Through one man, sin entered the world.

[Arial]

Is Jesus not a descendant of Adam?

Not paternally and it is in Adam that all sin. Not in Eve.

 

[LeviR]

I was making the point that if Jesus is a descendant of Adam then He was born with the same nature as all other descendants of Adam.

There are basically two ideas on the human nature of Jesus.

The first is that Jesus human nature was like Adam’s and not sinful.

The second idea is that of the immaculate conception whereby the nature of Mary was changed so as to not pass original sin to Jesus.

The first idea denies that Jesus is a son of Adam because all sons of Adam share the same nature.

The second idea has Mary’s nature changed to the divine nature before having Jesus. If Mary’s nature had been changed then she would not be subject to the death brought by Adam. And therefore neither would Jesus because the only nature he would then have would be a never dying divine nature.

 

[LeviR]

Then there is the idea I share.
Jesus was indeed a son of Adam who shared the same flesh nature as all the rest of the children of God. Heb 2:14

This means Jesus was subject to the death Adam’s sin brought upon all man.
And because of his faith and obedience to God, his sacrifice was accepted and he was raised from the dead to die no more. He now has the divine nature.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Is Jesus not a descendant of Adam?

Yes, Matt. 1

 

[RR144]

Did this sin spread to all life or all men?

It spread to all life. Genesis 3:17 tells us God cursed the ground.

 

[RR144]

Why is it necessary to create a new heaven and earth and start over.

This is of course not the literal heaven and earth, but symbolic of society (earth) and the ruling governments (heavens). After all the scriptures tell us that the earth abides forever. (Ecc. 1:4) This is referring to God's Kingdom over earth.

 

[CrowCross]

Even the RCC knows Christ had a genealogy. That he was son of David according to the flesh. Jesus’ flesh would be the same flesh as his mother.
That’s why they invented the doctrine of immaculate conception.
They changed the flesh of Mary so Jesus wouldn’t be son of David according to the flesh.
So they deny the scripture. And go with their idea instead..

Was Jesus, God come in the flesh.....a conception of Godly sperm and Mary's egg...or a pure fully man and fully God zygote placed into Marys womb?

 

[CrowCross]

Agreed.


They had the same nature that could choose to sin or not before and after their fall.

They had an orginally created nature. Perhaps there is a term for that...that nature changed or was added to when they fell and received their sin nature.

 

[LeviR]

Was Jesus, God come in the flesh.....a conception of Godly sperm and Mary's egg...or a pure fully man and fully God zygote placed into Marys womb?

I tend to agree Jesus was promised seed of Abraham and David.
Like the seed of a tree produces another tree of the same kind, and so on.
I wouldn’t doubt God could do it.

 

[Carbon]

It spread to all life. Genesis 3:17 tells us God cursed the ground.

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

 

[Tambora]

Was Jesus, God come in the flesh.....a conception of Godly sperm and Mary's egg...or a pure fully man and fully God zygote placed into Marys womb?

That's one of those questions that scripture doesn't tell us all the details of that process, so I would venture to speculate that God placed a fully human descendant of David inside Mary and the fully God (the Son) dwelled in that vessel that was fully human.
I base that speculation on other scriptures that tell us God dwelled in other objects of creation such as the tabernacle and temple as well as in mankind also.
And since scripture tells us that God can make descendants of Abraham from stones (Matt 3:9), then it is not unrealistic to think God could make that vessel inside Mary to be a human descendant of David, Jacob, Abraham, Adam.

 

[CrowCross]

I tend to agree Jesus was promised seed of Abraham and David.
Like the seed of a tree produces another tree of the same kind, and so on.
I wouldn’t doubt God could do it.

Doubt God could do what? Have Mary become pregnant

 

[LeviR]

Doubt God could do what? Have Mary become pregnant

From previous discussions I’ve had, it seems some people can’t grasp the idea of Jesus being the seed of Abraham and David.
They image that both those men would have had to lay with Mary in order for Jesus to be of their seed.
I don’t think that’s how it happened for Jesus to be of their seed. But we know that he is of their seed.
Normally a forefather is someone who belongs in the genealogy of someone else through the natural process of generations.
However, in the case of Jesus, this process is broken by God being the one who caused Mary to become pregnant. Yet Jesus is still a son of Abraham and David.
What do you think?

 

[makesends]

That's one of those questions that scripture doesn't tell us all the details of that process, so I would venture to speculate that God placed a fully human descendant of David inside Mary and the fully God (the Son) dwelled in that vessel that was fully human.
I base that speculation on other scriptures that tell us God dwelled in other objects of creation such as the tabernacle and temple as well as in mankind also.
And since scripture tells us that God can make descendants of Abraham from stones (Matt 3:9), then it is not unrealistic to think God could make that vessel inside Mary to be a human descendant of David, Jacob, Abraham, Adam.

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

Consider, for example, what it is that gives spirit to the human body. Does the same not apply with Jesus' case? And if Jesus was the second Adam, why, if not by Mary's humanity, was he not formed of the dust of the earth like Adam was, and into him the breath of life breathed, as it was Adam, and why would he not simply appear on the scene, instead of as a member of a family? Why was it necessary that he be the SON of MAN, and that it be by being a son of human descent in fact, and not merely adopted into a family?

Then we have the matter of Mary still being a virgin, and specifically Joseph not being the natural father, with the implication that she was the natural mother, and not just a nurturing envelope.

