Post Reply
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus & Original Sin
3 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2011 - 9:32PM #1
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.
Hello;


I was raised a Catholic and taught that since Original Sin is transferred from the father; therefore Jesus wasn't effected by Adam's transgression because his father wasn't a human being.


However; I must disagree. According to the Lord's biological genealogy in Luke, he had lots of fathers beginning with his mom's dad Eli and going all the way back to David, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Seth, and Adam. The genes of all those men were in the DNA of Mary's seed when God appropriated it to bring Jesus into existence.


†. Rom 1:3-4 . . who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh


The New Testament Greek word for "seed" is sperma (sper'-mah) which indicates the biological means by which life is passed from parent to progeny.


Descent from David's sperma makes the ancient monarch one of the Lord's biological fathers; from whom the Lord inherited the so-called original sin.


Somebody is sure to object by saying you cannot make a man solely from a woman. Oh? Can you make a woman solely from a man? Of course; where do people think Eve came from? So then, if God can make a woman solely from a man, then it can't be any harder to do it in reverse; viz : make a man solely from a woman. In point of fact, it's easier to make a man solely from a woman because their DNA contains a pool of ancestral male genes; whereas Adam's DNA contained no ancestral female genes to work with whatsoever.


An important point to consider is that if the Lord had not inherited original sin, he would have been immortal since it is because of Adam's transgression that human beings are mandated to die.


†. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men.


Was Jesus immortal prior to his resurrection? Obviously not; since the Romans were successful in taking his life. But the issue is deprived of practical significance anyway since the Lord is so clearly revealed to be David's biological progeny; and Adam's too.


†. Luke 3:38 . . Which was . . . of Adam


Cliff
|

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2011 - 1:25PM #2
LittleLes
Posts: 9,818

I'm afraid that your theory is flawed on many points.


1. Mary was not Davidic. She is reported to be a kinswoman of Elizabeth, "a daughter of Aaron" (see Luke).


2. If Jesus was created solely from Mary's DNA, he would have been a woman. Women do not transmit the Y chromosome (maleness), because they don't have one. That's why they are female.


3. Perhaps you misunderstood Paul's statements. Paul did not believe in a virgin birth.


Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord ….—Romans 1:1-4 


But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law ...Galatians 4:4


Both of these passages describe a natural birth.


4. And, of course, you are treating scripture as being literally historical.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 21, 2011 - 9:58PM #3
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 21, 2011 -- 1:25PM, LittleLes wrote:

Mary was not Davidic. She is reported to be a kinswoman of Elizabeth, "a daughter of Aaron" (see Luke).


†. Luke 1:5-6 . . In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.


†. Luke 1:36 . . And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.


The koiné Greek word translated "kinswoman" in that verse is suggenes (soong-ghen-ace') which means : a relative (by blood. Suggenes is an ambiguous word which can indicate a sister, a brother, an aunt, an uncle, a mother, a father, and/or a cousin et al. But even if Elizabeth had been Mary's biological mother, it wouldn't make any difference because in ancient biblical culture, it was the biological fathers who determined a boys' tribal affiliation; not the mothers. Mary's dad Eli was of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:30) therefore her baby boy was of the tribe of Judah too since Eli was the nearest biological male in the Lord's genealogy.


†. Heb 7:14 . . It is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.


Jun 21, 2011 -- 1:25PM, LittleLes wrote:

If Jesus was created solely from Mary's DNA, he would have been a woman. Women do not transmit the Y chromosome (maleness), because they don't have one. That's why they are female.


What's interesting about Eve is that God used none of Adam's spermatozoa to make her. God used only some of the freshly amputated organic tissue taken from Adam's torso. Wouldn't that be sort of like making babies from the severed pinky fingers of their daddies?


Jun 21, 2011 -- 1:25PM, LittleLes wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood Paul's statements.


To my knowledge, Paul authored neither the gospel of Matthew nor of Luke. And I cannot, in all good conscience, appropriate something from Paul's epistles and construe it in such a manner as to invalidate his contemporaries. That's way too risky.


†. 2Pet 3:16 . . Some of Paul's comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and vacillating have twisted his epistles around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture— and the result is disaster for them.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 9:14AM #4
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.
Hello;


At this point; one might legitimately ask : If the Bible's Jesus really was a human being descended biologically from Adam; then wouldn't he have inherited the fallen human nature that Protestants insist everybody inherits from their ancient biological paterfamilias?


Answer : He would except for a very significant difference between us and Christianity's central figure. According to Luke 1:30-35 and Gal 4:4; the Bible's Jesus was born of both God and Man; ergo : though Christ was and is a human being, the life that was and is within him wasn't and isn't human life, but rather; it was, and it still is, eternal life.


†. John 5:25-27 . . For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He granted the Son to have life in himself.


†. 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched— this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.


Eternal life is a sinless kind of life.


†. 1John 3:9 . . Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 9:55AM #5
LittleLes
Posts: 9,818

Webers Home:


Jun 21, 2011 -- 1:25PM, LittleLes wrote:
Mary was not Davidic. She is reported to be a kinswoman of Elizabeth, "a daughter of Aaron" (see Luke).



