Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

[Josheb]

Who is this "we" that has always known sin has been transmitted biologically?

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

You, for one.

The disciplines you mention are in no way concerned with God or the Bible or the story of creation and the fall.

The disciplines I mentioned included doctorate level seminarians teaching theology in some of this nation's most recognized seminaries. They are most decidedly concerned with God, the Bible, the story of creation and the fall, and all the doctrines developed thereof. The disciplines I mentioned included Christian men and women working in the fields of biology, medicine (oncology, psychiatry, neurology, etc.), and psychology. They too are decidedly concerned with God, the Bible, the story of creation and the fall, and all the doctrines developed thereof. Furthermore, as has already been posted, science is never truly in conflict with God or scripture. God made creation knowable, and He made creatures with the capacity to know the knowable. ALL of the sciences are simply the process of uncovering the knowable. The salient point, however, is that you too are not the first two people with whom I have had these kinds of conversations so I do not expect blind acceptance or unequivocal agreement. What I do expect in a well-mannered and respectful discussion that doesn't include strawmen.

 

[Arial]

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.

All disobedience is sin. You are making a distinction where there is no difference.

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.

Sin IS the fall. That all men are sinful is the result of the fall. Also known as original sin.

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

If that were the case then everywhere in the epistles that the word "flesh" is used to denote the natural man, could be translatesd "sin" instead of "flesh". It is Gnostism that claims the flesh is evil. E.g, "the sins of the sin" instead of the "sins of the flesh". You indeed explained it and I countered with explaining the nonsense of it in previous posts.

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

I accused no one of treason. And you know that so you removed a sentence from the context so you could make a retributive post. Here is what I actually said:

Sin is not something biological. It is treason against a holy God.

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.

One can say the tree of life is a type of Christ, but one cannot say that the tree of life is Christ. Eating of the tree of life would keep them alive, but it would not change the biological aspects of the created man. It would not make them immortal---unable to die in a biological sense. They still have the same biology. God did not re-create them with a whole new biology when he threw them out. They simply didn't have access to what would keep that biology functioning perfectly. The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden was not the resurrected Jesus and not the incarnate Jesus who could also die, just like those he died for. I notice there is a great deal of what I post you do not even bother to address.

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.

That is very generous of you to do so AFTER you reported my pointing it out as a rule violation.

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

When anyone disagrees with you on anything, you consider it not being willing to listen and learn and often report them. And yet almost this entire post of yours is a violation of TOS. If we gave you infractions points for everytime you violate TOS you would have been permanently banned eons ago. Instead of being grateful that, you simply deny the infractions and hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. You are not irreplaceable and you are not indispensable.

 

[Arial]

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.

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.

But you have said they ARE sin.

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.

First, long ago, you said this:

Therefore, everyone should stop assuming inferences that are never stated and never implied in scripture. They should stop holding an unwitting allegiance to Roman Catholic Marianism. They should stop over-anthropomorphizing scripture when it speaks of the incarnation. They should stop subscribing to a position that creates problems scripturally, logically, and theologically because it pits a man-made viewpoint against scripture. Everyone should accept, believe, and trust scripture when it states Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and never mentions a female egg.

Mary was blessed to be a vessel for the birth of God's Son made flesh. The seed of a woman was implanted in her. It was not her own seed of sinful flesh.

So, just as a side, you told people why they believe something and then demanded that everyone see it your way. Then you made the Bible to mean one thing when it said the seed of a man, Abraham for example, and mean something entirely different when it says seed of a woman. In order to support that you began this tangent after DialeticSkeptic had said this:

"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.

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.

Which is clearly stating that sin is transferred genetically, since the post it is responding to states it cannot be identified and isolated biologically. It connects biological transferred with original sin. If you did not mean to be doing so, but instead were simply pontificating acquired knowledge and lost track of the subject and discussion---just say so. And in case you have not noticed, no one is arguing the against the information, but how you are misusing it. And in addition, no one has stated in any way shape or form, that they do not recognize that sickness and disease are a direct result of sin. But sin is not a biological ingredient in humans.

 

[Arial]

The disciplines I mentioned included doctorate level seminarians teaching theology in some of this nation's most recognized seminaries. They are most decidedly concerned with God, the Bible, the story of creation and the fall, and all the doctrines developed thereof. The disciplines I mentioned included Christian men and women working in the fields of biology, medicine (oncology, psychiatry, neurology, etc.), and psychology. They too are decidedly concerned with God, the Bible, the story of creation and the fall, and all the doctrines developed thereof. Furthermore, as has already been posted, science is never truly in conflict with God or scripture. God made creation knowable, and He made creatures with the capacity to know the knowable. ALL of the sciences are simply the process of uncovering the knowable. The salient point, however, is that you too are not the first two people with whom I have had these kinds of conversations so I do not expect blind acceptance or unequivocal agreement. What I do expect in a well-mannered and respectful discussion that doesn't include strawmen.

The straw man here is that I have ever been arguing against the "findings" of the disciplines. I have been arguing against your application of them to sin and the fall. But it is also a post that appeals to authority without naming the authorities or affirming their findings with their evidence, and certainly no evidence given that "they" (all of them?) are concerned with God, the Bible, the story of creation and the fall and all doctrines developed thereof. LOL.

 

[EddieM]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging and the inherent traits of genetics. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations. Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'.

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Jesus was tempted in all points like us. The strongest temptations that we struggle with is our sinful flesh. If Jesus wasn't tempted by his sinful flesh then he was not tempted in all points like us. Christ had to overcome urges and intensive struggle perhaps, but we do know that Christ struggle in all points like us. If I didn't have the sinful flesh, could I go sinless?

