Through one man, sin entered the world.

[Tambora]

I should think Scriptures have quite a lot to say about it.

It doesn't tell us the details of the process of how Jesus was conceived.
It doesn't tell us the details of the process of how God would make descendants of Abraham out of stones either, but it does tell us God could do just that.
So I repeat that it is not unrealistic to think God could make that vessel inside Mary to be a human descendant of David, Jacob, Abraham, Adam.

 

[LeviR]

That Adam, the male, is said throughout Scripture to be the source of sin in all of humanity; that the promised seed is not the seed of a male, but the seed of the woman, points to sin not being passed to mankind through the woman, but through the man. And we do not need to know how, then, Jesus was born of a woman (by what process) as it has nothing to do with anything.

What we do know is that it is so by God's decree and his design. I state it this way as to the two natures of Christ. He had to be born of a woman, through the natural means of gestation and birth, in order to be human. As human, he has a human nature but with no inborn nature to sin, as we have, since we all came into this world through the seed of a man and a woman, and Jesus did not.

On the other hand, Jesus did not come into existence in Mary's womb through an earthly father----no corrupted seed of Adam. His Father is the Holy Spirit, who is the third person of the Trinity. Therefore he has the nature of his Father. He was born of a human mother, therefore he has a human nature. Two natures cannot mix together. No cats that bark, or pigs that fly. So Jesus has the nature of God (essence) 100% his Father and the human nature of his mother, 100%. He does, as one of us, call His Father, Father. And his mother, he calls his mother.

As to how God did that or how it is possible---God decreed it and brought it to pass. And that decree came about covenantly with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before our world was created.

The enmity God had put in the garden was between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.
I believe the seed of the woman refers to Christ and those who would be in him.
Adam and Eve were banished from the tree of life in the garden, so it would be by the seed of the woman where Christ was to come and then those in Christ afterwards where the life is obtained.

 

[Arial]

The enmity God had put in the garden was between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.
I believe the seed of the woman refers to Christ and those who would be in him.
Adam and Eve were banished from the tree of life in the garden, so it would be by the seed of the woman where Christ was to come and then those in Christ afterwards where the life is obtained.

Could you tell me exactly how any of that is related to what I posted?

 

[Tambora]

Are you familiar with Hypostatic Union?

I am familiar with the theory.

 

[LeviR]

It doesn't tell us the details of the process of how Jesus was conceived.
It doesn't tell us the details of the process of how God would make descendants of Abraham out of stones either, but it does tell us God could do just that.
So I repeat that it is not unrealistic to think God could make that vessel inside Mary to be a human descendant of David, Jacob, Abraham, Adam.

I believe Christ is counted as the seed of Abraham and David through Mary.

 

[LeviR]

Could you tell me exactly how any of that is related to what I posted?

It’s prophetic of Christ and those in him being the seed of the woman.

 

[makesends]

It’s interesting that a sacrificial lamb had to be without spot or blemish. This was done by an external examination of the animal whereby no fault could be found.
The “no fault” found in Jesus was that he had not sinned.

Not sure what you mean to imply here. Can you just come right out and say it?

 

[makesends]

That Adam, the male, is said throughout Scripture to be the source of sin in all of humanity; that the promised seed is not the seed of a male, but the seed of the woman, points to sin not being passed to mankind through the woman, but through the man. And we do not need to know how, then, Jesus was born of a woman (by what process) as it has nothing to do with anything.

What we do know is that it is so by God's decree and his design. I state it this way as to the two natures of Christ. He had to be born of a woman, through the natural means of gestation and birth, in order to be human. As human, he has a human nature but with no inborn nature to sin, as we have, since we all came into this world through the seed of a man, and Jesus did not.

On the other hand, Jesus did not come into existence in Mary's womb through an earthly father----no corrupted seed of Adam. His Father is the Holy Spirit, who is the third person of the Trinity. Therefore he has the nature of his Father. He was born of a human mother, therefore he has a human nature. Two natures cannot mix together. No cats that bark, or pigs that fly. So Jesus has the nature of God (essence) 100% his Father and the human nature of his mother, 100%. He does, as one of us, call His Father, Father. And his mother, he calls his mother.

