A person without sin?

[Skaloop]

One Christian perspective I have heard is that the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations through males. This is why Jesus, born of a woman and God rather than a woman and a man, was free of sin. Not all Christians believe this, of course, but I have heard it asserted before.

Now, jump forward a couple of millennia, and modern science is working on creating viable embryos using the genetic material of two women. The genetic material of one woman's ovum is extracted and added to the ovum of the other woman. I'm not sure if it's been successful yet, but it is possible that it soon will be.

If sin is passed on through males, and no male had a part in creating this embryo, would the resulting child (which would have to be female) be without sin the way Jesus was?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

One Christian perspective I have heard is that the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations through males. This is why Jesus, born of a woman and God rather than a woman and a man, was free of sin. Not all Christians believe this, of course, but I have heard it asserted before.

Now, jump forward a couple of millennia, and modern science is working on creating viable embryos using the genetic material of two women. The genetic material of one woman's ovum is extracted and added to the ovum of the other woman. I'm not sure if it's been successful yet, but it is possible that it soon will be.

If sin is passed on through males, and no male had a part in creating this embryo, would the resulting child (which would have to be female) be without sin the way Jesus was?

A white smock does not make one God.

These offspring of chemical reactions will be fascinating to see interact with the rest of society.

I'd say that they are being created from pure sin.

 

[Skaloop]

A white smock does not make one God.

These offspring of chemical reactions will be fascinating to see interact with the rest of society.

I'd say that they are being created from pure sin.

Where is the sin in their creation? It's merely a scientific process.

 

[Hentenza]

Where is the sin in their creation? It's merely a scientific process.

Basically Jesus is God. God does not sin, therefore, Jesus is incapable of sin. God created man and man disobeyed God which made man a sinner. A scientist (a sinful person) that changes the natural creation would in principle become the creator and since the creator is not free of sin then his creation could not be sinless.

 

[Skaloop]

Basically Jesus is God. God does not sin, therefore, Jesus is incapable of sin. God created man and man disobeyed God which made man a sinner. A scientist (a sinful person) that changes the natural creation would in principle become the creator and since the creator is not free of sin then his creation could not be sinless.

The scientists aren't creating anything, though, they're just manipulating stuff that's already there.

 

[Hentenza]

The scientists aren't creating anything, though, they're just manipulating stuff that's already there.

Sure they are. The scientist are in essence creating a being through unnatural means by manipulating nature, therefore, It ceases to be natural and becomes "created".

 

[Skaloop]

Sure they are. The scientist are in essence creating a being through unnatural means by manipulating nature, therefore, It ceases to be natural and becomes "created".

They're already doing that, with in vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic manipulation... the list goes on. Heck, even cooking our food is a manipulation of nature. Are all of those things sinful?

 

[Hentenza]

They're already doing that, with in vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic manipulation... the list goes on. Heck, even cooking our food is a manipulation of nature. Are all of those things sinful?

I was addressing your question in the OP questioning if the person generated by this new technology would be subject to man's sinful nature. Are you now asking whether all results of nature manipulation are sinful?

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I've always wondered why the concept of 'original sin' even exists. No other sins are passed down from previous generations. Even if eating an apple was worth tainting the whole human race with sin, why is there still the concept of original sin after Jesus? Didn't Jesus take all the sin away? I'm very confused with this premise.

 

[Hentenza]

I've always wondered why the concept of 'original sin' even exists. No other sins are passed down from previous generations. Even if eating an apple was worth tainting the whole human race with sin, why is there still the concept of original sin after Jesus? Didn't Jesus take all the sin away? I'm very confused with this premise.

Hi PB,

Eating the apple is not what caused the fall. Heck, we don't really know if it was an apple. The fall was a result of disobedience not of consuming a fruit.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Hi PB,

Eating the apple is not what caused the fall. Heck, we don't really know if it was an apple. The fall was a result of disobedience not of consuming a fruit.

Hi Hentenza

The next question would probably be the same as my last post, but replacing the words 'eating an apple' with 'disobedience'.

 

[LittleNipper]

One Christian perspective I have heard is that the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations through males. This is why Jesus, born of a woman and God rather than a woman and a man, was free of sin. Not all Christians believe this, of course, but I have heard it asserted before.

