Man can be perfect or imperfect by themselves

[Rick W]

Why would Mary have to pass anything along to Christ?

Because women carry orignal sin also, they carry it as much as anybody else.


[quote:1mafekhb]She was the bearer of the Son of God yes. Jesus never called Mary "mother" but "woman".

Oh come now, now you're more or less arguing that not only did Jesus not have a mother, he was ungrateful towards her as well.[/quote:1mafekhb]

"Because women carry orignal sin also, they carry it as much as anybody else."

You're assuming Mary donated a biological egg. God is the creator of the universe and I see no reason why He needed a biological part of Mary other than her womb to bear the Son of God. Why could He not create a fertilized egg? Surely this wouldn't be too difficult for the Creator of the universe.

"Oh come now, now you're more or less arguing that not only did Jesus not have a mother, he was ungrateful towards her as well."

You're the one making the assumption Christ was ungrateful. Once again, Mary bore the Son of God, she indeed mothered Him. We transplant fertilized eggs into the bodies of other females easily enough and yet God could not do this through creation?

 

[akilae]

You're assuming Mary donated a biological egg. God is the creator of the universe and I see no reason why He needed a biological part of Mary other than her womb to bear the Son of God. Why could He not create a fertilized egg? Surely this wouldn't be too difficult for the Creator of the universe.

And I agree with you, God could, but that is probably not the case.

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. ....

Jesus was formed of the biological seed of David, either from Joseph (not likely) or from more likely, Mary. Either way, he has the seed of MAN in him, meaning he bares original sin like the rest of us.

Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mother. MOTHER. Not surrogate.

 

[Rick W]

You're assuming Mary donated a biological egg. God is the creator of the universe and I see no reason why He needed a biological part of Mary other than her womb to bear the Son of God. Why could He not create a fertilized egg? Surely this wouldn't be too difficult for the Creator of the universe.

And I agree with you, God could, but that is probably not the case.

[quote:2mxs278v]2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. ....

Jesus was formed of the biological seed of David, either from Joseph (not likely) or from more likely, Mary. Either way, he has the seed of MAN in him, meaning he bares original sin like the rest of us.

Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mother. MOTHER. Not surrogate.[/quote:2mxs278v]

"but that is probably not the case."
Probably, maybe, could be, perhaps not the case.

"biological seed of David"
Again, you make assumption. Without the "biological" connection the legal connection to the bloodline remains.

Of course Mary was Christ's mother, she bore the Son of God. She can do that without adding any of her attributes to a created fertilized egg.

Christ was not conceived in the natural manner, biologically. You want it to be biological but the conception was far from it. Again, a created fertilized egg is not beyond the scope of the power of God.
Christ was indeed sinless, not conceived biologically but born of woman.
I see no problem here.

 

[Cornelius]

Perfection is reached by faith in the fact that Jesus overcame the world for us.

I do not speak of that sort of perfection, as that is one you never actually know you attain until you die. You can think you do all you want, but you never actually know for 100% certain you have it. As a philosopher, if you cannot know an answer exactly, then I pay it no mind. There's no need to waste time over it if you don't know for certain. It simplifies quite a few things, trust me. Rather than faith perfection I am speaking of natural perfection. Man can do it by themselves, which you agreed with me on by stating through suffering we can.

[quote:367k8iu2]If you believe God can bring you to perfection through Christ, then you can.

This argument feels rather silly to me. Why would God create faulty humans and then punish us for his mistake?[/quote:367k8iu2]
First there is only one perfection. Also, even though the modern church tells you , you can only get there after you die, its not true. I really do not want to go into the whole perfect thing here, but lets just say, that most will not get there, because they do not believe they can.

Secondly you cannot reach perfection by yourself and I did not agree with you , like you said I did.

Thirdly God did not create faulty humans. Humans fell and became like they are, because they did not listen to the Word of God. Sounds familiar.

 

[lovely]

You are ignoring the Bible. The Bible says that sin entered through Adam. The seed of Adam, from men, passes down the sin nature to all...through one man sin entered. Humans weren't born with sin, but because of Eve and Adam's presumptous sin we all now have a sinful nature. If you notice the Bible doesn't say through Eve sin entered to all men, it says through Adam. Why? Because Adam is our federal head. We see the same principal in Levi, who paid tithes to Melchizadek (sp?) through Abraham. Both women and men are born from the seed of Adam, and so we are all sinful, but it is through the seed of Adam that sin is continued. Mary was the source of human nature, not sinful nature, and God was the source of Divine nature. Adam's seed, by which sin enters, was not involved.

The Bible also says that through the righteousness of Christ the free gift comes to many. We know through Scripture that Jesus was BORN of a Virgin, and of the HOLY SPIRIT, and walked here perfectly as human/divine. This is why those humans who have faith in Jesus, who died for us, can now be called the sons of God, because we are born again of the Holy Spirit. We are children of the promise, and our sins have been taken away through one man, Jesus, the Son of God.

