Did Jesus Sin?

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by franklin


Hi BH, thanks for posting.... OS "seems" to be supported by scripture, however, it is not!  I used to believe the same thing as you do about this doctrine until recently I have come to learn it is not biblical teaching.  I'll try to cover as much as possible of what you have quoted as time allows me.

Okay. but I beliee that it is supported by scripture.  However i will listen to you and why you think that it is not.  I of course ask the same from you. 

Oh yes, I used to believe this very same theory.... because Adam commited the first sin, the entire human race became contaminated with sin!  That means that everyone born from Adam is now born with a depraved, sinful nature; I have recently come to learn that this is totally unsupported by scripture!  It's false!  It's an insult to God!  If that is the case it's really God's fault that we sin because that is the way He created us!  If that is the case then David wouldn't have written Psalm 51 pouring out his heart in repentance to God for his sinful, wicked deeds! You might as well tear that page out of your bible!  [/B]

Yeah I wrestled with this awhile back.  How can God condemn us for sin that we could not help doing?  That is when we were depraved it was our nature to sin so why does God punish us for something we can't control.

first I want to say that God is just and fair.  So if OS is in the Bible then it must be fair and just.  Again I can't begin to convict or argue with God about how He has decided to run the universe.  He is in control and I am not.  However there are some theories as to why OS is just and right besides just saying that it is a mystery.

Some say like you that OS is just a myth.  Others view it as that it is true and that not only did Adam sin for us but it was a sin with us.  Now this second view requires some doctrine of preextience of souls so needless to say it is pretty bizarre.

But I believe the third view and that is that God made Adam our represenative.  That what He did was what we would of done also.  And since that is true we all fell because of the affects of his sin.  Adam was the official represenative of the human race and he blew it but we would of also so ther is no injustice for God to allow the results of his sin, which is the disease called OS, to affect all man afterwrods.  (except Jesus Christ of course) 

But even if that theory is not right again if it is supported by scripture then it must be correct and fair and good.  And really I have to trust God in that because His ways our higher than my own.  So let's tacke the verses.  

So BH, let's take a closer look at the passage you quoted from Rom5; it teaches that Adam's sin was not the sin of his descendants: "Them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." This shows that Paul did not consider the sin of Adam to be their sin. Those who teach the doctrine of original sin mean that because Adam sinned, men are now born sinners; that is, they become sinners involuntarily (automatically) and necessarily by inheriting a sinful nature from Adam.  [/B]

It teaches that Adam's sin was not the sin of his descendants?  i guess that is true in a way.  i did not sin with him like the second argument I said earlier describes.  However I think Romans 5 is clear that the result of Adam's sin spread to all men.

How do you explain away this verse that clearly the sin spread to all men? 


Rom 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
(NAU)

And even more so how do you explain these verses that Adam's sin resulted in our condemnation and that because of his sin we were all made sinners as the Bible says below. 

Rom 5:18-19
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
(NAU)

To interpret the phrase, "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.  [/B]

hmm that is interesting however how did Adam's sin make me be condemmed?  If I had no propensity to sin before I became a Christian then why did I do it?  Also if it was just mild why can't some fight it off.  For Romans 3 is very clear that mere human can not sin in their lifetime. It says that "no man seeks after God."  So I feel that I have to say that Adam's sin gave me a propensity to sin and that it is strong enough to guarantee that i do sin.   

Possibly others have more verses to proe original sin but I see with these verses that it is pretty clear. 

Now I believe it says all in both places because God's death was enough to cover everyone's sin if they just put their faith in Christ.  For in verse 17 Paul says that we must "...receive the grace and of the gift...." So we must be saved "by faith through grace."  So I have no probelm with it saying all in both parts. 

This brings me back to the original title of this thread, did Jesus sin?  No he did not!  He did not because Jesus was not born with a sinful nature and niether was any other human being born with a sinful nature.  The difference between His birth and ours is that He was divinely begotten by the power of God in the womb of a virgin lady.  Was it possible for Him to commit sin?; yes it was, however, because He totally submitted to the will of His father He lived the perfect sinless life in total submission to the will of God His father in heaven. He lived a sinless life as an example for us to follow.   [/B]

 

No jesus was not born with a sinful nature.  He was on par with Adam.  But instead He chose not to sin when Adam chose to sin.  That is why He is called the 2nd Adam.  
 

  And again, I can see your thinking might not be what is supported by scripture just like I used to think and believe just like you BH.....  you kind of nailed it in the second part of this quote: yes, naturally we "might"  not be able to totally obey God but through Christ and the power spirit of God and His word, we can now have the power and the knowledge to live a sin free life.[/B]

 

Okay.  I do believe that it is possible for a Christian to stop sinning.  Meaning that sin is not my master any longer God is my master.  So I have power over all sins.  However like I said before just because I do not have to sin does not mean that I will not.  I know, although i do not like it, that I will sin.  I do not excuse it.  It does however show me ho gracious God is that even after He has freed me from sin and I still go back to my own vommit (sin)  that He sttill forgave me even though He knew i would do it.  So I label Christian perfection as a possible impossibility.  is it possible sure.  Is it going to happen no! why?  Because our flesh is weak.  Even though I do not have to sin I will still choose to sin until I am fully sanctified in Heaven.  Although one of my goals is to not sin at all. 

