What is sin nature?

[Darren]

The great demonstration that Jesus Christ was indeed God was His resurrection. No other person has ever done that. We see glimpses of his deity throughout the gospels but never in as much dramatic form as in the resurrection. As God he arose from the dead.

The sin nature is passed down through man, through the Adamic nature. I showed you that through Romans 5:12,19. Thus it became a requirement for Christ to be born of a virgin to by-pass that sin nature, that he wouldn't not inherit it from Adam. He was not born from Joseph and Mary because he would have inherited the sin nature from Joseph, thus he was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:12-21 never mentions the virgin birth. Indeed it mentions Adam though. Understand, you never alledged it directly mentioned the virgin birth, but I'm not denying the curse though Adam. I'm denying any evidence that the virgin birth is what kept Jesus from sin. I'm claiming that being GOD was all that was necessary for that. God's hatred of evil, and His purity; neither faded when He became a man, because He was still God.

Ask me exactly how that all works I'll have to concede I don't know. I never have understood the holy trinity, save for reference to their purposes and some of their individual activities. But how can one creature act as and actually be three? I don't know. I believe it, but no, I don't understand it.

Mary had no power to purify Jesus, she was as lost to the curse as everyone else. She had no immunity from sin. Her genes were the same as everyone else's concerning the curse. Might I point out,

14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Death is the sign of sin's curse, and Mary herself died.

Also recognize it's pushing forward a certain idea:

even over those who did not sin by breaking a command

It identifies a difference between sin to the law, and the curse of sin and... something else. It sounds like somone didn't break the law.

 

[DHK]

Romans 5:12-21 never mentions the virgin birth. Indeed it mentions Adam though. Understand, you never alledged it directly mentioned the virgin birth, but I'm not denying the curse though Adam. I'm denying any evidence that the virgin birth is what kept Jesus from sin. I'm claiming that being GOD was all that was necessary for that. God's hatred of evil, and His purity; neither faded when He became a man, because He was still God.
The curse comes through Adam. You agree. We inherit that sin nature through Adam, that is through the man. When Jesus was born he avoided the curse by being born by a virgin, and not of a man. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

We as mankind, have a propensity to sin because of our sin nature.

Jeremiah 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.
--It is just as natural for man to sin as it is for an Ethiopian to have black skin or a leopard to have spots. They can't help it. They are made that way. And man is made in such a way that it is aurtomatic for him to sin. He is born with a sin nature.

But Jesus was not born with a sin nature.
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 tempted as we were (as a man), and yet did not sin. This was in his humanity. It was not his deity that kept him from sin. He lived a sinless life. He was the perfect human. He was totally God and totally man at the same time.

Ask me exactly how that all works I'll have to concede I don't know. I never have understood the holy trinity, save for reference to their purposes and some of their individual activities. But how can one creature act as and actually be three? I don't know. I believe it, but no, I don't understand it.

The trinity is hard to understand, and no one does completely understand it, but we accept it by faith for it is taught in the Scriptures:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

There are three persons in one God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. There is only one God, but each person is distinct and co-equal with the other.
When Christ came to the earth he submitted himself to God the Father. He wasn't any less God, but voluntarily submitted himself to the first person of the triune Godhead. In the gospels it is recorded that Jesus said: "I always do the will of my Father." As a man he always submitted to the will of the Heavenly Father.
At the baptism of Christ we find all three persons of the trinity present.

Mary had no power to purify Jesus, she was as lost to the curse as everyone else. She had no immunity from sin. Her genes were the same as everyone else's concerning the curse. Might I point out,

We are not Catholics. Mary did not purify Jesus. Mary was simply a vessel that God chose at that time and place in history to bring forth Jesus Christ. Christ was born of Mary, conceived of the Holy Spirit. It was not Mary's purity that had anything to do with this. In fact when the time came for the circumcision of Jesus (8 days), Mary herself had to offer a sin offering. The Adamic nature comes from the man, not the woman.

14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Death is the sign of sin's curse, and Mary herself died.

