Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

[Arial]

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.

You say you aren't saying something and then turn around and say it. Who is this "we" that has always known sin has been transmitted biologically? Sin is transmitted via headship by the order of God. That it is a biological transmission is purely speculation. Sin is not trauma based. Sin is sin, rebellion against the holiness of our Maker who made us as his image bearers. Sin resides in our very nature, not trauma. The world and science do not interpret the Bible.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Ad hominem noted.

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.

Which means the entire dissent is based on ignorance. Wiki has an article on it. The field of knowledge is that commonly present. Googling "long term effects of trauma on physiology" or any number of points I've broached will, likewise, readily return substantive results.

Summary
The Reformed confessional tradition rightly teaches that sin is a moral and covenantal reality, not a material substance.

And that theology was formed before we knew anything I have described in Post #34.

We inherit guilt and corruption through our federal union with Adam, not through biological mechanisms or gametic-transmitted trauma.

Yep.

Pay attention to my yeps. I have affirmed what the dissent said correctly and affirmed the points of agreement. I did not take an adversarial or unteachable approach.

It's not about you​

And yet you keep making it about me.

Josheb said, "It appears you did some research to verify my earlier post. Good."

Yes, That was an affirmation of your effort, edifying words of commendation. There's nothing "self-important" about it. It was an affirmation of brotherly fellowship even though we disagree. But see how those words are twisted and perverted to say something NEVER stated or intended.

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

It's not about you, either.


The facts are as I have stated them in Post 34. The dissent misrepresented Post 34 in eight different ways. Here's the list:

1. I never "conflated non-heritable somatic cellular changes with germline inheritance and replaced the biblical doctrine of original sin with a pseudoscientific form of epigenetic Lamarckianism....," and never remotely said anything of the kind. Nor is it what I believe. Has clarification been requested I would gladly have clarified the matter.
2. I never replaced the biblical doctrine of original sin with pseudoscientific form of epigenetic Lamarckianism." In never replace the doctrine of original sin with anything. I firmly affirm and uphold the theological doctrine of sin and any claim to the contrary is a gross misrepresentation.
3. I never said original sin is a form of biological pathology. The opposite is the case.
4. I never said memory cell were the cause of original sin. What I did say is the memory of trauma gets recorded at a cellular level and is subsequently transferred to other cells. I, again, would have been happy to clarify the matter had I been asked but was, instead, personally deemed unteachable.
5. Nor did I ever say memory cells were passed down to progeny. I do not believe a person's memories are passed down biologically, nor did I ever use the phrase "memory cell(s)". That is a term @DialecticSkeptic invented and put into what I posted. Nor did I believe there are such thing as "memory cells" in any sense that would mean there are specific types of cells that store memories.
6. I never said somatic cell division produces gametes. Never said it and do not hold that position.
7. I never said memory was stored in the genome. Never said it, and do not hold that position.
8. I never said memory metaphorically does anything, and I most definitely never said memory metaphorically justified trauma being biologically encoded and transmitted.
9. I never said sin is reducible to biology, neurology, or trauma.
10. I never confused the physiological consequences of living in a fallen world with theological causes of guilt before God.

What I did say is that in addition to the theological doctrine of original sin there is also a means of understanding sin does get transferred biologically. Christians, as well as Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, has always understood sickness and disease as a direct consequence of original sin. What was lacking is a means to tie it to Adam and Eve. Latest research on the links between trauma and disease provide that means. I'd have been happy to clarify any miscommunication on my part or misunderstandings on anyone else's if asked, but that never happened.

So..... the above is a list of ten ways in which Post 34 was grossly misrepresented. When someone misrepresents what someone else says and then argues against those misrepresentations that is called a strawman. The response to Post 34 contains at least ten strawmen, and that does not count the appeals to ridicule, ad hominems, or other fallacies contained in the dissent. I commended @Dialectic for his effort in good faith and good will and encouraged him to do more of the same. Those words of edification and encouragement were construed to mean I'm unteachable and self-important. I'll let the readers decide whether or not, "Take what you learned and think it through because some of what you've discovered supports and/or proves what I posted," qualifies as self-importance, or whether it is another gross misrepresentation that should be added to the list.

There's no logical way anyone can form a cogent and coherent dissent using ten strawmen. It's just not possible.