 

Do you think a person needs to know the scriptures in order to know right from wrong?  I think your answer would be, of course not!  It's just a natural part of the human being that tells him that it is wrong to go out an commit murder or whatever.  What man ever needed the Scripture or religious instruction to know that it is wrong for someone to forcefully take what is not his? Do you need the Scripture to know that it is wrong for a person to insult you, lie about you, or abuse you in some way? Could any society convince itself through education that it is really right to hate, lie, steal, and murder or that it is wrong to love and do good to its neighbor?  .[/B]

 

I do not need sripture to tell me all my wrongs no.  However i do need scripture to illuminate my deepest sins.  Also I desperately need the author of scriptre, God, to illuminate my heart to my faults and sins.  For without His illumination I would not see Him.  In fact without any of God's grace we would not only be totally depraved but utterly depraved (or as sinful as possible) no really i would not be around at all for God would of got rid of us a long time ago or we would all be in hell's torment. 

I enjoy our discussions BH, and I would like to reply to more of your post but I am running out of time, so, maybe I can pick up on this later..... have a good day   .[/B]

 

i enjoy our discussions also.  I believe that I can learn from all sides of the fence.  I might not agree with all but I listen and respect all people's opinions and try to find what God would have me learn from what they are saying. 

Blackhawk







    


    


   [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
But I believe the third view and that is that God made Adam our represenative. That what He did was what we would of done also. And since that is true we all fell because of the affects of his sin. Adam was the official represenative of the human race and he blew it but we would of also so ther is no injustice for God to allow the results of his sin, which is the disease called OS, to affect all man afterwrods. (except Jesus Christ of course)

And it becomes even easier to accept if you interpret Genesis by its mythic genre. Adam truly becomes the representative icon of humanity. Adam becomes not only a precursor, but a "co-cursor", an archetypal "mold" that represents the universal nature of the sin of humanity.

/me braces for flame impact.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by humblejoe


And it becomes even easier to accept if you interpret Genesis by its mythic genre. Adam truly becomes the representative icon of humanity. Adam becomes not only a precursor, but a "co-cursor", an archetypal "mold" that represents the universal nature of the sin of humanity.

* humblejoe braces for flame impact.

Huh?  I do not understand what you are saying here.  Do you believe creation and the fall in Genesis is just a myth?  That He is just a literary statement of what we are naturally but there was no real Adam?  And no real fall?  I would not of thought you believed that but I won't answer for you.  I am confused. Can you explain to me what you mean to me.  Call me dense. 

blackhawk  

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Huh? I do not understand what you are saying here. Do you believe creation and the fall in Genesis is just a myth? That He is just a literary statement of what we are naturally but there was no real Adam? And no real fall? I would not of thought you believed that but I won't answer for you. I am confused. Can you explain to me what you mean to me. Call me dense.

I consider Genesis 1-11 to be a mythic sacred narrative. Adam is very archetypal. His name is closely related to the Hebrew for ground, "adamah". This and several other factors lead me to identify the text's genre as mythic. Adam is not just a "literary statement". He is an archetypal representation, description, identification, and "reasoning" for the sinful nature of man. You may disagree, and that's fine. But this is what I've drawn from studying the text. In case you're wondering, no I'm not sure of every facet of the theologically descriptive stance of every aspect of using such an interpretation, because I'm not a theologian. But I am satisfied with the identification of the mythic genre of the text, and from what I know and what I have studied concerning the text, I have come to the conclusion that Adam is indeed a mythic concept. Does that answer your question? Probably not fully, but I can expand later per request.

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by humblejoe

I have come to the conclusion that Adam is indeed a mythic concept.

Then why did Paul speak of Adam as if he were a man that actually did exist, not as just some concept?

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by humblejoe


I consider Genesis 1-11 to be a mythic sacred narrative. Adam is very archetypal. His name is closely related to the Hebrew for ground, "adamah". This and several other factors lead me to identify the text's genre as mythic.

I can see how you can come to that conclusion but couldn't of Genesis and Adam be real and still be that way?  He was made from the ground so his name meaning ground would not surprise me.  I have not done a real study about it though.  To tell you the truth I believe it more because of the theological problems with not believing it and because it seems that Jesus believed in the OT as historical. 

Adam is not just a "literary statement". He is an archetypal representation, description, identification, and "reasoning" for the sinful nature of man. [/B]

Bad choice of words by me. 

