemption of his body, which will come at the Coming of Christ.

I believe Jesus was born of a virgin. But it is identified as a sign so we could identify that person. There is not one word in scripture to support your superstition that sin is passed by the male only.

You demean and diminish the virgin birth of Christ. You ought to get a copy of Gresham Machen's book, "The Virgin Birth of Christ." It is over 400 pages of scholarly work on this one subject alone. You can be sure that he simply didn't say: "It was just a sign," using four hundred pages to repeat five or so words.
But that is even off the topic isn't it. A little obfuscating on your part. I didn't ask you to explain Isaiah 7:14. Do you have your Scriptures mixed up? Let me quote it for you:

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.
Here reference is made to the seed of the woman. Explain this reference, how Christ came of the seed of the woman, not the seed of a man. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

Totally false, Romans 1:3 says Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David according to the FLESH.

He was born of the seed of a woman (virgin birth), made of the seed of David--heir to his throne.

It doesn't get any clearer than that, Jesus was a direct descendant of David according to his flesh. He inherited some of David's DNA, as well as all of Mary's fathers all the way back to Adam.

The sin nature would have come through Joseph, had they married. You seem to forget he was conceived through the Holy Spirit, or do you deny the miraculous in this. Your ideas deny the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ. Why is that?

Romans 1:3 doesn't simply say Jesus was related to David, it says he was MADE OF HIS SEED. It is you that is ignoring and denying scripture.

"Made" not "born." There is a difference.

The part about David's wife being in labor a thousand years is a laugh. You must think the people that read these threads are pure idiots to fall for that. :laugh:

Then stop inferring that David was his father; he wasn't. Don't say such ridiculous things.

What a joke, what do folks who argue Original Sin claim as proof? The story of Levi paying tithes in Abraham's loins in Hebrews. But when the scriptures directly say Jesus was from the loins of David according to the flesh you deny it. You want your cake and to eat it too. Laughable and hypocritical.

Christians, believers in Christ, believe that Christ was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. You seem to deny this fact. Everything that you have written goes against the miraculous here. And for the life of me, I can't understand why! Thus those who read this will see one who doesn't believe in the supernatural acts of God.

 

[Winman]

No one is denying that we are all under the curse. But God did not curse us to be sinners. I challenge you to show ANYWHERE in all of scripture where God cursed man's moral nature so that he would be a sinner who MUST sin. You can't do it, because it is not in the word of God. That is an invention of man.

You demean and diminish the virgin birth of Christ. You ought to get a copy of Gresham Machen's book, "The Virgin Birth of Christ." It is over 400 pages of scholarly work on this one subject alone. You can be sure that he simply didn't say: "It was just a sign," using four hundred pages to repeat five or so words.

There is your problem right there, you are accepting the doctrines of men as equal to scripture. There is absolutely ZERO scripture that supports this man-made doctrine of yours. Isaiah 7:14 says that God would give us a SIGN.

Isa 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.

Anything more than this and you are adding to the word of God and teaching the doctrines of men. That is not an accusation, that is a FACT.

He was born of the seed of a woman (virgin birth), made of the seed of David--heir to his throne.

Yes, and Mary was made of the seed of David according to her flesh. She shared David's DNA and passed it on to all her children including Jesus.

Look, you are half your mother, and one quarter your mother's father, and one quarter your mother's mother. That is scientific fact. They didn't know that stuff back in Augustine's time, but we know it today. And the fact is, modern science does not disagree with scripture here, Romans 1:3 says Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. It is you that is denying both scripture and scientific fact.

The sin nature would have come through Joseph, had they married. You seem to forget he was conceived through the Holy Spirit, or do you deny the miraculous in this. Your ideas deny the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ. Why is that?

I do not deny the miraculous conception of Jesus in Mary's womb whatsoever. What I deny is your superstitious belief that a sin nature is passed by the father.

If anything, the scriptures suggest sin is passed by the woman, not man.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

There are ZERO scriptures that suggest a sin nature is passed by the man, but here are two verses of scripture that suggest sin is passed by the mother.

Will you tell folks that sin is passed by the woman? :laugh:

No, you will ignore these verses and continue to teach a man made doctrine that is not found in the scriptures anywhere.

 

[Winman]

What is truly funny and ironic is that the scripture you posted to support you actually refutes you. Let's examine Galatians 3:10;

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Does this verse say cursed is every person that is born to a human father? No, it says cursed is every man who continues not in all things written in the law. It is SIN that brings the curse upon a man, not his BIRTH as you falsely teach.

And whether you will accept it or not, Paul teaches in Romans 7 that he did not spiritually die until he understood the law and was convicted by it.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

In verse 9 Paul says he was once alive without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Of course, Paul MUST be speaking of spiritual death here, he could hardly be saying he was physically dead.