Mary did die, as one would expect. And so did Jesus die. But by the power of God, Christ was raised from the dead.

Also recognize it's pushing forward a certain idea:

even over those who did not sin by breaking a command

It identifies a difference between sin to the law, and the curse of sin and... something else. It sounds like somone didn't break the law.

Christ never broke the law; all else did. The reason Christ could die for our sin is that he never broke the law; he was sinless.

 

[Amy.G]

Exactly how is the sin nature passed through Adam? Is it through DNA? If so, Mary's DNA also had a sin nature. Why wouldn't her sin nature have been passed in the same way?

I think Christ was born of a virgin as a sign. If He had been conceived/born in the normal way of having 2 biological parents, He would have been no different than the rest of us. It was also prophesied that He would be born of a virgin, making it a certainty that He was the Messiah that was promised.

I think He was sinless because He is God, not because He was born of a virgin. The virgin birth was a sign.

 

[DHK]

Exactly how is the sin nature passed through Adam? Is it through DNA? If so, Mary's DNA also had a sin nature. Why wouldn't her sin nature have been passed in the same way?

I think Christ was born of a virgin as a sign. If He had been conceived/born in the normal way of having 2 biological parents, He would have been no different than the rest of us. It was also prophesied that He would be born of a virgin, making it a certainty that He was the Messiah that was promised.

I think He was sinless because He is God, not because He was born of a virgin. The virgin birth was a sign.

The fact that Mary ("a virgin conceived and brought forth a son...") bears testimony to the fact that right from conception to death Christ was fully man. There was no part in his humanity that he was missing. He was fully man; completely man. He didn't come to earth as a teenager; a three year old toddler, a three month old infant, a three month old fetus, or a three day old embryo!
He started life at the same time that we all started life. He was fully man. He was conceived as a man, born as a man, lived as a man, and died as a man.
At no time during his lifetime as a man did he ever give up his deity. He was always God. He may have chose to lay aside some of his divine attributes at times, or not to exercise them, such as he did when he went to the cross telling Peter to put his sword up because he could have called 12 legions of angels to come and save him if he had wanted to. After all, he was God. But as man he came to submit himself to the will of the Father.

"For by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin...so that all have sinned."
The sin nature comes through that "one man" which is Adam, and is passed down from Adam to generation through generation through the man. Genesis 3:15 speaks of the seed of the woman, an unnatural use of the word "seed" referring to the virgin birth in a promise given to Eve. The Adamic nature is passed down through the "seed" of the man.

Consider the two genealogies and their purposes.
The one in Matthew is to show Christ's right to the throne of David. He is the Messiah, the King of the Jews, the rightful heir to the throne of David. His ancestry points right back to David. The entire gospel of Matthew presents Christ as Messiah, the King of Israel.

The genealogy in Luke goes back even farther, right back to Adam. It presents Christ as perfect "man." Luke rights to the Greeks. He presents to the Greek Christ as a man. Luke also was a physician and shows the human side of Christ more than any other writer. Christ is the perfect man.

But in John we find these verses:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--Christ is deity. John presents Christ as God and declares this fact to the world. No man can see God and live.
But God took flesh upon himself in the person of Jesus Christ that we might have a glimpse of who he is.

 

[Darren]

Jeremiah 13:15-27, ... read it again... Actually, I recomend starting at verse 1, 15-27 is just a different way of speaking, usually set apart in english translations from the rest of the passage becaue it is said in... I think the term is stanzas.

Hebrews 14-16 also isn't about sin nature, but the context does lend to your case.

Do you know what the difference is? Why do you suppose I am claiming that one passage does not support you and one DOES?



I hate to nit pick... but DHK, would you capitalize when refering to Him? Him as in God.

There was no part in his humanity that he was missing.

Don't you mean save for our sin nature? Just pointing it out.

The sin nature comes through that "one man" which is Adam, and is passed down from Adam to generation through generation through the man. Genesis 3:15 speaks of the seed of the woman, an unnatural use of the word "seed" referring to the virgin birth in a promise given to Eve. The Adamic nature is passed down through the "seed" of the man.

