How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[DHK]

It is absolutely relevant. You and others continually seem to argue that the fact all men sin PROVES they are born with a sin nature. That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The scriptures themselves prove people without a sin nature can sin.

You argue against yourself, neither do you read my post carefully.
First, having a sin nature is not a requirement for sin as you insist.
This false accusatory statement you have stated over and over again, but no one said it was. Your statement is simply a red herring because no one is saying it is a requirement for sin, but you.
1. We are born with a sin nature.
2. We sin because we desire to sin.
Both statements are true. Adam and Satan sinned because they desired to sin--out of rebellion. No one forced them to sin. Thus your argument is entirely bogus.

You do not know that the lion did not kill before the fall. The scripture deals with men, not animals. Romans 5 is not speaking of animals. In fact, it is not even speaking of angels, because Satan and the angels sinned BEFORE Adam. Satan was the first sinner in the world, not Adam. So Romans 5 is speaking of men only.

"The whole creation groans and travails until now." Even the creation itself waits until Christ comes and restores the earth back to its original state. That is when He will lift the curse. The Bible tells us what will happen then. The lion will feed on grass; the lamb and the lion will cohabit together, etc. Thus was it in the beginning before the curse was instituted. Read Romans 8.

I am not saying the lion killed before the fall, I don't know. But the lion certainly seems designed to kill. Did the Great White Shark eat plants before the fall?

We can't imagine what these animals looked like. Mosquitoes were not harmful to man, and thorns and thistles either did not exist or were not harmful to the earth. Everything in nature lived in perfect harmony with each other.

That is the question. And the fact that sin dwells in flesh does not mean men were born that way.

Yes, that is evidence that it is that way.

If you are saved the Holy Spirit dwells in you, but you were not born that way. Did the spirit of Satan dwell in Adam and Eve before they sinned? Why couldn't it be the very same for us, that the moment we decide to sin is when we become children of the devil?

To compare us to Adam and Eve is a wrong comparison since they are created beings. It is Christ that is compared to Adam, not us. For Christ is the second Adam. Even in Romans 5:19 Christ is compared to Adam. Your comparisons are wrong. We are born into the wrong family, born into the family of Satan, born with a wrong nature, and therefore need to be born again. God needs to restore in us part of the nature, the image of God that was lost, back in us. Three times he says: "You must be born again."

In fact, I think this is exactly what the scriptures show. The prodigal son belonged to his father at first. It was only when he willingly and knowingly went out in sin that he was "joined to a citizen of that country" which I believe is a figure of Satan.

The prodigal son was just that--prodigal. He was a son. He was never "lost." He was a son that had gone astray from his Father. One cannot lose their salvation. He had lost his fellowship with his father. He had gone astray. There is no spiritual salvation that is lost here.

Luk 15:11

And he said, A certain man had two sons:

The prodigal son was not lost here, he was not dead in sin, and he was not separated from his father.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

This is when I believe the prodigal son became a child of the devil, when he willingly and knowingly joined himself to Satan. I believe this is the very reason Jesus told us these facts in this parable.

He had a father. The unsaved don't have a father. The unsaved have as their father, the devil. This son's father was always the same father, who represented God. He represented someone who had gone astray from his father.

Baloney. There is not one word of scripture to support this theory, which wasn't even known until the 17th century.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...nevitably-leading-to-heresy-if-not-worse.html

You never read your own article did you?

• “Harwood’s understanding is flawed and …dangerous to the church”
• “Harwood’s position against imputed guilt is indeed flawed and flies in the face of the plain reading of scripture… . This denial of imputed guilt allows the onus to be, once again, on man. Man decides when he is guilty. God cannot impute guilt without man’s decision. Not in the non-Calvinist, at least the new non-Calvinist world” (//link)
• “Harwood’s, and those who agree with him, need to be very careful. One simply has to look at the Unitarian movement… and the WOF movement… Both…reject the doctrine of original sin… . When one no longer believes that we are guilty as a result of inherited guilt from Adam, it opens the door to true heresies such as universalism” (//link)
• “Denying that Adam’s sin brought guilt to all persons who ever lived…is virtually ‘another gospel’… we must never-the-less state clearly what this denial is – - heresy if not worse” (//link)
• “That is an unorthodox view, not to mention self-contradictory”

• This is a damnable indictment against him and his philosophical spewing against the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin and the depravity of man. He is obviously wrong, and outside the orthodox position of Christianity.

Adam was the legal precedent for those who sinned as he did. They were also judged or "made" sinners and the sentence of death passed on them as it did Adam. Likewise, those who believe on Jesus as Jesus believed his Father are imputed or "made" righteous and are given life.