But verse 7 is important, it explains what Paul meant when he said the "commandment came". Paul is not talking about the law being written 1500 years before he was born, he was talking about that time in his life when he learned the law and was made aware and conscious of what sin is. Paul said that he would not have known sin except for the law.

Paul had earlier said sin is not imputed when there is no law. So sin was not imputed to him before he knew the law. When he learned the law and learned what sin is he became accountable and was convicted by the law for his sin and spiritually died.

This is when Paul came under the curse, when he did not continue to do all things written in the law.

So, the scripture you posted utterly refutes your view.

 

[DHK]

You demean and diminish the virgin birth of Christ. You ought to get a copy of Gresham Machen's book, "The Virgin Birth of Christ." It is over 400 pages of scholarly work on this one subject alone. You can be sure that he simply didn't say: "It was just a sign," using four hundred pages to repeat five or so words.

It is convenient for you to quote others when it suits you, but I suggest a writer and you accuse me of trusting in the work of a man.
That is typical.
Machen was a professor, first at Princeton and that at Westminster Theological Seminaries. By the time he died he would have forgotten more theology then you would learn in a lifetime. With your lack of understanding on the virgin birth, I would recommend a book like his.

But that is even off the topic isn't it. A little obfuscating on your part. I didn't ask you to explain Isaiah 7:14. Do you have your Scriptures mixed up? Let me quote it for you:

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.
Here reference is made to the seed of the woman. Explain this reference, how Christ came of the seed of the woman, not the seed of a man. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

I am quoting from my own post because you keep avoiding this verse. Christ was born of the seed of a woman. All your theories contradicts this. Your ideas cannot harmonize with Scripture.
Let's summarize a few things once again:

You have demeaned and diminished the doctrine of the virgin birth by concluding that it "was just a sign."
You say that the doctrine that many refer to as Original Sin is a Roman Catholic doctrine.
And yet you fail to realize that it is not only the RCC that believes in the sinful nature of all mankind.

All Calvinists do--Baptists and otherwise.
Most non-Cals, such as myself believe in it.
Almost all Protestant denominations do.
The only ones that don't are some holiness groups, some Charismatics, and those on the fringe of historic orthodox Christianity.
The doctrine of the depravity of man (Original Sin), has been one of the fundamentals of the faith, an historic orthodox Christian doctrine of all ages. Those who deny this doctrine stand outside the realm of historic Christianity in the same group as those who would deny the virgin birth. This is an important doctrine. Don't treat it lightly.

 

[Winman]

It is convenient for you to quote others when it suits you, but I suggest a writer and you accuse me of trusting in the work of a man.
That is typical.
Machen was a professor, first at Princeton and that at Westminster Theological Seminaries. By the time he died he would have forgotten more theology then you would learn in a lifetime. With your lack of understanding on the virgin birth, I would recommend a book like his.

While I have not read this author, I have read Baptist writers who have written on the virgin birth before. I have been a Baptist 48 years, I have read more than you think.

I am quoting from my own post because you keep avoiding this verse. Christ was born of the seed of a woman. All your theories contradicts this. Your ideas cannot harmonize with Scripture.
Let's summarize a few things once again:

I do not deny that Jesus was born of the seed of a woman, and I agree that is speaking of the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. But the mother passes the DNA of both her mother and father to her children. Jesus could not have received the "seed of David" from his heavenly Father, as his heavenly Father is not descended from David. Jesus could have only received the seed of David from Mary his mother. That is simple LOGIC.

Yes, Jesus was supernaturally conceived in Mary's womb, but he received his flesh (or at least half) from his mother Mary, and Mary's contribution would have included the DNA from all her fathers going all the way back to Adam. You look like both your father and your mother. You probably look amazingly like your mother's father as well.

You have demeaned and diminished the doctrine of the virgin birth by concluding that it "was just a sign."

No, you have added to the word of God. Nowhere do the scriptures say Jesus was born of a virgin to avoid a sin nature. You can't show it, and you know it.

You say that the doctrine that many refer to as Original Sin is a Roman Catholic doctrine.
And yet you fail to realize that it is not only the RCC that believes in the sinful nature of all mankind.

All Calvinists do--Baptists and otherwise.
Most non-Cals, such as myself believe in it.
Almost all Protestant denominations do.
The only ones that don't are some holiness groups, some Charismatics, and those on the fringe of historic orthodox Christianity.
The doctrine of the depravity of man (Original Sin), has been one of the fundamentals of the faith, an historic orthodox Christian doctrine of all ages. Those who deny this doctrine stand outside the realm of historic Christianity in the same group as those who would deny the virgin birth. This is an important doctrine. Don't treat it lightly.

It doesn't matter how many people believe this doctrine, it is either true doctrine or false doctrine. This doctrine was almost completely unknown until Augustine. The Jews never believed in OS.

Scripture is clear that the son does not bear the iniquity of his father. That is so simple and straightforward, and yet you utterly ignore it to believe something not shown in scripture anywhere.