Original Sin, I was wrong.

[Assyrian]

Was Jesus 'born again'?

Heb 12:7
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Jesus was not born of man but of woman. He is always referred to in the New Testament as the "son of Mary". Christ did not have the sin nature since it is only passed on by the man.

This is where the idea of a sin nature really comes unstuck. The verse Zeena quoted says that if Jesus didn't share our human nature he could not reconcile to God on the cross. Much better to stick to biblical terminology like 'flesh' which Jesus certainly did share.

 

[golgotha61]

This is where the idea of a sin nature really comes unstuck. The verse Zeena quoted says that if Jesus didn't share our human nature he could not reconcile to God on the cross. Much better to stick to biblical terminology like 'flesh' which Jesus certainly did share.

Looks like we are not going to agree on much. The verse does not say "human nature" in at least the "sin nature". The address is Heb.2:17, "unto his brethren" or translated also as likened to or resemble is I believe is referring to our human senses (hunger, exhaustion etc.) an our physical composition but not our sin nature.

I will make another statement that you may or may not agree with, after all we are on a role here: if Christ did inherit our sin nature then He would have been able to sin in the wilderness during the forty day temptation, I believe He could not have sinned. Since Christ had no earthly father, the sin nature was not passed on to Him. M.R. Dehaan's book The Chemistry of the Blood is a good explanation on the blood being the carrier, if you will, of the sin nature.

BTW what is the yellow exclamation sign on this post for?

 

[holyrokker]

Hebrews 2:14-17 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

If we are born with a "sinful nature", but Jesus wasn't, then this passage isn't true.

 

[holyrokker]

I appreciate your thought progression but I don't hold the same conclusion. The seminally present doctrine makes more sense to me in the whole scheme of hamartiology, for instance, the death of babies. Since death is the result of sin and a newborn can have no opportunity or even the understanding of right and wrong, the imputation of death is the only logical explanation.

Everybody dies (physical death) because we are mortal. Genesis 3:22-24 tells us how God banned Man from access to the Tree of Life.


There is also a spiritual death: eternal separation from God.

It's spiritual death that Jesus overcame on the cross.

 

[holyrokker]

BTW what is the yellow exclamation sign on this post for?

 

[golgotha61]

Hebrews 2:14-17 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

If we are born with a "sinful nature", but Jesus wasn't, then this passage isn't true.

I think the phrase "he had to be made like his brothers in every respect" is stronger in emphasis than the translation I get from Strong's. Like I said, the studying I have done and the books I have read have led me to other conclusions than what I see here. But that's ok.

 

[golgotha61]

Yeah me too, there is a yellow exclamation symbol on the list of posts on this thread and the one above it.

 

[golgotha61]

Everybody dies (physical death) because we are mortal. Genesis 3:22-24 tells us how God banned Man from access to the Tree of Life.


There is also a spiritual death: eternal separation from God.

It's spiritual death that Jesus overcame on the cross.

He also overcame physical death at the resurrection.

 

[holyrokker]

He also overcame physical death at the resurrection.

But we are all still subject to physical death.

Spiritually, we're alive in Christ.

 

[holyrokker]

BTW what is the yellow exclamation sign on this post for?

Now I know what you were talking about.

Whenever someone starts a new thread, they have the option of posting one of several icons. The person who started the thread must have thought it was significant.

 

[Assyrian]

Looks like we are not going to agree on much. The verse does not say "human nature" in at least the "sin nature". The address is Heb.2:17, "unto his brethren" or translated also as likened to or resemble is I believe is referring to our human senses (hunger, exhaustion etc.) an our physical composition but not our sin nature.

It doesn't say human nature or sin nature, what is says is he had to be made like his brothers in every respect Heb 2:17, or as the AV puts it 'in all things it behoved him'. If the human nature we have is a sin nature and Jesus didn't have the same nature then he could not redeem us.

I will make another statement that you may or may not agree with, after all we are on a role here: if Christ did inherit our sin nature then He would have been able to sin in the wilderness during the forty day temptation, I believe He could not have sinned.

I think Satan probably had better theology than you there and understood Jesus was as fully human as the rest of us The Holy Spirit too who led him into the wilderness to be tempted.

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.

Since Christ had no earthly father, the sin nature was not passed on to Him. M.R. Dehaan's book The Chemistry of the Blood is a good explanation on the blood being the carrier, if you will, of the sin nature.

I am afraid that is a bright idea some people thought up, that isn't in the bible, to explain why Jesus didn't inherits the sin nature that isn't mentioned in the bible, or why he wasn't born with Original Sin that isn't mentioned either.