You may disagree, and that's fine. But this is what I've drawn from studying the text. In case you're wondering, no I'm not sure of every facet of the theologically descriptive stance of every aspect of using such an interpretation, because I'm not a theologian. But I am satisfied with the identification of the mythic genre of the text, and from what I know and what I have studied concerning the text, I have come to the conclusion that Adam is indeed a mythic concept. Does that answer your question? Probably not fully, but I can expand later per request. [/B]

Okay a few questions.  One so if he was not real then did God make us not perfect?  what i mean is that did He make us with a sin nature to start out with?  Or are you saying that each of us go through a period of time like Adam.  That we are not born depraved bt later become it because of our first sin?  Or are you saying that somehow in the past we humans became depraved, and we describe our fall with a story and that is what we find in Genesis.  So it did not happen exactly how the story in Genesis did but the story is more of a symbolic representaion of how and why we did become depraved?  I am thinking you believe the last one but I am just curious. 

Oh and do not worry I will not flame you.  i have never really thought that it could of occured like the 3rd way before.  Oh well if you can clarify that would be great. 

Peace,

blackhawk

 

[LouisBooth]

"n his Ps 51 he was pouring out his repentent heart to God seeking His forgiveness. "

no, he quite simply says, I was born a sinner.

"If he was saying he was a born sinner he would be putting the blame on his creator and I think you would agree that there isn't even the slightest hint of David blaming God for his sins"

No he would not be blaming the creator if he said he was born as a sinner. He would be saying that he is a fallen man, and just as Paul says, through one man all were made sinful. In adam we all sinned, thus we are all born sinful.

"If you can show where our Lord taught it, then show me the scriptures. "

I have, many many times over. Do a search on old topics and look for yourself.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I consider Genesis 1-11 to be a mythic sacred narrative. Adam is very archetypal. "

Then explain why he is specifically addressed by paul as a real person (ie not mythical and not an archtype) in romans. In romans 5 specifically then you must submit that Jesus was too a mythical person. The context of this passage shows that Paul says that through one man (adam) sin came into the world and by another man (Jesus) it was resolved. In order for your mythcial adam to by mythical then Jesus must also be mythical due to the context and comparison made by Paul in this passage. (romans 5:12-21)

 

[Slave2SinNoMore]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I consider Genesis 1-11 to be a mythic sacred narrative. Adam is very archetypal. "

Then explain why he is specifically addressed by paul as a real person (ie not mythical and not an archtype) in romans. In romans 5 specifically then you must submit that Jesus was too a mythical person. The context of this passage shows that Paul says that through one man (adam) sin came into the world and by another man (Jesus) it was resolved. In order for your mythcial adam to by mythical then Jesus must also be mythical due to the context and comparison made by Paul in this passage. (romans 5:12-21)

Exactly.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Slave2SinNoMore
Then why did Paul speak of Adam as if he were a man that actually did exist, not as just some concept?

You must understand that considering the creation stories to be myth is not the same thing as calling them untruth. It is truth, but not in a literal sense. For instance, if I were to explain how much God loves repentant sinners by referencing the Prodigal Son parable, I would say something like this: "Not only did he run to his son, but threw threw his arms around him and kissed him in utter joy of his return." Now if you didn't know this was a parable, you might think I was talking about an actual father-son reunion. Paul talks about Adam in the same manner. Next, you'll probably ask how I can believe that the creation stories are written in mythic genre. I don't want to bog down this thread, but if you insist, I can give examples that lead me to this belief.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
I can see how you can come to that conclusion but couldn't of Genesis and Adam be real and still be that way?

That's possible, but I am more inclined to believe that it was written in mythic genre, therefore "Adam" did not literally exist.

To tell you the truth I believe it more because of the theological problems with not believing it and because it seems that Jesus believed in the OT as historical.

Well, I believe in a mythic interpretation because I see more problems with taking it literally. Again, you don't have to believe as I do.

And as I've explained above, I see no ill effect on the New Testament in interpreting it mythically.

Bad choice of words by me.

No problem... I just wanted to clarify.

One so if he was not real then did God make us not perfect? what i mean is that did He make us with a sin nature to start out with? Or are you saying that each of us go through a period of time like Adam. That we are not born depraved bt later become it because of our first sin? Or are you saying that somehow in the past we humans became depraved, and we describe our fall with a story and that is what we find in Genesis. So it did not happen exactly how the story in Genesis did but the story is more of a symbolic representaion of how and why we did become depraved? I am thinking you believe the last one but I am just curious.

I don't have a definitive theological model for it, so I can't give a clean response. But that's not necessarily the point. Myth's purpose is not to infer what historically happened per se, but rather to explain things as they are now. It is not strict symbolism. You can't necessarily match up each detail of the Genesis creation stories with a correlating "real-world" detail. It's not necessary to know what historically happened, neither can I claim to know. However, what I do know is that human beings are totally depraved from birth and incapable of responding to God in their initial state, and this is what the creation stories convey.

