Did Jesus inherit original sin from Mary?

[Athanasias]

Indeed.

When I see some of the crazy ideas here which effectively deny that Jesus had any human DNA, I have to wonder just how much of a mess popular theology must be. At least Catholic thinking about Mary is a defense of the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ. When people toss off Catholic teaching about Mary they seem to eventually also toss of Catholic teaching about Jesus and find themselves some crazy alternatives. They're happy they have nothing to do with Catholic teaching, but they end up swallowing stuff that is not at all Christian. I'm not speaking of any particular individuals, but when the creeds are not followed, it gets messy. Stopping here before I get in trouble.

Well said! Happy Feast of the theotokos and blessed New Year!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Still waiting to see any Bible verse that supports the absurd notion that everything that's true must be found in the Bible.

Oh, didn't know you were waiting...
Proverbs 30:6:
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
I Corinthians 4:6
...so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”
Revelation 22:18:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Revelation 22:18-19:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

 

[coffee4u]

Still waiting to see any Bible verse that supports the absurd notion that everything that's true must be found in the Bible.

2 Timothy 3
6 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible is God's word to us, do you not think something as important as what you just said would not at least be mentioned in the scriptures?

Since you are not backing up this claim up with scripture I will assume your teaching comes directly from your church. The next question would be, where do they get it from?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes, I have quoted from them...it is not me who is unique in my faith...many, many, many, if not most church bodies agree there is original sin.
What's wrong with Romans 5:12;18;19? Not to your liking b/c the facts don't suit you? Genesis is clear...Adam named Eve *because* she would become the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20) The significance (I write for the obtuse at heart and mind) is thus her sin was visited upon all.

You are implying that somehow proves your case. It doesn't. Original sin is a doctrine of the Church of Rome. It was inherited from Rome by the Protestants. Also, Adam named her Chavah (from Chayah...the living one). She is the mother of all living (she is "em kol chai", the mother of all life) because we are all related to her. That is all.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Know that most of Christendom opposes your thoughts and they amount to pure, unadulterated obstinance. You stare at a page in Romans which clearly states that by one man's sin, sin entered the world and all sinned, and come away saying there's no such thing as original sin. You are so wrong-headed and stubborn on this.

And if everyone would jump off a bridge, would you? That proves nothing.

 

[Deus Vult!]

Hi carl,

It's my understanding that the zygot of Jesus had neither mother or father in its DNA. The zygot was placed in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit already complete. I don't think that we are to understand that the Holy Spirit had some sort of sexual relation with Mary and his sperm, for lack of a better word, implanted an egg from Mary's womb. The zygot was already fertilized, if that's what it would have required, and growing to fruition when, in its first days stage, it was implanted in the womb of Mary.

So, while Jesus was born as a man, I don't believe that he had any human DNA from either his earthly father or mother in his biological makeup. Thus, he was not born with the seed of original sin that the Scriptures speak of being passed down from Adam, whether that sin nature could only come from the male side or the female side.

That's my 2¢ worth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

What I would give for the published "Gospel according to Ted". Lol. Keep your 2 cents Ted.
You would do better to think longer and harder on these matters... Here is something, maybe study some Eucharistic miracles (where un- explainable phenomena relating to the consecrated Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord has occurred) Guess what Ted? The Bread - consecrated into His Body - has turned into actual flesh... guess what else Ted? The bread had turned into the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium... guess what else Ted? The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)... not enough Ted? Here, in the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium...
The Eucharistic miracle I am speaking of is the "Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano Italy".
This miracle occurred in the 8th century A.D.
The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Laudate Deum!
Christus Vincit!
All glory and honor to Jesus Christ forever!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

You are implying that somehow proves your case. It doesn't. Original sin is a doctrine of the Church of Rome. It was inherited from Rome by the Protestants. Also, Adam named her Chavah (from Chayah...the living one). She is the mother of all living (she is "em kol chai", the mother of all life) because we are all related to her. That is all.

