the baby Jesus

PTW, I'm just curious, but would you say that Christ was unable to sin, or had the ability to not sin? I know that He never would have sinned, but does that necessarily mean He was unable to sin?

I guess this also gets to the nature of the unity between the deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ. Is it right to make any distinction between the two. In other words, could you say, his deity could not have sinned, but his humanity could have? I don't know, I'm just asking what you think.

Thanks,
Chris

[ October 23, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

Christ had no ability to sin.

We have the ability to not sin (once redeemed).

 

Show me in the Bible where it says Jesus did not have a sin nature. The Bible plainly says he became as one of us. He could not have became as one of us and had came without a sin nature.

No where in the Bible does it say the sin nature comes from the Father only. Mary had the sin nature in her and the fact that she was a sinner would have stained Jesus with the sin nature unless you are going to teach Catholicism which says she had no sin nature. That Mary was sinless herself.

The Bible calls Jesus, "Sinless>" Which means he did not sin. It says he was tempted and had the same passions like we do. Again this reverts back to faulty theology. Many of those during the reformation did not completely come out of Catholicism but kept some of what Catholicism taught in their own teachings including John Calvin.

Jesus having the sin nature did not keep him from being an acceptable sacrifice. It was the fact that he did not sin. When he was dying he took the sins of us all. HE BECAME SIN. HE BECAME THE COMPLETE SIN NATURE.

So many people cannot accept Jesus in the true light of what he was. Pictures show him as this effeminate looking, Long haired sissy but the Bible says he was a Carpenter. He was a muscular man. He had rough hands not the milk white hands artists have painted. He was loving and gentle but on the other hand he could drive out the money changers. He could verbally flail the Pharisees.

The BIble tells us we are to strive to overcome sin. How could we overcome sin if we did not have an example of such.

 

A few thought experiments to clarify the idea of transmitting sin nature.

(a) A woman goes to a woman doctor and they conspire to unethically clone one of her cells and she gives birth to a viable (tho imperfect) clone of herself. Is that clone, having no earthly father, able to escape the Adamic sin nature? This could happen today! It is not science fiction!

(b) Would it make a difference if the doctor was a man? What would account for that difference

(c) Now into the realms of science fiction. A man programs a computer at last with artificial intelligence. He does this in a pristine laboratory in a straightfoward, purely logical manner. Is the artificial intelligence a partaker in the sin nature of Adam?

(d) Would it make a difference if the programmer were a woman?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

 

Inquiring Minds:
The passing down, the imputation, the hereditarial trait of the Adamic sin situation, is both at a literal level as well as spiritual.
Scripture often speaks of "life" being in the blood (Lev 17:11).

The only doctor capable of identifying these special characteristics, those things spoken of that are Adamic traits, is "The Great Physician".
The identifiers are not measured by human tools (per se), except for possibly secondary symptomology, i.e. disease, aging, etc.

 

Rev. G --

So are you saying that the female does not
contribute to this "sin nature"? She contributes
to the personality of the child, the physical
features, the nutrition, etc., and carries the
child for nine months, but she does not pass
on this 'sin nature"? All the father does, then,
is pass on his genes and a "sin nature"? Shame
on men then! Every child would then be
evidence of a horrific act of the male--to do
such a thing to a child with no choice in the
matter. 8o)

But no, our God told people to go forth and
multiply; He did not give them permission to
go forth and sin by multiplying.

If, indeed, a "sin nature" is passed on, it is
passed on in the humanity of both parents to
the humanity of the child. While I cannot say
that I believe any child, including our Lord,
inheritsa "sin nature," I believe that every child,
other than our Lord, makes the choice to "fall
short of the glory of God." He rose above it;
we do not.

- - - - - - - - -

Preach --

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He
should lie, Nor the son of man, that he should
repent." Who is this speaking of? YHVH.
Who was made a man that He would be
tempted in all points just as we are?

Titus and Hebrews both repeat that ou God
cannot lie, and in both circumstances, the
Scriptures are after a risen, glorified
Messiah who cannot be tempted at all any-
more.

Again, this was not only written after our Lord
was risen and glorified, but just as in Titus 1:2,
this Scripture is about YHVH and irrelevant to
this discussion.

So you are telling me that you do not sin--ever?