As to how God did that or how it is possible---God decreed it and brought it to pass. And that decree came about covenantly with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before our world was created.

I'm not sure here, now —are you saying it is not speculation as to whether it was by Mary's ovum vs zygote placed, and that you are sure and can teach for fact, that is the one vs the other?

 

[makesends]

It doesn't tell us the details of the process of how Jesus was conceived.
It doesn't tell us the details of the process of how God would make descendants of Abraham out of stones either, but it does tell us God could do just that.
So I repeat that it is not unrealistic to think God could make that vessel inside Mary to be a human descendant of David, Jacob, Abraham, Adam.

With that, I can agree.

 

[Arial]

I'm not sure here, now —are you saying it is not speculation as to whether it was by Mary's ovum vs zygote placed, and that you are sure and can teach for fact, that is the one vs the other?

That is not at all what I am saying. What I feel I can teach as fact is that God is Jesus's Father and Mary is his mother. He has no sin of Adam in him, and Mary (woman) is not the vessel through which sin comes to all mankind. It is through woman that humans are born. To speculate about sperm or zygotes, or, as some Unitarians have said, hocus pocus, conjure and focus. Be created, as magic fated. And there he was. (OK. They did not actually say it like that, but they might as well have.) is utter useless foolishness. Jesus said I will go, God said let there be, and there was.

We might as well speculate about how God can bring a man dead for days and stinking can walk out of the grave. (Lazzarus) or how he made the sun stand still or the shadow go backwards, or bring into existence everything out of nothing by the command of his voice. He is God. That is the answer to the dilemma, the only one we get this side of glory.

 

[RR144]

Really? How so? Where does it say God cursed the ground?
Be careful not to add to scripture.

Why don't you read my comment again, where I quoted Genesis 3:17

 

[Ladodgers6]

I am familiar with the theory.

What is it?

 

[LeviR]

Not sure what you mean to imply here. Can you just come right out and say it?

The sacrificial lamb was examined for any physical faults before it could be accepted as a sacrifice.
The idea that Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb means he would have to be found to have not sinned rather than to say his flesh was not like ours.
Some say that if he had sinful flesh like us it would exclude him as the required sacrifice.
But, If his flesh was not like ours, he could not be tempted or tested as we are.

I’m saying that as the Lamb, he would be a worthy sacrifice because he did not sin even though tempted as we are in the same flesh as we are.

Luk 23:13 - And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

Luk 23:14 - Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

Luk 23:15 - No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

 

[JIM]

That Adam, the male, is said throughout Scripture to be the source of sin in all of humanity; that the promised seed is not the seed of a male, but the seed of the woman, points to sin not being passed to mankind through the woman, but through the man. And we do not need to know how, then, Jesus was born of a woman (by what process) as it has nothing to do with anything.

Could you give us some of those references throughout scripture that says the source of sin in all of humanity is the male? I know of one that, being completely mistranslated and misinterpreted to say that, but that is it. I would appreciate all those other passages of scripture that you are referring to.

Also, we know well the details of the inheritance concept in biology whereby the traits of the parents are passed down to the offspring. This passing of traits is made possible by a special substance called genes. Genes are segments of DNA that contain instructions for building and maintaining an organism. So far, I don't think anyone as identified a "sin gene". I doubt that anyone is even looking for such a thing. Why? Because it doesn't exist. And the scriptures don't even suggest that it exists.

What we do know is that it is so by God's decree and his design. I state it this way as to the two natures of Christ. He had to be born of a woman, through the natural means of gestation and birth, in order to be human. As human, he has a human nature but with no inborn nature to sin, as we have, since we all came into this world through the seed of a man and a woman, and Jesus did not.

Where do you read that it is so by God's decree and His design? Where does it say that we have an inborn nature to sin, but Jesus didn't? How can the inborn nature to sin be the human nature and Jesus be human but not have the inborn nature to sin? That doesn't make any sense at all.