†. Luke 1:5-6 . . In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.
†. Luke 1:36 . . And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.



>>The koiné Greek word translated "kinswoman" in that verse is suggenes (soong-ghen-ace') which means : a relative (by blood. Suggenes is an ambiguous word which can indicate a sister, a brother, an aunt, an uncle, a mother, a father, and/or a cousin et al. But even if Elizabeth had been Mary's biological mother, it wouldn't make any difference because in ancient biblical culture, it was the biological fathers who determined a boys' tribal affiliation; not the mothers. Mary's dad Eli was of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:30) therefore her baby boy was of the tribe of Judah too since Eli was the nearest biological male in the Lord's genealogy.<<



RESPONSE:


Sorry. Perhaps you overlooked that according to Luke, Joseph, not Mary, was of the seed of (H)eli . (Some apologists have come up with the most absurd reasoning to avoid the plain meaning of words of Luke in this case).


Luke 3:23  "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli."


 As you noted, genealogy always passed through the male (seed), never the female .Thus if Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, Jesus is not a descendant of David.


(Incidently, Mary's parents were suposed to be Joachim and Anne (see the Protoevangelium of James. This document is also used to try to prove Mary's "perpetual virginity." In the Catholic calendar, Joachim and Anne's feast day is July 26).

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 10:10AM #6
LittleLes
Posts: 9,818

Webers home posted:



Jun 21, 2011 -- 2:25PM, LittleLes wrote:

If Jesus was created solely from Mary's DNA, he would have been a woman. Women do not transmit the Y chromosome (maleness), because they don't have one. That's why they are female.



"What's interesting about Eve is that God used none of Adam's spermatozoa to make her. God used only some of the freshly amputated organic tissue taken from Adam's torso. Wouldn't that be sort of like making babies from the severed pinky fingers of their daddies?"


[/quote]


RESPONSE:


Actually, this can be done. The nucleus of every cell in organic tissue contains the complete genome of the of the donor. If a nucleus is place in a womb, it develops into a new adult of that species, a clone of the donor. This is what was done with Dolly the Sheep a few years back.


So that part of Biblical fiction turned out to be true, impregnation by a cell of a rib would be possible.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 12:01PM #7
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 22, 2011 -- 9:55AM, LittleLes wrote:

Perhaps you overlooked that according to Luke, Joseph, not Mary, was of the seed of (H)eli.


Joseph's biological father was a man named Jacob.


†. Matt 1:16 . . And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.


Unbeknownst to beginning Bible students is that New Testament Greek isn't classical Greek, nor is it modern Greek. It's a kind of ancient Greek called koiné, which was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman world. It was not only the original language of the New Testament, but also of the Septuagint.


There's no formal capitalization in koiné Greek and no punctuation either. Capitalizations and punctuations have been inserted in English at the discretion of translators, and often reflect their own best guess, and quite possibly their own personal religious beliefs. In other words; the punctuation you see in English texts is selected, and located, arbitrarily at the discretion of the translators. Since that's the case, then Luke 3:23 can be safely arranged in English grammar to read like this:


And Jesus himself (assumed Joseph's son) began to be about thirty years of age; being the son of Heli, etc, etc.


Voilá. Now we're in the money because that version produces a biological connection to David via his son Nathan. (Luke 3:31).


Matthew's genealogy traces the Lord's adoption tree; while Luke's traces his birth tree. That's very important— maybe not so much to Gentiles; but very much to Jews because Messiah has to be a biological progeny of David's loins in order to qualify for his throne : no exceptions.


†. Rom 1:3-4 . . who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 12:12PM #8
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Jun 22, 2011 -- 10:10AM, LittleLes wrote:

impregnation by a cell of a rib would be possible.


Impregnate who? The Bible's Eve had no mother.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 12:26PM #9
LittleLes
Posts: 9,818

Webers home posted:


 



Jun 21, 2011 -- 2:25PM, LittleLes wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood Paul's statements.


>>To my knowledge, Paul authored neither the gospel of Matthew nor of Luke. And I cannot, in all good conscience, appropriate something from Paul's epistles and construe it in such a manner as to invalidate his contemporaries. That's way too risky.<



 RESPONSE:


That's right. Paul's Epistles were written between 50 and 64 AD (when Paul was killed).  Thus he wrote much closer in time to the events he described. The virgin birth story didn't yet exist or he surely would have mentioned it.


The vastly contradictory nativity stories of Matthew and Luke date from the 80's.


We still await your explanaton how Mary, who would have been male if she had the Y chromosome, managed to transmit to Jesus what she didn't have, so he could be a man and not a woman.



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2011 - 12:29PM #10
LittleLes
Posts: 9,818

Jun 22, 2011 -- 12:12PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Jun 22, 2011 -- 10:10AM, LittleLes wrote:

impregnation by a cell of a rib would be possible.



Impregnate who? The Bible's Eve had no mother.

Cliff

/






RESPONSE:


Perhaps you've forgotten what you posted:



"What's interesting about Eve is that God used none of Adam's spermatozoa to make her. God used only some of the freshly amputated organic tissue taken from Adam's torso. Wouldn't that be sort of like making babies from the severed pinky fingers of their daddies?"


Your yarn, not mine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook