a question i have about christian beliefs

[Katzpur]

In Christian doctrine, of course, Christ has not sinned -- and for the majority of Christians, neither has his blessed mother. So both common sense and established Christian doctrine argue against a slavishly literal interpretation of this passage of scripture.

I personally do not believe that Mary was without sin. I do believe, however, that she was "blessed among women." She was probably the most perfect woman to have ever lived to have been chosen to be the mother of our Savior. I believe that her Son's atoning sacrifice redeemed her just as it redeemed the rest of us.

By the way, Eastern Orthodox Christians firmly reject the Western Christian notion of original sin. For the Orthodox, "original sin" is a propensity to sin, and not inherited guilt.

This is exactly the way the Latter-day Saints view this doctrine. We believe that we inherited from Adam the propensity to sin, or a sinful nature. We don't believe this is the same thing as being born in some way responsible for Adam's transgression. After all, look how many times Christ reminded us that we needed to become as little children in order to be saved. He saw little children as pure and clean, not as depraved sinners.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

If there's any exception at all, then a literal interpretation of this scripture is not reasonable.

Not if scripture says other wise . . . Hebrews 4:13 . . . also Christ is God-man . . . his DNA is a little different then ours . . . He is like a second version of Adam . . . but unlike Adam- Christ did not sin.

 

[nutshell]

Not if scripture says other wise . . . Hebrews 4:13 . . . also Christ is God-man . . . his DNA is a little different then ours . . . He is like a second version of Adam . . . but unlike Adam- Christ did not sin.

I do think there is one big difference. Adam's literal physical father was not God the Father. God created him, but God's own "genes" weren't a part of Adam's make-up.

 

[ChrisP]

I do think there is one big difference. Adam's literal physical father was not God the Father. God created him, but God's own "genes" weren't a part of Adam's make-up.

So who's Genes are they? the "original genes".

I think Levi's already copyrighted that. Sorry God your outta luck on this one

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I personally do not believe that Mary was without sin. I do believe, however, that she was "blessed among women." She was probably the most perfect woman to have ever lived to have been chosen to be the mother of our Savior. I believe that her Son's atoning sacrifice redeemed her just as it redeemed the rest of us.

This is exactly the way the Latter-day Saints view this doctrine. We believe that we inherited from Adam the propensity to sin, or a sinful nature. We don't believe this is the same thing as being born in some way responsible for Adam's transgression. After all, look how many times Christ reminded us that we needed to become as little children in order to be saved. He saw little children as pure and clean, not as depraved sinners.

Then we have to to reinterpret scripture from "ALL HAVE SINNED" to "ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED THE AGE OF ACCONTABILITY HAVE SINNED" . . . that's conveinent to say the least . . . also it makes the atoning work of Christ a mockery.

 

[Smoke]

Not if scripture says other wise . . . Hebrews 4:13 . . . also Christ is God-man . . . his DNA is a little different then ours . . . He is like a second version of Adam . . . but unlike Adam- Christ did not sin.

The notion that Christ's DNA is different from that of other humans is a new one for me, and I suspect that Christian orthodoxy would find it heretical. Regardless, the question is: Is Christ genuinely human, or a quasi-human mutant? Christian orthodoxy insists that he is genuinely human, and that he never sinned. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox -- indisputably the majority of Christians -- also teach that his mother never sinned. So from the point of view of Christian orthodoxy, Paul's statement that all have sinned can only be true in general terms, and certainly cannot mean that all humans, without exception, have sinned.

 

[Smoke]

I do think there is one big difference. Adam's literal physical father was not God the Father. God created him, but God's own "genes" weren't a part of Adam's make-up.

Does God the Father have DNA? If he does, DNA is ontologically prior to God.

 

[Smoke]

Then we have to to reinterpret scripture from "ALL HAVE SINNED" to "ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED THE AGE OF ACCONTABILITY HAVE SINNED" . . . that's conveinent to say the least . . . also it makes the atoning work of Christ a mockery.

It negates your understanding of the atoning work of Christ, which is not quite the same thing.

 

[jonny]

Then we have to to reinterpret scripture from "ALL HAVE SINNED" to "ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE REACHED THE AGE OF ACCONTABILITY HAVE SINNED" . . . that's conveinent to say the least . . . also it makes the atoning work of Christ a mockery.

I don't think it is possible to sin without understanding the difference between right and wrong and being able to make decisions based off that understanding.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

The notion that Christ's DNA is different from that of other humans is a new one for me, and I suspect that Christian orthodoxy would find it heretical. Regardless, the question is: Is Christ genuinely human, or a quasi-human mutant? Christian orthodoxy insists that he is genuinely human, and that he never sinned. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox -- indisputably the majority of Christians -- also teach that his mother never sinned. So from the point of view of Christian orthodoxy, Paul's statement that all have sinned can only be true in general terms, and certainly cannot mean that all humans, without exception, have sinned.

