• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Birth and Nature of Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.

cowboymatt

New Member
I already believe what I believe! That's not the problem. :)

I can't buy into what the no-egger position for two reasons: 1) It assumes that damnable sin is passed on geneticall, which is not a biblical doctirne; and 2) If Jesus' body was implanted in Mary from elsewhere, then it means that Jesus was not human like the rest of humanity; and if Jesus wasn't human like us, then his sacrifice is void, his example is not valid, and he didn't share in our sufferings and temptations.

Since the no-egg position cannot deal with point #1 at all, then point #2 is valid. And if point #2 is valid, then Jesus has to be of the same flesh as the rest of us, thus Mary's egg had to have been used.

Again, no disrespect to the no-eggers. You guys are trying to defend Jesus' sinlessness, which is a good thing. I just think that you are defending it against something that doesn't exist, namely that damnable sin is passed down genetically.
 
Guess what? Jesus' body was not like everybody elses.

1. The Word of God declares us to have sinful flesh. That takes care of your genetics denial.
2. His was an incorruptible body. The Word of God declares that to be fact.

Now, how many other people do you know whose bodies were born incorruptible?
 
Last edited:

cowboymatt

New Member
What does sinful flesh mean? Does it mean that we are all damnable at conception? If so, then you think that aborted babies, miscarriages, mentally handicapped people, etc are going to hell? I don't believe in a God who would do such things. If you want to that's your own deal.

The Bible does not anywhere teach that damnable sin is passed down by genetics. Death is passed down? Sure. The propensity to sin? Sure. But damnable sin? Nope, no where. That is an unbiblical doctirne.

And as far as your #2 is concerned: where does the Bible say this? And even so, how did Jesus die then?

What I am trying to do here is to get people to not read their prosuppositions onto the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that damnable sin is passed down genetically. It doesn't say that Jesus's body was implanted in Mary's womb.

The simplest solution that agrees with the biblical witness is usually correct. Well, since the no-egg theory rest on an unbiblical doctirne (that damnable sin is passed down genetically) then their theory is not right.
 

cowboymatt

New Member
Prove me wrong then. Show where in the Bible that damnable sin is passed down genetically and I will gladly change my beliefs. However, since I am a sola scriptura, Reformation kind of guy, I won't believe it until I am shown that it is biblical.
 

cowboymatt

New Member
So I don't have the Holy Spirit or I'm not listening to him because I read the context of the verses that you post, the context that denies what you are trying to say your proof texts are saying?

That's wrong of you to say. Who are you to judge the role of the Holy Spirit in my life? Like I have said to you before, trying to denigrate my character is only a sign that you have no way of winning this argument with me. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than you or anything like that. But I am saying that the Bible does not say that damnable sin is genetically passed down. Shame on you for making this personal.
 

Linda64

New Member
Sin originated in heaven with Satan's pride

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Ezekiel 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience
(Genesis 3:1-24)

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Man's sinful nature is described as:

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Why do people sin? Do we have to learn how to sin? Have you ever seen parents teach their children how to sin? If, like you keep insisting, that sin is not passed down genetically, why does God say all have sinned? Please don't say that not everybody sins and some are more wicked than others...because God is not a respector of persons.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Why did Jesus Christ die on the cross and shed His sinless, precious, incorruptible blood for sinners?

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
 

cowboymatt

New Member
Thanks Linda! I appreciate your time in compiling that list.

However, the only one of those that really supports the idea of damnable sin being passed down genetically (at least clearly) is Psalm 58.3. I want to spend some time thinking about that verse and its context...

Thanks again.

Oh, and to answer your question: I believe people sin because we have free will, simple as that. I've never claimed that anyone who knows right from wrong is sinless. Actually, I would argue just the opposite. As soon as someone knows right from wrong they begin sinning. Just imagine all the sins of ommission that we committ everyday! Thus, I can stand on Rom 3.23 with integrity!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
standingfirminChrist said:
Guess what? Jesus' body was not like everybody elses.

1. The Word of God declares us to have sinful flesh. That takes care of your genetics denial.
2. His was an incorruptible body. The Word of God declares that to be fact.

