• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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 . . . .
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
.
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.
_
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
_
 
Last edited:
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? :unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
Men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes. Does the sin nature pass down through the Y chromosome? Only men pass the Y chromosome along.

"Does the sin nature pass down through the Y chromosome?"

No. Sin is not something we can identify and isolate biologically, as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it's not a component of the reproductive cells (gametes) involved in procreation, something passed along through biological continuity.
 
"Does the sin nature pass down through the Y chromosome?"

No. Sin is not something we can identify and isolate biologically......
That is incorrect. That is old thinking. Over the last three decades scientists have been researching the effects of psychological trauma on the brain and discovered the life events cause changes in the brain at a cellular level. Severe adverse life events appear to trigger the autoimmune system to turn on the body. Significant correlation has been found between trauma, the nature of the trauma and the number of traumatic events and certain cancers, arthritis, and other autoimmune diseases. Furthermore, through the process of mitosis the memory content of cells eventually gets transmitted to every cell in the body..... including the gametes. That information is then passed on to an individual's progeny.

NOTHING in human history has been more traumatic than the proverbial fall from grace.

When the doctrine of original sin was first formulated they did not have the above information. Nor was there much interest in it because the doctrine was theological. They weren't even trying to consider a biological explanation.
 
That is incorrect. That is old thinking.

I don't know why you put those together, since old thinking can be correct thinking. Whether it's old or new is not relevant to whether it is correct.

If what I said is incorrect—and it is not—you have failed to demonstrate it here, relying instead on an argument that collapses under scrutiny. You have conflated non-heritable somatic cellular changes with germline inheritance and replaced the biblical doctrine of original sin with a pseudoscientific form of epigenetic Lamarckianism, wherein lived experience is allegedly passed through germline cells, as if original sin were a trauma-based biological pathology. This scientifically confused speculation is wholly inadequate as a framework for understanding sin, which is not acquired but imputed, and inherited not biologically but covenantally.

1. While neuroplasticity is well-established, wherein psychological trauma can alter brain structure (e.g., hippocampal atrophy or amygdala hyperactivity), these changes are neither genetic mutations nor heritable. Yes, chronic stress and trauma can dysregulate the immune system, increasing inflammation and contributing to autoimmune conditions. But (a) correlation does not equal causation, (b) these effects are multifactorial (involving behavior, hormones, environment, etc.), and (c) they are not due to "memory in cells" being passed to progeny (whatever that is supposed to mean).

2. The idea that the "memory content" of cells is transmitted through mitosis to every cell in the body, including gametes, is false on multiple levels. First, mitosis governs somatic cell division and does not produce gametes, which are created via meiosis, not mitosis. Second, the Weismann barrier blocks somatic-to-germline transfer, making inherited trauma via somatic cellular changes biologically untenable. Third, the phrase "memory content of cells" is scientifically incoherent. Memory is a function of synaptic plasticity and neural circuitry, not of DNA. Memory is not stored in the genome and cannot be inherited. Using "memory" metaphorically in reference to epigenetic regulation does not justify the claim that trauma is biologically encoded and transmitted. One cannot record trauma in a neuron or skin cell and pass it on via sperm.

3. It is scientifically indefensible to claim that psychological trauma is encoded in the DNA of somatic cells and passed through gametes. While some studies suggest that epigenetic marks (e.g., DNA methylation or histone modifications) related to stress might occasionally be transmitted, (a) these are not "memories" or "trauma" in any moral or existential sense, and (b) such marks are typically reset during gametogenesis. The reproductive process involves global epigenetic reprogramming precisely to prevent the inheritance of environmentally induced somatic changes.

Sin is not reducible to biology, neurology, or trauma. It is a moral condition, a federal and covenantal reality rooted in our union with Adam (Rom 5:12-19), not in our neurochemistry or cellular biology. Reducing sin to trauma is a category error—one that confuses the physiological consequences of living in a fallen world with the theological cause of our guilt before God. Neither scripture nor science supports this reduction.
 
