Was Jesus’ Born Sinless?

[Rose]

.
The main Christian premise that qualifies Jesus to be called the 'Lamb of God' whose sacrifice was an 'atonement', saving the world from their sins is flawed. The Atonement premise is built upon the first century understanding of Adams sin being passed on through the male sperm. The female’s part in reproduction was only to 'grow the baby in her womb'; the genetic material was passed on through the male…that is why the 'virgin birth' allowed Jesus to be born 'sin free' since he did not have an earthly father. With today’s understanding of genetics everyone knows that a person’s genetic heritage is equally divided between the mother and father, so even if Jesus was 'born of a virgin' he would still have his mother’s supposedly sinful genetic lineage which could be traced back to Adam, thus disqualifying him from being born in a sinless condition.
Matt.1:20-21 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


Rose

[throwback]

I'm being dead serious as I ask this question. Is not everyone who has ever been born been born sinless?

[Rose]

I'm being dead serious as I ask this question. Is not everyone who has ever been born been born sinless?

That's an excellent question...:thumb:

I think most Christians feel that children under the age of accountability are not considered "sinners" in need of salvation, but that isn't what some passages in the Bible imply. Here are a few examples...
Rom.3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;....23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...19)For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Rom.8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:...10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Myself, I don't believe anyone is a sinner in the biblical sense requiring salvation, though I do believe people do sinful (bad) things.

All the Best,
Rose

[CWH]

That's an excellent question...:thumb:

I think most Christians feel that children under the age of accountability are not considered "sinners" in need of salvation, but that isn't what some passages in the Bible imply. Here are a few examples...
Rom.3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;....23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...19)For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Rom.8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:...10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Myself, I don't believe anyone is a sinner in the biblical sense requiring salvation, though I do believe people do sinful (bad) things.

All the Best,
Rose

I believe all babies are born sinless if not why would Jesus got a child and said that we must behave like this child (innocent and sinless) if we want to get to heaven:

Matthew 18:3
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

It is with our increased knowledge of good and evil as we mature and interact with the environment that made us sinful and short of the glory of God. Imagine if we only have the knowledge of good, do you think we will sinned since we do not have the knowledge of evil? It is when Eve and Adam ate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in disobedience to God that they became conscious of sin represented by their nakedness and death. That is also why in the New Jerusalem as stated in Revelation 22, there is only the tree of life and the absence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life which provides eternal life and cleanses evilness was present in the Garden of Eden in Genesis together with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

Genesis 2:9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And the tree of life is the tree that provides eternal life and cleanses sin:

Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Revelation 22: On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations3 No longer will there be any curse.

Do animals sinned? Not that I know of. Do trees and plants sinned? No, probably because they did not ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and therefore do not have the knowledge of sin. Why do humans sinned? Because we know both good and evil and disobey God.

May God cleanses us from all sin. Amen. :pray:

[Brother Les]

.
The main Christian premise that qualifies Jesus to be called the “Lamb of God” whose sacrifice was an “atonement”, saving the world from their sins is flawed. The Atonement premise is built upon the first century understanding of Adams sin being passed on through the male sperm. The female’s part in reproduction was only to “grow the baby in her womb”; the genetic material was passed on through the male…that is why the “virgin birth” allowed Jesus to be born “sin free” since he did not have an earthly father. With today’s understanding of genetics everyone knows that a person’s genetic heritage is equally divided between the mother and father, so even if Jesus was “born of a virgin” he would still have his mother’s supposedly sinful genetic lineage which could be traced back to Adam, thus disqualifying him from being born in a sinless condition.
Matt.1:20-21 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


Rose

I believe that it was Eve who had 'sinned' first, but Adam (The Man) who is over Eve was held responceable. Eve should have stood up (resurrection?) and took respoceability for her actions, but she did not. She blamed the ol'snake in the grass as beguileding me. (as a side line I will NOTE: I believe that the 'snake/serpent/aversary was really Adam, the Man)
Gen 3:
12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;


Jesus was born sinless, as was Adam and Eve. They 'Missed The Mark', but we must understand that Jesus is 'The Mark'.