As to your other points about cloning and such...Where is the divine nature in this situation? In order for a human to resist temptation as Christ did, he would have to have a divine and righteous nature beside the human nature...Adam and Eve showed us that we couldn't resist it being weak in the flesh. In Mary's situation, no seed at all would have been involved in forming the Christ, because the seed was provided by the Holy Spirit. He was the Seed of God.

I think your argument has been addressed, and it's clearly flawed which Free pointed out already. I don't think there's anything left to say about it. The Lord bless you.

 

[david_james]

The egg from Mary was used. When Mary was overshadowed, the egg was purged of the sinful nature.

 

[Cornelius]

The egg from Mary was used. When Mary was overshadowed, the egg was purged of the sinful nature.

No such scripture anywhere.

 

[akilae]

You are ignoring the Bible. The Bible says that sin entered through Adam. The seed of Adam, from men, passes down the sin nature to all...through one man sin entered. Humans weren't born with sin, but because of Eve and Adam's presumptous sin we all now have a sinful nature. If you notice the Bible doesn't say through Eve sin entered to all men, it says through Adam. Why? Because Adam is our federal head. We see the same principal in Levi, who paid tithes to Melchizadek (sp?) through Abraham. Both women and men are born from the seed of Adam, and so we are all sinful, but it is through the seed of Adam that sin is continued. Mary was the source of human nature, not sinful nature, and God was the source of Divine nature. Adam's seed, by which sin enters, was not involved.

Then according to you, women do not carry original sin. It is purely a male driven problem. Therefor, when we do get around to cloning and using artificial sperm, those who are born will be without sin. That is good news!

As to your other points about cloning and such...Where is the divine nature in this situation? In order for a human to resist temptation as Christ did, he would have to have a divine and righteous nature beside the human nature...Adam and Eve showed us that we couldn't resist it being weak in the flesh. In Mary's situation, no seed at all would have been involved in forming the Christ, because the seed was provided by the Holy Spirit. He was the Seed of God.

For her to have actually carried the child to term, two things must have happened. Either her womb was warped by God to allow an egg without a sperm to gestate, or Jesus was in fact formed from sperm. You decide which.

Christ was not conceived in the natural manner, biologically. You want it to be biological but the conception was far from it. Again, a created fertilized egg is not beyond the scope of the power of God.
Christ was indeed sinless, not conceived biologically but born of woman.
I see no problem here.

Frm my understanding and readings he was conceived by God AND Mary, otherwise God would have had no use for Mary. In fact, had Mary been inconsequential to the whole issue, God could have simply said, Jesus exists, and lo and behold he did.

It does have to listen. To not give it free will, I would have to program it to listen. However, I want it to choose to listen.

By what order does it HAVE to listen once you have given it the option not to. If you want it to listen then program it to. This issue seems even more trite, as God WANTS us to love him? But... if we don't he'll smack us a good one. Logically, I'm sorry, that is terrible parenting. Please son and daughter, love me please, I love you. YOU DON'T LOVE ME?! I SMACK YOU *WHAM*. Not only does his attitude, at least in the OT not make sense, but it borders insanity. You just don't treat those you love like that. But now I'm off on a tangent...

You're the one making the assumption Christ was ungrateful. Once again, Mary bore the Son of God, she indeed mothered Him. We transplant fertilized eggs into the bodies of other females easily enough and yet God could not do this through creation?

Yes to degree I am making an assumption, but when a son refers to their mother as anything but, calling them woman rather than mom, that sounds just a tad it ungrateful.

First there is only one perfection.

And what exactly is this one perfection you speak of. Define it for me, if you can. What is perfection, and what of its essence makes it perfect.

Thirdly God did not create faulty humans. Humans fell and became like they are, because they did not listen to the Word of God. Sounds familiar.

Anything that is not made perfect is faulty. Sorry, that's how the world works. Anything less than perfection... has a fault, and some would say even perfection is flawed. As you would I'm sure state we are not perfect, then God made us with flaws, and intentionally so.

No such scripture anywhere.

don't think there necessarily has to be. For Mary to be his actual mother part of hs DNA would have had to contain her DNA. Besides the point, if he only received his DNA from God, he would only be divine.

 

[shad]

Akilae,

Are you a Christian? It does not seem like it with your comments. You will never understand if you are not a christian about perfection, holiness, righteousness... because in christian forums,we are following what Jesus says to accomplish what He teaches.

.

 

[Rick W]

Frm my understanding and readings he was conceived by God AND Mary, otherwise God would have had no use for Mary. In fact, had Mary been inconsequential to the whole issue, God could have simply said, Jesus exists, and lo and behold he did.