Perhaps Post 34 is not sufficiently clear and warrants clarification. Normal discussions do that. Anyone here see that happening? The crux of the dissent is that the gametes (the reproductive cells) are not affected by the other cells in the body. We know, however, DNA can and does change through mutation. The textbook answer is "If a mutation occurs in a germ cell (sperm or egg), it can be passed on to the next generation. If a mutation occurs in a somatic cell (any other cell in the body), it's not typically passed down" (from AI, emphasis mine), but that word "typically" means there are exceptions. Anyone and everyone here can Google, "examples where somatic mutation can affect dna," and read the results. The crux of the issue boils down to whether or not changes in somatic cells can affect germ cells and, subsequently, dna..... and the dissent has taken the wrong side of that issue. The question remains, "Does trauma cause such changes?" and the last few decades of research is increasingly providing evidence in the affirmative.






Let me address the complaints about confusing, denying, reducing and other claims I have problems with the theology of original sin. Most of you have been trading posts with me for years and have had occasion to oread my defenses of original sin. You all know the accusation I deny original sin is false. It's just wrong and there isn't any liberty to attack me personally, especially with accusations that are not true.

In ancient times the prevailing belief was the earth was the center of the universe (geocentrism). In the 3rd century people like the Greek astronomer, Aristarchus, found evidence to the contrary, the earth orbits the sun and the sun is the center of the universe (heliocentrism), but it was not until the 16th century and the invention of the telescope that people like Copernicus were able to prove heliocentrism. The Church of that time condemned Galileo for his belief in heliocentrism and deemed him a heretic. The Church was wrong. Of course, nowadays we know Copernicus was wrong. Our sun is not the center of the universe; it's only the rough center of this galaxy and there are billions of galaxies in the universe. What is most remarkable about this event, and others like it where science seemingly clashes with doctrine, is that the conflict never actually exists and the facts, once proven, never actually adversely affect sound doctrine. Proving there exists a biological transmission of the fall's effects will not disprove the doctrine of original sin. Post 34's content is completely compatible with the doctrine of original sin. Christianity has long held disease is a consequence of the fall. Now we have a means of understanding how this occurs in both theological and biological ways.

And we ought to be able to discuss this without having the biological side of this discussion or debate misrepresented multiple times. After all, the tos requires us all to....

​

2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18; Matt 7:12; 1 Cor 13:1-13). Discussions should be constructive, seeking to edify rather than tear down. Approach discussions with a willingness to listen, a readiness to learn, and a heart that seeks to edify fellow believers in unity with Christ Jesus.​

​

2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited. It only serves to derail meaningful theological discussion. Avoid speech that incites needless conflict, fosters resentment, seeks to stir up strife among believers, or exaggerates or distorts another member's words in order to discredit them or to win an argument. When quoting or summarizing another member’s position, do so honestly, in context, and preferably with a citation to ensure that their views are represented accurately and fairly. Aim to promote unity in Christ while allowing for meaningful debate, speaking the truth in love and humility, recognizing that all wisdom and understanding comes from God (cf. Rule 2.1).​

​

I completely understand @DialecticSkeptic 's response. I do not want to trade posts with him, either, because I have just witnessed my post being abused and then me being personally attacked when the rules require humble and respectful, accurate and fair, discussion of the issue. He's now gone on record stating he won't directly respond to my posts further and I think that's disappointing because I am confident two things could have been accomplished: 1) we'd find common ground, and 2) we'd have set an example for how a discussion of opposing views can and should be handled. In all likelihood this post, or this last portion of the post is going to be deleted (and I might be banned) because i have addressed the issue brought into the thread of my supposed confusion, self-importance, and unteachableness (ad hominem).

Those of you who've traded posts with me for any length of time also know I post plainly, directly, and don't intend any condescension. You all also know the only times those accusations occur is during episodes of disagreement. There's no reason the latest research on the physiological effects of psychological trauma and their relevance to original sin cannot or should not be discussed.

Important note: I will not be responding to anything Josheb writes in response to the following and for reasons indicated in my previous post.

I expect you to keep your word.

 

[Josheb]

One last point. This unnecessarily rancorous division began because I said the statement, "Sin is not something we can identify and isolate biologically....." is incorrect. That statement was said in response to the premise sin could be transmitted through the Y chromosome. The biological effects of sin could be transmitted through both the Y and the X chromosomes. Adam and Eve were both traumatized by their individual and collective acts of disobedience. Both Adan and Eve were made good (Gen. 1:31), unashamed (Gen. 2:215), and sinless (Rom. 5:12). They also enjoyed a right relationship with God, themselves, each other, and the world. ALL of that changed in an instant the moment they disobeyed God. Adam AND Eve, both individually and collectively, became not-good, ashamed, and sinful. They also became estranged from God, themselves, each other, and the world over which they'd previously been divinely mandated stewards. On top of all those changes, all of those effects sin had on those two individuals, God added to those consequences (as described in the latter half of Genesis 3 and the last half of Romans 1). In other words, there were "natural" effects of sin, those effects directly related to the cause-and-effect design of God when He made creation (if you sin then you die, for example), and there were added effects - consequents God added to those that occurred by design. We can see in the account of the first naturally son born murdering the second naturally born son the correlation Paul explains in Romans 1. Cain's thinking was futile, his heart was darkened, and God had given him over to his lusts. We see what John wrote in Adam and Eve, and again with Cain.

