| Poster | Thread | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Ron's: As I do not think of Sin in terms of hereditary transmission it is not a problem for me. This is why I try to use the phrase 'congenital sin' rather than 'hereditary sin' (as the German has it, I think, Mike?) Heriditary sin gets us into the territory of 'transmission' which is another part of this discussion
So exactly where does the 'sin nature' reside or does it even have an exact location? If it is not in the blood or the body- where is the point of contact (conduit) that allows for its influence upon us. How is that 'conduit' or mechanism broken 'In Christ'? Is it as simple as 'what spirit' one is of? If they have the spirit of disobedience then they are 'in Adam' and have a sin nature(?). If they are 'in Christ' they have the Holy Spirit and have the nature of God(?). If it is that simple it is quite simple and we have only one other question remaining. Why then after we receive the Holy Spirit are we not at that moment made immortal? Why is it necessary that we continue on feeling the effects of the fall of man (sickness, disease, etc.) that eventually lead to our physical death?
Or is it possible that that the issue of what spirit we have (spirit of disobedience or the Holy Spirit) is only one facet of the issue and that there is still somewhat that needs to be dealt with concerning the physical body? I say that as my mind is cross referencing to passages dealing with how our body is 'sown' a natural body and is raised a spiritual body. Paul also longed to be clothed with this new body. What was wrong with the old one? (I Cor. 15)
Just some added thoughts...
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
|  2007/2/1 8:55 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
by Ormly on 2007/2/1 2:20:48
Quote:
If Mary contributed more than just being a host, Jesus would have been born in sin. We know that is [absolute] error, ergo, there must be something you are missing. From what I have read of you, it is this: The sin of the woman is not propagated, only the sin of the father. The scripture I cited, speaks of this.
Quote:
You have certainly not heard me say anything like this.
If you are referring to my statement, you are correct, I haven't.
Quote:
I do NOT believe that Sin is carried in the blood of the male. There is a classical orthodox answer to this dilemma in
I'm not interested in what orthodox says/states if orthodox isn't getting it correct in sorting out the "dilemma" except as it injures others by their "etched in stone" conclusions, Remember, that's one of the reasons we have the reformed; that's why the inquisitions. Both doctrines use shoehorns to make scripture fit their beliefs..
You submit this verse:
Quote:
[color=0000ff] For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mothers womb. (Psa 139:13 NKJV)[/color] Many have regarded this as Messianic and speaking of God's protection against any such pollution.
Indeed, however, one's perspective needs to be more than one in order to get the whole picture of that verse which embraces more than just the messianic prophecy thinking. Consider: David IS ACTUALLY speaking of himself, a man after God's own heart, revealing to God, also to us, why He, God, chose him to be through whom messiah would come. The foreknowledge of God that David also sees, we can plainly see if we rightly divide the scriptures. If we don't, we open ourself up to be content with a deadend. I don't enjoy deadends.
Quote:
As I do not think of Sin in terms of hereditary transmission it is not a problem for me.
You need to because thats how is was done. I believe you have admitted life [I think] to be in the blood. Why do suppose man could not offer his as a sacrifice and the blood of animals also could not satisfy the Holiness of God, even though it was innocent blood?
Quote:
This is why I try to use the phrase 'congenital sin' rather than 'hereditary sin' (as the German has it, I think, Mike?) Heriditary sin gets us into the territory of 'transmission' which is another part of this discussion.
Congenital, as in it being "it can't be prevented", is the same for me as heritary. Either way we get it whether we ask for/like it or not.
My point is the female is the host even though she is born in sin. She does propagate her own but that of her husband. [review verses I cited]The fact Mary was born in sin is alone sufficient to link her to Adam, to humanity, thus giving her Son Jesus His link to it, but NOT the curse of/from it. The Father of Jesus, of necessity that Jesus' Blood be unstained by "heredity" or "congenital whatever", had to be sinless. Enter the Holy Spirit who overshadowed Mary. Enter "hypostasis".
Quote:
If God says woman has seed I am persuaded,it must be in the sense her lineage is to recognized and included, and what comes from her is credited to her lineage as well as that of the father.