I suppose He could have but He didn't

 

[Cornelius]

Frm my understanding and readings he was conceived by God AND Mary, otherwise God would have had no use for Mary. In fact, had Mary been inconsequential to the whole issue, God could have simply said, Jesus exists, and lo and behold he did.

I suppose He could have but He didn't

In fact Mary is necessary, she provided the Son of Man side. She is also needed, because she represents the part the church plays today in producing Christ in us. So the real believers (church) again becomes the "mother" of Jesus. He will manifest Himself in those who believe and do the will of the Father.Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

So Mary is a sign that points to our day.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Its a puzzle that we have to solve.Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. Not everybody will solve this, not even all Christians. Most will read what I have just written and not even think about it again, and it will pass them by. Maybe forever.

The virgin had to give birth, because we cannot produce Christ with the help of man. Only God , through His Holy Spirit can produce Christ in us . That is also the reason why you will find that there are eight barren woman in the Bible. Why? To illustrate this point: God alone produces fruit in the believer.

 

[akilae]

she provided the Son of Man side.

Exactl. And man is erred, at least accordingto Christen theology. I will not allow an exception of that definition over the fact that Jesus was produced without sperm. If that is the sole argument, and the sole thing that carries original sin (which is immaterial and affects souls...) than anybody in the future born without natural sperm will be just as Jesus; sinless, which is a good thing.

My argument stands simply as this:

If the definition of man includes being erred, than to be man you must fit that definition and be erred. If you are flawless perfect, I conjecture that a being is no longer man, as he/she/it is better than man.

For Jesus to be a man, he must fit that definition.

However, if Jesus is a man regardless, despite being perfect then the definition of err must be amended. To be human you can be erred OR perfect, which I argue we can do on our own.

 

[Cornelius]

she provided the Son of Man side.

Exactl. And man is erred,...........

Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

[akilae]

I fail to see how that refutes my statement, save through logic exhibiting a biblical contradiction.

 

[Cornelius]

I fail to see how that refutes my statement, save through logic exhibiting a biblical contradiction.

I see that you like mental gymnastics and I really do not, so I will leave you to it I love the Word and not the wisdom of man.

 

[lovely]

I am not sure why you would assume that artificial sperm (Sperm created from humans) would somehow make someone sinless. The whole point, which you continue to over look, is that Christ was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit. It was not human sperm, not the SEED of ADAM. Artifical sperm, even if created from a woman's cells, would be Adam's seed because it's human.

Secondly, I will repeat myself for the sake of other posters, but both times you have tried to twist my words. Women are not sinless...I am saying that since the seed was not of Adam (human seed), but of God, Jesus was both human and divine and sinless. Mary did not provide the sperm.

 

[akilae]

I love the Word and not the wisdom of man.

When you're an atheist and you see something like this, your mind begins to sizzle from so many ironies.

That being said, I do believe there are good parts of the Bible.

I am not sure why you would assume that artificial sperm (Sperm created from humans) would somehow make someone sinless.

Because they come from no human, and are created using chemicals.

The argument we have had thus far is that original comes from a man, and comes from a man through his sperm (basically). If the sperm comes from say, a flask, it does not have original sin. The child does not have original sin then.

Women are not sinless...

I agree.

 

[Sinthesis]

It's possible for man to be perfect or imperfect by themselves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking about this earlier today, and it is the culmination of a number of things I have read.

I have read over and over that man is erred. To be human is to be flawed, I believe based upon the Christian belief, this is viewed to be correct right?
So I will make this statement:
A-If you are human, then you are erred.
I believe we can all agree on this correct?
Alright, well now I'll jump into the interesting parts...

...I'm curious what you guys think, as this is also an argument presented in my book.
I located this on another forum I attend. What do you guys think?

To be human is to be flawed

Not necessarily

I believe based upon the Christian belief, this is viewed to be correct right?

Wrong

A-If you are human, then you are erred.

Not quite; nice try though. The rest of your post just indicates a gross misunderstanding of 'sin'.

 

[radorth]

Well maybe Jesus had an eensie weensie sin somewhere in his history.

Maybe God decided to overlook it and use him to save me anyway.

Here's a wild, heretical proposition which neither the unbeliever or the black/white thinking religious person will appreciate. God may have overlooked some tiny sin Jesus committed and used him to save the whole world whether the above logic is valid or not. Call me a heretic.

But then, he's God, not a legalist. He can do whatever he wants, and I hardly could find fault with him overlooking an imperfection to save the world. Beware of the legalistic logic which, ironically, both religious people and unbelievers practice.

Rad

 

[Jon-Marc]

It's possible for man to be perfect or imperfect by themselves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I located this on another forum I attend. What do you guys think?

I think I believe what God said in Romans 3:23 that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29