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.
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.)
Says you.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.
I don't know what a "sin nature" is, but, if Jesus was human, he certainly acted like any other human would have.Says you.
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
Says you.
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
Wait, sin nature is coded on the Y chromosome? So are ladies off the hook?
Says you.
Did Jesus have a sin nature?
Link, please?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?
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.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.
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 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.
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.
Ain't that a shame?A pity that means nothing except reason #7,552 why mythology is mythology, not reality.
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?