Part 1:
I don't know why you put those together, since old thinking can be correct thinking. Whether it's old or new is not relevant to whether it is correct.
I completely agree so I will clarify my statement: Theologically speaking, the old way of thinking is correct, but incomplete. It is incomplete because it did not consider information we now possess. It could not consider that information simply because that information was not available. It is like when heliocentrism was proven. That did not change what the Bible taught. It did change human understanding of what the Bible had always taught. The understanding of humanity changed, not scripture.
If what I said is incorrect.
It is.
—and it is not—you have failed to demonstrate it here, relying instead on an argument that collapses under scrutiny.
Baloney.
You have conflated non-heritable somatic cellular changes with germline inheritance
Never happened.
and replaced the biblical doctrine of original sin with a pseudoscientific form of epigenetic Lamarckianism, wherein lived experience is allegedly passed through germline cells
Never happened.
, as if original sin were a trauma-based biological pathology.
Never said any such thing. What I did say is there is a biological basis for the transmission of sin. There is also a theological basis. The two are not mutually exclusive of one another. Sin can be imputed through Adam as a representative head of humanity AND Adam and Eve could have passed the biological effects of their sin onto their progeny.

I suspect, I hope, you have no problem believing certain diseases are inheritable. Cystic fibrosis, Down's Syndrome, Fragile X, Diabetes, are examples of diseases that can be inherited. They did not exist in Eden prior to Genesis 3:6. To the degree that any disease exists it is a symptom of, and effect of, the fall. That concept is not new to Christian thinking or doctrine. You (hopefully) already believe it. I am simply applying the latest research to an already established and accepted belief, one that is well-established as the implicit truth of scripture.
This scientifically confused speculation...
Appeal to ridicule.

According to Rule 4.4 we must now stop this discussion, and you must prove psychobiogensis basis of sin is confused, and you must prove iit is speculative.
is wholly inadequate as a framework for understanding sin, which is not acquired but imputed, and inherited not biologically but covenantally.

1. While neuroplasticity is well-established, wherein psychological trauma can alter brain structure (e.g., hippocampal atrophy or amygdala hyperactivity), these changes are neither genetic mutations nor heritable.
That is incorrect.

Btw, there was a time when neuroplasticity was denied. If we'd been having this conversation in 1970 you would never have used the word neuroplasticity. The mainstream orthodox scientific standard at the time was the brain stopped developing in the mid-twenties. Then some folks cracked open the brain and found a big pile of changes occur throughout the brain throughout the human life span. In other words, you just conceded the foundation of psychobiogenesis by accepting the fact of neuroplasticity - a concept that would have been denied not too long ago. It's a concept the ECF, those first formalizing our doctrines of sin, would never have even considered.
Yes, chronic stress and trauma can dysregulate the immune system
Yep
, increasing inflammation and contributing to autoimmune conditions.
Yep
But (a) correlation does not equal causation, (b) these effects are multifactorial (involving behavior, hormones, environment, etc.),
Yep
and (c) they are not due to "memory in cells" being passed to progeny (whatever that is supposed to mean).
I never said memory was causal. What I did say is the information, the record of the trauma, as well as its psychological effects and its physiological effects are recorded at a cellular level. Through the process of mitosis that information eventually becomes part of every cell in the body. This can take many years but it's a fact of cellular reproduction. What this means from God's perspective is that He looks at an individual and He is omnisciently able to see the effects of sin on the individual at a cellular level. He knows the creature standing before Him is not the pure, unadulterated cellularly good and sinless creature He made. He sees the corruption. He sees the biological adulteration of the good and sinless body He made. He sees any congenital defects. He sees all of them. He sees all the diseases, whether they are inherited or contracted through other means. He sees the effects of sin, both individually and collectively, on every single human who has ever lived.
 