Quote:
'credited to her lineage' will not do in respect to the Aaronic priesthood. A man had to be a blood descendent of Aaron not an adoptee.
Not so as you are lead to believe:
(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
"The Lord has sworn
And WILL NOT CHANGE His mind,
'Thou art a priest FOREVER' ")Hebrews 7:21 (NASB)
What I just submitted to you should satisfy all your concerns, violating no scripture in the process.
|
| | 2007/2/1 9:03 | | MikeH
Member
Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116
| | Re: | | Philologos wrote Quote:
Aren't you glad I don't get mean? :-?
Mean I can handle, its the fact you are so nice about it, is the problem :-D
Philologos wrote Quote:
I am only 'destruction testing'
I know, but no-one destruction tests an early prototype. Destruction testing is necessary and occurs when the finish product is ready to be launched, to make sure it will survive usage by the general public. [color=33FF00]Ecc 3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew.[/color]
Anyway having slept on it, let me give some of my views on the options as set out previously.
1) The Holy Spirit implants only an Y chromosome and the rest of Mary's chromosomes are duplicated. This is a very forced situation and any recessive genes on Mary's chromosomes would get expressed almost certainly making the Lord handicapped. I find this an unreasonable option.
2) The Holy Spirit implants 23 new chromosomes into one of Mary's eggs or ova. There is no need to use a sperm as these are merely delivery mechanisms for the chromosomes and this would make Christ both the son of man and the son of God. There are 23 newly created chromosomes, does this cause anyone a problem. I personally struggle with this model, because it is similar to AID (Artifical Insemination by Donor) which I find distasteful. But perhaps I just need to get over my prejudices. This model answers most of the objections raised by Philologos before, while still retaining the humanness of Christ, and equates to the normal process of conception. The weakness of this model is that it implies that the Sin carries down the male line. However, I don't see this as a big issue. Christ was born "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1v12. So he was not born in or by or through the Sin, unlike the rest of us. The transfer of the Sin being a spiritual thing not a physical thing and Christ was kept from it, as confirmed by the verse already quoted; Psa 139:13. What are our views on how well this fits some of the scriptures that I have suggested might support option 4?
3) The Holy Spirit replaces the chromosomes in one of Mary's eggs with a complete new set of 46. I think this is just a sop to the idea of complete replacement of the Egg, and the Mitochondrial DNA aspect is insignificant. Any objections to option 4 would apply to this.
4) A completely newly created egg is implanted in Mary. This has the advantage of being cut off from the Adamic line completely, but you have raised several valid objections to this model, already, primarily that Christ has no hereditary (my German is not upto that level yet) within the human race, or the Jews, or Judah.
So I am happy to move towards settling on option 2. Does anyone have other reasons to support or object to this idea?
For some time I have noticed that certainly within the early books of the bible, there is an idea that God controlled conception. He seems to retain the right to allow or forbid it. So often when women were barren, it states that the LORD had closed their womb, and then later opened them. And interestingly Eve's testimony is not I have gotten a man from Adam, but I have gotten a man from [b] the LORD[/b]. Obviously men and women have to play their part, but it seems conception, the fusing of sperm and egg, seems to be something that God has retained the right to, what do you think?
The first consequence of this idea is that because, today, men and women "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Rom 1v28) they do not first go to Him, if they have problems conceiving, but to all manner of clinics, gynecologists etc. They go to fertility clinics, almost like animistic religions have fertility rites, but perhaps that is taking things too far. (BTW so that no-one gets worried, I am not against using at least some of these techniques, if appropriate, but perhaps we need to remember to start praying about these things like Hannah did, first!)
Secondly, this seems to be supported by Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee. And what ever the circumstances by which we were conceived, by some terrible crime, by teenage 'messing around', by adultery, by accident and not being planned, the fact that we were conceived was totally in God's hands. He allowed it! Therefore, [b]no-one[/b] can be unwanted by God!