It is worth looking at the previous verse in Hebrews.
Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
If the key to Jesus' nature was not having the sin nature passed down through the father, why did the writer of Hebrews refer to Jesus as the offspring or seed of Abraham?

BTW what is the yellow exclamation sign on this post for?

You can choose an icon to go with your posts or when you start a thread, the yellow exclamation is one of them.

 

[Assyrian]

But we are all still subject to physical death.

Spiritually, we're alive in Christ.

Though that is not the whole story, since our resurrection will be uniting with Jesus in his.

 

[golgotha61]

It doesn't say human nature or sin nature, what is says is he had to be made like his brothers in every respect Heb 2:17, or as the AV puts it 'in all things it behoved him'. If the human nature we have is a sin nature and Jesus didn't have the same nature then he could not redeem us.

I'm sorry but the Bible version you are using is too liberal a translation for me to accept the "in every respect" clause. Jesus did not have the sin nature and we do.

I think Satan probably had better theology than you there and understood Jesus was as fully human as the rest of us The Holy Spirit too who led him into the wilderness to be tempted.

No I don't think so, Christ was incapable of sin, my theology is fine thanx. Being fully man and fully God does not mean he was capable of sin. The temptations were not a test but rather an example.

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.
I am afraid that is a bright idea some people thought up, that isn't in the bible, to explain why Jesus didn't inherits the sin nature that isn't mentioned in the bible, or why he wasn't born with Original Sin that isn't mentioned either.

I think it is useful to glean the expertise of doctrinal end theological meanings from experts and scholars even if it is extra-biblical. After all some of us use commentaries and studies in language to arrive at conclusions that are not necessarily explained in the Bible.

It is worth looking at the previous verse in Hebrews.
Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
If the key to Jesus' nature was not having the sin nature passed down through the father, why did the writer of Hebrews refer to Jesus as the offspring or seed of Abraham?

He is referring to something else obviously since Christ had no human father. The statement of the seed of Abraham is in reference to the Abrahamic Covenant .

You can choose an icon to go with your posts or when you start a thread, the yellow exclamation is one of them.

Thank you for your ideas and input. I do have a couple of questions though: do you accept the total depravity of man? I know you deny the imputation of sin from Adam so tell me what your view is on sin's origin, how it is transferred from generation to generation. Do you believe in the inspirational and plenary infallibility of the Bible in its original autographs?

 

[Zeena]

Jesus was not born of man but of woman. He is always referred to in the New Testament as the "son of Mary". Christ did not have the sin nature since it is only passed on by the man.

So then, you are a propenent of immaculate conception?

 

[holyrokker]

Thank you for your ideas and input. I do have a couple of questions though: do you accept the total depravity of man? I know you deny the imputation of sin from Adam so tell me what your view is on sin's origin, how it is transferred from generation to generation. Do you believe in the inspirational and plenary infallibility of the Bible in its original autographs?

For me, I haven't seen any evidence in the Bible to indicate that sin is "transfered" from generation to generation.

 

[Zeena]

Looks like we are not going to agree on much. The verse does not say "human nature" in at least the "sin nature".

But God, through the Scripture, says that Jesus bore the nature of Abraham, who was 'after the fall';

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The address is Heb.2:17, "unto his brethren" or translated also as likened to or resemble is I believe is referring to our human senses (hunger, exhaustion etc.) an our physical composition but not our sin nature.

I will make another statement that you may or may not agree with, after all we are on a role here: if Christ did inherit our sin nature then He would have been able to sin in the wilderness during the forty day temptation, I believe He could not have sinned.

And we believe He would not, rather than could not. Do you believe that a born again Christian is incapable of sinning? 'Cuz boy, do I got news for you!

Since Christ had no earthly father, the sin nature was not passed on to Him.

The Son of Man took on Him the SEED OF ABRAHAM, a man, after 'the fall'.

M.R. Dehaan's book The Chemistry of the Blood is a good explanation on the blood being the carrier, if you will, of the sin nature.

Are you are Gnostic?

Heb 2:14..
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same..

BTW what is the yellow exclamation sign on this post for?

It's a yield sign, something Jesus did when confronted with temptation.

 

[Assyrian]

Thank you for your ideas and input. I do have a couple of questions though: do you accept the total depravity of man?

Depends on what you mean by total depravity. If you mean that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, that not one is able to live a sinless life, then yes. If you mean no one is capable of ever doing anything good, then no, I know the proof texts Calvinists use but I don't think it fits what we see though out scripture Gen 6:9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Luke 8:15 As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart.