It was a sign from God then as the passage alledges. It does not say, He would be born so in order to not have the sin nature.



Hmm... I will notice we two agree more than I suppose we actually think. Just noting it.




I must say, even figuratively, you have yet to present a passage that backs up that being born of a virgin satisfied any law. We all know that the curse comes from Adam, but was not Mary his offspring, and so, under the curse?:tonofbricks:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: For by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin...so that all have sinned."

HP: Here is the actual verse without rewording it to stand on all four legs to support ones presuppositions. Ro 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:

Note that it says nothing of sin being caused by one man, or that sin is passed on by one man, or that sin is an unavoidable consequence of the sin of one man, but rather death passed upon all men for ‘all have sinned.’ There is no ‘so that’ as DHK falsely claims when he acted as if though he was quoting Scripture when in fact he was massaging and adding to it in order to make it appear as if though it is in line and supportive of his presuppositions.

 

[DHK]

Exactly how is the sin nature passed through Adam? Is it through DNA? If so, Mary's DNA also had a sin nature. Why wouldn't her sin nature have been passed in the same way?

I think Christ was born of a virgin as a sign. If He had been conceived/born in the normal way of having 2 biological parents, He would have been no different than the rest of us. It was also prophesied that He would be born of a virgin, making it a certainty that He was the Messiah that was promised.

I think He was sinless because He is God, not because He was born of a virgin. The virgin birth was a sign.

So, Amy you believe that Christ had a sin nature and was a sinner just like the rest of us?

 

[Amy.G]

So, Amy you believe that Christ had a sin nature and was a sinner just like the rest of us?

DHK, you have known me for nearly 2 years now, and you know better than to ask me that question. :tear:
Of course I don't think Christ had a sin nature.

I'm just discussing stuff. My question was simply how is the sin nature passed from father to child. Is it through DNA? If so, then the mother can pass it as well. If that is the case, then maybe we're looking at it the wrong way. The Bible is never wrong, only our interpretation.
I do NOT deny one single word of the Bible. I'm just a human with a simple mind and desire to understand things. In order to do that, sometimes I ask questions that may seem silly to others.

I love the Lord Jesus more than anything. :saint:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: So, Amy you believe that Christ had a sin nature and was a sinner just like the rest of us?

HP: Here DHK merely begs the question by simply assuming men have something he denotes as a ‘sin nature,’ (which by the way the term ‘sin nature’ is not even a Scriptural term,) and then ask a loaded question to Amy which has no validity to it in the least. He attempts to frame the debate around a mere Augustinian assumption and then falsely progresses from his false assumption concerning man, as if though Amy by way of merely asking a question would be applying it to the nature of Christ as well. Speaking of false accusations and acting as if though she implied something she in no wise implied or stated……

Amy, you have every right to ask such questions. Scripture does not tell us why Christ was born of a Virgin nor that He had to be other than as a fulfillment of prophesy. I would suggest that God saw need of giving of Himself, and as such saw need to be part of the act of conception for reasons known only to Himself. There is no logical explanation for the Incarnation revealed to us. What we need to know we have been given. They were to look for a sign of a child born to a virgin just as was prophesied. All the rest of the conjecture DHK has proposed is simply man-made philosophical cover for the unfounded Augustinian presupposition of original sin.

DHK, show the list from the Word of God where it ever speaks of man having a sin nature from birth as you so boldly claim. Show us where the Word of God defines this nature by name, using the Word of God properly by utilizing reasonable rules of interpretation and within the context which it is written.

 

[Darren]

So, Amy you believe that Christ had a sin nature and was a sinner just like the rest of us?

Hey, DHK, I know this really good technique for jumping from one conclusion to the next with barely any reason... wait you seem to have mastered it.

DHK, you have known me for nearly 2 years now, and you know better than to ask me that question. :tear:
Of course I don't think Christ had a sin nature.