By the disobedience of Adam we are all made sinners. We inherit a sin nature. By the obedience of Christ we are made righteous. Righteousness is imputed by belief in Christ. Here is the obvious teaching of Romans 5:19.

I am not questioning God and you know it. This is total dishonesty on your part.

You questioned God all throughout that post.
Why would God do this and why would God do that? It would make better sense if God would do this... etc.
Who are you to question God, and tell him what to do? Who put you in that position? I am asking you seriously. Go back and read your post. Why do you question the actions of God. It was God that allowed Adam to sin, and God that brought a curse upon mankind. It is called The Fall. It is described in great detail in Genesis chapter 3. You seem to question its outcome.

I have faith in God, and that is why I know God did not curse men to become sinners.

Yet, that is what the Bible teaches.
If not, then why would Paul say:
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 was made a curse for us. Why? Because the entire race of mankind fell under the curse as sinners.

It may have been Adam's sin, but it was God who determined the punishment for that sin. There is not one word in the curse that supports that God caused Adam to have a sin nature, and that this sin nature was passed down to all his descendants. That is a total invention of man.

That is not what it says in Romans 5:19. By Adam's sin we are all made sinners (from birth--obviously).

Show me in the curse where God said man would have a sin nature, and that all his descendants would be born with a sin nature, you can't do it.

Gal.3:13

 

[Zaac]

29 pages. it's time to lock this one down.:wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[Winman]

I agree that the Lord could have chosen at any time to sin. He was the second Adam and Adam was able to sin. The difference is that Jesus did not. I think that the reason some do not want it possible for Him to be able to sin is because they do not want to admitt that they are totally responsible for their sin.
If it was impossible for Jesus to sin then we cannot relate to His temptations nor He to ours. His were all a fluke. Only when it is possible to sin is a temptation real. All sin is a choice. No one has to sin, ever. Adam could sin and so could have Jesus. The great news is He did not.
Once we understand that and stop holding to the claim "no one is perfect, or no one can keep the commandments, or we are all human, or what ever else we might hold to so as to deny our sinfulness, only then we can be about really confessing the sinfulness of our sin.

I agree with everything you have said here Judith. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Once we understand that and stop holding to the claim "no one is perfect, or no one can keep the commandments, or we are all human, or what ever else we might hold to so as to deny our sinfulness, only then we can be about really confessing the sinfulness of our sin.

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.
--The point of this verse is that it is impossible to keep all the law.
If a person offends in one point or breaks the law one time in his entire life then he is cursed. Not only do every one of us break God's law one time in our life time, but no doubt many times each and every day.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--A simple definition: sin is breaking the law; God's law or the law that God has put in place.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
--To break one law is to be just as guilty as to break them all.
If you have lied even one time, you are just as guilty as one who has murdered. Why? Because sin is a transgression of God's law. You have offended a holy and mighty God. No sinner can stand before a Holy God.

We sin because it is our nature to sin.
We sin because we choose to sin.
Both statements are true.

In the OT, sacrifices were given for sins of ignorance.
Sometimes we sin when we are not aware of it.
Sometimes the police have a different interpretation of the law than you do.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
--It is not possible to go through this life without sin. The Bible makes that abundantly clear.

We are sinners; sinners from birth. We cannot deny it. We cannot excuse it. We cannot even excuse the fact that an infant is a sinner. He is by nature.

 

[plain_n_simple]

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.
--The point of this verse is that it is impossible to keep all the law.
If a person offends in one point or breaks the law one time in his entire life then he is cursed. Not only do every one of us break God's law one time in our life time, but no doubt many times each and every day.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--A simple definition: sin is breaking the law; God's law or the law that God has put in place.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
--To break one law is to be just as guilty as to break them all.
If you have lied even one time, you are just as guilty as one who has murdered. Why? Because sin is a transgression of God's law. You have offended a holy and mighty God. No sinner can stand before a Holy God.

We sin because it is our nature to sin.
We sin because we choose to sin.
Both statements are true.

In the OT, sacrifices were given for sins of ignorance.
Sometimes we sin when we are not aware of it.
Sometimes the police have a different interpretation of the law than you do.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
--It is not possible to go through this life without sin. The Bible makes that abundantly clear.

We are sinners; sinners from birth. We cannot deny it. We cannot excuse it. We cannot even excuse the fact that an infant is a sinner. He is by nature.