Then again, as I asked earlier, why does the
Bible make such a big issue of His being
tempted as we are, that He understood our
infirmities because He went through them.
Again, in the desert, satan did not TRY to
tempt Him; it tempted Him.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Aaron --

Is it possible for God to lie?</font>[/QUOTE]I do not see what this has to do with Angie's
question, unless you are hooking it with the
Sscriptures re our God cannot lie, which I
posted above to Preach.

The problem remains with the fact that you
continue to view a baby's desire to thrive as
"carnal" -- your word, and I am sure you
intended it. This is only in your perception.
A infant cries because the child has no ability
to speak words. If the infant could commun-
icate by saying, "This wet diaper is harsh on
my tender skin and it could lead to infection,
which could actualy lead directly to my demise"
I am sure that the infant would gladly do that,
rather than leaving the caregiver to guess
what the infant needs, thus prolonging the
application of a solution.

[ October 23, 2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Would babies still cry if this world were not fallen?

Chris

 

Then what is is that causes that child to choose to "fall short of the glory of God"?

Chris

 

Music Man --

Again, I request pleasee give us chapter and
verse.

Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Paul --

Amein.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

With all this, I want to say that I am not one
who will not listen to others and consider
their opinions. If any of you can show me
solid Scriptural proof of my being wrong
(which has not happened so far), I will
accept it, absorb it, and live by it. It would
make things much more comfortable for me
at my synagogue to believe what you are
saying, because this is was the majority
and the pastors believe. I do not see it.

 

If Jesus was merely able to not sin, he is nothing more than a supersaint.

If Jesus was not able to sin, he is God in the flesh.

Abiyah, I would suggest doing some further study on the issue by those who endorse both sides.

 

Oh good, pragmatism.

 

How exactly do you drive someone further away from Christ. Is that lost person now closer to hell than before?

 

I was still ignorant, whether I said I was or not. Why isn't that the same? Paul said he wasn't ignorant of the law before it "came to him", yet he really was. So, according to you, he should have been held accountable for all of the things he did (like persecuting Christ) before the law came to him because he claimed to know the law.

 

Then what is is that causes that child to choose to "fall short of the glory of God"?

Chris</font>[/QUOTE]Because sin permeates the world and we are not
perfect as our Lord is perfect. satan is the god
of this world and the prince of the power of the
air.

You asked if a child would cry in an unfallen
world. I have never been in an unfallen world,
so I know nothing about one. However, I would
guess that if the infant had the ability of
communicating needs, if there would be such
needs in an unfallen world, in another more
effective way, perhaps the infant would not.

The child would have perfect lungs at birth
in an unfalen world. There would be no hunger
or diaper rash or infection or illness or pain
or parents who did not automatically and
immediately understand and minister to the
child, no child abuseand/or neglect . . . We
could go on! 8o)

 

Absolutely not! Short exchanges on the internet
are different from sitting down with a book, other
than the Bible, to study these things out. I will
not study some human author or creed or dogma
from some human before these things are com-
pletely settled in my mind and there are abso-
lutely no questions. Such practices are what
got me in trouble at the church I attended most
of my life.

I follow no human. If something is said in my
synagogue which causes me to question, I go
to the Book.

 

How was the baby Jesus different from other infants? Well, He had a halo and was able to speak eloquently from birth. Also, He resembled a small adult more than a normal baby. And, of course, He regularly performed miracles from an early age.

Seriously, I doubt that there were any outward signs that this child was the Son of God, although my personal belief is that He always behaved and was a model child. Must have been tough for His brothers and sisters. The poster above who stated that all crying is a sin (citing 2 Corinthians 7:10) seems to be a bit off-base. In context, this passage is saying that true repentance leads to eternal life; worldly regret by itself cannot save, and it leads to death. That's my opinion, anyway.

Whether the temptations of Jesus were real or not continues to be debated. My feeling is that if Jesus could not haved sin, the temptations were mere play-acting. This does not mean that He had a sin nature. You can sin without having a sin nature. If Jesus was the second Adam, then He probably had the capacity to sin but (unlike Adam) freely chose not to. It was important that He be tested in this manner.

[ October 23, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Deekay ]

 

So you refuse to study, but you participate on a debate forum? That makes sense. People have thought about issues that you apparently haven't in regards to the peccability/impeccability issue. Listening to a pastor and looking at a book are not that different.

 

This may not satisfy you, but it is the best I can do right now, due to time restraints.

http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_original_sin.htm

 

Then isn't sin the underlying cause?