I'm just discussing stuff. My question was simply how is the sin nature passed from father to child. Is it through DNA? If so, then the mother can pass it as well. If that is the case, then maybe we're looking at it the wrong way. The Bible is never wrong, only our interpretation.
I do NOT deny one single word of the Bible. I'm just a human with a simple mind and desire to understand things. In order to do that, sometimes I ask questions that may seem silly to others.

I love the Lord Jesus more than anything. :saint:

I don't think he cares Amy. I'm accused of having no respect at all for the Bible, yet he's the one who's missquoted and applied passages to things they have NOTHING to do with, several times! The guy is acting like a troll.

Seriuosly, who will he next call a blasphemier or heritic? Which passage will he apply next where it does not belong? Which famous Christian arguement will he quote next that barely fits to be used at all?

When will he ever concede when he is obviously wrong? He won't even give an inch and the problem with that is, when you mess up on a detail and never fess up to it, it starts tearing apart your whole arguement because it looks like you don't know left from right.

Is he usually better than this?

HP: Here DHK merely begs the question by simply assuming men have something he denotes as a ‘sin nature,’ (which by the way the term ‘sin nature’ is not even a Scriptural term,) and then ask a loaded question to Amy which has no validity to it in the least.

Surprised HP?

DHK, show the list from the Word of God where it ever speaks of man having a sin nature from birth as you so boldly claim. Show us where the Word of God defines this nature by name, using the Word of God properly by utilizing reasonable rules of interpretation and within the context which it is written.

Amen!

 

[DHK]

Exactly how is the sin nature passed through Adam? Is it through DNA? If so, Mary's DNA also had a sin nature. Why wouldn't her sin nature have been passed in the same way?

I think Christ was born of a virgin as a sign. If He had been conceived/born in the normal way of having 2 biological parents, He would have been no different than the rest of us. It was also prophesied that He would be born of a virgin, making it a certainty that He was the Messiah that was promised.

I think He was sinless because He is God, not because He was born of a virgin. The virgin birth was a sign.

The virgin birth was more than just a sign Amy. It was more than just a fulfilled prophecy. It was the only way that Christ could enter this world, fulfilling all prophecy concerning him, and be born fully man, and without sin. A sinless man was required to be a sacrifice for a sinful race. One sinless man could die for one sinful man. But one sinless God-man could die for all the sinful men of the world.
For this God-man to be without sin, to enter the world without sin, he had to be born without a human father. Read the geneaologies. The genealogies are always (with very few exceptions) through the names of the fathers of the familes. Why?

Luke 3:23-25 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

Matthew 1:14-16 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Jesus....son of...
Jacob begat Joseph.....

The Bible often speaks of the seed of the man. The sin nature is passed through what the Bible calls man's "seed." The Bible is not a science book, and does not speak of DNA, chromosomes, genes, genomes, etc. God knew about those things, but the people of the time of Christ didn't, and didn't have to. We need to keep things simple. The sin nature is passed through the seed of the man. It is not a matter of DNA.
Let's look at it in more simple terminology. It is inherited. I have four children. Only one of them has blue eyes. I have blue eyes. She inherited that trait from me. I am her father. But through Adam the sin nature is so dominant that every man (person) inherits it whether they want it or not. It is unavoidable. It is a part of the curse that was put on man. We inherit it from Adam. We don't inherit it from Eve; but from Adam.

 

[DHK]

HP: Here DHK merely begs the question by simply assuming men have something he denotes as a ‘sin nature,’ (which by the way the term ‘sin nature’ is not even a Scriptural term,) and then ask a loaded question to Amy which has no validity to it in the least.

The word "trinity" as well as scores of other theological terms that you use as well, are not found in the Bible. That is really a lame argument. I suppose you will never again come to the BB to discuss: Theology, Christology, Bibliology, Soteriology, Pneumatology, Harmatiology, Eschatology, Ecclesiology, Anthropology, or Angelology. None of these words are in the Bible. So if you are not up to discussing any of the great doctrines of the Bible, don't bother coming here: they aren't in the Bible. Right?
BTW, Your hero Augustine isn't in the Bible either.
However, the docrine that we know of as man's "sin nature" is found in the Bible.

