Was Mary Sinless?

[Cameron143]

Since Jesus was God made human/incarnate, he must be made of dust too, for the first human was made of dust. Didn't the lord die a mortal death, in the most excruciating way? Wasn't he buried in a tomb? I made no false equivalence, you misinterpreted.

In order for Jesus to represent mankind in Adam, He had to come through the line of Adam. Had He come outside of the line of Adam, He would have represented a whole other line of humanity. God could have started another line of humanity but chose instead to redeem and perfect the fallen line of humanity that was in Adam...those who are naturally in Adam but spiritually in Christ.

 

[Genez]

I will put hostility between you and the woman,​

and between your seed and her seed.​

He will strike your head,​

and you will strike his heel. Genesis 3:15​

The woman's ovum (seed) does not transfer the fallen sin nature in sexual reproduction!
That is why no human male sperm was involved in the conception of Jesus body!

I will put hostility between you and the woman,​

and between your seed and her seed.​

​

Take note! Jewish genealogies always cited the seed of the man for the progeny.

But? With Jesus?
The seed of the mother is only the issue!

Meaning, there is no sin nature defect in a woman's ovum!
The sin nature is passed down only by the man's seed!

​

​

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, (Adam's seed) ​

and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— Romans 5:12​

The Greek means we all sinned in one point in time!
For, Adam set the mold when he passed it down to all of us!

grace and peace ........

........

 

[GWH]

Since Jesus was God made human/incarnate, he must be made of dust too, for the first human was made of dust. Didn't the lord die a mortal death, in the most excruciating way? Wasn't he buried in a tomb? I made no false equivalence, you misinterpreted.

God made the dust, too.
Yes, God the Son became mortal/incarnate/dust and died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity made in the image of A&E.
Adam returned to dust; Jesus resurrected. I still see a false equivalence.

 

[GWH]

I will put hostility between you and the woman,​

and between your seed and her seed.​

He will strike your head,​

and you will strike his heel. Genesis 3:15​

The woman's ovum (seed) does not transfer the fallen sin nature in sexual reproduction!
That is why no human male sperm was involved in the conception of Jesus body!

I will put hostility between you and the woman,​

and between your seed and her seed.​

​

Take note! Jewish genealogies always cited the seed of the man for the progeny.

But? With Jesus?
The seed of the mother is only the issue!

Meaning, there is no sin nature defect in a woman's ovum!
The sin nature is passed down only by the man's seed!

​

​

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, (Adam's seed) ​

and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— Romans 5:12​

The Greek means we all sinned in one point in time!
For, Adam set the mold when he passed it down to all of us!

grace and peace ........

........

I think you don't give Eve enough credit.
A&E sinned together, were equally sinners and jointly procreated their progeny.
The body of Jesus began as a clean zygote, incorporating neither Mary's egg nor Joseph's sperm,
both of which would be tainted by the physical effects of sin through the millenia.

 

[Genipher]

It wasn't until the 1800's that the Christian Church officially accepted the heliocentric (Sun-centered) system.

I think you nailed it. While I wouldn't refer unto the ordinances of heaven as simplicity since by seeing, it wasn't seen until 1543 AD that the Sun stands fixed in the center of heaven yet spins in different directions.

Again, looking at the full context of those scripted see that the sun standing still was a unique event that had never happened before (or since then). It was unnatural. God working outside His designed order...as is His right.

 

[Genez]

I think you don't give Eve enough credit.
A&E sinned together, were equally sinners and jointly procreated their progeny.
The body of Jesus began as a clean zygote, incorporating neither Mary's egg nor Joseph's sperm,
both of which would be tainted by the physical effects of sin through the millenia.

Genesis 3:15 says he will be from the woman's "seed."
Not some implanted zygote.

And, Mary was from the line of David.
The Messiah was to be a son of David.
A clean zygote would have eliminated that possibility.

 

[markss]

Like most folks you assume the HS implanted only the sperm, but because Mary was a sinner,
it makes more sense IMO that the HS implanted a clean/untainted zygote.

I agree.

Much love!

 

[Genez]

I agree.

Much love!

What does Genesis 3:15 tell us?

And I will put enmity​

Between you and the woman,​

And between your seed and her Seed;​

He shall bruise your head,​

And you shall bruise His heel.”​

Point: Man can also be called a seed of Satan, because the fallen nature man reflects that of the fallen angels.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. ​

He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth ​

in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44​

​

​

grace and peace ..............​

 

[Lovette]

God made the dust, too.
Yes, God the Son became mortal/incarnate/dust and died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity made in the image of A&E.
Adam returned to dust; Jesus resurrected. I still see a false equivalence.

Lord Jesus returned to dust too, no false equivalence. He couldn't have resurrected without returning to dust first.

This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. (Lk. 23:52-53)

 

[Lovette]

In order for Jesus to represent mankind in Adam, He had to come through the line of Adam. Had He come outside of the line of Adam, He would have represented a whole other line of humanity. God could have started another line of humanity but chose instead to redeem and perfect the fallen line of humanity that was in Adam...those who are naturally in Adam but spiritually in Christ.

