A person without sin?

[Hentenza]

But you did say earlier that the sinful cannot create the sinless. So either Mary was sinless, or Mary was not involved in any way in Jesus' creation (and hence, not his mother), and was simply a surrogate for God.

Mary didn't "create" Jesus. God did but only his human side since Jesus is both God and human. Mary carried and gave birth to Jesus, hence, she is Jesus mother.

 

[Hentenza]

No, but he did choose NOT to tell his mother that he'd be staying behind. These are two different issues.


Why not? Jesus was being raised by his mother (Mary) and adoptive father (Joseph). His choosing not to inform his parents he was staying behind, thereby causing them to worry about his well being like any parent would, was not honoring his mother. There is nothing in the story to even hint that Jesus could not have informed his mother he was staying. In fact, just the opposite was true. All he had to do was tell her.

If you notice from the narrative, Joseph and Mary did not realize that Jesus was not with them for a day and then they checked with their relatives before returning to Jerusalem to look for him. It seems that Jesus was not with his parents when they left Jerusalem otherwise his absence would have been discovered then. It is sensible to believe that Jesus was with some else other than his parents and, therefore, also sensible to believe that he could have told those that he was with which did not tell his parents. The narrative is not clear with whom Jesus was nor is it clear if Mary and Joseph checked with everyone that was in their party. Given the account, you are implying that Jesus did not tell his parents on purpose which is only an assumption. What you are doing is called eisegesis.

 

[tcampen]

Mary didn't "create" Jesus. God did but only his human side since Jesus is both God and human. Mary carried and gave birth to Jesus, hence, she is Jesus mother.

Was Mary just a a surrogate mother, or was half of Jesus' DNA contributed by Mary?

 

[Hentenza]

Was Mary just a a surrogate mother, or was half of Jesus' DNA contributed by Mary?

I don't know. There are many "theories" but nothing concrete. Jesus humanity is real so, in my opinion, I believe that Mary did in fact contributed her DNA.

 

[ReverendDG]

I don't know. There are many "theories" but nothing concrete. Jesus humanity is real so, in my opinion, I believe that Mary did in fact contributed her DNA.

in that case, mary would have to be sinless or jesus would have original sin then.
yes there are many theories on how this might work.
some might be, the writers were clueless about how sex really works, original sin is not in the bible and people interpreted the virgin birth to make it look like jesus is not effected by it.
or original sin was suspended for jesus.

i go with, original sin is not in the bible and is made up by augustine to answer a question that needed an answer.
namely why do we sin? why can't we just stop sinning? why do children sin? etc
cue original sin.

funny that jesus never talks about it, but does talk about sin as being actions we commit for not really knowing god.
why is it that jesus never talks about original sin? paul supposedly does but that's just a painful twisting of the text, its not obvious he is talking about a sin tainting humanity as a whole.
funny that there is plenty of overt passages that say that no one is condemmed by others sins. in fact its repeated over and over again in this vain.

 

[Hentenza]

Hi RDG,

in that case, mary would have to be sinless or jesus would have original sin then.

Actually, that is not correct. Mary needed a savior as evidenced by Luke 1:47. A savior is only needed if one needs saving. Jesus, on the other hand, did not sin as evidenced by many NT passages (Ex. Hebrews 4:15). So what we have is a sinful Mary needing a savior and Jesus, her son, who never sinned.

yes there are many theories on how this might work.
some might be, the writers were clueless about how sex really works, original sin is not in the bible and people interpreted the virgin birth to make it look like jesus is not effected by it.
or original sin was suspended for jesus.

The term original sin is used to describe man's inherent sinful nature. Basically Adam introduced sin to mankind by his disobedience, hence the rest of us are sinners. The inherent sinful nature of man is described throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

i go with, original sin is not in the bible and is made up by augustine to answer a question that needed an answer.
namely why do we sin? why can't we just stop sinning? why do children sin? etc
cue original sin.

Augustine did not write the scriptures. He could not have made up man sinful nature. See my previous response.

funny that jesus never talks about it, but does talk about sin as being actions we commit for not really knowing god.
why is it that jesus never talks about original sin?