He attempts to frame the debate around a mere Augustinian assumption and then falsely progresses from his false assumption concerning man, as if though Amy by way of merely asking a question would be applying it to the nature of Christ as well. Speaking of false accusations and acting as if though she implied something she in no wise implied or stated……

False assumption #1: that my doctrine is from Augustine--a false accusation.
False assumption #2: That I was falsely assuming anything. Everything that you have said you have been the one who has been falsely accusing me, and of what??
False assumption #3: That what you call a "false accusation" was any more than a "clarifying question."

Amy, you have every right to ask such questions. Scripture does not tell us why Christ was born of a Virgin nor that He had to be other than as a fulfillment of prophesy.

Yes the Bible does tell us why. For the person who is willing to study the Scriptures and is willing to be open to what the Bible says about it, the Bible has much to say about the virgin birth. But some people (not speaking about Amy) are very close minded.

I would suggest that God saw need of giving of Himself, and as such saw need to be part of the act of conception for reasons known only to Himself. There is no logical explanation for the Incarnation revealed to us. What we need to know we have been given. They were to look for a sign of a child born to a virgin just as was prophesied. All the rest of the conjecture DHK has proposed is simply man-made philosophical cover for the unfounded Augustinian presupposition of original sin.

Perhaps you don't know why Christ was born of a virgin is becasue you choose to study Augustine instead of the Bible. I don't know what Augustine says and I don't care. But I do know what the Bible says, and the Bible has much to say about the virgin birth, and also the sin nature.

DHK, show the list from the Word of God where it ever speaks of man having a sin nature from birth as you so boldly claim. Show us where the Word of God defines this nature by name, using the Word of God properly by utilizing reasonable rules of interpretation and within the context which it is written.

Romans 3:9-23 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All are sinners from birth. We cannot help but sin. It is in our nature. We don't seek after God. We cannot even do good. It is not in our nature to do so.

 

[Darren]

Has anyone noticed the only one arguing against us is DHK right now? Care to speculate on why?

I will.

If they were to come in right now, they would have to first distance themselves from DHK because he's looking very silly right now.


HP... I hate to do this, but the term "sin nature", comes from Romans.

False assumption #1: that my doctrine is from Augustine--a false accusation.

I don't know too much about him either, but I'm pretty sure he made sin nature a popular theology. So yes, your arguement by default has origin from him, not because you like him, but because he is the origin of it's popularity. It doesn't mean you're right or wrong, but it is a fact.

I don't know what Augustine says and I don't care.

You could just look him up... I mean, at the very least. I had to do a history course in college and he was one of the subbjects is how I know.

False assumption #2: That I was falsely assuming anything. Everything that you have said you have been the one who has been falsely accusing me, and of what??

Probably the same things I'm accusing you of:
Name calling, jumping to conclusions, abuse of scripture and generally not paying attention.

False assumption #3: That what you call a "false accusation" was any more than a "clarifying question."

Sounded like an accusation to me. Or a REALLY absurd question.

Quote:
Amy, you have every right to ask such questions. Scripture does not tell us why Christ was born of a Virgin nor that He had to be other than as a fulfillment of prophesy.

Yes the Bible does tell us why. For the person who is willing to study the Scriptures and is willing to be open to what the Bible says about it, the Bible has much to say about the virgin birth. But some people (not speaking about Amy) are very close minded.

Take that HP, you are a heritical, close minded, blaspheming lunatic who chows down on maggots for dinner, eats worms for lunch and boils children alive for his oatmeal! :thumbs:

Perhaps you don't know why Christ was born of a virgin is becasue you choose to study Augustine instead of the Bible. I don't know what Augustine says and I don't care. But I do know what the Bible says, and the Bible has much to say about the virgin birth, and also the sin nature.

And perhaps you can't seem to bring such a passage forward because... well because maybe you're wrong.

That's right folks. I do believe there are right and wrong, strong and weak arguements in theology. This, right now, seems like it's weak and wrong.



Romans 3: 9-31 isn't even about sin nature, it says we DO sin, not that we can't not sin.