Yep, and this was foreshadowed in the OT. After the golden calf incident, God intended to wipe out the Israelites and start anew, Moses interceded with a plea in defense of not the Israelites, but God's reputation - God would be a joke and a failure to other nations, knowing His deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt, only to let them die out in the wilderness. In the end, though, God did let the Israelites die out in the wilderness, but only that generation out of Egypt, the next generation born in the wilderness got to march into the Promised Land. That symbolizes spiritual birth. It is no coincidence that Joshua, the chosen leader, shares the same name with Jesus, "God saves."

 

[JesusLives]

No.

That's my answer too. Jesus is the only sinless one on this earth.

 

[markss]

What does Genesis 3:15 tell us?

And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And between your seed and her Seed;He shall bruise your head,And you shall bruise His heel.”

That is a great question, considering the woman has no seed.

The only "seed of a woman" Eve could have had was what God would have given to her. Clue: This Seed is referred to as He, and is ascribed activity.

This is more than just a sperm cell.

Much love!

 

[Genez]

That is a great question, considering the woman has no seed.

The only "seed of a woman" Eve could have had was what God would have given to her. Clue: This Seed is referred to as He, and is ascribed activity.

This is more than just a sperm cell.

Much love!

I was not talking about a sperm cell.

No one back then could see an ovum to know what it was.

So language of accommodation was used to reveal that no human male activity was to be involved.
We know that Jesus had to be a fully human male, and also carrying the genes from the line of David.

You want to argue that away? Go ahead. Be my guest.

 

[GWH]

Genesis 3:15 says he will be from the woman's "seed."
Not some implanted zygote.

And, Mary was from the line of David.
The Messiah was to be a son of David.
A clean zygote would have eliminated that possibility.

Genesis did not know about zygotes.
God could have easily made that possible (Matt. 3:9).

 

[GWH]

Lord Jesus returned to dust too, no false equivalence. He couldn't have resurrected without returning to dust first.

This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. (Lk. 23:52-53)

Yes, Luke 23:52-53.
No, the body of Jesus did NOT became dust in less than 72 hours!
So, yes, false equivalence; Jesus, not Adam, is the Alpha and Omega.

 

[Lovette]

Yes, Luke 23:52-53.
No, the body of Jesus did NOT became dust in less than 72 hours!
So, yes, false equivalence; Jesus, not Adam, is the Alpha and Omega.

Yes it did, His resurrected body is a brand new one. This was proven by the Turin Shroud if you believe its authenticity. Also, if it was his corpses being miraculously mended and revived, like the resurrection of Lazarus, the shroud should've been spread out when the Lord rose and stretch out of it. But according to John's account, in the tomb the shroud was neatly folded, not spread out. There was none of his remains in there, therefore he did become dust in less than 72 hours.

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. (Jn. 20:6-7)

 

[GWH]

Yes it did, His resurrected body is a brand new one. This was proven by the Turin Shroud if you believe its authenticity. Also, if it was his corpses being miraculously mended and revived, like the resurrection of Lazarus, the shroud should've been spread out when the Lord rose and stretch out of it. But according to John's account, in the tomb the shroud was neatly folded, not spread out. There was none of his remains in there, therefore he did become dust in less than 72 hours.

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. (Jn. 20:6-7)

Well, now we are on a new topic about resurrected bodies.
Certainly, ours will be new ones possibly from dust, but the Bible does not indicate that was the case for Jesus.
Not sure about the Shroud of Turin. I tend to doubt it but am keeping an open mind.
Paul described resurrected bodies as "spiritual", but did not go into detail about supernatural capabilities.
I envision heaven in terms of Eden, but enjoying food without needing to

 

[Genipher]

Yes it did, His resurrected body is a brand new one. This was proven by the Turin Shroud if you believe its authenticity. Also, if it was his corpses being miraculously mended and revived, like the resurrection of Lazarus, the shroud should've been spread out when the Lord rose and stretch out of it. But according to John's account, in the tomb the shroud was neatly folded, not spread out. There was none of his remains in there, therefore he did become dust in less than 72 hours.

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. (Jn. 20:6-7)

I would think that all the shroud proves is that Jesus disappeared, not that he turned to dust. Being folded gives the impression that someone (possibly Jesus) got up and, yknow, folded it.

Also, if he turned to dust and had a brand new body why did he still have the scars from the crucifixion?

 

[JayWalker]

I said nothing about giving anyone a " free ride "

Then do get so defensive.

Getting defensive to the point you have to try and convince others you were not thinking that makes others think you were actually thinking that

This is just a free exchange of thoughts and ideas so relax. It's not like there's going to be a pop quiz or anything.

 

[Dino246]

No, because He was devoted to the Father He could never sin.

If Jesus could not sin, His temptation was a sham.