I know you deny the imputation of sin from Adam so tell me what your view is on sin's origin, how it is transferred from generation to generation.

I think the key is the word flesh, and the natural human desires that come with it. These desires are good in themselves, part of God's creation that he declared very good Gen 1:31. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made Psalm 139:14. The problem comes when we have to choose between following our natural desires and following God's higher call. We just can't do it, certainly not consistently. It is why Eve fell. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. It is how we all fall into sin too. James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

It is not that our flesh was corrupted by the fall, but that flesh and blood simply incapable of following God's higher call 1Cor 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is why we need to be born again John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Do you believe in the inspirational and plenary infallibility of the Bible

I much prefer the biblical term inspired to infallible. Inspired calls us to look at what the Spirit of God was saying and is saying through his word. Infallible, on the other hand is too easily used to justify our misunderstandings of what God was saying and how God was saying it, and give our misunderstandings the claim of infallibility too. God's word is living and active, I don't think it ties down that well. Calvin understood that God often speaks to the human race in baby talk we could understand, like a nursemaid lisping to an infant. It is too easy to miss what God was saying through the baby talk and think it is the baby talk itself that was infallible.

in its original autographs?

Was there such a thing? Isn't this making pretty major, and unsupported, assumptions of how God's word was inspired and composed.

Remember in Jeremiah 36 when God told Jeremiah to write out all the prophecies he had been given, which Jeremiah got Baruch to write out as he dictated it. Except the king promptly chopped the scroll up and burnt it. Jeremiah then gave Baruch another scroll and dictated it all out again with a lot more like it added in. Which was the original autograph?

 

[golgotha61]

So then, you are a propenent of immaculate conception?

No, not at all, I am a proponent of the man transferring the sin nature because of Adam and that is specifically why the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary.

 

[Zeena]

No, not at all, I am a proponent of the man transferring the sin nature because of Adam and that is specifically why the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary.

But Jesus is the 'seed' of David, or so God informs us, through the Scripture. How then do you exclude Him from such an 'inheritance'?

Rom 1:13
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

2 Tim 2:9
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

You are aware the error of Gnostic teaching includes flesh as being 'inherantly' sinful?

 

[golgotha61]

But God, through the Scripture, says that Jesus bore the nature of Abraham, who was 'after the fall';

As I study the interpretation of this verse I see in the Greek that to "take" is for a purpose and the purpose is to '"help" the "seed of Abraham", which goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

And we believe He would not, rather than could not. Do you believe that a born again Christian is incapable of sinning? 'Cuz boy, do I got news for you!

(1) The immutability of Christ (Heb. 13:8). Christ is unchangeable and therefore could not sin. If Christ could have sinned while on earth, then He could sin now because of His immutability. If He could have sinned on earth, what assurance is there that He will not sin now?
(2) The omnipotence of Christ (Matt. 28:18). Christ was omnipotent and therefore could not sin. Weakness is implied where sin is possible, yet there was no weakness of any kind in Christ. How could He be omnipotent and still be able to sin?
(3) The omniscience of Christ (John 2:25). Christ was omniscient and therefore could not sin. Sin depends on ignorance in order that the sinner may be deceived, but Christ could not be deceived because He knows all things, including the hypothetical (Matt. 11:21). If Christ could have sinned then He really did not know what would happen if He would sin.
(4) The deity of Christ. Christ is not only man but also God. If He were only a man then He could have sinned, but God cannot sin and in a union of the two natures, the human nature submits to the divine nature (otherwise the finite is stronger than the infinite). United in the one Person of Christ are the two natures, humanity and deity; because Christ is also deity He could not sin.
(5) The nature of temptation (James 1:14-15). The temptation that came to Christ was from without. However, for sin to take place, there must be an inner response to the outward temptation. Since Jesus did not possess a sin nature, there was nothing within Him to respond to the temptation. People sin because there is an inner response to the outer temptation.
(6) The will of Christ. In moral decisions, Christ could have only one will: to do the will of His Father; in moral decisions the human will was subservient to the divine will. If Christ could have sinned then His human will would have been stronger than the divine will.
(7) The authority of Christ (John 10:18). In His deity, Christ had complete authority over His humanity. For example, no one could take the life of Christ except He would lay it down willingly (John 10:18). If Christ had authority over life and death, He certainly had authority over sin; if He could withhold death at will, He could also withhold sin at will.

Are you are Gnostic?

No, I'm a born again believer in Christ, and I am a Dispensationalist in my understanding of God's structured plan of salvation.

It's a yield sign, something Jesus did when confronted with temptation.

Thanx.