SIN
ἁμαρτία
Transliteration
hamartia
Pronunciation

hä-mär-tē'-ä (Key)


Part of Speech
feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

From ἁμαρτάνω (G264)

TDNT Reference
1:267,44
Vines
View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) equivalent to 264

a) to be without a share in

b) to miss the mark
c) to err, be mistaken

d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin

2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act

3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

[Rose]

I believe that it was Eve who had 'sinned' first, but Adam (The Man) who is over Eve was held responceable. Eve should have stood up (resurrection?) and took respoceability for her actions, but she did not. She blamed the ol'snake in the grass as beguileding me. (as a side line I will NOTE: I believe that the 'snake/serpent/aversary was really Adam, the Man)

Jesus was born sinless, as was Adam and Eve. They 'Missed The Mark', but we must understand that Jesus is 'The Mark'.




My question wasn't about who sinned first, rather it was the concept of sins being passed down through the fathers lineage, because it was believe women were only "the soil for growing the seed". Our modern understanding of genetics tells us that Jesus could not have been born sinless, even if his mother was a virgin.

All the Best,
Rose

[CWH]

My question wasn't about who sinned first, rather it was the concept of sins being passed down through the fathers lineage, because it was believe women were only "the soil for growing the seed". Our modern understanding of genetics tells us that Jesus could not have been born sinless, even if his mother was a virgin.

All the Best,
Rose

Show me an example of a baby born sinful? Are deformed babies born sinful or from sinful parents? No, Look at what Jesus said:

John 9:1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Do little children sinned? No and Unlikely:

Matthew 18:3
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Genetics does not support that if parents are evil their children will be evil or that good parents will breed good children. It's a fact that children born from evil parents can become good and children from good parents can become evil. It's a matter of upbringing and the children's interaction with the environment that they grew up. Environment includes everything that surrounds them including humans, society, culture etc.

A person personality is derived from the parent's genes and the interaction with the environment. The environment seems to play a bigger part in the development of a person's behavior and personality. Good example are real stories of young children kidnapped and raised by animals such as wolves or monkeys and after a few years they lost their human traits and behave exactly like their foster parents.

http://theunexplainedmysteries.com/Feral-Children.html

What causes sin is not just the negative interactions of genes and environment but also the works of Satan which is the human knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan and they knew good and evil. That's why all of us have some traits of good and evil; some more skewed towards good, some more skewed towards evil. Therefore, if we have knowledge of good only, there will be no knowledge of evil:

Genesis 2:4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 2:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


Matthew 13:He set another parable before them, saying,
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field,
but while people slept,
his enemy came and sowed darnel also among the wheat, and went away.
But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then the darnel appeared also.

The servants of the householder came and said to him,
‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field?
Where did this darnel come from?’
"He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’
"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and gather them up?’
"But he said, ‘No, lest perhaps while you gather up the darnel,
you root up the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest,
and in the harvest time I will tell the reapers,

"First, gather up the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them;
but gather the wheat into my barn."‘"

May God gave us the wisdom and deliver us from the Evil One, Amen. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Show me an example of a baby born sinful? Are deformed babies born sinful? Look at what Jesus said:

I don't think any babies are born sinful. That is a Christian doctrine - it is interesting that you disagree with it. So if people aren't born sinners, are you saying they don't need a savior until they commit their first sin? That brings up a lot of curious questions. For example, the statement that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) would be false.

I think the numbers are changing, but historically the "orthodox" Protestant doctrine taught in most churches has been that all babies are born sinners.



Genetics does not support that if parents are evil their children will be evil or that good parents will breed good children. It's a fact that children born from evil parents can become good and children from good parents can become evil. It's a matter of upbringing and the children's interaction with the environment that they grew up. Environment includes everything that surrounds them including humans, society, culture etc.

A person personality is derived from the parent's genes and the interaction with the environment. The environment seems to play a bigger part in the development of a person's behavior and personality. A good example are real stories of young children kidnapped and raised by animals such as wolves or monkeys and after a few years they lost their human traits and behave exactly like their foster parents.

