Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But it also raises the question of why the heck bring DNA into it.Yes, we do appear to be getting somewhere. So you are saying that God himself is controlling how the Sin nature is passed on genetically, and restricting it to the father's "house"? That He prevents the Sin nature of the mother from being present in the DNA houses of the ovum?
That, I must admit, would at least make some sense in a "God can do anything" sort of way.
DNA is only the carrier --- it houses the Sin Nature until it gets to its destination.But it also raises the question of why the heck bring DNA into it.
Is this because you think God should just sit on His throne and dole out the Sin Nature to everyone at the moment of conception?Ah, OK. I just don't get why the omnipotent God needs a carrier at all.
I have the wrong mindset, I know.
Ah, OK. I just don't get why the omnipotent God needs a carrier at all.
I have the wrong mindset, I know.
Is this because you think God should just sit on His throne and dole out the Sin Nature to everyone at the moment of conception?
No, He certainly doesn't need a carrier, but by making Adam the federal head of the human race, all Jesus had to do is die once for all.
Otherwise, Jesus would have to come back and die for each and every person ever born.
Ya --- make your jokes and accusations.Well how else will he make sure every one has a sin nature unless he personally passes the sin nature on to each one of us.
wait. why would God act like that
The way you describe Him, you'd think He wasn't omnipotent
Well how else will he make sure every one has a sin nature unless he personally passes the sin nature on to each one of us.
wait. why would God act like that
Okay --- now we're getting somewhere.
As Mark said, and I agree, sin is spiritual --- so is the Sin Nature.
So when the father gives the DNA house to either his son or his daughter, the Sin Nature exits that house and becomes part of the flesh.
Then, when the daughter marries and has children of her own, the Sin Nature of her children will be transmitted to them via their father's house.
Her houses won't have the Sin Nature residing in any of them --- his will.
Ya --- make your jokes and accusations.
They you'll wonder why you don't understand anything.
These smileys were tailor-made for you guys:
As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.Problem.
Your "houses" (representing DNA) are just Atoms, chemical, are you saying Sin hides in the chemical arrangement, but it's not the chemical arrangement isself ?
As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.
As Mark Kennedy pointed out, and I agree, sin is spiritual.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.Ok, lets look at this a minute. As an exposition of the proof texts it's nicely done. The writer simply says that it's reasonable to consider the body of Jesus to be a special creation and as the second Adam Jesus would have had a flawless DNA code. It's a nice exposition.
...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)Only Adam is properly spoken of as the, 'son of God', in that he had no human parents.
Wow!Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:
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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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. (Romans 5:12-14)This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam figuratively. They simply have no answer for this
If you assume Genesis is a historical narrative. But isn't that begging the question? Interestingly Luke describes the genealogy in his gospel as what people 'supposed' Jesus' genealogy was. Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli... Suppositions about genealogies don't make a good basis for doctrine.just as they have no answer for the book of Genesis being an historical narrative representing the genealogical pedigree of mankind in general (the generations of Adam) and the Hebrews (the generations of Abraham) respectively.
I wonder if MK would claim "evil atheist conspiracy" if he ever has a discussion with Kenneth Miller or any other Christian evolution-accepter. I also wonder if he realizes that some of the "scientists that haunt this board" actually have degrees in genetics.
There is a bigger problem here than trying to link sin and DNA. This theology seems to deny the incarnation, that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully God.GuidanceNeeded gave this link to me, which contains this passage:SOURCEThus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Marys egg or from any mans sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eves sin. He was absolutely pure and without sinfrom the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to behe was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).
In addition, Homo sapiens have a [Homo] predecessor --- mankind doesn't --- (except for God, that is).
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
The lions and tigers and bears God formed had no lion or tiger or bear parents either. Does that make them sons of God too?
Calling Adam the 'son of God' is hardly speaking literally, especially in a genealogy which is talking about a long line of biological parenthood. As far as I know only Mormons take this literally and think God really was Adam's biological father.
Wow!
If you assume Genesis is a historical narrative. But isn't that begging the question?
Interestingly Luke describes the genealogy in his gospel as what people 'supposed' Jesus' genealogy was. Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli... Suppositions about genealogies don't make a good basis for doctrine.
