Second, if sin nature is materialistic and passed through the father while reproduction occurs, then, in theory, a “clone” (of sorts anyway) using two sets of female DNA (resulting in only a female) could be sinless and Jesus would no longer be unique as being separate from sinners ( Hebrews 7:26). Caution should be exercised when adding other implications to the virgin birth. The reason for the virgin birth is a miraculous entrance into the world by fulfilling prophecies such as Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14. There are no Scriptures that connect the virgin birth to sin or sin nature. Initially this sounds like a reasonable model but there are some problems associated with it. The first view is the Father’ line model.
But God withheld original sin from entering Christ in the womb. It is passed along spiritually by virtue that all are descendants of Adam. Sin nature passes spiritually: original sin is nonmaterial and doesn’t need to pass along to offspring via genetics.Sin nature is a tendency toward sin, not sin in and of itself. Sin nature is not sin: the terms “sin nature” or “original sin” are not found in the Bible and are terms derived by humans when looking at certain passages.Father’ line: Jesus inherited genetic material from Mary (to be fully human, i.e., descendant of Adam to become the Last Adam) but not from Joseph, therefore, original sin must pass through the father to the offspring.There are several popular responses to this (basic arguments given below) that show there is no contradiction within Scripture: So how did Jesus avoid having original sin? Descendants of Adam receive original sin because they were in Adam when Adam sinned ( Romans 5:12). Jesus was a descendant of Adam as per Luke 3 (in His humanity). Follow this reasoning: Basis: Jesus was sinless ( Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5). This question and variants like it have arisen in the past.
0 kommentar(er)