Jesus talks extensively about mankind's fallen nature. His sacrifice on the cross was to atone for our sins, however, we are still fallen and prong to sin.

paul supposedly does but that's just a painful twisting of the text, its not obvious he is talking about a sin tainting humanity as a whole.

Paul does indeed and is not a painful twisting of scripture. Romans 5:12 is a straight forward read.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

The consequences of sin is death. We are dead in sin because of Adam.

funny that there is plenty of overt passages that say that no one is condemmed by others sins. in fact its repeated over and over again in this vain.

See my response above.

 

[Skaloop]

The term original sin is used to describe man's inherent sinful nature. Basically Adam introduced sin to mankind by his disobedience, hence the rest of us are sinners. The inherent sinful nature of man is described throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

If a sinful nature is inherent in man, then Jesus could not have been fully man if he was without sin.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Watching someone try to wiggle religious assertions into modern science is so sad.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I think that the concept of "original sin" is a response to the havoc sometimes caused by human nature. When one is waring with a neighboring tribe, doesn't it make sense to think, "What is wrong with those people?" Original sin is, I feel, an explanation for why humans are capable of doing bad things.

Using my logic (which, even I hesitate to do *wink*), even humans born from ovum fertilized in a lab (even by sperm made from another human ovum), are born with original sin. Just by being human, I feel, we have the ability to act in negative ways.

 

[QuakerOats]

I think that the concept of "original sin" is a response to the havoc sometimes caused by human nature. When one is waring with a neighboring tribe, doesn't it make sense to think, "What is wrong with those people?" Original sin is, I feel, an explanation for why humans are capable of doing bad things.

Using my logic (which, even I hesitate to do *wink*), even humans born from ovum fertilized in a lab (even by sperm made from another human ovum), are born with original sin. Just by being human, I feel, we have the ability to act in negative ways.

I agree, 'original sin' is just a term for our ability to 'do bad things,' basically. Judaism and Islam essentially agree, except that Islam teaches that man is ultimately born 'good,' and an individual is generally not held accountable for any sin they commit until they're conscious of it.

 

[Hentenza]

If a sinful nature is inherent in man, then Jesus could not have been fully man if he was without sin.

Sure He is. Jesus is fully man and fully God. If Jesus was not fully man then He could not have died at the cross and give you a chance for salvation.

 

[PantsMcFist]

Isn't Jesus' divine nature the linch pin in salvation, not his human nature? The sacrifice had to be greater than all of humanity's potential sacrifice.

 

[Skaloop]

Sure He is. Jesus is fully man and fully God. If Jesus was not fully man then He could not have died at the cross and give you a chance for salvation.

But if a sinful nature is inherent in man (as you indicated earlier), then it is a necessary condition for being a man. If Jesus did not have a sinful nature, he could not be fully man.

Furthermore, death is also inherent in man, since all men die. However, it is not sufficient, since all living creatures die. But an inherent sinful nature is both necessary (according to original sin) and sufficient (if one subscribes to the idea that only mankind can sin).

So the fact that Jesus died is not sufficient to qualify him as fully man. His lack of a sinful nature is, however, enough to disqualify him as fully man.

 

[b&wpac4]

Sure He is. Jesus is fully man and fully God. If Jesus was not fully man then He could not have died at the cross and give you a chance for salvation.

I have another question.

If God said in the OT that He hates human sacrifice and that it is an abomination, how can He accept one later on? The one time God told somebody to do this as a test for their faith, an angel was sent to stop it before the act was carried out, showing that it was only a test of faith and God did not require the sacrifice.

Deuteronomy 12:30-31 (New American Standard Bible)

30beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?'
31"(A)You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for (B)they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

Jeremiah 19:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)

4"Because they have (A)forsaken Me and have (B)made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to (C)other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the (D)blood of the innocent
5and have built the (E)high places of Baal to burn their (F)sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;
6therefore, behold, (G)days are coming," declares the LORD, "when this place will no longer be called (H)Topheth or (I)the valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the valley of Slaughter.

 

[Hentenza]

But if a sinful nature is inherent in man (as you indicated earlier), then it is a necessary condition for being a man. If Jesus did not have a sinful nature, he could not be fully man.

A sinful nature is not a physical trait but a moral (spiritual) one. For instance, having hands is inherent to mankind but there are people born without hands all the time. That does not disqualify them from being men.