John 3:18-20 NIV
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

If the tree of life in Eden bears any correspondence to Jesus, then they unwittingly stood in a state of condemnation because they'd refused to believe God and what He'd said about the two trees (one of life and one of knowledge of good and evil). Having disobeyed God they hid. They did not come into the light for fear their deeds would be seen for what they were. Cain followed suit. Cain was so cunning he knew he'd suffer at the hands of others and still thought that was worse than the punishment God meted out, so God marked him so he would not himself befall a fate similar to his brother's (however just it might have been). These are the earliest report of an ontological change in humanity, individually and collectively.

We know disease is a product of the fall. We know disease causes mutation in human calls and cellular structures (in both somatic and germ cells). We know diseases are inheritable. The dissent says this CANNOT possibly be biological because any biological explanation is necessarily reductionist and contrary to the doctrine of original sin.

That dissenting argument is not true or correct. Original sin will not be compromised in any way by understanding the physiological effects of trauma and the prospect of being passed on to the progeny of Adam and Eve given the incredible severity of that event and the effects the Bible describes resulting from that first act of disobedience. We could have discussed all f it had I not been personally vilified and Post 34 not been so egregiously abused with multiple misrepresentations.



And, lest the original topic of this op be forgotten....... none of this applies to Jesus. To understand who and what Jesus is, and what he is not, it becomes very informative to understand who and what is fallen man. Jesus was the observer of the fall's trauma, not an experiencer of it. Common belief is that Jesus was made partly using the ovum of a sinful person, but that belief is not doctrine and it's nowhere stated in scripture. That position is one made from an inferential reading of scripture that assumes the position to be proven. It is a position that runs into conflict with several other verses. Jesus was sinless. Very real and substantive problems ensue if Jesus is made from sinful flesh and then called sinless. No doctrine is compromised by standing on a monergistic conception by the Holy Spirit.

 

[John Bauer]

You say you aren't saying something and then turn around and say it.

And he did it again. Sigh.

 

[Arial]

What I did say is that in addition to the theological doctrine of original sin there is also a means of understanding sin does get transferred biologically. Christians, as well as Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, has always understood sickness and disease as a direct consequence of original sin. What was lacking is a means to tie it to Adam and Eve. Latest research on the links between trauma and disease provide that means. I'd have been happy to clarify any miscommunication on my part or misunderstandings on anyone else's if asked, but that never happened.

Interesting. I never had a problem connecting sickness and disease as being a consequence of original sin, and no problem tying it to Adam and Eve. I guess I just didn't know how dumb I was to not see that it was a major flaw in biblical revelation. Some sickness and disease does get transferred biologically but sickness and disease are not sin----just the result of it.

Do we maybe have a case here of "thinking they were wise, they became fools"? The latest research on the links between trauma and disease have nothing whatsoever to do with why people sin or with sin, for that matter. My Bible tells me that GOD subjected the entire world to futility because of what Adam did. Why go looking for a biological excuse? Because you have done so, you had to manufacture a whole means of Jesus being human, but without a the human sin nature, besides an ovum from Mary. Why is it so hard to just believe WHAT the Bible tells us instead of looking for explanations purposely left in secret, (because our finite mind no matter how we wish to glorify our intellect and human reason, no doubt can not grasp those deep infinite truths);looking to the world and humanity and within humanity, to find all the answers. In this case, it is plain foolishness.

You really should treat yourself to the latest Voddie video in Videos on the mind of Christ.

 

[John Bauer]

… sickness and disease are not sin …

There it is. That is the crucial element which Josheb (alone?) appears to be missing—which may be why he keeps conflating the transmission of sin and the transmission of the effects of sin, and arguing for the latter as if it establishes the former. As far as I can tell, nobody denies a biological basis for the transmission of the effects of sin (e.g., disease). What is being denied is a biological basis for "the transmission of sin."

 

[Josheb]

Interesting. I never had a problem connecting sickness and disease as being a consequence of original sin, and no problem tying it to Adam and Eve. I guess I just didn't know how dumb I was to not see that it was a major flaw in biblical revelation. Some sickness and disease does get transferred biologically but sickness and disease are not sin----just the result of it.

Any imperfection is sinful. Any imperfect is sin. Sin is not solely a function of behavior. When a person disobeys God they are sinful. When a person has a defect s/he is sinful. These are only two of the multiple ways the Bible defines sin. This is why even if someone were to behave perfectly they still could not stand in for Jesus. Nor could they stand on their own before God presenting their merits, their merit of complete obedience. One reason no one can do that is because no matter how perfectly obedient a person is they still bear the mark of imperfection in every fiber of their being. This is one of the reasons sin begets sin. We are sinful because we sin and we sin because we're sinful. The problem is not linear, it is reciprocal. The same principles apply to perfection. The standard is to be perfect as out Father in heaven is perfect and perfection is not measured solely by conduct. This is repeatedly asserted in the imagery, allegorical significance and foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice. A bull, an ox, a sheep, etc. had to be perfect before it could qualify as a sacrifice. A visual inspection of the animal would be performed to verify its perfectness. The priest did not ask, "Has this bull ever broken free of its yard?" Bad bull. No sacrifice for you. The conduct of the bull (or ox, or goat, etc.) was not what was questioned. Its perfection as a specimen was what needed to be verified. This is one of the reasons why the impeccability of Christ is such an important doctrine.

Do we maybe have a case here of "thinking they were wise, they became fools"? The latest research on the links between trauma and disease have nothing whatsoever to do with why people sin or with sin, for that matter.

It does but I simply haven't tied into that matter, yet. There'd be no trauma in a good and sinless world. One of the often-neglected facts of abuse is the tendency for a victim to take on the identity the abuser gives the victim. It is one of the many ways sinners pour sin into others' lives.

My Bible tells me that GOD subjected the entire world to futility because of what Adam did.

Yep.

Do you suppose one of those futilities was having mutations adversely affect the genome? The naysayer says, "No, that cannot possibly be the case because it would contradict the doctrine of original sin," even though it would not in any way contradict that doctrine (and no explanation for how that would be the case has been presented by the dissent).

Mod: Deleted content. Please keep conversations about the thread, and not about the person posting.

None of this research is mine. I just happen to be someone who worked in the field for forty years and kept up on some of the research while reading my Bible.

Mod: Deleted content. Please keep conversations about the thread, and not about the person posting.

Thank you but the subject being discussed is whether or not Jesus inherited the sinful flesh nature and the tangent to that subject pertaining to the whether or not Adam's and Eve's physiology was changed at the genomic level when they disobeyed God. So far the diseent isn't even willing to entertain the premise.

​

Mod: Deleted content. Please keep conversations about the thread, and not about the person posting.

I will summarize the main points of this tangent and tie it back to the op. We know disease is sinful. We know sickness and disease are causally related to the fall and this has always been an inherent part of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. We also know some diseases are inheritable, which means the genome has already been affected by sin. No one disputes that and it does not compromise the doctrine of original sin. The deficit in our understanding has always been the means of tying disease to Adam and Eve. They were made good and sinless. Goodness is typically thought to be matter of morality but scripture pairs goodness with physical, cognitive, emotional, and volitional perfection almost from the beginning. Perfection is not merely a matter of conduct. Jesus has to be physically, cognitively, emotionally, and volitionally perfect - not just behaviorally perfect. When he gets inspected there's no disqualifying birthmark, physical deformity, cognitive impairment, emotional deficit, or lack of volitional agency. Any of those would instantly disqualify him. Jesus did not experience the trauma of the fall, nor the effects of the fall. He was not made or born with sinful flesh. Jesus observed an incredible amount of what would be otherwise traumatizing to ordinary sinful humanity, yet he remained perfect in all his ways (an article I connected to this thread describes commonly occurring reactions to trauma). Sinful man took the perfect human specimen and abusively marred it so badly its humanity was almost unrecognizable. They'd have chopped him up and put the parts on display were it not for the fact God had decreed not a single one of his bones would be broken.

Mod: Deleted content. Please keep conversations about the thread, and not about the person posting.

 

[John Bauer]

How it started (emphasis mine):​

… there is a biological basis for the transmission of sin.

How it's going (emphasis mine):​

… there exists a biological transmission of the fall's effects …

 

[Josheb]

How it started (emphasis mine):​

How it's going (emphasis mine):​

Incorrect.

