The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

Sorry that should have been Jesus Christ not Jesus Chris. I don't think there is such a man named Jesus Chris in the Bible

Erose said:

Again you are ignoring Christ's humanity.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring Christ's Godhood.

You have lost this side of the debate, because you cannot ignore the very fact that Christ is a man.

Click to expand...

You have lost this side of the debate, because you cannot ignore the very fact that Christ is God.

Here is how that argument works, if you do not concede that there is no exceptions:



P1: All men have sinned.

Click to expand...

correct

P2: Jesus Christ is a man.

Click to expand...

He is a God man

C: Therefore He sinned.

Click to expand...

false

We all know that the conclusion is wrong. So either P1 and/or P2 isn't correct or is being misunderstood. So which Premise...

Click to expand...

Your conclusion is wrong. You've presented a false dichotomy.

Like I said before, the scriptures were written for the benefit of man. Whenever the scriptures say men it is always in reference to mankind not gods. The writer of Romans would not be including Jesus whenever he mentions men.

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

In verse 22 it's talking about being saved by faith in Jesus. So why would you assume the writer would also include Jesus when he says all in verse 23? Your argument makes no sense.

Like I said before, Jesus cannot be an exception to a rule he was never a part of.

Reborn Yet Again said:

Wouldn't it be:

P1: All men have sinned.
P2. Jesus Christ is man and God
P3. Due to his divine nature he never sinned

Click to expand...

You have to realize that Jesus Christ although being God the Son, became fully the Son of Man. This is the mystery of the Incarnation. Fully God and Fully Man with two distinct natures one Divine, the other Human.

Jesus Christ is just as human as you and I are, if He wasn't then the cross would have had no effect. It is through the Incarnation that Christ can be the perfect Mediator between God and Man.

So the only reason why Christ did not sin was that He was obedient to His Father in all things.

But anyway it doesn't take away the very fact that we are given an explicit example of an exception of that verse. I can also offer a few other examples as well: Babies dieing before they have the capacity to sin, the severely mentally disabled, etc.

Erose said:

You have to realize that Jesus Christ although being God the Son, became fully the Son of Man. This is the mystery of the Incarnation. Fully God and Fully Man with two distinct natures one Divine, the other Human.

Jesus Christ is just as human as you and I are, if He wasn't then the cross would have had no effect. It is through the Incarnation that Christ can be the perfect Mediator between God and Man.

So the only reason why Christ did not sin was that He was obedient to His Father in all things.

But anyway it doesn't take away the very fact that we are given an explicit example of an exception of that verse. I can also offer a few other examples as well: Babies dieing before they have the capacity to sin, the severely mentally disabled, etc.

Click to expand...

Speculation is the seed of assumption. As in the assumption of Mary:


ONE MIND!
2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.....

And the body God created HIMSELF.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast ...thou... prepared me:

Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through ...the veil....that is to say.....his flesh;

This is NOT the mind of the Lord:

Rom 7:14-21
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Erose said:

Again you are ignoring Christ's humanity. You have lost this side of the debate, because you cannot ignore the very fact that Christ is a man. Here is how that argument works, if you do not concede that there is no exceptions:

P1: All men have sinned.
P2: Jesus Christ is a man.
C: Therefore He sinned.

We all know that the conclusion is wrong. So either P1 and/or P2 isn't correct or is being misunderstood. So which Premise...

Click to expand...

You really want to go with P2 as you state it? Are you an adoptionist?

Jesus is fully his mother's son, and therefore fully human. He is fully his father's son too, and therefore fully God

Mary is fully her mothers daughter, and that makes her fully human. Mary is fully her fathers daughter too, and that makes her, well, it doubles down on her humanity.

The problem that the IC attempts to resolve is whether or not Jesus was polluted by original sin through his mother. For certain, his Father had not been polluted by original sin, so it is all about Mary.

The original poster of course believed that Jesus was polluted by original sin through his mother, but that argument never really went anywhere