No this is a perfectly orthodox position that was fleshed out in earlier Ecumenical Councils. Wether you hold to a dual nature Christ or Kenotic View of Christ . . . Jesus is born of woman and God . . . that qualifies for a sligtly different make up . . . a new Adam yet without sin.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I don't think it is possible to sin without understanding the difference between right and wrong and being able to make decisions based off that understanding.

Look at things this way. If someone who was mentally challenged murdered a person with an ice pick . . . is it murder? Is it breaking the law? It doesn't matter if you understand the law . . . that isn't what makes you culpable, but only if you break the law-- this is what makes you responsible. We all have broken the law in Adam and are all responsible.

 

[Smoke]

No this is a perfectly orthodox position that was fleshed out in earlier Ecumenical Councils.

I'm absolutely certain that none of the earlier Ecumenical Councils said anything at all about DNA.

Councils. Wether you hold to a dual nature Christ or Kenotic View of Christ . . . Jesus is born of woman and God . . . that qualifies for a sligtly different make up . . . a new Adam yet without sin.

According to Christian orthodoxy, Christ must be fully human in every respect. If sinlessness is universal to humans, and Christ is sinless, Christ cannot be fully human. (For that matter, Adam and Eve cannot have been fully human before the Fall.)

According to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, if Christ "took not human nature upon Him, we are strangers to salvation."

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I'm absolutely certain that none of the earlier Ecumenical Councils said anything at all about DNA.

According to Christian orthodoxy, Christ must be fully human in every respect. If sinlessness is universal to humans, and Christ is sinless, Christ cannot be fully human. (For that matter, Adam and Eve cannot have been fully human before the Fall.)

According to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, if Christ "took not human nature upon Him, we are strangers to salvation."

I'm not denying his humanity or divinity . . . I'm trying to give you the orthodox position on the Nature of Christ's person. Yes, DNA was not discussed, but we know that Jesus was born of woman and of God, Correct right?

 

[Smoke]

Look at things this way. If someone who was mentally challenged murdered a person with an ice pick . . . is it murder?

If anyone murders someone, it's murder.

Is it breaking the law? It doesn't matter if you understand the law . . . that isn't what makes you culpable, but only if you break the law-- this is what makes you responsible.

Responsibility is what makes you responsible, and culpability is what makes you culpable. The law recognizes that under some circumstances people are not responsible for their own actions, hence the occasional verdict "not guilty by reason of insanity."

We all have broken the law in Adam and are all responsible.

Is it reasonable to believe that we are all responsible for the sins of our ancestors? If my great-grandfather killed a man, should I be tried and sentenced for that crime? Assuming that Adam was a historical person -- which is a huge assumption -- what is it about Adam's particular sin that makes all his descendants guilty of that sin? Do you really believe it's reasonable to impute guilt for any act to unborn generations of descendants?

 

[Smoke]

Yes, DNA was not discussed, but we know that Jesus was born of woman and of God, Correct right?

That is the orthodox position.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

If anyone murders someone, it's murder.

Responsibility is what makes you responsible, and culpability is what makes you culpable. The law recognizes that under some circumstances people are not responsible for their own actions, hence the occasional verdict "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Is it reasonable to believe that we are all responsible for the sins of our ancestors? If my great-grandfather killed a man, should I be tried and sentenced for that crime? Assuming that Adam was a historical person -- which is a huge assumption -- what is it about Adam's particular sin that makes all his descendants guilty of that sin? Do you really believe it's reasonable to impute guilt for any act to unborn generations of descendants?

Nonetheless its murder and it is breaking the law.

I wholly embrace the idea as Adam as the Federal Head of all humanity and when he sinned all became "IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO SIN" . . . it is an impossiblity for you or I not to sin, either in act or thought. Therefore Adam passed his sinful nature onto you we look for another Adam who can pass a perfect and impecable righteousness to us by faith, and that Adam is Christ.

 

[Smoke]

I wholly embrace the idea as Adam as the Federal Head of all humanity and when he sinned all became "IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO SIN" .

Then it was impossible for Christ not to sin.

But even if it impossible for humans not to sin eventually, it does not follow that every human, including the child newly born, actually has sinned.

 

[Abram]

But even if it impossible for humans not to sin eventually, it does not follow that every human, including the child newly born, actually has sinned.

Has sinned and will sin...

 

[linwood]

Has sinned and will sin...

Please explain how a newborn infant has personally "sinned".

 

[TheGreaterGame]

Then it was impossible for Christ not to sin.

Again, scripture sheds light on scripture . . . and Hebrew 4:13 says that Christ was tempted like us . . . yet without sin . . . Christ was sinless and if not . . . there is no savior.