This tangent began with my response to the exchange you were having with @Whatever. I responded to Post #33...

​

"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.​

And my response can be read by everyone in Post #34 where everyone will find the words, "there is a biological basis for the transmission of sin," and "there exists a biological transmission of the fall's effects," are nowhere to be found.

Edit: Content deleted by Mod: Please keep the conversation about the subject of the thread and not about the persons posting.

I do happen to believe there is a biological basis for sin but that is not where this disagreement started. That statement can be found in Post 42, not Post 34. You'd already started disagreeing with Post 34.

Edit: Content deleted by Mod: Please keep the conversation about the subject of the thread and not about the persons posting.

A person does not have ot be a neurologist, biologist, psychiatrist, or psychologist to understand what I have posted. In fact, the cutting edge of this research is being done by oncologists, not psychologists. Admittedly, much of the research is found in journal articles but the accessible points, the points germane to this op, do not require a subscription to a professional database. The basics can be found online and with a little bit of critical thought and a knowledge of scripture the veracity of Post 34 can be understood.

Nothing in Post #34 contradicts the doctrine of original sin (as was mistakenly asserted). No case for that position has been presented. Instead of presenting a case for original sin's exclusivity, the argument was one of strawmen and ad hominem. The imputation of sin via federal headship and the physiological transmission of sin's effects are not mutually exclusive conditions any more than the sovereignty of God, the authority of the Church, or the centrality of humanity in scripture and heliocentrism are mutually exclusive.

Imagine what we will learn from scripture if creation does turn out to have ten or eleven dimensions instead of the four previous generations were absolutely convinced were the only ones that existed. Nothing I have posted is intended to say scripture is incorrect, untrusted, or not believed as written, nor should it be construed to say such a thing.



We know sin causes disease and, therefore, disease is sinful. Any and all imperfection is sin (the absence of perfection, righteousness, faithfulness, etc.). We know there exists inheritable diseases, which means the genome has already been adversely affected by sin. It also means the effects of the fall are transferred by biological procreation, not just spiritual or theological imputation. We also know, as I have briefly surveyed from scripture, guilt, shame, and avoidance are three of the effects passed on from Adam and Eve to all humanity. Men love darkness and they will not come into the light to see their deeds for what they are. What God described in Genesis 3 has been going on in humanity since Genesis 3:7. It's a disease .

 

[John Bauer]

The imputation of sin via federal headship and the physiological transmission of sin's effects …

(Emphases mine.)

The reader should note: Both of those are different from "a biological basis for the transmission of sin."

[T]he effects of the fall are transferred by biological procreation, not just spiritual or theological imputation.

(Emphases mine.)

Question for the readers: Did anyone in this thread claim that the effects of the fall are a matter of imputation? (No.)

 

[Josheb]

Question for the readers: Did anyone in this thread claim that the effects of the fall are a matter of imputation? (No.)

Post 35 states the following (emphasis mine):

​

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.

Sin is imputed. So, the answer to the question, "Did anyone in this thread claim the effects of the fall are a matter of imputation?" is Yes.​

​

In Post #39 the same position is reiterated,​

​

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......

twice!​

​

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.

​

Edit: Content deleted by Mod: Please keep the conversation about the subject of the thread and not about the persons posting. Avoid also further discussion in the thread per rule 4.4 until logical fallacies are addressed and agreed on.

​

 

[John Bauer]

Follow-up question for the readers: Did I claim in this thread that the effects of the fall are a matter of imputation?

Clearly not. Look at the three quotes which Josheb used to try and prove I did (emphases added):

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.

(Link)

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......

(Link)

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.

(Link)

So, there were not three but rather zero examples of someone claiming that the effects of the fall are imputed. That third example was particularly revealing, as I distinguished between "the effects of the fall" and "sin" in the very same sentence.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Wiki is a source for not one thing. Not one. Its a user generated source @Josheb and you know it.

Try reputable medical journals naming and discussing it. At this point you've oversold any case you may have started with into ignorance.

It's clear that the curse is transmitted via headship in the first place, whether that's biological or not we can't say because it's extra Biblical in the first place. All we actually know is that it's covenantal, transmitted by the head.

What's that saying the people have: "Let God be true, and every human being a liar" It's a paraphrasing of Romans 3:4 which says:

"By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”

We have to corral our extra biblical thoughts and submit them to the truth of God. If there's a place they marry it's cool, but your thoughts here aren't even marrying, they are attempting to change Scripture.

That's the type of thinking we have to drop as invalid.