Spot on ol boy! :applause::applause:

2 Cor:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

 

[Winman]

You argue against yourself, neither do you read my post carefully.
First, having a sin nature is not a requirement for sin as you insist.
This false accusatory statement you have stated over and over again, but no one said it was. Your statement is simply a red herring because no one is saying it is a requirement for sin, but you.
1. We are born with a sin nature.
2. We sin because we desire to sin.
Both statements are true. Adam and Satan sinned because they desired to sin--out of rebellion. No one forced them to sin. Thus your argument is entirely bogus.

You say we are born with a sin nature. Then you say we sin because we desire to sin, implying that we desire to sin because we have a sin nature. This argument might be true, but it might be FALSE. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature, and both desired to sin, and in fact DID sin.

Your argument proves nothing, and all I am doing is pointing that out.

"The whole creation groans and travails until now." Even the creation itself waits until Christ comes and restores the earth back to its original state. That is when He will lift the curse. The Bible tells us what will happen then. The lion will feed on grass; the lamb and the lion will cohabit together, etc. Thus was it in the beginning before the curse was instituted. Read Romans 8.

We can't imagine what these animals looked like. Mosquitoes were not harmful to man, and thorns and thistles either did not exist or were not harmful to the earth. Everything in nature lived in perfect harmony with each other.

You MIGHT be right, but you might be wrong. Even in the New Jerusalem the leaves of the tree of life are for the "healing" of the nations, which suggests injury or disease might still occur, only the tree of life will heal them. So, bacteria might continue to exist, perhaps mosquitoes will continue to bite men and spread disease.

Yes, that is evidence that it is that way.

You have absolutely no evidence we are born that way, and I notice you did not provide any. You must think people are stupid. If you believe this is so evident, then show your evidence.

To compare us to Adam and Eve is a wrong comparison since they are created beings. It is Christ that is compared to Adam, not us. For Christ is the second Adam. Even in Romans 5:19 Christ is compared to Adam. Your comparisons are wrong. We are born into the wrong family, born into the family of Satan, born with a wrong nature, and therefore need to be born again. God needs to restore in us part of the nature, the image of God that was lost, back in us. Three times he says: "You must be born again."

Yes, and Jesus said the prodigal as ALIVE AGAIN, but you completely ignore this. If we are born dead in sin as you believe, then it would be impossible for any man to be alive again.

So, you are very selective about which statements of Jesus you want to hear.

The prodigal son was just that--prodigal. He was a son. He was never "lost." He was a son that had gone astray from his Father. One cannot lose their salvation. He had lost his fellowship with his father. He had gone astray. There is no spiritual salvation that is lost here.

He had a father. The unsaved don't have a father. The unsaved have as their father, the devil. This son's father was always the same father, who represented God. He represented someone who had gone astray from his father.

You deny the direct words of scripture. The father said the prodigal was both dead and lost, but is now alive again and found.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Baloney. There is not one word of scripture to support this theory, which wasn't even known until the 17th century.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...nevitably-leading-to-heresy-if-not-worse.html

You never read your own article did you?

[*]This is a damnable indictment against him and his philosophical spewing against the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin and the depravity of man. He is obviously wrong, and outside the orthodox position of Christianity.

That is your opinion. I think Dr, MacGorman was perfectly correct according to the scriptures.

It is you that did not read carefully, Peter Lumpkins supports Dr. MacGorman's views and other Baptists who reject Original Sin.

Too often we’re told the theories of the Reformed position come strictly from biblical exegesis rather than traditionally Reformed assumptions. Scholars like Dr. MacGorman help us see through this thin veneer and stay close to exegetical theology rather than theological exegesis. Contrary to popular opinion, we're people of the book, not people of confessions.

And, as MacGorman demonstrates, Adam Harwood’s position, similar if not identical to his scholarly conclusions during a 50+ year academic career, builds on a firm allegiance to Scripture alone.

It is you that did not read carefully and completely missed the author's point.

By the disobedience of Adam we are all made sinners. We inherit a sin nature. By the obedience of Christ we are made righteous. Righteousness is imputed by belief in Christ. Here is the obvious teaching of Romans 5:19.

You questioned God all throughout that post.
Why would God do this and why would God do that? It would make better sense if God would do this... etc.
Who are you to question God, and tell him what to do? Who put you in that position? I am asking you seriously. Go back and read your post. Why do you question the actions of God. It was God that allowed Adam to sin, and God that brought a curse upon mankind. It is called The Fall. It is described in great detail in Genesis chapter 3. You seem to question its outcome.

Yet, that is what the Bible teaches.
If not, then why would Paul say:
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 was made a curse for us. Why? Because the entire race of mankind fell under the curse as sinners.

