Spin-off of the Dr. Morris thread - Was Mary Jesus' biological mother?

[Marcia]

Just curious but how do you say it is physical? If we were talking about DNA then sure. But since we are talking about how sin is passed on - it is specifically spiritual in nature.

Is there other verses of scripture that say sin comes from any other source than a man. The Romans passage is quite specific about sin coming from Adam and yet it was Eve that first sinned.

No baby can grow or form without life and that life does not begin without the man. Thus no sin can pass anywhere until life is created and that only happens through the man. What the father imparts is more than just DNA and that part is life but it is life that is sin stained. Thus when God imparted His life into Mary's seed it was fully God wrapping Himself in the flesh of men.

I think God held Adam accountable for sin because Adam was the one who received God's command directly about not to eat of the tree, before Eve existed. Therefore, one can assume Eve got the command secondhand from Adam.

Also, I believe since God created Adam first and made him "head" of Eve, and since the passage indicates Adam was there with Eve when she was tempted and yet he did nothing, plus he also ate, God is holding Adam more responsible. Therefore, Adam is responsible for sin passing on to all people.

I do not think this is grounds to conclude that the sin nature is only passed down through the man. I see this as an explanation that satisfies people, but I don't see biblical evidence for it.

 

[Allan]

I think God held Adam accountable for sin because Adam was the one who received God's command directly about not to eat of the tree, before Eve existed. Therefore, one can assume Eve got the command secondhand from Adam.

Also, I believe since God created Adam first and made him "head" of Eve, and since the passage indicates Adam was there with Eve when she was tempted and yet he did nothing, plus he also ate, God is holding Adam more responsible. Therefore, Adam is responsible for sin passing on to all people.

I do not think this is grounds to conclude that the sin nature is only passed down through the man. I see this as an explanation that satisfies people, but I don't see biblical evidence for it.

And the fact that scripture always attributes such to men only is not evidence for it either?

Can you show any other scripture that makes another case for it? What I'm saying is that the view isn't taken from one scripture but many and if many then there must be some evidence for it.

We see through the scriptures where sins passing is alway attributed 'from' the father but never the mother. Sin is always, in scripture, applied to the one to whom is resposible.


Also, to presume that because she got God's command second hand (which we don't know - God could have told her specifically when God came and walked with them) she isn't or wasn't responsible makes no sense to me. Whether or not it was given her by God Himself does not relieve that person from being accountable because she did know it and even argued from that stand point initially.

 

[Allan]

I'm not necessarily arguing with you Marcia but trying to understand what your saying.

My point is that life is not possible without the man and that it is the man who brings life (his seed) into her seed. Ergo whatever life is created in womb is done so with the very nature of the one from whom it came.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Annsni,

"No one has said that God can't just make Jesus a body for His purpose. However, God laid out a network of prophecy that He must fulfill if He is God since God does not lie. The Messiah would be of the seed of Adam - of the seed of David - and you cannot be a "seed" without having a physical lineage from those people.

I am my father's child. There is no question about that. However, I am not of his seed - or the seed of my great, great grandfather.....because I am adopted. I can claim family but I cannot claim lineage. There MUST be a physical tie to Adam and David - more than Mary just being a surrogate - in order for God to not be a liar. Jesus could absolutely be born sinless from a sinful woman because God is God.

He created Adam from dust. He called the universe into existence. He can make a body for Jesus out of a plain old woman's egg. IF Jesus did not come from Mary's egg, then what sort of tie would He have for us? How could we see that He was one of us? That He was tempted just as we have been? That He felt pain just as we have felt? Jesus would NOT be like us because His body would not be like our bodies. I know with all my heart that Jesus came from the seed of woman (her egg) and that He grew as a human being just like us but fully divine along with being fully human and was without sin."

I understand exactly what you are saying, and its very possible that you could be 100% correct. Thats very possible.

Like I said earlier, I dont have a strong conviction either way. When I hear your explanation its very convincing, but when I hear the other side they sound very convincing.

I just see this particular issue to be one that, no matter what side is correct, is going to have no negative affect on anyone on either side.

Nobody is going to be consigned to hell as a result of being wrong, nobody is a "heretic" for their view, nobody is "stripping" Christ of His humanity, etc etc etc.

In other words, its a "how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle" type of issue.


:godisgood:

 

[Jim1999]

No further comment for fear of expulsion

 

[Marcia]

I'm not necessarily arguing with you Marcia but trying to understand what your saying.

My point is that life is not possible without the man and that it is the man who brings life (his seed) into her seed. Ergo whatever life is created in womb is done so with the very nature of the one from whom it came.

Right, I'm not arguing, either.

I see what you are saying, but it's just stretching it too far imo to say sin is only passed from the father. After all, the baby gets the mother's genes and DNA as well. I think that Jesus was unable to receive the sin nature because of his deity. That makes more sense to me.

 

[Marcia]

No further comment for fear of expulsion

Expulsion??

 

[Allan]

Expulsion??

Because his argument deals with a sexual nature as far I was able to determine.
Could be wrong but if you read up to that point of his posts he starts heading that way and then cuts it short.

 

[OldRegular]

See, I think this addresses the perception of the people at the time - and gives them proof that Jesus was from the line of Adam, Abraham and David. While Jesus has no blood ties to Joseph, the people would not have understood that. They all would have assumed that Joseph was His father. So God made sure that no only did He in actuality have a blood lineage to Adam, Abraham and David, He also made sure that He still had it through His father's line so that those who thought He was Joseph's son still would see the tie. It's pretty cool, if you ask me. God not only addressed the truth but He also addressed the perception.

I don't know whether you are saying that the blood lineage of Jesus Christ to David was through Joseph but if you are you are incorrect. Scripture is very clear that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[OldRegular]

I'm not necessarily arguing with you Marcia but trying to understand what your saying.

My point is that life is not possible without the man and that it is the man who brings life (his seed) into her seed. Ergo whatever life is created in womb is done so with the very nature of the one from whom it came.

This sounds as if you are saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus Christ. If so that is heresy. Mary would not have been a virgin and Jesus Christ would not have been both human and divine.

 

[OldRegular]

I think this is part of the mystery of the incarnation - that Jesus was conceived as Mary's son yet he had no sin nature.

He had no sin nature because he had no human father.

 

[Allan]

This sounds as if you are saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus Christ. If so that is heresy. Mary would not have been a virgin and Jesus Christ would not have been both human and divine.

How about actaully reading my posts before touting your ad-homs.

If life comes into woman's seed vai the man and the nature of the one who provided said seed will impart of itself the same nature of that man to the new life. Then the child will be as the father is.

So if God is the Father and and the life which He imparted to the woman's seed was of Himself, via the Holy Spirit, then the child will have the same nature as His Father. Thus being both divine and human. Spiritually free from sin and depravity yet clothed in mortal flesh.

 

[Marcia]

He had no sin nature because he had no human father.

This is a theory only.

 

[Jim1999]

SHHH Mums the word.

Cheers,

Jim:tonofbricks:

 

[D.A.S.]

If Christ wasn't a biological descendant of Mary than He couldn't legally take the throne of Israel. So of course He had to be.