This post was totally uninformative and you still have not put down why you reject the explanation of Romans 5 for original sin...as best you can. It would help if you assigned your meaning to each main phrase.
See: Romans 5:12:
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
and Romans 5:18-19:
Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

And if everyone would jump off a bridge, would you? That proves nothing.

While it is possible for most to be wrong and one wise one in the bunch...you my friend do not pass the "sniff test". (Just kidding) I come by my doctrine only from reading the Bible with no foot notes or "cheat sheet"...I am not a follower.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

This post was totally uninformative and you still have not put down why you reject the explanation of Romans 5 for original sin...as best you can. It would help if you assigned your meaning to each main phrase.
See: Romans 5:12:
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
and Romans 5:18-19:
Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

I don't reject it, I reject YOUR interpretation of it. I already explained it to you in other posts.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

While it is possible for most to be wrong and one wise one in the bunch...you my friend do not pass the "sniff test". (Just kidding) I come by my doctrine only from reading the Bible with no foot notes or "cheat sheet"...I am not a follower.

Your doctrine comes from the Church of Rome...period.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I don't reject it, I reject YOUR interpretation of it. I already explained it to you in other posts.

Nope!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Your doctrine comes from the Church of Rome...period.

My doctrine comes from reading the Bible many times following a spiritual experience. It is insulting to me to have someone say I'd follow the church doctrine; I am a pure Berean at heart....period!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Have a Happy New Year and may God bless us in the coming year with many more nuggets of pure gold found only in His Truth. A friend emailed me tonight with a passage and so I'll pass it on as a cheery thought...

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” --Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

[Carl Emerson]

I agree with you that Jesus's struggle with temptation in one sense, was on a different paradigm than ours; yet absolutely He faced the same struggles we do of living in a fallen world. He faced the same sort of disappointments. He faced the same struggles of dealing with other people's sin. He was misunderstood, misjudged, looked down at, marginalized, seen as unimportant. All these emotional hardships of dealing with other people. He wanted other people to understand the Father and on several occasions; we see He actually "loses it" on the disciples and tells them all "shut up" essentially. He just spent two days explaining to all them that He's about to be crucified; this is the greatest time of trial in human history and they are all arguing about who will be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. (And just to think the patience and restraint of God that He didn't just turn around and slap someone. LOL)

So when it says He was tempted in every way like us (from external pressures / forces coming at one); I think is what that means.

On the flip side of this though; not having sin meant that He did not have the internal struggle within Himself we have because of our sin. His feelings actions and motives were all consistent with each other. Yet I don't think this means He didn't struggle with "understanding" the plan; or even feelings of being able to accomplish it. If we read through and look at Messianic portions of Scripture; we see He did get scared. He did doubt that He understood in His human reasoning what was being asked of Him. He feared failing. We see that in Jeremiah 30 that talks about "Jacob's trouble". Did He fear sinning in all this? I'm not sure. In a certain sense, I can imagine that He did. He certainly felt the frailty of His own humanity. So in that sense also; He was "tempted as we are".

I don't know if you've personally ever faced a circumstance that you knew you were not going to "escape". And to face such a dire situation knowing this is going to kill you? Now I did face a catastrophic car accident where when I look back at it; I'm honestly surprised I survived. Now obviously when we got in the car that day; none of us knew that was coming 1/2 hour later. Yet when the event began to unfold; I knew I was not going to escape it. I'd concluded at the point just before impact that I was not going to survive this. And then after I woke up from my 8 year old son screaming; I knew someone had to save me or I was not going to survive.

Yet I have trouble wrapping my brain around just facing the physical aspect of seeing impending death, knowing no one is going to save you from it. And that isn't even addressing the issue of facing God's wrath as the "rest of the iceberg" under the event of the physical death.