That is not what it says in Romans 5:19. By Adam's sin we are all made sinners (from birth--obviously).

Gal.3:13

We often say one man "makes" another man a certain way. For instance, it is commonly said that the writings of Karl Marx has "made" many men Communists or Socialists. Or the writings of Charles Darwin has "made" many men evolutionists. That doesn't mean that reading Charles Darwin causes an actual physical transformation to take place in your brain.

Romans 5 is simply saying because of Adam all men have been made sinners. Adam was the legal precedent. A legal precedent is often the first person to commit a certain type of crime. Afterward, those who commit a similar crime are treated exactly the same way. This ensures fairness of treatment and consistency. And this is exactly what Romans 5 is teaching. For all men who sin as Adam did, they are judged or made "sinners". This is a legal term just like the term "felon". Not all crimes are felonies. But any man who willingly and knowingly sins as Adam did is judged a "sinner" and is sentenced to exactly the same punishment, which is death.

Likewise, Jesus was the legal precedent for those who believe in God as he did. Those who believe by faith are judged or made "righteous" and are given eternal life.

That is what Romans 5 is saying. It is not saying that because of Adam's sin every man was physically transformed into a sinner. In fact, Romans 5 is not speaking of physical death at all, but spiritual. All the terms are legal such as judgment, condemnation, justification, etc...

Now, if you want to read about physical death, then go to 1st Corinthians chapter 15. This chapter is about physical death. Here you will read about various bodies, different kinds of flesh, being "raised up" etc...

Folks just don't have a clue.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Adam and Eve did not desire to sin, they had no idea what sin was. They were deceived, they believed the lie because they took there eyes off God. Then and only then was a sin nature put on them, and for all there children.

 

[Winman]

Adam and Eve did not desire to sin, they had no idea what sin was. They were deceived, they believed the lie because they took there eyes off God. Then and only then was a sin nature put on them, and for all there children.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong and easily refuted by scripture;

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These are the three worldly lusts described in 1 John 2:16 in order.

Eve saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. This fruit aroused her appetite.

Eve saw the tree was pleasant to look upon, this is the lust of the eyes. Eve enjoyed looking at this fruit, this also aroused her appetite. Food commercials depend on this, how many times has a pizza commercial made you hungry?

Eve saw the tree was "desired" to make one wise, this is the pride of life. The idea that she would be like God knowing good and evil aroused Eve's curiosity and her natural desire to be better than others. Everyone likes to believe they are intelligent, and Eve saw this fruit as a short cut to knowledge.

So, Eve absolutely wanted or desired to sin. Not that she actually wanted to do wrong, but she definitely wanted to eat this forbidden fruit.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Adam and Eve did not desire to sin, they had no idea what sin was. They were deceived, they believed the lie because they took there eyes off God. Then and only then was a sin nature put on them, and for all there children.

That is so with Eve....not Adam

1Ti 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam sinned willfully, after his flesh. Hence, he is the representative of all mankinds willful sins, and not Eve.

However, their was no "sin nature" implanted in their descendants...you don't need a "sin nature" to sin. You need to be an imperfect human being. It is when we are ACCUSTOMED TO SIN that it becomes second nature to us, see what the Scriptures say:

Jer 13:23
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

This verse, usually used to teach Original Sin blatantly and directly contradicts the notion in obvious terms. People just assume it's so by tradition. What it tells us, is that DOING EVIL (not being born a particular way) is akin to one's skin color or spots on a leopard, it becomes one's nature.

 

[Winman]

That is so with Eve....not Adam

1Ti 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam sinned willfully, after his flesh. Hence, he is the representative of all mankinds willful sins, and not Eve.

However, their was no "sin nature" implanted in their descendants...you don't need a "sin nature" to sin. You need to be an imperfect human being. It is when we are ACCUSTOMED TO SIN that it becomes second nature to us, see what the Scriptures say:

Jer 13:23
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

This verse, usually used to teach Original Sin blatantly and directly contradicts the notion in obvious terms. People just assume it's so by tradition. What it tells us, is that DOING EVIL (not being born a particular way) is akin to one's skin color or spots on a leopard, it becomes one's nature.

Yes, it is like certain athletes or musicians, folks will say "he is a natural born hitter" or "he is a natural musician".

And it is true that some folks are naturally more talented at playing particular sports or musical instruments. But more often than not you will find that the person who practiced the longest and hardest was the best athlete or musician.

I once saw a reporter interview Chet Atkins. The reporter remarked, "You are so talented!"

Chet answered, "I am not talented, you would be just as good as me if you had practiced twenty thousand hours like I have".