I firmly believe that Luther and Calvin would also have had a problem with a mythic interpretation. But then again, they refused to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I consider Genesis 1-11 to be a mythic sacred narrative. Adam is very archetypal. "

Then explain why he is specifically addressed by paul as a real person (ie not mythical and not an archtype) in romans. In romans 5 specifically then you must submit that Jesus was too a mythical person. The context of this passage shows that Paul says that through one man (adam) sin came into the world and by another man (Jesus) it was resolved. In order for your mythcial adam to by mythical then Jesus must also be mythical due to the context and comparison made by Paul in this passage. (romans 5:12-21)

No, not necessarily...

Paul's statement is truth. According to the ancient Hebraic sacred narrative, "Adam" was the man through whom sin entered the world. There is nothing in his statements that leads me to believe that a mythic interpretation is invalid.

 

[Job_38]

Genesis says that God created man named Adam.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Job_38
Genesis says that God created man named Adam.

It sure does!

 

[LouisBooth]

"Paul talks about Adam in the same manner. "

Noo....He talks about him as if he was a real person. did you read the passage I talked about. If he was not a real person, he would not have named as a specific person..THOUGH ONE MAN...not through one group of people, etc..it was a specific person. Also in Luke, a book that is know for its FACTUAL accounts, names Adam in the lineage.

Also in romans he names adam along with another REAL person, moses

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. "

Thus we know that it is a real person, unless you think moses was also a mythical person?

Again here
"1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. "

the comparison is made. If Adam is a mythical person, then so is Christ. Christ was real, therfore Adam was too.

In 1 tim Paul also talks as if these two people, Adam and Eve, were real people...why? Because they were

 

[LouisBooth]

"There is nothing in his statements that leads me to believe that a mythic interpretation is invalid."

If it is mythical Adam is NOT a real person, thus sin COULD NOT have entered the world specifically through him. Myth is something that explains something but the people in the myth are not real. thus Adam is real, and the genesis account isn't mythical.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Paul talks about Adam in the same manner. "

Noo....He talks about him as if he was a real person. did you read the passage I talked about. If he was not a real person, he would not have named as a specific person..THOUGH ONE MAN...

"Adam" is named as a "specific person" because that is the way in which the Genesis story is laid out. It is done in reverence to the holy writings of the ancient Hebrew fathers.

not through one group of people, etc..it was a specific person. Also in Luke, a book that is know for its FACTUAL accounts, names Adam in the lineage.

Again, the story is not literal, therefore, it would not state "through one group of people", now would it? And again, the lineage pays reverence to the writings of the ancient Hebrew fathers. It is truth, but not literal.

Also in romans he names adam along with another REAL person, moses

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. "

Thus we know that it is a real person, unless you think moses was also a mythical person?

See above. That's a logical fallacy. Exodus is not written in pure mythic genre, and thus corresponding character comparisons(unintentional alliteration! ) cannot be made with Genesis 1-11.

Again here
"1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. "

the comparison is made. If Adam is a mythical person, then so is Christ. Christ was real, therfore Adam was too.

In 1 tim Paul also talks as if these two people, Adam and Eve, were real people...why? Because they were

See above.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

""Adam" is named as a "specific person" because that is the way in which the Genesis story is laid out. It is done in reverence to the holy writings of the ancient Hebrew fathers."

That's an extremly far stretch! I believe without a doubt that Genisus is not a myth at all. If it was the bible would start to crumble because the first book is really it's foundation.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Project 86
""Adam" is named as a "specific person" because that is the way in which the Genesis story is laid out. It is done in reverence to the holy writings of the ancient Hebrew fathers."

That's an extremly far stretch! I believe without a doubt that Genisus is not a myth at all. If it was the bible would start to crumble because the first book is really it's foundation.

I agree because it would make the "begats" all messed up. 


Gen 5:1-32
CHAPTER 5

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of {a son} in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.


6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.
7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
9 Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan.
10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.
12 Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel.
13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.
15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared.
16 Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Jared, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died.
18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch.
19 Then Jared lived eight hundred years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.
21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah.
22 Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech.
26 Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died.
28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son.
29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands {arising} from the ground which the LORD has cursed."
30 Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had {other} sons and daughters.
31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died.
32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
(NAU)

Now I listed all of this because if Adam was a myth then how can we say all the rest of these guys were not just myths either?  And if they are...

 

 

[drmmjr]

Also, if Adam were a myth then the following wouldn't be true:

Romans 5:12 - 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:
13 - (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 - But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 - And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.
17 - For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 - Therefore as by the offence 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.

One person caused sin to enter the world. If that person was a myth, then why is there sin, and why would we need Jesus to take that sin away.