Then to add on top of that; Jesus understood He was not obligated to do this. AND, it would not have been sin on His part if He said: "No, I'm done here." He was so determined though, by His own intentions as had been agreed upon in eternity, plus (from the human perspective not wanting to disappoint the Father, or Himself for that matter), besides what ever personal human affections were tied up in those He came to redeem; that He went through it anyways. The plan provided for the only possible way to accomplish it; and the Scripture says He set His face as a flint and He did it because that's ultimately what He wanted more than anything else.

Psalm 139 explains to us that Jesus understood that He was uniquely fashioned above all other humans; and so collecting all the elements of the totality of (just) His human existence? I'm not sure I can fathom what that must be like. God as the entity that He is; is so much further reaching than our comprehension. We can't even imagine what it must be like to literally be limitless.

And so yes; Jesus's experience of the world and His experience of His own existence is very different than ours!

One thing I've noticed reading the gospels, is that Jesus seemed frequently frustrated with people. Having no sin to battle with; I can imagine on one level He was at a loss of human understanding of what it was like to be a sinner. Ironically too; even God being omniscient doesn't "know" that. And on top of not knowing that; has no desire to know that either! That's mind boggling in and of itself.

So yes, in this sense you would be correct too. Jesus's "flesh" (being the materially created essence of His personhood - which obviously is different than our fallen nature) never experienced what it was like to "war against the Spirit".

Thanks for your confirming thoughts.

Last time I tried to convey this truth I was rather rejected like a heretic.

 

[chilehed]

Oh, didn't know you were waiting...

Still am, since you weren't able to do it.

2 Timothy 3

Nope, doesn't say it either.

Scripture says that there are many things that Jesus did that weren't written down. There are many more true things that aren't in the Bible than are. And the idea that Mary was conceived without sin is perfectly compatible with what the Bible actually does say.

As I said, many people will disagree for no good reason. As for the OP's question about Jesus and original sin, it's been answered.

 

[misput]

What does Genesis state?
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Did they die? Not immediately as one might expect...but it seems unclear to you, others found it clear or were taught by God to make it clear; Paul pens in Romans just what it means for us and we may then go back and see it from the original language:
Romans 5:12-14:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, 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 is a pattern of the one to come.
and...
Romans 5:19:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners...

To deny this fact...original sin...is to stubbornly refuse to allow God to guide your learning with the Scriptures. You must not let ego get in the way of saving Truth. That is sin.

To have different opinions on the doctrine of original sin is not a sin, none of us seem to be stubbornly refusing God. Goodness brother, how long have you been a christian?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

To have different opinions on the doctrine of original sin is not a sin, none of us seem to be stubbornly refusing God. Goodness brother, how long have you been a christian?

Perhaps my response was awkwardly written for you to have come to the conclusion which you have...also, been a Christian for a long life-time and growing and hoping to continue to grow each passing day!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Still am, since you weren't able to do it.


Nope, doesn't say it either.

Scripture says that there are many things that Jesus did that weren't written down. There are many more true things that aren't in the Bible than are. And the idea that Mary was conceived without sin is perfectly compatible with what the Bible actually does say.

As I said, many people will disagree for no good reason. As for the OP's question about Jesus and original sin, it's been answered.

The passage in John states...
John 21:25:
Jesus also did many other things. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the world itself would not have room for the books that would be written.
How does this passage negate...Do not go beyond what is written? or Do not add to His words?
I have no time left for such stubbornness!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Still waiting to see any Bible verse that supports the absurd notion that everything that's true must be found in the Bible.

You could wait the rest of your life for that one.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Thanks for your confirming thoughts.

Last time I tried to convey this truth I was rather rejected like a heretic.

Well, understanding the Trinity is a difficult subject to tackle.

I'm not even really sure I answered your question about how Jesus was tempted like we are. Some of your answer may reside in what ever the word "tempted" conveys in that passage. Sometimes looking at the words can be enlightening (other times just more confusing!)

Also, I find a lot of people respond assuming they understand the question. I got that a lot with "Theory on Origin of Evil". People responded to tell me I was wrong who didn't even read the OP. (Well OK; I can understand (at times) not reading the entire thread, but at least read the OP!)