Now, jump forward a couple of millennia, and modern science is working on creating viable embryos using the genetic material of two women. The genetic material of one woman's ovum is extracted and added to the ovum of the other woman. I'm not sure if it's been successful yet, but it is possible that it soon will be.

If sin is passed on through males, and no male had a part in creating this embryo, would the resulting child (which would have to be female) be without sin the way Jesus was?

Well, perhaps an ANTI-CHRIST may think so...

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hentenza

The next question would probably be the same as my last post, but replacing the words 'eating an apple' with 'disobedience'.

That is the beauty of Jesus Christ sacrificial atonement on the cross and the reason for it. The Old Testament testifies to the inability of man to save himself because of man's inherent sinful nature. God so loves mankind that He sent His son to die for our sins so that if we accept His free gift then we can be saved.

 

[70x7]

I've always wondered why the concept of 'original sin' even exists. No other sins are passed down from previous generations. Even if eating an apple was worth tainting the whole human race with sin, why is there still the concept of original sin after Jesus? Didn't Jesus take all the sin away? I'm very confused with this premise.

No, Jesus did not come to make sins dissapear. He came to overcome them.
The punishment for sin is death and ultimately one would be sent to hell for them. Old Testament believers in God were to do blood sacrifices to atone for those sins.
Jesus WAS our sacrfice. He came to take on all the sins of man to prevent us from spending eternity in the lake of fire. Of course, we still have the choice to accept the gift or not, but thats for another story..

 

[b&wpac4]

That is the beauty of Jesus Christ sacrificial atonement on the cross and the reason for it. The Old Testament testifies to the inability of man to save himself because of man's inherent sinful nature. God so loves mankind that He sent His son to die for our sins so that if we accept His free gift then we can be saved.

Hello there,

Can I ask where in the Old Testament is the idea that man is unable to save himself or a way to atone for sins without Jesus?

 

[Skaloop]

I was addressing your question in the OP questioning if the person generated by this new technology would be subject to man's sinful nature. Are you now asking whether all results of nature manipulation are sinful?

You said that a sinful creator cannot make something sinless. But people of all sorts manipulate natural things and create things that are without sin. Why would the creation of an embryo as outlined in the OP be different? If sin is passed on through the male line from Adam (which you may not agree with, but if it is), and an embryo is created without a direct male line (it being the product of two females), from whence comes its sin?

 

[Hentenza]

Hello there,

Can I ask where in the Old Testament is the idea that man is unable to save himself or a way to atone for sins without Jesus?

Sure. Among many I like Isaiah 64 because it directly addresses how our attempts at righteous deeds as sinners are like filthy rags. The problem with trying to save ourselves is that we end up idolizing our selves (a frequent event depicted in the OT). Paul is clear that we boast if we take credit for our own salvation. This is evidenced by the way Israel corrupted God's law for their benefit by removing God (the Holy Spirit) and ruling earthly (not divinely) by the law. Jesus addresses this in the NT.

Hope that helps.

 

[PantsMcFist]

The idea of original sin being passed sexually was created to support Marian theology regarding her alleged virginity.

 

[tcampen]

This is addressing the issue of whether Origina Sin applies to Jesus. When Jesus was a child, Mary and Joseph packed up and left Jerusalem, thinking young Jesus was with them. here's the story from Luke, chapter 2:

41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Here, the boy Jesus failed to tell his parents that he stayed behind in Jerusalem like he clearly should have. For any other 12 year old, this would clearly be not honoring one's mother and father (speaking of Joseph). But when Jesus does the exact same thing, are the rules changed?

By saying Jesus cannot sin because He is God, does that mean no matter what Jesus does is automatically NOT a sin? Or, is it saying that the act itself is not a sin, regardless of who commits it. I think this is critical issue, for if the former is the case, right and wrong become extremely relativistic. If it is the latter, then Jesus cannot be without sin.

Thoughts?

 

[Hentenza]

You said that a sinful creator cannot make something sinless. But people of all sorts manipulate natural things and create things that are without sin. Why would the creation of an embryo as outlined in the OP be different? If sin is passed on through the male line from Adam (which you may not agree with, but if it is), and an embryo is created without a direct male line (it being the product of two females), from whence comes its sin?

A created meal, or animal, or plant, can not sin since they do not possess the propensity to sin. An "unnaturally" created person would indeed have the propensity to sin given that a sinful "creator" can not "create" a sinless "person". That which is born of flesh is flesh and since flesh is sinful then this created person will also be sinful.