Part 2:
2. The idea that the "memory content" of cells is transmitted through mitosis to every cell in the body, including gametes, is false on multiple levels. First, mitosis governs somatic cell division and does not produce gametes
Never said it did.
, which are created via meiosis, not mitosis.
It is true meiosis is the means by which gametes are produced but that does not change the fact cellular content eventually makes its way into every cell in the body. Otherwise, no disease would be inheritable. Inheritable diseases would be diseases that directly affect gametes. You, again, hopefully, understand that fact.
Second, the Weismann barrier...
LOL. The Weissman barrier is a concept, not a fact. It is speculative, so you, therefore, cannot accuse me of speculation and then offer speculation as rebuttal. More importantly, you've also proven my position because if the germ cell produces effect in somatic cells then the link between gamete and disease is established. The only way then to escape the psychobiogenetic supplemental transmission of sin is to believe sin did not have any effect on Adam and Eve's gametes. Sin effected every aspect of the world (Rom. 5:12) except for the human gamete. That burden is entirely on you.

Otherwise, you just established, not refuted, the biological transmission of sin. Only you did so using a speculative concept, not empirically demonstrable observation.
Memory is a function of synaptic plasticity and neural circuitry, not of DNA.
Never said otherwise. However, your argument, again, supports and proves psychobiogenesis because we know certain diseases are inheritable. We know exposure to certain environmental conditions can cause disease that then becomes inheritable. That is biogenetic inheritance. We now know psychology affects biology. Well-established correlations in anxiety, depression, and many other psychological conditions are both biologically and psychologically transmitted to progeny.
Memory is not stored in the genome and cannot be inherited.
Never said it was. What I did say was that the cellular effects of traumatic events are inheritable. We now know there is a correlation between trauma and arthritis, for example. We also now know there is an inheritable aspect to certain autoimmune diseases, like arthritis. If anyone here Googles, "inheritable diseases," or "diseases that can be inherited" then arthritis will appear in the search results. Arthritis is no longer a condition that occurs merely through old age, merely through wear and tear on the body. It is inheritable. It can also be an effect of trauma, especially in cases where trauma is several and re-occurring (like when a person causes sin to enter a sinless world and then his or her eldest son murders his younger son and is cast away bearing a mark for the rest of his life and he has to start over making a new family.
Using "memory" metaphorically in reference to epigenetic regulation does not justify the claim that trauma is biologically encoded and transmitted.
Never happened.
One cannot record trauma in a neuron or skin cell and pass it on via sperm.
The latest scientific research says otherwise.
3. It is scientifically indefensible to claim that psychological trauma is encoded in the DNA of somatic cells and passed through gametes.
Well, your own attempts at refuting that position prove the position.
While some studies suggest that epigenetic marks (e.g., DNA methylation or histone modifications) related to stress might occasionally be transmitted, (a) these are not "memories" or "trauma" in any moral or existential sense, and (b) such marks are typically reset during gametogenesis. The reproductive process involves global epigenetic reprogramming precisely to prevent the inheritance of environmentally induced somatic changes.
Which proves what I said correct. Let's clarify what I said and discard this strawman at the foundation of your dissent. I never said memories are transferred. Ditch that dross. What I said is that the effects of trauma are recorded in the human at a cellular level. That's a biological fact. You've already conceded that fact by asserting neuroplasticity. Nerve cells and neural pathways are not plastic (malleable) if no change can occur. By accepting and using the fact of neuroplasticity you've already conceded changes occur at a cellular level and occur systematically at a cellular level.

Furthermore, when you appeal to words like "suggest," "occasionally," and "typically," you have implicitly conceded the possibility of cellular transmission. Your own argument supports the psychobiogenetic position rather than refuting it. The dissent boils down to an argument of probability, not fact..... and at its foundation is this belief there is a place in creation where sin has had absolutely no effect whatsoever; the human gamete.
Sin is not reducible to biology, neurology, or trauma.
Never said it was. Yours is the argument of the false dichotomy, the mutually exclusivity of biology and theology. I am simply saying both, not one or the other alone, are true. Sin affected every aspect of human existence and that includes human biology. That fact has been understood for many centuries. What was unproveable was any biological means of passing on those effects to our progeny and we now have that evidence. You've used it in the dissent!
It is a moral condition, a federal and covenantal reality rooted in our union with Adam (Rom 5:12-19),
That is true.
not in our neurochemistry or cellular biology.
That is not true. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive of one another. Both conditions, the moral and the biological, simultaneously exist and we can now demonstrate the latter.
Reducing sin to trauma is a category error
Never happened. No reductionism was ever posted.
— one that confuses the physiological consequences of living in a fallen world with the theological cause of our guilt before God.
Never happened.
Neither scripture nor science supports this reduction.
The evidence proves otherwise. Scripturally speaking there is nothing sinless in the human creature (except for Jesus). Logical necessity dictates that fact applies to every cell in the human body. Humans were once ontologically sinless (Gen. 1:31) but that state or condition has not existed since Gen. 3:6. After Genesis 3:6 humans, individually and collectively, are all ontologically sinful. I reiterate the foundation of your dissent is that there is one single, solitary minute place sin had absolutely no effect, and that one place is the human gamete. It is that position that is indefensible scripturally and scientifically.