I_C on the other hand refutes such a pollution based on the idea that Mary was cleansed of any original sin by special dispensation. It is a reasonable enough argument, but it is kind of a 'cavalry rushing in at the last minute to save the day' sort of argument. There is absolutely no historical or Scriptural precedence for this argument.
The Eastern Orthodox have an interesting solution in that they can claim original sin does not exist, and problem solved. We are all born good and become sinners through our actions. The only problem with that is that the Bible itself does not support this point of view. The case to be made for original sin, by any other name, from the Biblical text is actually quite a powerful one, and from my understanding, it is not really the Eastern Orthodox belief that we are born good anyway.
It is really not a simple solution then to how Jesus did not inherit original sin from Mary's humanity. It is entirely possible that Jesus got a special dispensation too, like was the IC claim for Mary, but that too is a 'cavalry to the rescue' fitting the facts into the desired theological outcome. It is unconvincing from the point of view of a systematic theology that builds on known theological and Biblical precedence.
Standing up so far has been one of the few who has offered a simple solution to this theological knot, in that he maintains that the problem for the ancients that a baby shared the blood of the mother in utero is scientifically incorrect, and it is scientifically incorrect.
It is an interesting theory, but to become accepted it would have to be shown that
1. This was indeed problematic for the ancient Christians in terms of Jesus's sinlessness
2. That the inheritance of original sin indeed comes from the blood of either the mother or the father.

If we look at the Biblical evidence from Saint Paul that sin entered the world through Adam alone, through one man, Adam, the prototype of all fathers to come, and not through Eve, the prototype of all mothers to come, this supports a solution for the sinlessness of Jesus that does not rely on either scientific knowledge about blood, or the cavalry to provide a miracle dispensation.

The New Testament evidence is quite clear that original sin comes through one man, the Father of humanity, Adam, and not through Eve. Ergo, the new Adam could not inherit original sin from his mothers, the daughters of Adam, because original sin comes through the father, and his Father, God Almighty, was unstained by original sin in the first place.

The Bible does say that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and not through a man and his woman, Adam and Eve, does it not? If indeed this is the genesis of original sin, and it is inherited from the father only, and not the mother, then the sinlessness of Jesus does not contradict Scripture as the OP holds that it does, and ergo, Jesus did not die for his own sins, but for our own.

From another post of mine:

And the apostle Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit says this:

Heb 2:13-15
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 ..Forasmuch then as the children.. are... partakers ....of.. flesh and blood....he also himself ..likewise ...took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
We ask the question.."How is it that God's only begotten Son entered the human race without sin?" Humans are sinners and can only reproduce sinful offspring as mentioned in my previous post. Here is the answer:
Forasmuch then as the children.
The children is a references back to verse 13. There it refers to the people that God calls to himself and gives to his Son. It is the fortress of Divine purpose. God foreknew the children, and sent Jesus in their form to save them.
partakers of flesh and blood,
Sometimes it is best to go back to the Grrek for a clear understanding. Partakers is koinoneo. The words fellowship and communion from that. It is as to partnership. We are made of flesh and blood and that is our nature. It is a perfect in the Greek and describes our unchanging human situation. All people have this in common. Our nature is flesh and blood. Since those that He was bringing to glory were flesh and blood it was necessary that their Savior to be the same.... flesh and blood. Flesh and blood is used to refer to human nature and that is our sinful nature. Plain and simple. These children SHARE flesh and blood because they are human. Again...the human race has something in common...flesh and blood.... and that is how the sin nature is passed on.
The Spirit of God shows a distinction between the human race and Christ's identification with humanity:
he also himself likewise.
Likewise is the Greek paraplesios. It comes from para …...alongside, and plesion......nearby. The Lord Jesus Christ took his position alongside and nearby the human race. He was similar and that is all.
Took part (shared) of the same is metecho…to hold with. It points to the the incarnation when the Jesus Christ assumed this same human nature of blood and flesh by which He Himself became truly man and truly one with mankind.
Since the children share in flesh and blood the lord Jesus likewise partook of the same. God ...became... a man. That, my friend, is the incarnation of Christ.
In verses 14-15 Jesus was God made man. God ..became ...a man.

He was a NEAR kinsman redeemer.

Erose said:

You have to realize that Jesus Christ although being God the Son, became fully the Son of Man. This is the mystery of the Incarnation. Fully God and Fully Man with two distinct natures one Divine, the other Human.

Jesus Christ is just as human as you and I are, if He wasn't then the cross would have had no effect. It is through the Incarnation that Christ can be the perfect Mediator between God and Man.

So the only reason why Christ did not sin was that He was obedient to His Father in all things.

But anyway it doesn't take away the very fact that we are given an explicit example of an exception of that verse. I can also offer a few other examples as well: Babies dieing before they have the capacity to sin, the severely mentally disabled, etc.

Click to expand...

Sure that his obedience to God kept him from sinning but wouldn't it be possible that his divine nature could also kept him from sinning?

Reborn Yet Again said:

Sure that his obedience to God kept him from sinning but wouldn't it be possible that his divine nature could also kept him from sinning?

Click to expand...

Yes. That is the answer.