Honest questions?

[Lion Hearted Man]

We'll we can be thankful that God didn't pick you to translate His word, can't we?

(You probably can be thankful too, as the King James translators would have probably politely escorted you out.)

So it doesn't matter what the original words were, just whatever the translators decided to write down? Why did God even bother creating an original Bible in another language if he was going to change the meaning of his "inerrant" word for English readers?

 

[AV1611VET]

If He is to be considered fully human (that is, a fully human male) as described in the Bible, then he must have a Y-chromosome, along with the rest of the DNA that was not provided by Mary. If He didn't, He was not fully human.

Keep in mind that I am not saying God couldn't have begat Jesus with an incomplete/partial/non-human genome and still had him walk around doing His thing. What I am saying is that God could not have made Jesus fully human without a full set of human DNA.

Says you.

Did Jesus have a sin nature?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Says you.

Did Jesus have a sin nature?

I don't know what a "sin nature" is, but, if Jesus was human, he certainly acted like any other human would have.

 

[Skaloop]

Says you.

Did Jesus have a sin nature?

Well, I feel I could answer that a couple ways.

If you still hold that the sin nature is passed through the Y-chromosome, starting through Adam, then I suppose that since He got His Y-chromosome from God and God is without sin, then He would not have a sin nature.

On the other hand, if He had a truly human genome, and sin nature is an inherent part of human genetics, then He would have to have a sin nature to be fully human. I am guessing this is what you are getting at. In which case Jesus would have to have a sin nature (He was tempted by sin, remember) but due to his Holy nature could be able to resist sinning. So He would have a sin nature, but still never sin. In such a case, sinning is not required to be human*, but having a sin nature would be.

*I say this because I am not sinning right now, but that doesn't make me non-human between this moment and when I do sin next.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Wait, sin nature is coded on the Y chromosome? So are ladies off the hook?

 

[Skaloop]

Wait, sin nature is coded on the Y chromosome? So are ladies off the hook?

Not according to AV. But don't try to figure it out; there's a discussion on it out there somewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not according to AV. But don't try to figure it out; there's a discussion on it out there somewhere.

Here's a lengthy discussion on it: 192

 

[Belk]

Here's a lengthy discussion on it: 192

Wow. I had utterly forgotten that ludicrous discussion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Says you.

Did Jesus have a sin nature?

Does anyone but you think "sin nature" is genetic?

I must say, AV -- your classic "Sin nature is transmitted through the Y chromosome" schtick was comedy gold back when it was new.

 

[AV1611VET]

I must say, AV -- your classic "Sin nature is transmitted through the Y chromosome" schtick was comedy gold back when it was new.

Link, please?

 

[Belk]

Link, please?

You mean the one you just linked to? OK

192

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Link, please?

 

[USincognito]

16th June 2002, 08:07 AM

 

[Nathan Poe]

Link, please?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358571-21/#post52029903

Of course, in your insistance that "sin nature" is only in the father's DNA, and your proud ignorance of the nature of DNA, you insisted that you weren't specifying the Y chromosome, in spite of the fact that would be the only DNA "part" unique to a father.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358571-21/#post52029903

Of course, in your insistance that "sin nature" is only in the father's DNA, and your proud ignorance of the nature of DNA, you insisted that you weren't specifying the Y chromosome, in spite of the fact that would be the only DNA "part" unique to a father.

And the point of the entire sin nature discussion, if I remember correctly, is that if Jesus had a human father, then Jesus would have been born with a sin nature as well, and He too, would be in need of a Saviour.

Jesus had to have been born of a virgin -- period.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And the point of the entire sin nature discussion, if I remember correctly, is that if Jesus had a human father, then Jesus would have been born with a sin nature as well, and He too, would be in need of a Saviour.

Jesus had to have been born of a virgin -- period.

Which is pretty much where your entire "discussion" falls laughably flat, since if "sin nature" were genetic, then (1) God, not "the Fall" put it into us, and (2) Jesus would've simply gotten it from his mother, who was not born of a virgin.

Sorry, AV -- you wear your ignorance like a badge -- time to let it shine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is pretty much where your entire "discussion" falls laughably flat, since if "sin nature" were genetic, then (1) God, not "the Fall" put it into us, and (2) Jesus would've simply gotten it from his mother, who was not born of a virgin.

Until you Internet scientists can come up with a better explanation that I can incorporate into my Boolean standards, I'll stick to that explanation that Jesus was born of a virgin so He wouldn't have the sin nature.

Which, by the way, is also call the 'Adamic nature' -- since it is passed down from Adam, not Eve.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Until you Internet scientists can come up with a better explanation that I can incorporate into my Boolean standards, I'll stick to that explanation that Jesus was born of a virgin so He wouldn't have the sin nature.

Your "Boolean standards" are based on a false premise -- that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Alas, since abandoning this premise would be a blow to your ego, your standards are still going to remain low.

Which, by the way, is also call the 'Adamic nature' -- since it is passed down from Adam, not Eve.

A pity that means nothing except reason #7,552 why mythology is mythology, not reality.

 

[Tomatoman]

And the point of the entire sin nature discussion, if I remember correctly, is that if Jesus had a human father, then Jesus would have been born with a sin nature as well, and He too, would be in need of a Saviour.

Jesus had to have been born of a virgin -- period.

And a 14 year old one to boot, apparently. Should god have been arrested for sex with a minor? Discuss.

 

[AV1611VET]

A pity that means nothing except reason #7,552 why mythology is mythology, not reality.

Ain't that a shame?

Perhaps the Bible does belong in science class after all?

Then maybe -- just maybe -- someone would find this elusive sin nature that can't be genetically located?