It appears you did some research to verify my earlier post. Good. Take what you learned and think it through because some of what you've discovered supports and/or proves what I posted. When the straw man, the appeal to ridicule, and the false dichotomy are removed you'll find there is a very real and rational basis for understanding sin is not merely imputed. When the facts you discovered are critically examined - be as analytical with what you discovered as you've been with my earlier post - then what I posted will be seen as valid and veracious. There is a very real and demonstrable basis for understanding sin is also a function of biology.
 
Never happened.
Never happened.
Never said it did.

Well, I tried.

Despite my sincere effort to engage his post, too much of his response amounted to this—and that is just not worth my time. I refuse to encourage any more of this.

My refusal to engage further is also fueled by his rules violation of alleging multiple logical fallacies:

Appeal to ridicule.
… and discard this strawman at the foundation of your dissent …
Yours is the argument of the false dichotomy …



Appeal to ridicule.

According to Rule 4.4 we must now stop this discussion, and you must prove psychobiogensis basis of sin is confused, and you must prove iit is speculative.

There is nothing in that rule which either states or even implies that the discussion must be suspended while a fallacy allegation is being resolved.



All that being said, I will address some of his material but strictly for the sake of any readers who may be tempted to think his position has merit.

That will be published tomorrow evening. I am tired after a very long day at work, so I am going to bed.
 
Last edited:
[Important edit: In response to this post, Josheb protested that he has "never even remotely hinted at negating the existing theology" of original sin, and that hundreds of posts on his part have defended that doctrine theologically. It seems he thought I was suggesting otherwise and felt wronged by it, saying this alleged "mistake should be corrected." However, I never suggested any such thing. That I was addressing his claim for "a biological basis for the transmission of sin" does not somehow imply that his view on sin is strictly biological. Of course it's not. But there is no point to addressing the theological angle because we are agreed on that; it is the biological claim that is the issue. Therefore, I have edited this post lightly in order to make sure this matter is clear.]



Important note: I will not be responding to anything Josheb writes in response to the following and for reasons indicated in my previous post. Those who find themselves wondering if something he said has merit, either in supporting his contention or in defeating mine, they are invited to ask me because I certainly will respond to them. But since Josheb's posts don't exhibit a teachable attitude, I won't even bother trying.

Transmitting sin versus transmitting its effects​

His view asserts that the fall was a trauma that became biologically encoded in Adam and Eve's cells—"the fall of humanity was traumatizing and all traumas get encoded in the brain's cells"—and subsequently inherited by their descendants through mitosis. In other words, sin can be understood as a trauma-based biological pathology [in addition to how it's understood theologically]. "There is a biological basis for the transmission of sin," Josheb said, adding that "Adam and Eve could have passed the biological effects of their sin onto their progeny" (link). But please notice the shift in language between those two sentences taken from the very same paragraph, where he perhaps inadvertently moved from the transmission of sin to the transmission of its biological effects, such as disease. (Also notice the shift from "is" to "could have.")

This is a category collapse, which can be a rhetorical strategy to import a controversial idea by conflating it with an accepted idea. Reformed theology affirms that the fall affected every part of the human person (i.e., total depravity), but that doesn't entail the biological transmission of sin itself. His claim that sin was encoded and transmitted biologically from the fall is an untenable—and unnecessary!—theological innovation lacking any direct, meaningful scientific and biblical support. Perhaps that is why he didn't include any relevant citations to that effect from either source, and used slippery language to shift from the transmission of sin to the transmission of its biological effects.

