Warning: This May Be Dangerous For The Faint Of Heart …

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by evangelist-77, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. The medical community says our DNA is inherited equally from both parents!
    For this discussion, let’s assume they are correct.

    I’m asking that we don’t fast-forward, but fast-backwards for a moment.

    Was Mary’s DNA passed on to Jesus?
    Or could her womb have been used without her passing on her DNA?
    A Christian MD asked me,
    If Jesus' physical body was not made in some way from Mary's DNA,
    then in what sense was He human?”

    Okay, let’s say Mary's DNA was passed on to Jesus, but no human male DNA was passed on.
    [The only sinless human ever born was the One (Jesus) who had NO human father.]

    Since Jesus was a sinless human, we have at least 4 reasonable(?) possibilities:

    1) Mary was a normal human sinner, and her DNA did NOT contain her sin nature

    2) Mary was NOT a normal human sinner, so her DNA did NOT contain any sin nature

    3) Man’s sin nature MUST be passed through the DNA from BOTH parents (male and female both)

    4) The Holy Spirit simply “planted” a sinless male human fetus in Mary’s womb

    Now concerning man …

    Some have said man’s sin nature is NOT passed on physically, but spiritually.
    Would this be via man’s soul (mind/intellect, will, emotions), or via man’s spirit?

    Is man’s sin nature passed on via:
    male and/or female blood? … man’s sperm? … male and female DNA? … spiritually?

    All wild guesses are welcome, and shall be accepted w/o ridicule.
  2. We simply do not know. All we know, (and that by faith) is that as Mary's son, Jesus is fully human by nature.
    This allows Him to fully represent man.
    As God's Son, He is fully Divine by nature. This allows Him to Fully represent God.

    In no other known way could the righteous requirements of God and the desperate needs of mankind be met.
    It may have nothing to do with DNA or anything else.
    Perhaps the Holy Spirit simply safe guarded the human child from ever sinning. One thing should be clear though.....for Jesus to fully represent sinful mankind, he had to be fully human and that would mean to have the same nature, but without sin or blemish.
    That is probably a difficult pill for some to swallow, but OK, I'm open to a more satisfactory explanation of the facts as we know them.
  3. It is a common misconception that the Virgin Birth of Christ had anything to do with his sinlessness. It had to do with his royalty. He couldn't have been the king of Israel if He had been a physical descedant of Joseph as Joseph was under the curse of Coniah (Mt. 1:11). Yes, I believe the DNA of Mary was part and parcel of the physical make up of the Lord, yet God preserved Him as a sinless being. After all, God can make angels who are sinless, why not a human body that was sinless?
  4. Yes, we simply do not know for sure if Jesus had our sin nature.
    Praise God ... no one is arguing here (so far) against the doctrine of man's inherited sin nature.

    And, IMO, being tempted in ALL things does not prove He had to cope with a sin nature like we have.
  5. Perhaps you can explain the angels part to us ...
    IMO, all angels were created with a free will (just as are all human beings).
    But, 1/3 of God's angels followed Lucifer (Satan) and are now called evil spirits (demons).
    So, IMO, the other 2/3 just chose to remain obedient to their Maker.
  6. I was referring to the fact that angels are sinless and are created beings. If God can create sinless beings, wny not a human body that was also sinless.
  7. If I'm understanding you correctly, you take the position that Christ did not sin, but you believe that He had a full human nature which must have included the Adamic fallen nature. Assuming I have understood you correctly, I disagree. To have the Adamic nature is to be a sinner and Christ was not. Human beings become sinners upon conception (Ps. 51:5) and go astray as soon as they are born (Ps. 58:3). Jesus was said to have "known no sin" (2 Cor. 5:20) which would seem to me to include the sin nature of humanity. If He had that common nature, surely He would have had some effects of it. If the Lord Jesus never sinned and God knew that He would never sin, what would have been the purpose of including the sinful nature in the incarnation? It would have no reason to be there. Christ became human in order to provide the perfect sacrifice for human beings. He could not have done that if He were tainted with sin in any way.
  8. If'n I may put my perspective abroad here...... Psa 51:5. is not saying that David was a merrily sining Zygot the moment the ovum was fertilized. From the Septuagint:"For behold in lawless deeds I was conceived,and in sins [craved strange food for me my mother]. " Only one lawless deed I know of that can start the ball rolling. Even from a reading of the Kjv, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." and again from the ESV, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." This sin by which David was conceived could not be his sin surely. It had to be sin committed by his parents, I guess that really says it all.
    After due consideration, and accepting the fact that Scripture is otherwise silent about David's mother, it seems he was referring to his questionable origins.
    The context of this psalm is centered on David's failings with Bathsheba. Could be that he was reminded of his own early beginnings as he was thoroughly and deeply convicted by the Holy Spirit speaking through Nathan, knowing that like Mom, Bathsheba was unlawfully with child.