What causes sin is not just the negative interactions of genes and environment but also the works of Satan which is the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan and they knew good and evil. Therefore, if we have knowledge of good only, there will be no knowledge of evil:

So where is there any personal responsibility if it's all genetics, environment, and Satan? It sounds like you are teaching we are robots again. I didn't choose my genes, my environment, or Satan, so if those things are the source of my sin, why am I held responsible?

[CWH]

[QUOTE=RAM;34176]I don't think any babies are born sinful. That is a Christian doctrine - it is interesting that you disagree with it. So if people aren't born sinners, are you saying they don't need a savior until they commit their first sin? That brings up a lot of curious questions. For example, the statement that "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) would be false.
As babies grew up, they learned and gained more knowledge of good and evil, And that's where sin comes in. Does babies knew about the ten commandments when they are born? No. And Paul said that sin is the transgression of the laws. Only when they grew up and interacts with the environment, will they know what is good and what is evil. Man's knowledge of good and evil is imperfect unlike God. It's like children playing with fire without adequate knowledge of fire and it's danger. That's is also why some are skewed towards evil and some towards good because of the imperfect knowledge of good and evil.


I think the numbers are changing, but historically the "orthodox" Protestant doctrine taught in most churches has been that all babies are born sinners.
I don't believe in that orthodox thinking. Humans do err. I believe it is based on Psalm 51:5 which David wrote, "Behold, l was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." David used his own exaggerated statement which is not scriptural. We are born evil not at birth but that at birth we already carry the genes that have a tendency towards both good and evil and we become sinners as we grew up during our interaction with the environment. That is also the difference between humans and animals. Animals do not sin because they do not have the knowledge of good and evil and they are not ashamed of their nakedness.


So where is there any personal responsibility if it's all genetics, environment, and Satan? It sounds like you are teaching we are robots again. I didn't choose my genes, my environment, or Satan, so if those things are the source of my sin, why am I held responsible?
We are held responsible because we have the free will to discern and do what is good and evil. If you want to do evil then you have to pay the price. And you will be rewarded if you do good. Almost every religion teaches that. That's is why God wants us to lead righteous life even in our sinful nature which He knew is very difficult. That's why we are still sinners and fall short of the glory of God; only faith and good works and God's grace can lead us into salvation:

"Not everyone who call me Lord, Lord can enter into the kingdom of heaven except those who did the will of my Father who is in heaven".

Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His RIGHTEOUSNESS and all these things will be added onto you. Amen :pray:

[Beck]

It would be my understanding that since Adam and Eve sinned or transgressed against the commadments of God in a since broken the covenant. It is that broken covenant that is inherited to all mankind. Therefore we all are dead in our transgressions against the commandments of God until we repent and forsake our transgressions and obey the Father.

Jesus from the beginning came to do the will of the Father, so he wasn't breaking the commandments of God, but come to obey and to fullfill the law. Jesus was faithful in every aspect from his baptism by John, even faithful in temptation, and even through death on a cross.

So was Jesus born sinless? I surpose so

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We are held responsible because we have the free will to discern and do what is good and evil. If you want to do evil then you have to pay the price. And you will be rewarded if you do good. Almost every religion teaches that. That's is why God wants us to lead righteous life even in our sinful nature which He knew is very difficult. That's why we are still sinners and fall short of the glory of God; only faith and good works and God's grace can lead us into salvation:

"Not everyone who call me Lord, Lord can enter into the kingdom of heaven except those who did the will of my Father who is in heaven".

Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His RIGHTEOUSNESS and all these things will be added onto you. Amen :pray:
Well, now it seems like you are holding to two contradictory opinions. On the one hand, you say we are robots programs by genes and environment while on the other hand, you say that we have free will and so are responsible for our choices.

This is a very old paradox. I don't know if there is a solution. It could be that free will is an illusion, and that we are like robots. That doesn't really seem true to me, but neither do I have an explanation of what we are. It's really one big mystery - our self consciousness and sense of "freedom."