There is a bigger problem here than trying to link sin and DNA. This theology seems to deny the incarnation, that Jesus Christ was fully human as well as fully God.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Yet according to this, Jesus was not really born of a human mother, she was just surrogate, and if Jesus was completely unrelated to the human race, why would he even be under the law?
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things...he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (Heb 2:14)
Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
The bible says Jesus shared our flesh and blood, that he was made like us in every respect, that he knows what it is like to be tempted because he was tempted too. If Jesus was a separate creation, born without a 'sin nature' how would he know what we go through? How was he made like us in every respect, tempted like us in every respect, if human nature is supposed to have been changed and corrupted utterly at the fall and Jesus was made like Adam was before the fall?
All ad hom, and not a single answer to my point. Oh well.Their lineage has nothing to do with redemptive history, Adam does. I like the satire but I stammer and stutter at calling it Christian. Believers affirm the gospel they don't cast aspiration and resort to this kind of whimsical mockery.
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:1-2
There are a number of Christians that are taken in by this modern mythology but not all of those who profess faith share it.
I don't know why you have such a problem with TEs either. YEC seems to have that effect on some believers, it is what first made me think modern creationism is not of the Spirit of God.What I find strange is I have less of a problem with the cults and Catholic legalism then I do with TE as it is propagated on here. I don't really care if you take Genesis literally or not, I don't really care what you think about evangelical or fundamentalist theology. How you treat doctrine is another matter and to make a mockery of so much Christian scholarship is yet another proof positive for me that TE is nothing but a secular philosophy in sheep's clothing.
Yes the text is pretty explicit. That is why I simply replied with a 'Wow!' You quote Paul clearly describing Adam as figure of Christ and immediately claim it is an error to take Adam figuratively. Again, wow! If I did not know YECs I would have thought you were joking, In fact I did think you were having a laugh for a second.Mark: Paul speaks of Adam in this way, notice he uses the proper name just as he does with Moses:
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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the [FONT="]figure[/FONT] of him that was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
This passage easily refutes the common error of TEs to take Adam [FONT="]figuratively[/FONT]. They simply have no answer for this
Assyrian: Wow!
Mark: It isn't that difficult to comprehend, the text is explicit.
Believe it? Or believe it is a historical narrative? Big difference.No, you either believe it or not.
We survived catering to the naturalistic assumptions of round earthers and heliocentrists. Turns out the scientists were right. The church catered to their naturalistic assumptions, and yet it is still going strong.If you want to cater to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians then be my guest but be advised, theistic evolution is next.
And yet he described Jesus genealogy as what people 'supposed'. Should I not believe Luke because you want to suppose it too.Why don't you just admit it, you don't believe the historicity of the Bible. You might think you are making a point here but all I see is the desperate attempt of someone compromising Christian conviction in favor of party spirit. Luke traces the lineage of man back to Adam, the first man. That makes him a creationist in every way that has meaning.
And yet when Paul talks of Adam as the first man, he immediately describes Jesus as the second man. 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. If you read Genesis as a historical narrative, isn't the second man Cain? Or is Paul doing what he told us about in Romans, reading Adam figuratively? I do not know why you would make the claim "there was no question in the mind of Jews at that time". I though I pointed out to you before that both Josephus and Philo, first century Jews from pretty diverse backgrounds, interpreted Adam allegorically. Not only was Paul interpreting Adam figuratively in both Romans and 1Cor, he fitted in very well with first century Jewish allegorical interpretation of Genesis.Paul speaks of Adam as a man, the first man, in no uncertain terms but there was no need for him to dwell on it since there was no question in the mind of Jews at that time.
TEs regularly discuss biblical exposition with you, it is difficult because we have to persevere through all the insults and condemnation you keep throwing at us. Is putting up with a bit of whimsy such a terrible price for you to pay? Jesus used gnats and camels to illustrate the flaws in Pharisees' biblical exposition, are lions and tigers and bears such an unchristian illustration to use? Or is it the fact you did not have an answer to the gaping hole I pointed out in your exposition?I take a lot of things in the Bible literally that others don't, it creates no inward struggle to do that. I was out looking for a Bible study and an interesting discussion of Christian Apologetics. Instead what I found was a host of professing Christians who busy themselves mocking at Biblical exposition.
Have a nice day
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?