The Virgin Mary and Original Sin

[gekko]

First do you have Scriptural evidence that the sin nature is not passed through the man?

Secondly are you saying Jesus has no human genetics whatsoever and just used Mary as a birthing channel without any of her genetics attached to Him?

J.Jump: do you have scriptural evidence that the sin nature IS passed through the man?

secondly: Jesus does have human genetics. but mary's chromosomes didn't pass onto Jesus. if they did - Jesus would be a female.

HP: Are other babies sinful? If so, how is sin transmitted?

that's the thing. sin isn't transmitted to us. we are "transmitted" into sin. born into a sin nature. and yes - babies have a sin nature - they are selfish - but they dont know it yet.
----


look at it this way... Jesus didn't need ANY of mary's chromosomes - nor did joseph have to give up sperm for Jesus to formulate. Jesus has none of may's chormosomes/genes.

God made the universe. the earth. seas. animals. and humans.

why would it be so difficult for us to understand that God put a seed into mary - and Jesus came out?

period.

 

[BobRyan]

all are born with a "sinful" nature. So when you ask "are babies sinful" do you think they have a "sinful" nature?

Born with sinful nature -- then they need a savior!

Did Christ "need a Savior"?

Did Mary?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gekko: why would it be so difficult for us to understand that God put a seed into mary - and Jesus came out? period.

HP: You raise some great solutions. God is the Creator of the Universe. He had no problem crating DNA in the beginning. Why would it be any difficult task to create DNA consistent with Joseph? He would not have to take it out of Joseph unless He so chose. He just had to speak and it would be done.

This is so sad to me, that man has devised, by the influence of men like Augustine, a dogma so far reaching that those claiming to believe in a Sovereign God could not create DNA just as the genealogies of Scripture state is the case, and implant in by the Holy Spirit within the womb of Mary, conceiving a real 100% human, and then inhabit that body of flesh with Himself, just as Scripture says He did. JJ and others are always talking about ‘making things simple.’ Why do men insist upon making things so difficult, by forcing Scripture through the sieve of their presuppositions contrary to reason and Scripture with such notions, devised via the heathen philosophical notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not the will, such as original sin? Why are men so afraid to just read Scripture as it is and believe it and let God be God and do things in a manner consistent with His Word?

I think I might know why. It is called allegiance to orthodoxy regardless of how it violates any truths of reason, morality, Scripture or experience.

Orthodoxy!!

Jesus was a man. He was made like to us with like passions and propensities. He took upon Himself ‘the seed of Abraham’ a man like unto Himself, and was tempted in ALL points like as we are, yet without sin. He was Emmanuel, God manifest in human flesh. He was God, yet he was completely man, born of the Virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit, a direct descendant of the throne of David as the genealogies in both Matt. And Luke plainly declares. See how simple the truth is when one is free from the bondage of false claims, regardless of how ‘orthodox’ they have became? When Christ sets us free, we should be free indeed, including freedom from the false notions of ‘orthodoxy!’

 

[xdisciplex]

But didn't Jesus need genes from a real human to become human?
If Jesus had no genes from Mary then how could he die for the human race?

Ron Wyatt who claims to have found the ark of the covenant with Jesus' blood on it said that he had the blood tested and that Jesus had 24 chromosomes! 23 from Mary and 1 from God to make the child male.
Sounds a bit strange to me.

 

[J. Jump]

J.Jump: do you have scriptural evidence that the sin nature IS passed through the man?

The short answer is yes, but HP started the thread and insists that the sin nature is not passed through the man, but provides no Scripture evidence to that and then you make the same statement with no Scripture to back it up.

If you are going to make such a bold statement then you need to provide the Scriptural evidence, otherwise it is just merely your opinion.

So HP and/or Gekko where is the Scriptural evidence that the sin nature is not given through the seed of the man?

As far as Jesus not be genetically linked to Mary or He would have been female is absurd. Mary wasn't just a vessel, because if she was then you make God to be a liar, because Jesus was promised to have the genetics of David and that can only happen if He is genetically tied to Mary.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: So HP and/or Gekko where is the Scriptural evidence that the sin nature is not given through the seed of the man?

HP: The burden of proof lies upon you or those that believe like you, to prove your assumption due to the fact it is you, not I, that has claimed man has sinful nature. I am under no obligation to try and prove something from silence. What you are asking of me is to commit logical error. I try to avoid, not embark upon, logical error.