Our human condition as covenant-breakers (sinners) is a forensic reality and spiritual condition, a verdict rendered by divine justice upon all those in Adam covenantally, (as Josheb would agree). But it is not [additionally] a material substance—a mutation in a gene, a methylation pattern on a strand of DNA, or the "memory" content of cells (whatever that means). Cells, tissues, and DNA strands do not contain or transmit sin, and that includes Mary's eggs. They bear the effects of the fall, as we see in things like disease, but sin itself is not transmitted biologically. This is what Reformed confessional orthodoxy asserts, as does my view. The effects of sin pervade our biology, but sin itself and its transmission are not biological. His view, that sin is transmitted through trauma-induced cellular encoding[—again, in addition to how it's understood theologically—]is not and has never been taught by Reformed orthodoxy particularly, much less the Christian church generally, because scripture doesn't teach it and science can't support it.

To explicitly bring this to the topic of the opening post: Under Reformed confessional orthodoxy, Jesus being conceived through "an egg from a sinful person" does not mean that his "own flesh was sinful at a cellular level" (link); it also does not hold that "sin can [be] and is transferred by both sexes" (link), as federal headship and covenantal union are strictly through males, both the first Adam and the last Adam.

I would also like to take a moment to address one particular thing. "I never said memories are transferred," he objected. And yet it surely appeared that he did: "Through the process of mitosis, the memory content of cells eventually gets transmitted to every cell in the body—including the gametes" (link). Perhaps he would want to quibble about a distinction between "memories" and "memory content," or between "transferred" and "transmitted," a distinction without a difference that would be exhausting to even anticipate.

Mitosis, meiosis, and the Weismann barrier​

Josheb said that "the record of the trauma, as well as its psychological and physiological effects, are recorded at a cellular level" and this information, "through the process of mitosis […], eventually becomes part of every cell in the body" (link)—"including the gametes (sperm and/or egg)" (link). This, he said, "is a fact of cellular reproduction." (He also identified it with replication, perhaps unaware of the difference.) As already explained, this is wrong for several reasons.

There are two basic categories of cells in the human body, somatic cells and germ cells. As I explained previously (and he conceded the point), mitosis governs somatic cell division but it does not produce gametes, which are created via meiosis. The relevance of this point must not be missed: Contrary to the claim he made, the process of mitosis does not result in information becoming part of every cell in the body, which would include germ cells. If any information is transmitted from somatic cells to germ cells, Josheb has not identified a mechanism or process for that. It is certainly not mitosis, almost by definition. Exactly how would information in Adam and Eve's somatic brain cells, even if altered by trauma, be transmitted into their germ cells?

Even if the record of this trauma (the fall) is not literally "memory" but rather "information"—another potential quibble—he has failed to define what this supposed information is, how it is encoded, how it escapes epigenetic reprogramming during gametogenesis, and how it maps onto sin. This is hand-waving, not science (or theology).

Identifying a mechanism or process by which this occurs would require addressing the Weismann barrier, which would involve more than just laughing. A fundamental, generalized concept in biology is that hereditary information flows in one direction, from germ cells to somatic cells. Wikipedia explains that this concept, although subsequently modified with specific qualifications in the light of modern understanding, still holds and remains important. This fundamental concept in biology represents an obstacle to his assertion that "cellular content eventually makes its way into every cell in the body." If Josheb wants to assert "a biological basis for the transmission of sin," as if sin is a material substance transmitted through human gametes—including Mary's eggs, as per the opening post—he has a lot of work to do. In the meantime, I continue to maintain that sin is not reducible to biology or trauma, that it's a covenantal and federal reality rooted in Adamic humanity via imputation, not a ‘trauma-based biological pathology’ transmitted via gametes. I am willing to consider the latter, but at this point no theological or scientific case has been made for it.