Coming back to the topic, the final consequence is that the virgin birth was not a travesty of the order of things. God had retained the right to conception, and so, with the permission of Mary, was able to form something in her womb, without any contradiction.
Views, observations etc welcome.
Mike |
| | 2007/2/1 10:05 | Profile | MikeH
Member
Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116
| | Re: | | RobertW wrote Quote:
Why then after we receive the Holy Spirit are we not at that moment made immortal? Why is it necessary that we continue on feeling the effects of the fall of man (sickness, disease, etc.) that eventually lead to our physical death?
Because we are still part of this current physical creation. We will only get a new body, and we clearly will (1 Cor 15 etc), when the new heaven and new earth arrive. I hope, as well, that you will not physically die! I expect that you will one day 'fall asleep', but not physically die. The difference between physical death and 'falling asleep' are very hard to detect, in fact for the natural man they appear to all intents and purposes to be exactly the same. But they are very, very different!
Mike |
| | 2007/2/1 10:20 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Mike's: The difference between physical death and 'falling asleep' are very hard to detect, in fact for the natural man they appear to all intents and purposes to be exactly the same. But they are very, very different!
Your pedantry is most appreciated. ;-) Keeps me sharp and on my toes. :-)
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2007/2/1 10:39 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
MikeH wrote:
RobertW wroteQuote:
Why then after we receive the Holy Spirit are we not at that moment made immortal? Why is it necessary that we continue on feeling the effects of the fall of man (sickness, disease, etc.) that eventually lead to our physical death?
Because we are still part of this current physical creation. We will only get a new body, and we clearly will (1 Cor 15 etc), when the new heaven and new earth arrive. I hope, as well, that you will not physically die! I expect that you will one day 'fall asleep', but not physically die. The difference between physical death and 'falling asleep' are very hard to detect, in fact for the natural man they appear to all intents and purposes to be exactly the same. But they are very, very different!
Mike
I have my own ideas on this but would like very much to read yours; i,e., bottom line, are we immortal or not? regardless of our salvation. |
| | 2007/2/1 10:55 | | crsschk
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA
| | Re: Blood lines | | Perhaps I did miss some things stated elsewhere and am stuck back on the idea of hereditary, DNA out workings, physical properties. At any rate, these verses came to mind for consideration of non-corporeal beings;
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jude 1:6
For if God spared not the angels that [b]sinned[/b], but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Peter 2:4
_________________
Mike Balog
|
| | 2007/2/1 11:02 | Profile | MikeH
Member
Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116
| | Re: | | Ormly asked Quote:
I have my own ideas on this but would like very much to read yours; i,e., bottom line, are we immortal or not? regardless of our salvation.
We are mortal: [color=33CC00]1 Corinthians 15:53-54 ...this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality ...[/color]
Mike |
| | 2007/2/1 11:31 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
I have my own ideas on this but would like very much to read yours; i,e., bottom line, are we immortal or not? regardless of our salvation.
I think of an old line 'Dying isn't much of a living'. Living in hell for eternity is certainly not much of a life. It's hard to get our head aound the idea of eternal death. But it is eternal conscious existence seperated from God.
All peoples will exist for eternity somewhere. Death means separation. So in that sense all people are immortal. But in terms of putting off this body, I was trying to understand why we need to put off this body at all once we are saved. I'm thinking in terms of physical death for the lost and falling asleep in Christ for the saved.
Why the process of death and resurrection for we that are saved? Why the need to be 'changed'? What is it that is corruptable and corruption that must needs put on uncorruptable and incorruption? Dead flies spoil the ointment, but what has corrupted our bodies? Certainly all will live for eternity (if by living we mean existing [i]consciously[/i]).
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2007/2/1 11:48 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
MikeH wrote:
Ormly asked Quote:
I have my own ideas on this but would like very much to read yours; i,e., bottom line, are we immortal or not? regardless of our salvation.
We are mortal: [color=33CC00]1 Corinthians 15:53-54 ...this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality ...[/color]
Mike
I know that scripture but asked for your ideas about all this.... in context, of course. |
| | 2007/2/1 11:50 | |
|