In geometry

A+B=C

We are sinners and need the redemption God gave us.

does not prove C=D

since we need to be redeemd, we can't not sin.

 

[David Lamb]

Has anyone noticed the only one arguing against us is DHK right now? Care to speculate on why?

I don't need to speculate on my own reasons! Although I don't agree with every jot and tittle that DHK writes, I do agree with him on this matter. I don't always write a message saying, "I agree" every time I see a post that I agree with - perhaps I should?

I think that two connected but different things are being spoken about on this thread, and it can lead to confusion. One is being a sinner, the other is comitting individual sins. So when you (Darren) say that Jesus was not kept from sinning by being born of a virgin, you are right. (Otherwise He would not have needed to resist the devil's temtations in the Wilderness.) The other thing that has been mentioned a lot on this thread is being a sinner, the "sin nature". With regard to that, the virgin birth was necessary.

 

[Darren]

I don't need to speculate on my own reasons! Although I don't agree with every jot and tittle that DHK writes, I do agree with him on this matter. I don't always write a message saying, "I agree" every time I see a post that I agree with - perhaps I should?

No, I just recognized that DHK wasn't getting a lot of support. I thought it was probably his attitude.

I think that two connected but different things are being spoken about on this thread, and it can lead to confusion. One is being a sinner, the other is comitting individual sins. So when you (Darren) say that Jesus was not kept from sinning by being born of a virgin, you are right. (Otherwise He would not have needed to resist the devil's temtations in the Wilderness.) The other thing that has been mentioned a lot on this thread is being a sinner, the "sin nature". With regard to that, the virgin birth was necessary.

Yes, yes indeed, Mary could not keep Jesus from sin. But I see nothing to say that Mary could save Him from the curse of sin either. He was not cursed by sin, she was. Jesus rose from the dead in three days, Mary is STILL dead. The curse of Adam was on Mary as well, but not on Jesus. Why do you think that was?

I think it was because Jesus was none other than God Himself. He was above the curse. What they hey, I'll even go so far as to say He inforced it. He made us die so that our evil would have an end. You can prefer to say "allow" however, it's the same result isn't it? Creatures such as we should not live forever.

Rest assured, as we are, we shall not live forever. We shall be reborn after we die, as new creatures, no longer burdened by the curse of sin. We will be reborn to a body that has no evil temptations.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, yes indeed, Mary could not keep Jesus from sin. But I see nothing to say that Mary could save Him from the curse of sin either. He was not cursed by sin, she was. Jesus rose from the dead in three days, Mary is STILL dead. The curse of Adam was on Mary as well, but not on Jesus. Why do you think that was?

I think you must have misunderstood me. I certainly do not believe that Mary could save Jesus Christ either from sin, or from the curse of sin. Rather, He came into the world without a human father - God is His Father. Luke 1.34-35:

34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."

​

He maintained His deity, and thus His holiness, because God is His Father.

I think it was because Jesus was none other than God Himself. He was above the curse. What they hey, I'll even go so far as to say He inforced it. He made us die so that our evil would have an end. You can prefer to say "allow" however, it's the same result isn't it? Creatures such as we should not live forever.

I don't really understand what you mean here, particularly by "What they hey," - is that an American expression?

Rest assured, as we are, we shall not live forever. We shall be reborn after we die, as new creatures, no longer burdened by the curse of sin. We will be reborn to a body that has no evil temptations.

I agree.

 

[Amy.G]

Are we talking about "sin nature", as in, we have the ability to sin, or are we talking about orginal sin?

Are we damned when we're born because of the sin of Adam? Or do we die spiritually when we commit our first sin?

I don't think I believe in original sin.

 

[rbell]

I hate to nit pick... but DHK, would you capitalize when refering to Him? Him as in God.

Darren...since you don't believe God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present....why would capitalizing His name be a big deal to you? I'm just saying....

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I don't think I believe in original sin.

HP: You’re in Great company! Neither does God.:thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

HP: You’re in Great company! Neither does God.:thumbs:

It's nice to agree on something, isn't it? :thumbs: