Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

[Hazelelponi]

Logically speaking, Mary can be nothing more than a vessel for Jesus' conception and all of the messianic prophecies remain true and corr

Logically speaking, the sin nature can come in the form of some type of genome and able to be be inheritable only through the father.

We can't diminish the Divine nature of Christ, but we can't make Him into something the Bible doesn't make Him either.

It's the woman's blood that nourishes the fetus throughout the entire pregnancy. Mary's blood can't be taken out of the equation.

 

[Josheb]

Logically speaking, the sin nature can come in the form of some type of genome and able to be be inheritable only through the father.

That is incorrect. I linked the thread to a pair of other posts I've written in which the biogenesis of sin's propagation is described. Simply put, the fall of humanity was traumatizing and all traumas (as well as all of our other experiences) get encoded in the brain's cells. Through the process of mitosis (cellular replication) the content of those cels eventually gets transferred to ever cell in our bodies, including the gametes (sperm and/or egg). In sexual reproduction the male Adam's sperm (which bore the record of sin) and the female Eve's ovum (which also bears the record of sin) combined to transfer that record and all of its physiological effects onto their progeny. This was a matter of speculation for centuries but in the last few decades we've been able to observably document the fact of biopsychogenesis. There is now a very real and verifiable basis from understanding "original sin" as a physiological fact, not just a spiritual one. What the ECFs hypothesized is now provable. Sin can and is transferred by both sexes (and genders ).

This op asks if this is applicable to Jesus, but scripture never states Jesus was a product of anything any sinful human contributed to his incarnation. The idea that Jesus did inherit a sinful nature neglects (or ignores) the pre-disobedient state of sinlessness of which Adam and Eve were originally made, as well as all the many verses asserting, describing, and affirming Jesus' sinlessness. He can't be sinless if he's inherited a sinful nature. That's irrational.

We can't diminish the Divine nature of Christ, but we can't make Him into something the Bible doesn't make Him either.

That is absolutely 100% definitely correct.

It's the woman's blood that nourishes the fetus throughout the entire pregnancy. Mary's blood can't be taken out of the equation.

The baby already exists when placental blood nourishes the child. Every cell in Jesus' body was a product of the Holy Spirit's conception, not placental blood. We might say Mary's sinful blood fed the sinless child within but that is much different than saying she contributed something to his conception. We might acknowledge her blood that carried the record of human sin within its cells nourished the impeccable child within but that is a much different thing than claiming Jesus inherited post-disobedient humanity's sinful nature (which is what this op asserts). I, personally, would urge caution assuming anything about Jesus' gestation was normal or ordinary given what is stated and not stated in scripture. Scripture states Jesus was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. It does not state Mary had sex with God. I will concede this is an argument from silence, but scripture also never states Mary's blood fed the fetal Jesus. That would be a normal assumption given the normal, ordinary process of human gestation but I urge caution anthropomorphizing Jesus' gestation given the limited information in scripture and the further inferring additional views based on those assumptions. Even if Jesus was fed via Mary's blood, she did not contribute and egg to his incarnation.

 

[Whatever]

There's never a point in which one moment he has no soul and the next he has one (or vice versa).

So this Logos never became flesh? There was a human being born on that day that never existed before. He had a body with all the organs and everything that Logos never had before.

Hebrews 2:14
New International Version
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity . . . .

 

[Hazelelponi]

t does not state Mary had sex with God. I will concede this is an argument from silence, but scripture also never states Mary's blood fed the fetal Jesus. That would be a normal assumption given t

Stop with the Muslims argument about sex with God. Sex is penetration vaginally - and it never ever happened. That's the definition of born of a virgin, an intact hymen. (don't argue, Im not debating sex on a Christian forum) .

The Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary The Holy Spirit (not corporeal) impregnatated her.

I don't care what the so-called science of our day might decide, I care How God says.

And God is Truth. Go back to headship, it does actually matter. I made a whole post.

Jesus Christ both knew no sin and was born of Mary, truly God and truly man.

Headship is everything. And so is your father. And by the way, ones "Jewishness" (not the inheritance but the claim to being a Jew), comes from the mother. Inheritance and headship comes from the father.

God told us what is truth. We don't distort it just because we didn't get a genetic breakdown from God, He is God, a class without classification.

 

[Josheb]

So this Logos never became flesh? There was a human being born on that day that never existed before. He had a body with all the organs and everything that Logos never had before.

Use the "Control F" feature on your keyboard. It will open the search box. Type in the word "flesh" and count the number of times that word appears in my posts. By my count you will find I have mentioned the word "flesh" nine times, including the following, found in Post 15:

​

Jesus is stated to be the monogenes sarx egenetos, the single-sourced Son of God made flesh.

​

and​

​

Mary was blessed to be a vessel for the birth of God's Son made flesh.​

Yes, the logos of God that is God was made flesh. That is explicitly stated in John 1:14. Please do not misrepresent my posts again, or ask me questions I have already answered more than once.

Hebrews 2:14
New International Version
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity . . . .

And yet he knew no sin. Is your humanity sinful? If so, then Jesus did not share in your humanity. The verse states the context in which Jesus shared in our humanity = flesh and blood!!!!! What the text does NOT state (or imply) is that Jesus shared in our sinful humanity. Jesus is the logos of God that is God made flesh, the monogenes sarx egenetos, the only Son made flesh. That does not mean he was made in sinful flesh. Human flesh was not originally made sinful. When God made humanity, He did so making humans good (Genesis 1:31), unashamed (Genesis 2:25), and sinless (inferred by Romans 5:12). That is the flesh in which Jesus was made. Jesus was not made flesh with sinful flesh, the kind of flesh Adam and Eve possessed after Genesis 3:6. This op asks if Jesus inherited sinful flesh nature and answers the question in the negative: "But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin." and I have expounded how that is necessarily the case.