 

[J. Jump]

The burden of proof lies upon you or those that believe like you, to prove your assumption due to the fact it is you, not I, that has claimed man has sinful nature. I am under no obligation to try and prove something from silence. What you are asking of me is to commit logical error. I try to avoid, not embark upon, logical error.

So basically what you are saying is that you have no proof and that we are just to accept your answer as truth because you are smarter than us. Sorry that won't do. If you want to make a claim then you need to provide Scripture evidence.

The burden of proof is not on me, becuase I'm not the one that made the original claim. If I started a thread that said sin nature was passed down through the man (which it is) then I would need to provide Scripture evidence for it. But this is your thread not mine.

Please provide your Scriptural evidence or just state that your beliefs are your opinion and you have no way of showing evidence to it being the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Please provide your Scriptural evidence or just state that your beliefs are your opinion and you have no way of showing evidence to it being the truth.

HP: I have repeated told you why, from a moral perspective, why original sin must of necessity be a false concept. I have told you where such a concept came from, from the heathen notion of Augustine that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. A mere precursor study of the nature of morality will establish clearly the principles of sin and responsibility for sin, and will prove out this truth to any open mind. I have tried to do this from many angles. I hear nothing but silence when I speak directly to the nature of moral agency, and it correlation to punishments and rewards.

Scripture simply does not make any such claim as to man being born with a sinful nature. When Scripture is silent, I must be silent as well. I have tried, as previously stated, to show that sin is a willful transgression of a known commandment of God as presented in Scripture, and to think otherwise is to make any idea of morality, blameworthyness or praiseworthyness, absurd. If man is to be blamed for sin, and punished eternally for the violation of God’s law, he cannot not be coerced or forced by any influence. Sin is a voluntary selfish act of disobedience, not some necessitated action due to some inherited nature. Scripture represents sin as blameworthy. If sin is blameworthy and yet unavoidable due to original sin, you might as well punish one in an eternal hell for the color of their eyes or skin, as to punish man for such a concept such as the necessitated nature original sin mandates.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aide of common sense and reason.

 

[J. Jump]

I have tried to do this from many angles.

Except Scripture, which is the only one that matters!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: Except Scripture, which is the only one that matters!

HP: That is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, and about of an unfair statement as has been made. I have repeatedly, from Scripture, shown the definitions and explanations of the nature of sin. I have provide a list of numerous passages that illustrate the principles of sin. I have presented from Scripture the penalty for sin, and shown by reason and logic, given to us by God, that it is absurd for a Just God to blame or opunish man for something man could not avoid.

Sorry JJ. It is not that I have not presented facts from Scripture, it is that your eyes are so blinded with presuppositions concerning the false man-made dogma of original sin that you are blinded from comprehending the truth.

 

[J. Jump]

that it is absurd for a Just God to blame or opunish man for something man could not avoid.

But what you fail to mention is that God made a way of salvation that does take care of this matter. One can choose the salvation found in the shed blood and death of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God.

God is fully satisfied with the payment Christ made on the cross. And therefore it is not absurd for a just God to blame or punish man for something man could not avoid. That satement would be true if there was no plan of salvation. But there is a plan of salvation and every man will be judged in his lifetime as to whether he accepts or rejects that salvation that is offered.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ; But what you fail to mention is that God made a way of salvation that does take care of this matter. One can choose the salvation found in the shed blood and death of Jesus Christ the Lamb of God.
God is fully satisfied with the payment Christ made on the cross. And therefore it is not absurd for a just God to blame or punish man for something man could not avoid. That statement would be true if there was no plan of salvation. But there is a plan of salvation and every man will be judged in his lifetime as to whether he accepts or rejects that salvation that is offered.

HP: Here goes the old Baptist slip, trying to hold the tenants of Calvinism in one hand while avoiding its logical consequences in the other. You make all ‘sinners by necessity’ and that from birth, and then act like man, of his own free will, a will that you say has no power to do anything contrary to the sin that is its only destiny, and that man is completely dead, without any natural abilities to do anything, let alone turn to God in acceptance, yet must and can exercise his will to ‘accept’ the salvations offer. What a total contradiction of the very tenants you strart with.

The only possibility is that God, that according to you, creates us all as sinners, has now chosen to grant the abilities necessary to repent and believe, to a selected few, while damning all others He created and that had no means of escape, having not been granted the abilities and opportunities to escape their fate. You cannot avoid the predestination of the damned. Even Calvin had to accept this illogical and unscriptural notion as an unavoidable consequence of his dogmas. At least he attempted to be consistent.