 

[Arial]

Jesus was tempted in all points like us. The strongest temptations that we struggle with is our sinful flesh. If Jesus wasn't tempted by his sinful flesh then he was not tempted in all points like us. Christ had to overcome urges and intensive struggle perhaps, but we do know that Christ struggle in all points like us. If I didn't have the sinful flesh, could I go sinless?

You do have sinful flesh. Jesus did not. His Father was the Holy Spirit (third person of the Trinity) not Adam (man) and his mother a human. Our temptations come from within and without. The temptations Jesus faced were outside and all that scripture means is that he came as one of us, lived among fallen people, in the same fallen world with the same sinful things all around him. It does not mean that he was tempted to sin. That would be sinful.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus was tempted in all points like us. The strongest temptations that we struggle with is our sinful flesh. If Jesus wasn't tempted by his sinful flesh then he was not tempted in all points like us. Christ had to overcome urges and intensive struggle perhaps, but we do know that Christ struggle in all points like us. If I didn't have the sinful flesh, could I go sinless?

Scripture clarifies how Jesus was tempted “in all points like us” (Hebrews 4:15, ESV) without possessing sinful flesh.

Scripture teaches three main roots of temptation: “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). In His wilderness temptation (Matthew 4:1-11), Jesus faced each of these, fulfilling Hebrews 4:15:

Lust of the Flesh: Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread to satisfy hunger (Matthew 4:3-4). This targeted physical desire, but Jesus, having no sinful nature, responded with God’s Word, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Deuteronomy 8:3).

Lust of the Eyes: Satan showed Jesus the world’s kingdoms, offering them for worship (Matthew 4:8-10). This appealed to visual desire for power, yet Jesus, sinless, rebuked Satan, “You shall worship the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13).

Pride of Life: Satan urged Jesus to throw Himself from the temple to prove God’s protection (Matthew 4:5-7). This tested pride, but Jesus, without sinful inclination, replied, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Deuteronomy 6:16).

Jesus was tempted in all points like us, as these cover the spectrum of human temptation (1 John 2:16). However, He didn’t fall, not because He overcame sinful urges, but because He had no sinful nature. Scripture affirms Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21) and was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Unlike us, who inherit sin through Adam (Romans 5:12), Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), His human nature pure. Our “sinful flesh” (Romans 7:18) inclines us to sin, but Jesus’ temptations were external, not internal urges, yet He fully sympathizes with our weakness (Hebrews 4:15).

You asked, “If I didn’t have sinful flesh, could I go sinless?” Without a sinful nature, like Adam before the fall, you could choose not to sin, but only Jesus, being both truly God and truly man, lived perfectly (1 Peter 2:22). His sinless life and death save us (Romans 5:8-9).

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception insulate him from mankind's so-called fallen nature?

REPLY: No.

FAQ: Why not?

REPLY: Because the fallen nature isn't inherited.

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, the eyes of both him and Eve were opened
and they perceived themselves indecent; so they set about fabricating some
rudimentary aprons to cover their pelvic areas.

The thing is; Eve was already fully constructed with material taken from Adam's
body prior to his tasting the forbidden fruit so it was impossible for him to pass the
effects of his tasting to Eve by means of heredity.

FAQ: Did she obtain the fallen nature from the fruit that she ate before giving some
to Adam?

REPLY: No

It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the world,
they would do so by means of the solo actions of one man working alone, just as
life and righteousness would come into the world by means of the solo actions of
one man working alone. (Rom 5:12-21 & 1Cor 15:21-22)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: The Bible says Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh rather than the
likeness of divine flesh. (Rom 8:3) So then why didn't he have the fallen nature
like everyone else?

REPLY: Because the source of the fallen nature is the Serpent (Heb 2:14) a.k.a. the
Devil and Satan (Rev 12:9). It was likely a simple matter for the Holy Spirit to keep
the Serpent's paws off baby Jesus so he could come into the world a sinless man.
_

 

[Josheb]

FAQ: Did she obtain the fallen nature from the fruit that she ate before giving some
to Adam?

REPLY: No

It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the world,
they would do so by means of the solo actions of one man working alone, just as
life and righteousness would come into the world by means of the solo actions of
one man working alone. (Rom 5:12-21 & 1Cor 15:21-22)
_

I doubt that is correct.

Although Romans 5 does specify the disobedience of one man, Had Adam not sinned what he would have been left with is procreating with a sinner. Whether or not Adam ever disobeyed God Eve had already disobeyed Him and became a sinner - had become sinful. Therefore, when Romans 5 speaks of sin entering the world that has content. Sin had already entered the world in and through Eve. What Adam did compiled the matter of sin. Through the disobedience of one many both good and sinless creatures made in God's image were now sinful.

Individually, Eve was a sinner and Adam was not. Either imputation would have occurred via Eve's actions or God would have ignored the sin and the latter is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, there is the matter of not eating lest the person eating die. Eve died. If God's original hope or goal was for two good and sinless creatures living in a good and sinless world to procreate additional good and sinless creatures living in a good and sinless world then that hope was undone with Eve's act of disobedience.

Imperfect creatures do not procreate perfect progeny.

So.....

The moment Eve disobeyed God the problem was not that God lost just Eve, but that God lost the entire human race. That is one of the reasons why humans can never repay God. It was long thought that an individual who was completely obedient could approach God and "redeem" himself from what was otherwise a new human condition (not-good and sinful). However, what God is owed is not one individual, or even a series of individual individuals. What he is owed is the entire human speciies and that is beyond any human's ability.

Adam owed God an entire species, not just a new Adam.