Jesus came in the flesh, but Jesus did not inherit a sinful flesh nature.

 

[Josheb]

I don't care what the so-called science of our day might decide, I care How God says.

Then understand God never states an ovum of Mary's was used. If you do not care about what so-called science of our day says, then abandon any and all thought of a sinful human's egg being used to conceive Jesus. Abandon the idea Mary's placenta had anything to do with Jesus' conception. That would be an appeal to what science says. You cannot have it both ways.

Did Jesus inherit a sinful flesh nature?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The so-called sinful nature is commonly assumed to be inherited from one's
biological father. Oh? Whence did Eve obtain it?

She was fully constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to his tasting
the forbidden fruit so it was too late for him to transmit the sinful nature to her by
means of heredity.

Also, Eve was the first to taste the fruit and when she did, nothing happened. She
went right on just as nude as always without the slightest feelings about it. It
wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she became sensitive about her appearance;
so I think we can safely assume the chemistry of the fruit wasn't responsible for her
altered sense of decency.

So then, if it wasn't heredity, and it wasn't the chemistry of the fruit that gave Eve
a sinful nature, then what?

Mr. Serpent is the logical source, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the power of
death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human
mind in ways not easily detected. (Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment that
Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it takes effect.
Soon after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife set to work cobbling together some
rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas.

FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people . . . in the womb or out of the
womb?

REPLY: Adam and his wife demonstrate the Serpent's ability to work on adults, but
I'm guessing he gets to most everyone else in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & Ps 58:3)

FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception isolate him from the sinful nature?

REPLY: The sinful nature is neither transmitted, nor obtained, by means of heredity.
_

 

[Whatever]

Jesus came in the flesh, but Jesus did not inherit a sinful flesh nature.

We all agree that Jesus was without sin. That He did not inherit a sinful nature. I asked if that had something to do with the virgin birth.
He was born of a woman thousands of years after Adam and Eve. Everybody descended from Adam inherit that sin nature.
Again, I asked if that has something to do with the Y chromosome. If the Holy Spirit bypassed the male sperm to fertilize Mary's egg, then she was not a surrogate. She was His flesh and blood mother.

 

[Josheb]

We all agree that Jesus was without sin. That He did not inherit a sinful nature. I asked if that had something to do with the virgin birth.
He was born of a woman thousands of years after Adam and Eve. Everybody descended from Adam inherit that sin nature.
Again, I asked if that has something to do with the Y chromosome. If the Holy Spirit bypassed the male sperm to fertilize Mary's egg, then she was not a surrogate. She was His flesh and blood mother.

What I was asked was, "So this Logos never became flesh?"

I answered that question before it was ever asked. I was not asked if that had something to do with the virgin birth, and if I were then that too would be a question I have already answered. I was not asked if "it" had anything to do with the Y chromosome, but were I asked that question that too would be a question I have already answered. As far as the bypassing "if" premise goes, I have also rejected that possibility and done so for multiple reasons.

I, therefore, wonder 1) whether anything I have posted was read, 2) why it is Post 23 is being misrepresented, and 3) why I am being asked questions I have already answered. Please fix all of that if you wish to discuss any of it with me because I do not do unnecessary repetition. Don't ask me questions I have already answered.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

The sinful nature is neither transmitted, nor obtained, by means of heredity.

Mr. Serpent is the logical source, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the power of death (Heb
2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human mind in ways not easily
detected. (Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2)

If true that humanity's sinful nature is the Serpent's handiwork, then Jesus'
innocence-- i.e. his sinless perfection --was just a simple matter of keeping the
Devil's paws off him.

FAQ: No Fair! Why doesn't God protect all of us from the Devil's tampering? Why
only Jesus?

REPLY: Adam was created minus the Devil's tampering, viz: Adam was created
innocent. However, Adam was also created with the ability to choose bad ways for
himself as well as good ways. Well; it wasn't long before he chose a bad way.

The thing is: even if we were all born minus the Devil's tampering, it would only
be a matter of time before we began choosing bad ways for ourselves. Well, the
supreme being needed a man for the cross who would not only be innocent, but
also a man with the potential to remain in step with God thru thick and thin to
the very end.
_

 

[Whatever]

Don't ask me questions I have already answered.

When I asked questions, I was just thinking out loud for anybody, not just you. This is not your personal thread. Hobie started it.

 

[Josheb]

When I asked questions, I was just thinking out loud for anybody, not just you. This is not your personal thread. Hobie started it.

Immaterial. I was quoted and I was asked questions already answered. I was, therefore, asked to repeat myself unnecessarily.

It is not your personal thread, either.

Read what everyone has said (while the thread is still short), consider what's been posted, and don't ask anyone to repeat themselves unnecessarily because you weren't paying attention or expect others to respond to redundant inquiries. Thinking out loud is not a problem and it might even be an enjoyable asset, but not when it occurs at the expense of others. This op is about whether or not Jesus inherited a sinful nature. The general consensus appears to be "No," but there also appear to be some views that do not wholly reconcile with that position, such as the idea an egg from a sinful person was used in Jesus' conception even though 1) scripture is silent to that effect, 2) that position originally comes from a modified doctrinal position in Roman Catholicism, 3) it runs into conflict with a host of scriptures, and 4) that would mean Jesus own flesh was sinful at a cellular level (about which he could do nothing).


Do you think kissing transfers sin or a sinful nature? How about a blood transfusion? How about a sneeze? Is the relevance of these "thinking out loud" questions understood?