Now, how many other people do you know whose bodies were born incorruptible?
Not Jesus. To say that He had an incorruptible body is absolutely wrong and unscriptural. If he had an incorruptible body he would not have needed to:
thirst, to be tired, to hunger, to rest, etc.

If He had an incorruptible body then it would not have seen any corruption while being crucified. But it did. Great chunks of flesh were torn out of his body while he was being scourged. Blood ran down his back and face. His body was torn, and full of pain. He was too weak to carry his own cross. Simon of Cyrene had to carry it for him. His body had already been weakened (corrupted). Possible infection (corruption) may have set in some of his sores. His body was full of corruption.

What you have posted is entirely not true.
If his body was not a corruptible body then Christ did not have a human nature like unto us. He wouldn't have been able to share with us in our sufferings. Scriptures such as these would not be true:

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." That would be impossible with an incorruptible body.
 
Scripture declares Christ to be the incorruptible seed. Had His body any corruption on it or in it whatsoever, His sacrifice was not accepted and we therefore are all believing on Him in vain.

Scripture declares He would not see corruption. Why are you putting Him in a corruptible body?
 

cowboymatt

New Member
standingfirminChrist said:
Scripture declares Christ to be the incorruptible seed. Had His body any corruption on it or in it whatsoever, His sacrifice was not accepted and we therefore are all believing on Him in vain.

Scripture declares He would not see corruption. Why are you putting Him in a corruptible body?
Where does Scripture say that he had an incorruptible body? Seed is different from body is it not? And since when was being corruptible damnable?
 

Brother Bob

New Member
2Ti 2:8Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
First of all, Jesus was the seed of David and not because he was in the household of Joseph and Mary but because Mary's seed from David passed to Jesus by Chromosomes. Now if they were sinful Chromosomes as you say, then God is able to cause Mary to generate unsinful Chromosomes, if that be necessary. Mary was inpregnated by the Holy Ghost and it was her egg. She brought forth a man child, which was both hundred percent man and hundred percent God. All this was against nature and is beyond the understanding of man, therefore we might not be able to put it in the exact words that God would put it, but it happened anyway.
He was not the seed of Joseph in anyway, and the scripture is plain on that and the angel told Joseph what had happened and for him to fear not to take Mary as his wife, for the child was of the Holy Ghost. Joseph until this time was thinking of putting her away privily, which I believe to kill her.

Mary brought forth this Son, who was also God to pay the price for sin, so therefore He was without sin, so he would be a perfect sacrifice.

If the egg also was implanted, then Jesus would not of been the seed of David in no way. The only way you can be the seed of someone is to have the seed pass unto you. There were some remarks that all the blood came from the father which is not true. There was no blood came from the mother or father, but formed in the embyro from half of the Chromosomes from the mother and half from the father or the Holy Ghost in this case. Jesus was born without sin, lived without sin and died without sin. He also raised from the dead without sin. He bare the sin of the whole world to the cross, but He Himself had no sin.

Now, that is what I believe that the seed of David came from Mary to Jesus and she was chosen because she was a virgin and not defiled in any way.

I suspect Jesus is sitting over in Heaven with a smile on His face, watching us trying to have the mind of God and be His counselor, when we can do nothing without the Lord.

God has all power and as I said before, He could of raised Jesus up out of the sea and not used man what so ever, but He loved us enough to make a body of flesh, using the virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost that was without sin to suffer in our stead.

Some are trying to make him all God, of which He would not of been able to die. He was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, using the virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.

The debate has been interesting I must say and all of you brethren have come up with some discussions that I would probably never tried with my puny mind to figure out. All you have given in defense of it not being Mary's egg, has not changed my mind whatsoever, for He is the seed of David through Mary.

Peace,

BBob,
 

Linda64

New Member
cowboymatt said:
Oh, and to answer your question: I believe people sin because we have free will, simple as that. I've never claimed that anyone who knows right from wrong is sinless. Actually, I would argue just the opposite. As soon as someone knows right from wrong they begin sinning. Just imagine all the sins of ommission that we committ everyday! Thus, I can stand on Rom 3.23 with integrity!
All you are doing here is redefining sin. People do not sin because they have free will, people sin because of their sin nature.