Also, even when they do marry, that which is extra biblical is still nothing more than how you see it in the modern day, and we say it knowing anything can come along later and disprove our current thinking.

For example, I find it perfectly valid to say God's days are like our "epochs" or "eras" during the creation event.

So I have creation in 6 periods, for example the Jurassic period etc. except there's 6 instead of 5.

However, I actually believe evolution to be invalid. While creatures are created with a certain amount of ability to adapt environmentally (as is necessary for life) nothing has ever in my mind been proven to say we actually evolved in the Darwinian sense, plus the entire concept is unbiblical.

But in the end, everything any of us thinks has to submit itself to God. We take "every thought captive" as I believe the Apostle Paul once stated:

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,'

The very first lofty opinions we destroy are our own.

 

[Arial]

Any imperfection is sinful. Any imperfect is sin. Sin is not solely a function of behavior. When a person disobeys God they are sinful. When a person has a defect s/he is sinful.

That is about as legalistic and unscriptural as a person can get.

Let's go back to the beginning.

The Doctrine of Original Sin is not concerning the first sin by Adam but the result of the first sin. It was not Adam's actual sin that was imputed to all mankind, but the result of that sin as Adam standing as federal head of all mankind. As Adam goes, so goes all the rest. Humans became sinners. It is not trauma based, or biologically based, but according to the purpose of God.

Let's go back even farther. There were two identified trees in the Garden of Eden. The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Disobedience to God, sin, carried the penalty of death. Adam and Eve were not created as immortal beings, but mortal beings---able to die but as long as they had access to the tree of life, they would not. God did not create them incorruptible or corrupt, but able to be corrupted.

What would cause the sentence of death by having been corrupted? Eating of that forbidden tree that gave them a knowledge that God had forbidden them to partake of. Before they had knowledge of only good. After, they also had the knowledge of evil. And of course now had to be banned from the tree of life. Cain would have had no knowledge of jealousy, deceit or murder had his father not sinned against God. But now he had it and murdered his brother. And so goes history. All people have knowledge of both good and evil, and at their very core, hate God.

It is not trauma based, or biologically based, it is God based. His decree, for His purpose. All people die of something. If a person has a defect it is an indication that they have, like all the rest, have been corrupted and are under the sentence of death. But the imperfection (and news flash, take it into consideration, there are no perfect people) itself is not a sin. I would hate to think of a person who is meant to be counseling troubled people who tells them all their imperfections are sinful.

These are only two of the multiple ways the Bible defines sin.

Where does the Bible define sin that way?

This is why even if someone were to behave perfectly they still could not stand in for Jesus. Nor could they stand on their own before God presenting their merits, their merit of complete obedience. One reason no one can do that is because no matter how perfectly obedient a person is they still bear the mark of imperfection in every fiber of their being.

No it is not the reason. It is because they are a sinful being----which. And the reason no one CAN have perfect obedience is because they are a sinner. Not because they only have one eye, or or mentally challenged, or are not the first born, or they are not symmetrical in all their measurements, or have cancer. You have floated far afield of sound doctrine in this.

This is one of the reasons sin begets sin. We are sinful because we sin and we sin because we're sinful. The problem is not linear, it is reciprocal.

The problem is spiritual.

The same principles apply to perfection. The standard is to be perfect as out Father in heaven is perfect and perfection is not measured solely by conduct. This is repeatedly asserted in the imagery, allegorical significance and foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice. A bull, an ox, a sheep, etc. had to be perfect before it could qualify as a sacrifice. A visual inspection of the animal would be performed to verify its perfectness. The priest did not ask, "Has this bull ever broken free of its yard?" Bad bull. No sacrifice for you. The conduct of the bull (or ox, or goat, etc.) was not what was questioned. Its perfection as a specimen was what needed to be verified. This is one of the reasons why the impeccability of Christ is such an important doctrine.

Well, bulls, oxen, and sheep etc. are not sinful beings. They were merely subjected by God to corruption----all the things that lead to death----as were the trees, and the flowers, and the grass etc. So the requirement for no spot or blemish in the sacrificial animal was not about, and could not be about, "without sin." Jesus qualified as the sacrificial substitute for the SINS of mankind and the imputed sin of Adam, not because he was without physical flaw, but because he was without SIN.

It does but I simply haven't tied into that matter, yet. There'd be no trauma in a good and sinless world. One of the often-neglected facts of abuse is the tendency for a victim to take on the identity the abuser gives the victim. It is one of the many ways sinners pour sin into others' lives.