On the other hand, Jesus did not come into existence in Mary's womb through an earthly father----no corrupted seed of Adam. His Father is the Holy Spirit, who is the third person of the Trinity. Therefore he has the nature of his Father. He was born of a human mother, therefore he has a human nature. Two natures cannot mix together. No cats that bark, or pigs that fly. So Jesus has the nature of God (essence) 100% his Father and the human nature of his mother, 100%. He does, as one of us, call His Father, Father. And his mother, he calls his mother.

As to how God did that or how it is possible---God decreed it and brought it to pass. And that decree came about covenantly with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, before our world was created.

I think the two natures of Christ are rather easy to understand. All human beings actually have two natures. We have the physical nature associated with the flesh and blood of the physical body and we have the spiritual nature of the spirit or soul given us by God. In Jesus' being He had the physical nature associated with the flesh and blood of the physical body He was born with through being born of Mary. He had the spiritual nature of the pre-incarnate Spirit which John called the Word in John 1. That Spirit was, and is, the second person of the Trinity, before, during, and after Jesus' life as a human being here on earth.

Therefore, just as we have the two natures, one physical and one spiritual, Jesus also had two natures, one physical and one spiritual. It is in our spiritual nature that we are in the image of God. It is in the spiritual nature that Jesus was not just in the image of God; but rather, in His spiritual nature Jesus was and is God.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The sacrificial lamb was examined for any physical faults before it could be accepted as a sacrifice.
The idea that Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb means he would have to be found to have not sinned rather than to say his flesh was not like ours.
Some say that if he had sinful flesh like us it would exclude him as the required sacrifice.
But, If his flesh was not like ours, he could not be tempted or tested as we are.

Beg to differ. Jesus was tempted for 40 days and nights by Satan himself directing. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemned and kill sin in the flesh. He was fully man and fully God. He is the Paschal Lamb the final sacrifice for sin once and for all. The OT sacrificial system could not take away sin permanently and pointed to Christ the final sacrifice for sin. And yes, he was without sin, the perfect sacrifice, the righteous for the unrighteous.​

I’m saying that as the Lamb, he would be a worthy sacrifice because he did not sin even though tempted as we are in the same flesh as we are.

Luk 23:13 - And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

Luk 23:14 - Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

Luk 23:15 - No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

Not only did he atone for the sins of those who believe in him. But he also fulfilled the Law with perfect obedience that restores the broken Covenant of Works that the first Adam breached through his disobedience. This righteousness of Christ is imputed, credited, given to those who believe, and it's this righteous garment of salvation that declares the sinner righteous before God.​

 

[LeviR]

Beg to differ. Jesus was tempted for 40 days and nights by Satan himself directing. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemned and kill sin in the flesh. He was fully man and fully God. He is the Paschal Lamb the final sacrifice for sin once and for all. The OT sacrificial system could not take away sin permanently and pointed to Christ the final sacrifice for sin. And yes, he was without sin, the perfect sacrifice, the righteous for the unrighteous.


Not only did he atone for the sins of those who believe in him. But he also fulfilled the Law with perfect obedience that restores the broken Covenant of Works that the first Adam breached through his disobedience. This righteousness of Christ is imputed, credited, given to those who believe, and it's this righteous garment of salvation that declares the sinner righteous before God.​

Was the entire 40 days spent being tempted?

 

[Arial]

Could you give us some of those references throughout scripture that says the source of sin in all of humanity is the male? I know of one that, being completely mistranslated and misinterpreted to say that, but that is it. I would appreciate all those other passages of scripture that you are referring to.

We see it begin in Gen 3 with the words God spoke to Adam, "Because you have done this and listened to the voice of your wife..." In Gen 4 we see the effect of sin on mankind begin in Cain. Some things we just have to notice and pay attention to as we grow in our knowledge of God and in understanding of his word. Then we can come to those scriptures that you have declared unilaterally as mistranslated and misinterpreted, without presuppositional beliefs and get the clear and plain meaning. God in his word never uses the phrase "in Eve". It is always when making reference to the human condition, our standing before God, and the very thing that must be conquered by the seed of the woman, refers to the cause as "in Adam."

So I will give you the scriptures you say are mistranslated and misinterpreted.