We also know that the language of the occasion of the power of the Spirit of God overshadowing her, while it could be taken either way, doesn't give any hint of God placing an already formed zygote in her womb—I should think the notion has only become new since surrogacy is historically a relatively recent development. Even the same word for Mary conceiving by the Spirit of God is used in the same context concerning Elizabeth also conceiving, in which apparently miraculous case (Elizabeth's case—"miraculous" because of her advanced years) it is rather obviously a conception by sperm and ovum, and not already-formed zygote.

The question of how he can be sinless, if conceived of Mary's ovum is, to me, answered by several scriptures that identify Adam as the source of the inherited sinful nature in the rest of us. However, this I must concede still remains speculation—(at least, coming from me), that the male alone passes the corrupted DNA to the child (or even that the corruption is passed via the DNA at all). It should be mentioned here, too, though, that it was done specifically as it was as witness to that era's mindset(s) (early church), that Jacob was significantly not included biologically, but Mary's biological contribution was not discluded. I completely discard the RCC notions that it was necessary for Mary also to be born sinless, if for no other reason than that (Mary being herself immaculately conceived) implies "turtles all the way down".

There are many other references (in part) to the question, which, like these, admittedly don't prove the question, but weigh heavily, I think, in favor of the POV that Mary's ovum was fertilized by God, and not that a fully-formed zygote was placed into her womb. These references may allow for the speculation that it was the zygote, but they do not promote the notion —at least, not that I can tell.

 

[Alive]

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

Gen. 3:17 (NAS20S) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; With hard labor you shall eat from it All the days of your life.

Gen. 5:29 (NAS20S) And he named him Noah, saying, “This one will give us comfort from our work and from the hard labor of our hands caused by the ground which the LORD has cursed.”

Gen. 8:21 (NAS20S) The LORD smelled the soothing aroma, and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing,

 

[LeviR]

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

Consider, for example, what it is that gives spirit to the human body. Does the same not apply with Jesus' case? And if Jesus was the second Adam, why, if not by Mary's humanity, was he not formed of the dust of the earth like Adam was, and into him the breath of life breathed, as it was Adam, and why would he not simply appear on the scene, instead of as a member of a family? Why was it necessary that he be the SON of MAN, and that it be by being a son of human descent in fact, and not merely adopted into a family?

Then we have the matter of Mary still being a virgin, and specifically Joseph not being the natural father, with the implication that she was the natural mother, and not just a nurturing envelope.

We also know that the language of the occasion of the power of the Spirit of God overshadowing her, while it could be taken either way, doesn't give any hint of God placing an already formed zygote in her womb—I should think the notion has only become new since surrogacy is historically a relatively recent development. Even the same word for Mary conceiving by the Spirit of God is used in the same context concerning Elizabeth also conceiving, in which apparently miraculous case (Elizabeth's case—"miraculous" because of her advanced years) it is rather obviously a conception by sperm and ovum, and not already-formed zygote.

The question of how he can be sinless, if conceived of Mary's ovum is, to me, answered by several scriptures that identify Adam as the source of the inherited sinful nature in the rest of us. However, this I must concede still remains speculation—(at least, coming from me), that the male alone passes the corrupted DNA to the child (or even that the corruption is passed via the DNA at all). It should be mentioned here, too, though, that it was done specifically as it was as witness to that era's mindset(s) (early church), that Jacob was significantly not included biologically, but Mary's biological contribution was not discluded. I completely discard the RCC notions that it was necessary for Mary also to be born sinless, if for no other reason than that (Mary being herself immaculately conceived) implies "turtles all the way down".

There are many other references (in part) to the question, which, like these, admittedly don't prove the question, but weigh heavily, I think, in favor of the POV that Mary's ovum was fertilized by God, and not that a fully-formed zygote was placed into her womb. These references may allow for the speculation that it was the zygote, but they do not promote the notion —at least, not that I can tell.

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.

 

[LeviR]

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.

Luk 23:4 - Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

 

[CrowCross]

From previous discussions I’ve had, it seems some people can’t grasp the idea of Jesus being the seed of Abraham and David.
They image that both those men would have had to lay with Mary in order for Jesus to be of their seed.
I don’t think that’s how it happened for Jesus to be of their seed. But we know that he is of their seed.
Normally a forefather is someone who belongs in the genealogy of someone else through the natural process of generations.
However, in the case of Jesus, this process is broken by God being the one who caused Mary to become pregnant. Yet Jesus is still a son of Abraham and David.
What do you think?

I'm not exactly sure how it all worked. I can only speculate.

I started a thread here to discuss the possibilities.

 

[Arial]

The question of how he can be sinless, if conceived of Mary's ovum is, to me, answered by several scriptures that identify Adam as the source of the inherited sinful nature in the rest of us. However, this I must concede still remains speculation—(at least, coming from me), that the male alone passes the corrupted DNA to the child (or even that the corruption is passed via the DNA at all). It should be mentioned here, too, though, that it was done specifically as it was as witness to that era's mindset(s) (early church), that Jacob was significantly not included biologically, but Mary's biological contribution was not discluded. I completely discard the RCC notions that it was necessary for Mary also to be born sinless, if for no other reason than that (Mary being herself immaculately conceived) implies "turtles all the way down".

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.

 

[Ladodgers6]

That's one of those questions that scripture doesn't tell us all the details of that process, so I would venture to speculate that God placed a fully human descendant of David inside Mary and the fully God (the Son) dwelled in that vessel that was fully human.
I base that speculation on other scriptures that tell us God dwelled in other objects of creation such as the tabernacle and temple as well as in mankind also.
And since scripture tells us that God can make descendants of Abraham from stones (Matt 3:9), then it is not unrealistic to think God could make that vessel inside Mary to be a human descendant of David, Jacob, Abraham, Adam.

Are you familiar with Hypostatic Union?