[CWH]

[QUOTE=RAM;34195]Well, now it seems like you are holding to two contradictory opinions. On the one hand, you say we are robots programs by genes and environment while on the other hand, you say that we have free will and so are responsible for our choices.
No contradiction; we are robots with free-will capability. Robots in my term are created beings. Even artificial robots have softwares that determine their functions and "behaviors" that must adapt with the environment.


"This is a very old paradox. I don't know if there is a solution. It could be that free will is an illusion, and that we are like robots. That doesn't really seem true to me, but neither do I have an explanation of what we are. It's really one big mystery - our self consiousness and sense of "freedom.
We do have a choice, do we? There are many passages in which God gave us a choice e.g. serve God or mammon, "those who have ears, let them hear", "anyone who chooses to do the will of God" (John 7:17) etc.


Let's do the will of God, Amen.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No contradiction; we are robots with free-will capability. Robots in my term are created beings. Even artificial robots have softwares that determine their functions and "behaviors" that must adapt with the environment.

It would be better if you used words in a way that makes sense. Likening people to programmed robots would normally imply a lack of freewill. This is because robots are machines and have no freewill - they only do what their designer programmed them to do.



We do have a choice, do we? There are many passages in which God gave us a choice e.g. serve God or mammon, "those who have ears, let them hear", "anyone who chooses to do the will of God" (John 7:17) etc.

Yes, we have a choice. That's why we are different than robots.

[Bob May]

That's an excellent question...:thumb:

I think most Christians feel that children under the age of accountability are not considered "sinners" in need of salvation, but that isn't what some passages in the Bible imply. Here are a few examples...
Rom.3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;....23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:...19)For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Rom.8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:...10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Myself, I don't believe anyone is a sinner in the biblical sense requiring salvation, though I do believe people do sinful (bad) things.All the Best,
Rose

So, what you are really saying is that you don't believe in salvation.

Bob

[Bob May]

My question wasn't about who sinned first, rather it was the concept of sins being passed down through the fathers lineage, because it was believe women were only "the soil for growing the seed". Our modern understanding of genetics tells us that Jesus could not have been born sinless, even if his mother was a virgin.All the Best,
Rose

It's got nothing to do with genetics.
Jesus was born sinless because he never ate the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He came directly from God. The only "begotten" son of God.
Adam (mankind) ate of that tree.
We, also can become sons of God but by rebirth. We were all born in a condition which came about because we (Mankind) sinned long before we were ever born.
We are not held accountable as children, but guess what,.. we all sinned once we came of age.

Have a nice day,
Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It's got nothing to do with genetics.
Jesus was born sinless because he never ate the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He came directly from God. The only "begotten" son of God.
Adam (mankind) ate of that tree.
We, also can become sons of God but by rebirth. We were all born in a condition which came about because we (Mankind) sinned long before we were ever born.
We are not held accountable as children, but guess what,.. we all sinned once we came of age.

Have a nice day,
Bob
How then is Jesus the "Son of Adam?"

[Rose]

It's got nothing to do with genetics.
Jesus was born sinless because he never ate the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He came directly from God. The only "begotten" son of God.
Adam (mankind) ate of that tree.
We, also can become sons of God but by rebirth. We were all born in a condition which came about because we (Mankind) sinned long before we were ever born.
We are not held accountable as children, but guess what,.. we all sinned once we came of age.

Have a nice day,
Bob

The point is that Jesus did not come come directly from God in relation to what we know today to be true of genetics. The first century minds that wrote the Bible believed that the "seed" of Jesus was miraculously implanted in the virgin womb of Mary by God, thus receiving no genetic material from Mary because women were only considered to be the "soil" for growing the baby.

Today we know that half of a persons genetic material is received from the mother, hence even if Jesus had no earthly father he did have a earthly mother whose lineage could be traced back to Adam.

All the Best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Today we know that half of a persons genetic material is received from the mother, hence even if Jesus had no earthly father he did have a earthly mother whose lineage could be traced back to Adam.