Twenty thousand hours is like working 40 hours a week for ten years. That is a lot of practice.

 

[DHK]

You say we are born with a sin nature. Then you say we sin because we desire to sin, implying that we desire to sin because we have a sin nature. This argument might be true, but it might be FALSE. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature, and both desired to sin, and in fact DID sin.

Your argument proves nothing, and all I am doing is pointing that out.

You are not pointing out anything that we don't already know. The "requirements" for sinning are irrelevant.
1. We sin because we desire to sin. True.
2. We sin because we have a sin nature. Also true.
--Our focus is on #2.

You MIGHT be right, but you might be wrong. Even in the New Jerusalem the leaves of the tree of life are for the "healing" of the nations, which suggests injury or disease might still occur, only the tree of life will heal them. So, bacteria might continue to exist, perhaps mosquitoes will continue to bite men and spread disease.

That is ridiculous and shows an ignorance of Scripture.
Suppose, just suppose, that the Tree of Life was Christ.
By your logic, Christ would give healing to the nations, and therefore Satan and sin would have to be present because the enemies of Christ would have to be present (the enemies of the Tree) as you suggested. It is a nonsense argument. There is nothing in heaven (or the New Jerusalem) that defiles.
The New Jerusalem is different than the Kingdom which is on earth for a thousand years.

You have absolutely no evidence we are born that way, and I notice you did not provide any. You must think people are stupid. If you believe this is so evident, then show your evidence.

Psalm 51:5; Jer.13:23; Eph.2:1-3; John 3:3-5; Jer.17:9,10; Isa.64:6, etc.

Yes, and Jesus said the prodigal as ALIVE AGAIN, but you completely ignore this. If we are born dead in sin as you believe, then it would be impossible for any man to be alive again.

Definitions are a problem for you.
If he was separated from his father (dead), then when he was come to his father (restored in fellowship), he was alive again, as he was before he went astray.

You deny the direct words of scripture. The father said the prodigal was both dead and lost, but is now alive again and found.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

He was restored to fellowship with his father. He was a prodigal son.

That is your opinion. I think Dr, MacGorman was perfectly correct according to the scriptures.

It is you that did not read carefully, Peter Lumpkins supports Dr. MacGorman's views and other Baptists who reject Original Sin.

It wasn't my opinion. It was quoted straight from the article. The article itself said that he took a position outside of orthodox Christianity. How could you miss that?

We often say one man "makes" another man a certain way. For instance, it is commonly said that the writings of Karl Marx has "made" many men Communists or Socialists. Or the writings of Charles Darwin has "made" many men evolutionists. That doesn't mean that reading Charles Darwin causes an actual physical transformation to take place in your brain.

Romans 5 is simply saying because of Adam all men have been made sinners. Adam was the legal precedent. A legal precedent is often the first person to commit a certain type of crime. Afterward, those who commit a similar crime are treated exactly the same way. This ensures fairness of treatment and consistency. And this is exactly what Romans 5 is teaching. For all men who sin as Adam did, they are judged or made "sinners". This is a legal term just like the term "felon". Not all crimes are felonies. But any man who willingly and knowingly sins as Adam did is judged a "sinner" and is sentenced to exactly the same punishment, which is death.

Likewise, Jesus was the legal precedent for those who believe in God as he did. Those who believe by faith are judged or made "righteous" and are given eternal life.

That is what Romans 5 is saying. It is not saying that because of Adam's sin every man was physically transformed into a sinner. In fact, Romans 5 is not speaking of physical death at all, but spiritual. All the terms are legal such as judgment, condemnation, justification, etc...

Folks just don't have a clue.

You are the one that doesn't have a clue.
First look in another translation:

(WNT) For as through the disobedience of the one individual the mass of mankind were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the mass of mankind will be constituted righteous. (Weymouth)

(LITV) For as through the one man's disobedience the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many shall be constituted righteous. (Literal)

The word is "constituted." That is what it means.
Note what Wesley says:

Romans 5:19
As by the disobedience of one man many (that is, all men) were constituted sinners - Being then in the loins of their first parent, the common head and representative of them all. So by the obedience of one - By his obedience unto death; by his dying for us. Many - All that believe. Shall be constituted righteous - Justified, pardoned.

Now Wesley was no Calvinist, but even he disagrees with you.
He doesn't use the word "Federal head," but describes it as such. We are in the loins of Adam, the representative head of the human race. We inherit a sin nature from him. Even Wesley believes this.

Your "legal precedent" philosophy is all an imaginary philosophy and that is all. It makes no sense.

 

[DHK]

And finally we reach 30 pages.