Psychobiogenesis​

I have never encountered this term before and had to look it up—to no avail. I could not find it in online dictionaries, nor the internet overall. "There are no results for psychobiogenesis," the search engine told me. I suspect that it is a neologism Josheb either coined or borrowed from fringe usage to lend a veneer of scientific credibility to his idea. As far as I can tell, this is not a term used in neuroscience or genetics in any standard academic context. Google Scholar returns practically no results for this term; there were only two, one from 1914 and the other from 1937.

He also does not use the term consistently, switching from "psychobiogenesis" to "biopsychogenesis" (link), which influences my suspicion that this is a made-up term—rhetorically effective but scientifically meaningless. It serves to mask theological innovation with pseudoscientific language that only obscures the issue; its use should raise immediate red flags in any serious discussion. Without a clear, testable mechanism grounded in peer-reviewed science, the term functions as little more than a linguistic placeholder for a claim that cannot be empirically substantiated.

Summary​

The Reformed confessional tradition rightly teaches that sin is a moral and covenantal reality, not a material substance. We inherit guilt and corruption through our federal union with Adam, not through biological mechanisms or gametic-transmitted trauma. While the effects of the fall pervade creation, including our biology, the transmission of sin itself is a matter of federal headship, imputation, and divine justice—not biology. The Bible teaches that we are sinners not as a matter of biology but because of our connection to Adam, the federal head of our old humanity. His guilt became our guilt and his fall brought corruption to all humanity, not by rewriting our cellular data but by divine judgment declared over the whole human race. Yes, the fall affected everything, including our bodies, but sin itself isn’t passed down like a disease or inherited trait (although its effects are). That’s why Jesus could be truly human and yet truly sinless—because sin is not something in human cells.

It's not about you​

Josheb said, "It appears you did some research to verify my earlier post. Good." Setting aside the self-important tone of such a remark, it is also possible that I'm informed on this topic and the concepts involved because I have encountered it before. As an old-earth creationist who accepts the scientific theory of evolution, as a member in good standing at a confessionally Reformed church (URCNA), I have a real and sincere concern for "doctrinal delinquency" in my views and often subject them to critical scrutiny with the elders of my church—and one in particular who is attending seminary and is capable of fielding complicated and nuanced questions at this level. Like Josheb, he also regarded sin as something transmitted biologically, which was part of how he defended his belief that Adam was the first human.

"How do you reconcile your view, that sin is not identified or transmitted biologically, with how we confess and understand human nature?" he asked me. And I had to explain that I agree biblical and confessional orthodoxy requires a doctrine of original sin in order to explain sinful human nature, which is something my view maintains—that sin entered the world through Adam, from whom it was passed along to all mankind. Since that is not being denied, his question raised a curiosity, not a concern: How is sin passed along, if not through biological continuity?

And thus began a very detailed theological, confessional, and scientific defense of my view—years before I met Josheb.
 
Last edited:
Well, I tried.

Despite my sincere effort to engage his post, too much of his response amounted to this—and that is just not worth my time. I refuse to encourage any more of this.
And I appreciate it. I've said my piece, and you've said yours. The read may investigate and decide for themselves.
My refusal to engage further is also fueled by his rules violation of alleging multiple logical fallacies:
Never happened.
There is nothing in that rule which either states or even implies that the discussion must be suspended while a fallacy allegation is being resolved.
No, but the conversation you and I had when the rule was posted it was stipulated that one observation of any fallacy must be addressed and resolved before that discussion could continue or the existence of any other fallacy was broached. Your rule.

The fact is I never even remotely hinted at negating the existing theology and hundreds of posts on my part have defended the doctrine of original sin. It was wrong to argue otherwise, and before attempting to "address some of his material," that mistake should be corrected.
All that being said, I will address some of his material but strictly for the sake of any readers who may be tempted to think his position has merit. That will be published tomorrow evening. I am tired after a very long day at work, so I am going to bed.
Meh

The simple fact is diseases are inheritable and God did not make diseases and then call them very good. We've always known sin has been transmittable biologically. We now know it can be trauma based, and nothing in human history has been more traumatic than Genesis 3:6.
 
Back
Top