And that's exactly what Luke does:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, ... Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
But now this seems to be a contradiction. Luke says that Jesus was born of a virgin, but that he also was a son of Adam. He seems to try to fix this by saying that Adam was "the son of God." So why did Luke trace Jesus (through Mary) back to Adam as the "son of God" - the very term used of Christ? It all seems rather confusing.

[Bob May]

How then is Jesus the "Son of Adam?"

We all recieved bodies because of the fall.
Jesus did not come that route. He recieved a body to become a messenger of and sacrifice for salvation.

There are two geneologies of Jesus one from Adam and one from Abraham the Father of faith. Thoughts (offspring) not in that direct line are us taking a wrong fork in the road. Esau and Ishmael are good examples.
The geneologies are thoughts leading to other thoughts. A thought coupled with an emotion has an outcome. These are the geneologies. Levels of awareness.

The Geneology from Abraham to Christ gives us hints as to the road home, so to speak. Steps in the opening of our eyes and ears. Perception.

But in that Jesus came in the flesh the geneology of Adam also relates to him because he had a physical body. But genetics do not dictate sin. Ways of thinking do. So genetics have nothing to do with Sin in that way.

Jesus was a son of Adam in that he came in a physical body. Not in that the outcome of Adam's sin (wrong thinking) had any effect on his thoughts and actions. He was tempted like as we are but without sin.

Hope I made myself somewhat clear.
It's not an easy subject to think about or put into words.
Bob

[Bob May]

And that's exactly what Luke does:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, ... Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
But now this seems to be a contradiction. Luke says that Jesus was born of a virgin, but that he also was a son of Adam. He seems to try to fix this by saying that Adam was "the son of God." So why did Luke trace Jesus (through Mary) back to Adam as the "son of God" - the very term used of Christ? It all seems rather confusing.

Adam was the son of God. Adam is Mankind. We rejected God he did not reject us. That is the story of the Prodigal Son.
Adam (us) were sons of God before the fall. Before eating of the Tree.
It says Adam Was the son of God. Past tense.
When we eat of the Tree of life we ARE sons of God present tense.

[Bob May]

The point is that Jesus did not come come directly from God in relation to what we know today to be true of genetics. The first century minds that wrote the Bible believed that the "seed" of Jesus was miraculously implanted in the virgin womb of Mary by God, thus receiving no genetic material from Mary because women were only considered to be the "soil" for growing the baby.

Today we know that half of a persons genetic material is received from the mother, hence even if Jesus had no earthly father he did have a earthly mother whose lineage could be traced back to Adam.

All the Best,
Rose


Hi Rose,

The virgin birth is a mystery. If there is anything in the bible I would tend to question it would be that.
I don't have it figured out, but I see a possible explanation to how this happened. No less miraculous, but more of the "mechanics of how this could have been done."
You said Mary was the good ground or soil for the seed.
That symbolism is also used in the parable of the sower. Where it is said that the seed is the word of God and that it only grows in "good ground."
Looking more closely at the story of Mary and Elizabeth and keeping this in mind, is interesting.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Lu 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
Lu 1:40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
Lu 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Lu 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Lu 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Lu 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Lu 1:45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Lu 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Lu 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Lu 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Lu 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

Both the Angel and Elizabeth speak in the future tense of what would happen to Mary. Immediately after Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Ghost and speaks the prophesy to Mary, Mary in turn speaks as if the event being described (her impregnation) has already happened.
So, did the "seed" come out of Elizabeth's mouth?

And might this have something to do with the "woman's seed" in Revelations?

Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Might not be any connection there but the concept of a woman's seed sounds like an impossibility so why refer to it in that way?

Just in case we are not confused enough already,
Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We all recieved bodies because of the fall.
Jesus did not come that route. He recieved a body to become a messenger of and sacrifice for salvation.

That's a fascinating theory. We received bodies because of the fall. I can see why it would be attractive to someone with a mystical inclination, but I can't think of any authentic justification for that idea from the Bible.



There are two geneologies of Jesus one from Adam and one from Abraham the Father of faith. Thoughts (offspring) not in that direct line are us taking a wrong fork in the road. Esau and Ishmael are good examples.
The geneologies are thoughts leading to other thoughts. A thought coupled with an emotion has an outcome. These are the geneologies. Levels of awareness.