Paul said in Romans 7:19-20:

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Does that sound like free will to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To subscribe to the 'no-egger' (I like that!) position, one has to make Jesus a 'cuckoo in the nest' of Mary's womb, an H R Giger-style alien implant; slice it or dice it whichever way you want, that makes Him not human as we are. He thus only appears to be human, which is docetism and that, my friends, is a heresy - read I John 1:1-5
 
Wrong! Matt Black.

Docetism has Jesus in no body at all and denies the crucifixion.

Try again.

Just because you don't understand how God can place in Mary's womb the body He prepared for His Son (as the Word says it happened), does not make it fiction.
 

cowboymatt

New Member
Linda,

Here are my thought about Psalm 58.3:

First, here's the verse: "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."

Here's the larger context, Psalm 58.1-5: "1 Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge uprightly among men? 2 No, in your heart you devise injustice, and your hands mete out violence on the earth. 3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. 4 Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears, 5 hat will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be."

The first question I have to ask myself is this: Who are the wicked who are in view in verse 3. The answer is found in verse 1 -- the "rulers." But who are these people? The Hebrew word here is elem, which means "muteness" or "silence," not "rulers." So how does the NIV get "rulers," the KJV "congregation," the HCSB "mighty ones," and the NASB and ESV "gods"? Well, most scholars and translators, including conservative ones (see the KJV, HCSB, and NASB for proof) don't believe that the Masoretes who put the vowels into the Hebrew text got it right. Most believe that it should read elim, which means "gods." This word can sometimes also refer to humans and when it does it means "rulers" or something close to that. It seems to me that there may be a double entendre here; it may be that these "gods" are "mute" because they do not serve the cause of justice (see verse 2). So if these are supernatural beings or if a double entendre is in play, then 58.3 does not support the theory that damnable sin is passed down through genetics.

But "gods" here could refer to human rulers. If this is the case, then is there support in verse 3 for genetically transmitted damnable sin? From birth they go astray and from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. This seems to support the case for genetics having something to do with damnable sin. However, it seems evident to me that this is a clear case of an exaggeration. How do I come to this conclusion? Well it is clear that the psalmist is trying hard to discredit these bad rulers or judges. So to do so he says that they've been bad from the beginning. However, Psalm 22.9 indicates that the psalmist believes that he trusted (the verb is a hiphil and means "to direct one's trust" a very conscious action) God from the time he was very small and Psalm 71.6 says that the psalmist relied (this niphal verb means "to lean against" or "support oneself on," again, a very conscious action) on God from birth. Is this possible? Is it possible for someone to make the conscious decisions to trust and rely on God from birth, before one is even able to talk or know right from wrong? The question is rigged; of course the answer is "no." Clearly then the psalmist is using his poetic license in Psalms 22 and 71 to say that God has been good to him and he has returned the favor for as long as he can remember. If this is true for these two Psalms, then it must be true of Psalm 58.3 as well. The psalmist is trying to paint a very negative picture of these "rulers" and "judges" and to do so he used a bit of exaggeration. His point is that they are very, very bad guys.

So it is possible that Psalm 58.3 could support the theory of damnable sin being passed on to children through genetics, but two things must be dealt with first: 1) elim must not be in reference to "gods" but instead to "rulers" or something like that; and 2) One must also accept that in accordance with Psalms 22 and 71 that someone could trust in and rely on God from birth.

Number 1 could go either way and number 2 simply does not mesh with the rest of the Bible's witness ("if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" [Rom 10.9]...how can a child who can't yet speak confess with his mouth?), therefore, I can't in good faith say that Psalm 58.3 supports the notion that damnable sin is passed down by birth.

But you may disagree with my opinions on numbers 1 and 2, and that's fine by me. However, building an entire doctrine on one obscure verse from the Bible is dangerous, especially when so much of the rest of the Bible seems to state that damnable sin is something that is consciously committed by a person. Also, building doctrine out of poetry is dangerous as well, since a poet like the psalmist was not looking to convey things just exactly as they were but was instead trying to evoke emotion and get a point across. So even if Psalm 58.3 does say that some people were sinful from birth, considering that it is one verse in the Bible, and it is in a poem at that, makes me quite wary to build doctrine based only on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top