Furthermore, death is also inherent in man, since all men die. However, it is not sufficient, since all living creatures die. But an inherent sinful nature is both necessary (according to original sin) and sufficient (if one subscribes to the idea that only mankind can sin).

I agree. All creatures do die, however, only man has the capacity to sin. Could you please expand on the second sentence above? I am not sure what you mean by necessary and sufficient. Thanks.

So the fact that Jesus died is not sufficient to qualify him as fully man. His lack of a sinful nature is, however, enough to disqualify him as fully man.

See above. Also please consider the reason for Jesus humanity depicted in Hebrews 2:17 and Philippians 2:5-11.

 

[Hentenza]

I have another question.

If God said in the OT that He hates human sacrifice and that it is an abomination, how can He accept one later on? The one time God told somebody to do this as a test for their faith, an angel was sent to stop it before the act was carried out, showing that it was only a test of faith and God did not require the sacrifice.

Hi,

I am not sure I understand your question. God did in fact asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to test his faith and his trust in Him. God did send an angel to stop the sacrifice. Also, if you continue reading Genesis 22, God makes it clear what His teaching to Abraham was by providing the ram. The teaching here is to believe in God, trust God, and He will provide for you. What is in your heart is what is important. The sacrifice is secondary.

 

[Skaloop]

A sinful nature is not a physical trait but a moral (spiritual) one. For instance, having hands is inherent to mankind but there are people born without hands all the time. That does not disqualify them from being men.

Then having hands is not inherent. Inherent means something is essential. If someone born without hands is still human, than having hands is not inherent to being human.

[quoet]I agree. All creatures do die, however, only man has the capacity to sin. Could you please expand on the second sentence above? I am not sure what you mean by necessary and sufficient. Thanks.

A necessary trait is a trait that one must have to be part of a group. But that trait in and of itself is not enough to determine that one is part of that group.

A sufficient trait is one that all by itself is enough to include someone in

For instance, according to US law, in order to be president, it is necessary that a person be 35 years of age or older. That is a necessary condition of being president. However, it is not a sufficient trait, because many people over 35 years of age are not president.

See the wikipedia explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_conditions

If only man can sin, then anything that sins must, by your definition, be a man. Therefore, sinning is sufficient to determine if one is a man. If something does not sin, it is not a man. Jesus did not sin, so he could not have been a man.

You mentioned that Jesus had to be fully man because he died. But as I pointed out, death is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of being a man. It is necessary because all men do it. It is not sufficient because non-man things die to.

If I told you that something had died, could you say for certain that it was a man? No, so death is not sufficient to determine whether something is a man. Therefore, Jesus dying does not automatically make him a man.

If I told you that something had sinned, could you say for certain that it was a man? Apparently, yes (since only man can sin), so sinning is sufficient. To be a man, something must sin. Jesus did not sin, so cannot be a man.

 

[b&wpac4]

Hi,

I am not sure I understand your question. God did in fact asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to test his faith and his trust in Him. God did send an angel to stop the sacrifice. Also, if you continue reading Genesis 22, God makes it clear what His teaching to Abraham was by providing the ram. The teaching here is to believe in God, trust God, and He will provide for you. What is in your heart is what is important. The sacrifice is secondary.

In the other passages, God says of human sacrifice:

a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;

Why then does God change His mind in regards to Jesus?

 

[tcampen]

Sure He is. Jesus is fully man and fully God. If Jesus was not fully man then He could not have died at the cross and give you a chance for salvation.

This asserts that the only way God could have provided salvation is by the sacrifice of Jesus. But this renders God impotent if true. God may have chosen this as a way of communicating the message of salvation, but to say God could not have offered salvation without the sacrifice of Jesus is to say God is not omnipotent - creating contradictory characteristics of God.

 

[SiderealExalt]

This asserts that the only way God could have provided salvation is by the sacrifice of Jesus. But this renders God impotent if true. God may have chosen this as a way of communicating the message of salvation, but to say God could not have offered salvation without the sacrifice of Jesus is to say God is not omnipotent - creating contradictory characteristics of God.

Makes me wonder why ANY deity would require human sacrifice.