1 Cor 15:42-49


42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[e] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall[f] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

The first man Adam of the dust.
The second man, Christ, from heaven.
We bear the image of the man of dust (we are like him and he became a sinful being.)
So the believer will also bear the image of the second man. No longer of the dust. We will no longer be in Adam but are instead in Christ. There are two men here. One causes one thing for all humanity. The other causes another thing for all who are in Christ through faith. The first is sinful in Adam. The second is forgiven and cleansed of all unrighteousness by the imputed righteousness of Christ. The first imputation is undone by the second imputation.

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Tim 2:13-14 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

It is Adam who stands as the head of all mankind, not Eve. And remember, Eve was not made of the dust, she came out of Adam.

And if that is not evidence enough that sin comes through the seed of a man to humanity, the account of Jesus' conception in Luke should seal the deal. His mother was human but he had no human biological father. His Father, the one who fathered him, is God. That would indicate that a nature to sin was not passed to him as a part of his human nature. He was as Adam was at creation. He had the ability as to his human faculties to sin, but he did not sin. Sin never entered him as it did Adam.

 

[Arial]

Also, we know well the details of the inheritance concept in biology whereby the traits of the parents are passed down to the offspring. This passing of traits is made possible by a special substance called genes. Genes are segments of DNA that contain instructions for building and maintaining an organism. So far, I don't think anyone as identified a "sin gene". I doubt that anyone is even looking for such a thing. Why? Because it doesn't exist. And the scriptures don't even suggest that it exists.

There is no need for biology 101. Genes were not mentioned in my post. DNA was not mentioned. I did not even suggest that there is such a thing as a sin gene or that passes to humans from Adam genetically. You are tilting at windmills.

Where do you read that it is so by God's decree and His design?

Who else is there that decrees and designs? Wouldn't that be the same one who creates? Doesn't he tell us this in the very beginning, that things are because he decrees and commands them to be?

Where does it say that we have an inborn nature to sin, but Jesus didn't?

See post #377

How can the inborn nature to sin be the human nature and Jesus be human but not have the inborn nature to sin? That doesn't make any sense at all.

See post #377

I think the two natures of Christ are rather easy to understand. All human beings actually have two natures. We have the physical nature associated with the flesh and blood of the physical body and we have the spiritual nature of the spirit or soul given us by God. In Jesus' being He had the physical nature associated with the flesh and blood of the physical body He was born with through being born of Mary. He had the spiritual nature of the pre-incarnate Spirit which John called the Word in John 1. That Spirit was, and is, the second person of the Trinity, before, during, and after Jesus' life as a human being here on earth.

This is a red herring that deflects from what it is supposed to be responding to. The spiritual aspect to man is not a nature. It is a position. And the two natures of Christ are deity and human. So the human analogy is inaccurate and irrelevant.

Show me the scriptures that say it is the Holy Spirit who is incarnate, that he ever was incarnate, and not the Son. And please tell me who is the third person of the Trinity if the Holy Spirit is the second? Tri---three.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Was the entire 40 days spent being tempted?

He was also fasting.

 

[Arial]

Therefore, just as we have the two natures, one physical and one spiritual, Jesus also had two natures, one physical and one spiritual. It is in our spiritual nature that we are in the image of God. It is in the spiritual nature that Jesus was not just in the image of God; but rather, in His spiritual nature Jesus was and is God.

Wow.

Spiritual as it pertains to us is a position, not a nature. And even if it were a nature it would in no way compare to the two natures of Christ. With Christ one nature was the nature of God because Jesus is God. The other was a human nature for the singular purpose of substituting actual human flesh and blood, his, to take upon that flesh and blood body the just punishment for sin that the believer deserves and must justly receive, unless someone offers himself as a ransom to deliver them. He took on the flesh and blood of humanity so he could do that---he could die their death. And he was raised to life again with that same physical body. If you don't believe me, go ask Thomas.

All of humanity is still made in the image and likeness of God JIM. That didn't change. That is the very thing that puts mankind under the Kingship of God to obey him. That is the very thing that makes us guilty. The fact that we do not do as we were created to do does not change what we are or were meant to be.