The Geneology from Abraham to Christ gives us hints as to the road home, so to speak. Steps in the opening of our eyes and ears. Perception.

But in that Jesus came in the flesh the geneology of Adam also relates to him because he had a physical body. But genetics do not dictate sin. Ways of thinking do. So genetics have nothing to do with Sin in that way.

Jesus was a son of Adam in that he came in a physical body. Not in that the outcome of Adam's sin (wrong thinking) had any effect on his thoughts and actions. He was tempted like as we are but without sin.

Hope I made myself somewhat clear.
It's not an easy subject to think about or put into words.
Bob
Yes, you have made yourself pretty clear. And I can see value in your interpretations. But the thing that fascinates me is that I could interview ten thousand serious students of Scripture and not one would have come to the same conclusions as you. This seems to indicate that the Bible functions pretty much a "Rorschach inkblot" - people see in it what they bring to it.

[Bob May]

That's a fascinating theory. We received bodies because of the fall. I can see why it would be attractive to someone with a mystical inclination, but I can't think of any authentic justification for that idea from the Bible.

Isa 43:6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
Isa 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
Isa 43:8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.

Four worlds of the Qabalah. Three are covered in Genesis since it begins with and in the Creative world.
We were created in god's image, spirit, formed, soul of the dust of the earth, and given coats of skins, physical bodies.
We fell inot animal bodies that were already here evolving. That goes back to a thread that Rose began and it hit me at that time. God made the bodies and we fell into them.
It really solves a lot of "problems" for me with the creationist vs. evolution debate. We were created and primates were already evolving.
We wanted to expeirence physical bodies and got stuck.
Originally we were like the angels in heaven neither male nor female.


[QUOTE=RAM;34230]
Yes, you have made yourself pretty clear. And I can see value in your interpretations. But the thing that fascinates me is that I could interview ten thousand serious students of Scripture and not one would have come to the same conclusions as you. This seems to indicate that the Bible functions pretty much a "Rorschach inkblot" - people see in it what they bring to it.

I can interview ten thousand Christians and not find one that practices "Be still and know that I am God." Or that attempts to look for the allegorical meaning behind the Scriptures.
So that makes perfect sense to me, sad as it is. But that is the problem with the doctrine of the "churches" today. They tend to steer people away from clear teachings in the bible. Labeling something as "new age" or "occult" scares people. Yet the entire book is about consciousness. Fallen consciousness and regained consciousness through levels of spiritual awareness. From "Born from above" through, all of the Spiritual gifts, the entire book of the Revelation of Jesus christ and the marriage supper.

The psalmist says: "Be still and know that I am God.
Ecclesiastes says, "There is a time time to speak and a time to be silent."
Jesus said "If these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out."
But meditation is not taught in churches.
On the other hand I can go to ten thousand people who do apply some of the spiritual excercises such as silent meditation and Most, I think, would have Something to share.

As far as the "Rorschach" phenomena goes I understand your point. But the bible gives us the symbology to use in order to interpret correctly. But it is a learning process and it needs to be used to grow more efficient at it.
The other thing is that Jesus teaches us as we go.
The Hebrew scholars held to the opinion that the bible was written on four levels.
Literal, implied, allegorical, and mystical.
Allegory is "training wheels" for the fourth level of interpretation. It gets our mind flowing in ways that we are unused to going.
It is all a matter of practice though. We all have to learn how to crawl before we can walk.
The other thing I see concerning the "Rorschach" principle as you call it, is that human beings are wired differently than one another. We learn differently. That, I believe is the Twelve sons of Jacob and the Twelve Apostles. Some use judgement, some sight and some are better hearers, some lovers, etc.
There are twelve gates in the New Jerusalem and all are for entering the city. But all of them approach it from a different angle. Nevertheless they all are for entering the same city.
There are also varying types of Spirtual gifts. All manifesting the same Spirit.

Have a good day,
Bob