You cannot avoid the absurd notion that we are on some necessitated merry-go-round, orchestrated by God Himself for His own purposes without an ounce of freedom to the contrary on the part of any human being. The system of thought you are espousing is one of nothing other than pure necessitated fatalism.

 

[J. Jump]

Here goes the old Baptist slip, trying to hold the tenants of Calvinism in one hand while avoiding its logical consequences in the other.

See that is your mistake, because you assume that I am a Calvinst, which couldn't be further from the truth. Calvinism is a false doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that God made a way of salvation (redemption) for a fallen creation. That's what the Bible teaches. If you want to believe it great, if not then that is on you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: If the notion is true, that the mere fact of God providing a Savior, somehow eliminates God being unjust in sending men to hell that are born as sinners. at least two assumptions must be made that are simply not found in Scripture or substantiated in reason and experience.

First, all men would have to have had the opportunity to hear the good news, a fact unsupported by Scripture and reason. Secondly, one would have to assume that all men posses the ability of contrary choice, a notion that JJ, as well as all Calvinist’s of any stripe, must deny, due to the nature of original sin and being ‘dead’ (as they see dead) in their trespasses and sins.

JJ, and others of similar persuasion, make the damning sin the rejection of Jesus Christ, which as I have illustrated before is nothing more than the sealing of ones fate, not the ‘cause’ of the malady of sin. Scripture clearly states, “Your SINS have separated you from God.”

They deny any real import to any reasonable understanding of morality, both love and benevolence, or sin and selfishness, along with any just corresponding penalties by their necessitated state of original sin. They make salvation merely justice for God to provide to a helpless victim of his circumstances the means to escape his fate, instead of the GRACE’, the unmerited favor of God, that can only be seen in a proper light as we see sinners as ‘willful,’ not necessitated, rebels against God.

 

[J. Jump]

HP I love it. When things get too complicated then you just revert back to your philosophical mumbo-jumbo that doesn't make a lick of sense.

It is man's sin that has in fact separated him from God and it is a false notion that God sends anyone to hell. And it is man's rejection of the salvation that God has made available that will continue to keep him separated from God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: See that is your mistake, because you assume that I am a Calvinst, which couldn't be further from the truth. Calvinism is a false doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that God made a way of salvation (redemption) for a fallen creation. That's what the Bible teaches. If you want to believe it great, if not then that is on you.

HP: If someone walks like a Calvinist, talks like a Calvinist, holds to the tenants Calvinist do, he must be a Calvinist. It would seem to me from all the posts you have made that you would wear that as a badge of honor.

Show me why I should not call you a Calvinist. I am a reasonable man, willing to make an apology where needed, and admit my error if you ca establish it is indeed in error. Tell us plainly which of the five points you disagree with. Place into simple terms your points as you see them. I will carefully examine them, and as I said, make a public apology if I am wrong in calling you a Calvinist. Fair enough?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JJ: And it is man's rejection of the salvation that God has made available that will continue to keep him separated from God.

HP: How can man reject something he has not heard about? And then to think that God would send a man to hell for the rejection of a gospel he never had the opportunity to hear about or understand. You paint a most wicked blight upon the character of a Fair and Just God.

 

[J. Jump]

It would seem to me from all the posts you have made that you would wear that as a badge of honor.

And you have been told that your assumptions are incorrect. That should be the only reason you need. I do not hold to the tenets of Calvinism. I do not believe that God elects some to salvation and damns others to hell.

I believe each and every person is responsible to accepting the salvation made available or not. I believe Christ died in the place of all mankind, but each individual must appropriate His blood through faith. I believe that is made available to all mankind and not just some. I don't believe that all Christians will be found faithful as Calvinists do. I think there will be many that will be ashamed at His coming. I don't think all Christians make up the bride of Christ as Calvinists do.

There area great many other examples that I could give, but that should suffice don't you say?

How can man reject something he has not heard about?

It's not the idea that they haven't heard. It's the fact that they don't want to hear. I believe that's laid on in Romans 1.

 

[gekko]

xdisc: "But didn't Jesus need genes from a real human to become human?"

umm... adam came from dirt. eve came from adams rib. Jesus was made human by His Father. the seed put into mary. and voila. a human being pops out.

is it that hard to understand?
why do we make things so complicated?

 

[gekko]

It is man's sin that has in fact separated him from God and it is a false notion that God sends anyone to hell.

J.Jump... do you honestly believe that its a false notion that God sends people to hell?