    Jack, I know you meant 2 Cor 5:21. just a typo I'm sure. But nevertheless, I don't see that anyone is disputing the fact that Jesus did not ever sin. But if Jesus did not have the nature of a man, (neither does a Bull), how could he represent man?
    What strength is there in saying "I did not ever sin because it is intrinsically impossible for me to sin"? (I'm talking about Jesus as a man not as the Son of God)
    How much more victorious is the claim "though I took on the nature of man, I never once sinned"?
    Even the writer of Hebrews agrees with this:
    "Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
    Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
    Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
    Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
    Heb 2:18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
    Emphasis added.
  9. JACK: The particular context of this statement (2:17) is in the middle of a pasage that tells us He had to become human in order to redeem human beings. In order to redeem us, He not only had to be human but He also had to be perfectly righteous. So, I don't see the phrase, "... in all things pertaining to God" as implying He must have carried the human sin nature to the cross. Quite the opposite. But in any regard, the passage doesn't clearly state it one way or the other. I think this passage is useless to either of us in our opposing arguments.
  10. My excellent NKJV Study Bible avoids stating an opinion on whether 2:17 means Jesus had our sin nature. And I'm not sure either way.
    The Key for me is that (to satisfy Himself) Father God had to have a sinless human die for our sins.
    Having it be "fully God" who did this is just all the more impressive,
    demonstrating His great love for humanity.
    How do we repay Him for His incredible sacrifice? ...
    By co-operating with the Holy Spirit in being sanctified unto holiness.
    calvin likes this.
  11. Jack, I'm not convinced that David is thinking of his conception being the beginning of his sinful nature. Both the Greek translation and the Hebrew seem to involve his mother in the sin aspect. From the Septuagint..." in lawless deeds I was conceived" Whose Lawless deeds?
    From the Kjv (hence Hebrew) "I was shapen in iniquity" in whose iniquity was David 'shapen'?
    From the Esv "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Whose sin?
    Sorry Jack, there is no way out......David was not saying that he had a sin nature from day dot. Mind you, he might have, I just don't believe that is what he is saying there.

    Hmmm yes and no. It is a furry one Jack.
    Perhaps rather than 'nature', it might be better to say that like Adam he had the potential ability to sin...but unlike Adam, He didn't.
  12. Just to touch on this subject so that the topic doesn't go in that direction. My first thought is that I would be tempted to go in that direction myself, however that is off-topic to this discussion and there cannot be any further discussion in that direction because it negates the premise of this thread.

    However, in accordance with this premise, I would question where this sinful nature lies. The topic speaks of human DNA, so I'm wondering which chromosome contains the sinful nature. No, I'm not making fun of it. It is a legitimate question. If we are to say that the sinful nature is in the DNA, then there must be a scientific link to that nature. If that is the case, then wouldn't it be possible for a child to be born without that particular genetic marker? If so, then we could easily describe that as a characteristic of Christ. Also, that begs the question as to can another person be born without that marker since there are many birth-defects that are a result of a faulty chromosome.

    Therefore, I think that if a sinful nature exists, then it would have to be a Spiritual thing that could not be traced back to actual DNA. The human soul is just as unique as the human body, having its own unique characteristics but we are unable to physically examine its structure.

    Also, I see on real crisis point on the idea of Jesus being able to sin. If Jesus is God as we recognize in the definition of "Trinity", then what would the consequence of sin be? Surely we understand that God is Holy. By definition that means that if God were to do something that appears evil to us, then it would still not be sin. So if Jesus is God, then whatever He would do that would appear sinful (however theoretical that would be), must therefore not be sin. Yet, He was tempted. It is commonly accepted that if He were to give into that temptation, then it would have been sin. So, how is that possible? Many doctrines accept that Jesus was separated somewhat from the Godhead while on Earth and that would tend to cover some of the inconsistencies here, but it still seems a stretch to allow that separation to be so great that Jesus could even theoretically sin.

    Moderator Note : I will not permit this discussion to be diluted by non-canonical information as I'm aware there are texts out there that claim many heretical ideas.
  13. can you spell mystery?
  14. There is a well know school of theology which teaches that the sinful nature is past down through the male line, hence the reason Jesus did not have an earthly father. This is not a teaching that the passing on is physical but spiritual.

    A good study on the doctrine of man and sin will reveal the main theological answers to the subject which is being discussed.

    Personally I do not think we would ever find a chromosome which is responsible for sin. If we could then we could easily identify ourselves with the postmodern belief that we are not responsible for our evil but it is an inherited flaw in our DNA. Scientists are already looking at known major criminals to see if they can identify such DNA. Jesus taught that sin was a matter of the heart, sin is a spiritual condition for which the only cure is Jesus. I do however think that sin corrupts our DNA hence the reason we get sick etc.
  15. From yon article witchest I did spieth pursuant to following your pointing finger "but how men can say that the Bible does not teach the VIRGIN BIRTH is beyond conception.":)
    Couldst it ever have been before conception?:oops:
    Sorry, I'll read the article more fully.....I just had to have a bit of a laugh at the flow of his words;)
    Maybe I've got a sick sense of humour:(
    KingJ, Major and Kevin says Amen and like this.
  16. I may need you to interpret my Old King James:D. What thinkest thou?

  17. Absolutely correct.

    Some have asked......."Could Christ have given in to the temptation and sined?"


    The opportunity to fall was in the "testing" but the desire to do wrong was sin and a sinful desire is in fact sin. THE LORD JESUS NEVER HAD THAT SINFUL DESIRE. He was not a sinner but insread He was God in the flesh!!!

    Then the question becomes....................What was the purpose of HIs testing"???

    Jesus was tested to PROVE that He was who He claimed to be. IF, if Jesus had given in and sinned, it would not have proven God in the flesh could sin. Rather, it would prove that Jesus was NOT GOD IN THE FLESH.

    The testing proved that He WAS GOD IN THE FLESH and because He is who He is, He could not and did not sin!
  18. Problem is, my late father's blood group was B+, mine is AB-, my sisters ?? but I know they're not AB-. My daughter is not AB-.
    Not being a medico, it is hard for me to see that the good doctor is right in his assertions that the dad gives the blood to the offspring. OK on what he says about the placental interface and fetal blood , but that is as far as I can believe him.
  19. Hey, this is all very nice for you and I ...
    but most people (incl. Christians) do NOT believe that man has an inherited sin nature.

Share This Page