Completely irrelevant and you also keep insisting that you did tie the whole thing together. The fact that there would be no trauma in a good and sinless world, does not mean that trauma is why people are sinners. It means trauma is the RESULT of sin.

Do you suppose one of those futilities was having mutations adversely affect the genome? The naysayer says, "No, that cannot possibly be the case because it would contradict the doctrine of original sin," even though it would not in any way contradict that doctrine (and no explanation for how that would be the case has been presented by the dissent).

I don't believe anyone claimed that acknowledging that biological workings within the human body was denying original sin. I also believe that God directs the path of storms, in fact that he commands storms, and at the same time do not deny the meteorological science used in predicting them and their path and their force. And of course, those predictions are often do not pan out because it is God doing the directing and for his purposes. And I do not deny that destructive storms are a part of the fallen world because of a fallen people. What I have come to think concerning your position of original sin, is not that you deny it but that you redefine it, removing the spiritual aspects (at least in the theories you put forth) and reducing it to biological factors and trauma.

None of this research is mine. I just happen to be someone who worked in the field for forty years and kept up on some of the research while reading my Bible.

I don't think anyone thought it was anything other than borrowed research But your research and all your many years experience in the field, which you also make sure we are aware of, in case we missed it the first second, third, fourth or----times you used that as an argument from authority; that research should not be read INTO the Bible.

Thank you but the subject being discussed is whether or not Jesus inherited the sinful flesh nature and the tangent to that subject pertaining to the whether or not Adam's and Eve's physiology was changed at the genomic level when they disobeyed God. So far the diseent isn't even willing to entertain the premise.

Just to be clear, it is you who introduced the tangent. The premise was entertained and found to be seriously flawed, and the evidence for the flaws given. It is more likely that you are doing the refusing to entertain any disagreement to your speculative theory.

 

[Josheb]

Follow-up question for the readers: Did I claim in this thread that the effects of the fall are a matter of imputation?

Clearly not. Look at the three quotes which Josheb used to try and prove I did (emphases added):

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.

(Link)

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......

(Link)

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.

(Link)

So, there were not three but rather zero examples of someone claiming that the effects of the fall are imputed. That third example was particularly revealing, as I distinguished between "the effects of the fall" and "sin" in the very same sentence.

Sin is an effect of the fall. Absent the fall there would be no sin. Each quote does, therefore, clearly state sin is imputed. The attempt to prove otherwise is self-implicating sophistry.

 

[Josheb]

Wiki is a source for not one thing. Not one. Its a user generated source @Josheb and you know it.

Yep.

But that is not the point. The point is it was claimed no information could be found and that is not true. The information is so abundant even Wiki has an article on it (whether the article is valid and veracious is irrelevant). There is plenty of information available. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect and untrue.

 

[Arial]

Sin is an effect of the fall. Absent the fall there would be no sin. Each quote does, therefore, clearly state sin is imputed. The attempt to prove otherwise is self-implicating sophistry.

Are you here denying that the sin of Adam is imputed? Are you saying it is imputed biologically? The fall occurred because of sin. As the federal head of mankind, this made all men sinners. Sin is not something biological. It is treason against a holy God. The Bible never states that sin changed anything of the biology of man. Would the tree of life have changed the biology of man? No, it would have kept the biological workings of the man God created from facing corruption and death. That is why Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. Our biology was always subject to (able to be) corruption. The whole purpose of all this is being made immortal and incorruptible by the absolute annihilation of evil and the evil one.

But that is not the point. The point is it was claimed no information could be found and that is not true. The information is so abundant even Wiki has an article on it (whether the article is valid and veracious is irrelevant). There is plenty of information available. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect and untrue.

You are misrepresenting what @DialecticSkeptic said. Here it is Post #39

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.

He did not claim that there was no information on it. He said he found none and listed where he looked except in Google Scholar two usages of the term. And then he gave what he suspected about it usage in this discussion. Which turns out is not far off what I found when I used ChatGPT to see what AI had to say about it.
chatgpt.com/c/68221965-d57c-8008-af49-b76175fb23e1

 

[Josheb]

Are you here denying that the sin of Adam is imputed?

That question has already been answered. I affirm the imputation of sin and the doctrine of original sin and have defended those positions multiple times in multiple settings.

Are you saying it is imputed biologically?

I have already answered that question, too. While unequivocally affirming the imputation of sin there is also a means by which the sinfulness of humanity, both individually and collectively, can be understood as a function of biology, and we can understand that in ways not previously understood do to new research in the developing field of psychobiogenesis, or biopsychology, and autoimmune diseases in which the long-held and well established facts the genome affects the body is also found to work in the other direction, too. There are extremely high correlations connecting trauma to inheritable diseases (like cancer and arthritis) that are so significant causality is thought to exist. If true, then this will connect the transmission of sin (disease is an effect of sin) from Adam and Eve to all their progeny. This will not, in any way, compromise the doctrine of original sin.

The fall occurred because of sin.

No, the fall occurred because of one man's disobedience in a good and sinless world. Sin ensued as a consequence of that act of disobedience. This is explicitly stated in Romans 5.

Romans 5:12, 19
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned...... For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

There was no sin in the world at Genesis 3:6. Sin entered thereafter. Sin is NOT the cause of the fall. Sin is the result of the fall.

As the federal head of mankind, this made all men sinners.

Yep

Sin is not something biological.

Correct. However, biological corruption is sinfully sin, and I have already explained that in a prior post in this thread.

Would the tree of life have changed the biology of man? No, it would......

Yes! Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians 15 makes this abundantly clear. Partaking in the tree of life makes a person immortal. Partaking in the tree of life leads to a bodily resurrection in which the body is raised incorruptible and immortal. If Jesus' resurrected body is the prototype, then the body that has been affected by the tree of life will be able to walk through walls once raised. The natural body is raised a spiritual body.

It is treason against a holy God.

I'd say, "Prove it," but now we're at the same earlier point where the post departs from discussing the issue with a willingness to listen and a readiness to learn and I will have nothing to do with that.

2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited.​

5.2. Avoid labeling fellow believers as heretics or apostates over non-essential matters. While doctrinal differences exist, members should refrain from making accusations of heresy or apostacy unless a position directly contradicts fundamental Christian beliefs. In such cases, please make use of the Report button.​

Accusations of treason have no place in the thread. The post, as a consequence, has been reported.

He did not claim that there was no information on it. He said he found none and listed where he looked except in Google Scholar two usages of the term.

I stand corrected. I should not have over-generalized his post and I am thankful to have you point that out. The fact remains there is plenty of information to be had. I completely understand my access to the information is inordinate and my Google searches are influenced by my surfing history but that does not change the fact any one can find this information. Furthermore, you two are not the first to disagree with the position asserted in Post 34. I have discussed this research with professors at local seminaries and local state and private universities with very intelligent, very well-educated, and very critical people in a diverse filed of studies (the cutting edge of this research occurred in the field of oncology) who've expressed a variety of responses ranging from acceptance to curiosity to skepticism. None of them attacked me personally.


I do not expect or require agreement. I do expect the TOS to be abided.

 

[Arial]

That question has already been answered. I affirm the imputation of sin and the doctrine of original sin and have defended those positions multiple times in multiple settings.

Then why make a whole argument about someone saying sin is imputed?

I have already answered that question, too. While unequivocally affirming the imputation of sin there is also a means by which the sinfulness of humanity, both individually and collectively, can be understood as a function of biology, and we can understand that in ways not previously understood do to new research in the developing field of psychobiogenesis, or biopsychology, and autoimmune diseases in which the long-held and well established facts the genome affects the body is also found to work in the other direction, too. There are extremely high correlations connecting trauma to inheritable diseases (like cancer and arthritis) that are so significant causality is thought to exist. If true, then this will connect the transmission of sin (disease is an effect of sin) from Adam and Eve to all their progeny. This will not, in any way, compromise the doctrine of original sin.

It has been proven by posters and by using Bible evidence to show that is not the case. You have simply taken what you gained knowledge of theoretical findings (which may become laughable to even the scientific community in another 100 years, as new theories are purported) and applied them (added them to) what the Bible does say, which distorts what the Bible says. And even though you deny that in any way expresses an insufficiency in what God has given us----and does. The disciplines you mention are in no way concerned with God or the Bible or the story of creation and the fall. They are concerned with biology and diseases. The disciplines themselves never imply that it has anything to do with sin. Christians KNOW that sickness and disease are a result of the fall and not a result of God's perfect creation. Why do you need all the psychobabble to support that? Sin is not a function of biology.

 

[Josheb]

Then why make a whole argument about someone saying sin is imputed?

Never happened. The claim was made no one had claimed sin was imputed and a simple observation using three posts proving the opposite was posted. No "whole argument" was ever made.

Christians KNOW that sickness and disease are a result of the fall and not a result of God's perfect creation.

Yep. Many sicknesses and diseases are inheritable due to the genome having already been adversely affected. That is a fact. The effects of sin can, in fact, therefore, be transferred biologically and that fact does not compromise original sin in anyway.