Featured Did Jesus have Mary’s DNA?

Yet another unbiblical assertion that our spiritual corruption is passed biologically, but Eve's example demonstrates the corruption is passed spiritually.

 

Did Jesus have to be Virgin Born Van in order to be the Messiah?

 

NO PERSON in this thread has claimed this.

If, by "sin nature," you mean that Jesus sinned or had moral guilt from "original sin," then no, Jesus did not have our sin nature.

Jesus was subject to the weaknesses of humanity -- aging, sun damage, illness, a real temptation to sin.

[/QUOTE]...would have been effected by the fall, sin natures, and not qualified to be the messiah![/QUOTE]
He certainly was affected by the fall, and for that reason it made Him qualified to be our representative -- a second Adam and a Great High Priest -- because He was legitimately part of the human situation, yet without sin. Go back and read the scripture and interpretation carefully. If you disagree, interact with it, don't just make pronouncements. Tell me where I am in error.

 

You have the emphasis in the wrong place. The PATERNITY of Jesus is the most important part.

Since, in human beings, biological men cannot bear children, the "seed" and womb of a biological woman was the way God could enter into humanity, being both fully God and fully human.

The purpose of Mary being a virgin was to establish the Divine paternity of Jesus, not as a barrier against sin.

 

Did you admit our corruption was passed spiritually? Or did you just once again change the subject!!!

 

So having the knowledge of good and evil by eating that fruit was not passed down biologically parent child. Is this what you are claiming?

 

No, it is what scripture teaches. Eve's eyes were "opened" without any biological interaction via reproduction. Thus our corruption, according to scripture is passed spiritually. Any other view is an argument from silence.

 

It should be. This issue is extremely important at hits at the heart of the gospel. It is the difference between Christianity and Gnosticism:

• If Jesus did not have Mary's "DNA," then He was not a representative high priest for us and could not make propitiation for us as our representative before God.
• If Jesus did not have Mary's "DNA," then Jesus did not fulfill God's promise in Genesis 3:15.
• If Jesus did not have Mary's "DNA," then Jesus is not able to aid us to resist temptation.
• If Jesus did not have Mary's "DNA," then our bodies cannot be sanctified, therefore any commands avoid sin CANNOT be obeyed.
• If Jesus did not have Mary's "DNA," we cannot truly be an apprentice of Jesus, learning to do the things He did, simply because we can neither obey, nor be redeemed.
• If Jesus did not have Mary's "DNA," we cannot be truly resurrected at the end of the age. Like the classic Gnostics believed, we would immaterial spirits forever.

True.

And the writer of Hebrews, among others, tells us that Jesus was of the same “flesh and blood” of those who were enslaved to sin and death (see Hebrews 2:14-15, 17-18; 5:1-2, 7-10)

I won’t say I am a “great theological mind,” but the writer of Hebrews is quite plain. I have previously cited and analyzed what I believe is ample evidence against your view. Please review it and show me my error(s), if any.

It’s easy to find passages in the Bible that “do not go against” our views. However, that’s not the standard. If the scripture clearly addresses the issue, we are obligated to learn from it and be conformed to its teaching. The writer of Hebrews has DIRECTLY addressed this issue. Please review it.

 

So the eating is only symbolic.

 

The only difference I have seen between classic Docetism and this "celestial flesh" heresy (was historically propagated by Mennonites and some fundamentalists like Peter Ruckman), is that adherents of Docetism didn't believe Jesus was actually human, He only appeared to be.

Other than that, it's the same ancient heresy.

 

The "fruit" was not the sin, the action/attitude was the sin.

 

Was the action eating the fruit or not? What was the benefit or consequence? Genesis 3:5, Genesis 3:21, Genesis 3:22.

 

Not true. No one is saying Jesus is not human. I am saying that Jesus is human just as the first Adam was human. Neither required someone elses DNA for them to be fully human.

• 
  Not true. As the writer of Hebrews tells us, Jesus is in the line of Melchizedek.
  
  False, Jesus is still fully human without any DNA from his mom.
  
  False, Like Adam, Jesus was tempted. Unlike Adam, Jesus fully obeyed the Father.
  
  False, not having Mary's DNA does not mean Jesus isn't fully human. Your initial assumption is false, therefore you continue to make false assertions.
  
  False
  

False. Your initial assumption is false, thus your list is false.

False

Indeed, Jesus is fully human. Like Adam, he did not need someone elses DNA to be fully human.

Nor should you...

I have no disagreement with the writer of Hebrews. He does not preclude that Mary's DNA must be in Jesus for Jesus to be fully human.

The Bible never addresses Mary's DNA.

In your mind the issue is addressed as your bias demands.

 

...would have been effected by the fall, sin natures, and not qualified to be the messiah![/QUOTE]
He certainly was affected by the fall, and for that reason it made Him qualified to be our representative -- a second Adam and a Great High Priest -- because He was legitimately part of the human situation, yet without sin. Go back and read the scripture and interpretation carefully. If you disagree, interact with it, don't just make pronouncements. Tell me where I am in error.[/QUOTE]
Jesus had to be Virgin Born, or else he would have been born with a sin nature as all of us born into Adam were!

 

Jesus had the same "human dna" as Adam had when originally created, before he fell!

 

I just cannot see how Jesus could avoid the fall if not Virgin born, and also do not see Him with same human nature as we now all have!

 

What in the world are you saying? Eating the fruit did not physically corrupt Adam and Eve, it was God's curse as a consequence of Adam's volitional sin, and not Eve's, that resulted in humanity's subjugation.

 

For the record, in relation to ancient heresies (Roman Catholic source) :

"Valentinianism taught that the Holy Spirit deposited the Christ Child in her womb and that Mary was a surrogate mother, but not truly Christ’s genetic mother. Valentinian the Gnostic (d. 160) taught that the Son of God passed through Mary like water through a straw."

 

I believe it to be the same connotation as this.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:57
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:57 < That was the tree of life in the garden. Sin cut man off from the tree of life, until the Son of Man died and was raised out of the dead.


Who, were they eating of?