Was Mary Sinless?

[markss]

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."

And it shows nothing of the old man can survice into the new man. Our old life was so completely corrupted we need complete renewal.

I've heard it mentioned that Moses was not able to lead the Israelites into the promised land being an illustration of the fact that the Law can't save.

Much love!

 

[markss]

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

That's a great point, if God could make children of Abraham from stones, then He can make children of Adam from whatever He chooses.

Much love!

 

[Dino246]

Or it was evidence of his Godly nature. Proof of His claims.

Who can convince me of sin? Jesus asked the crowd, the Pharisees must have been seething not having a single accusation to bring!

Tested and proven, is how I see this.

Much love!

"Tested"... really? If Jesus could not sin, how exactly was He "tested"? Again, if He could not sin, any such "test" was a sham.

 

[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!

Of course, it was a "He."

The one who crushes the serpent's head will be the Messiah who will be born of a woman.
The seed of the woman would be used of God to produce that "He."

But sin entered the world through one man. (man's sperm)

The Ovum of women does not transfer the sin nature, the man's sperm does.

That is why Jesus could have no human father.
Mary was a virgin as proof that the father was not from a fallen man.
God produced all perfect unfallen genetic material to fertilize Mary's ovum.

And, Jesus was born as Adam had been created.
The Second Adam was born!

Thus also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam ​

became a life-giving spirit. But the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. ​

The first man is from the earth, made of earth; the second man is from heaven.​

​

1 Corinthians 15:45-47​

​

​

.​

 

[GWH]

Look, there shouldn't be anything controversial to debate. If Jesus hadn't returned to dust, he couldn't have resurrected, since resurrection is God breathing life into dust, just like how he created Adam and how he resurrected the two witnesses. Denial of Jesus's return to dust is denial of his death.

"Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them." (Rev. 11:11)

Look, there shouldn't be anything controversial to debate. If Jesus hadn't returned to dust, he couldn't have resurrected, since resurrection is God breathing life into dust, just like how he created Adam and how he resurrected the two witnesses. Denial of Jesus's return to dust is denial of his death.

"Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them." (Rev. 11:11)

Re "there shouldn't be anything controversial to debate": Yes, that is why I said, "You redefine dust to mean death? Why didn't you say so from the start and save us from this disagreement?!"

Re "If Jesus hadn't returned to dust, he couldn't have resurrected, since resurrection is God breathing life into dust, just like how he created Adam and how he resurrected the two witnesses. Denial of Jesus's return to dust is denial of his death.": Yes, I agree because you define dust as death.

This leaves your comment regarding the meaning of 1Cor. 15:47 as the only thing lacking in our discussion.

 

[GWH]

Of course, it was a "He."

The one who crushes the serpent's head will be the Messiah who will be born of a woman.
The seed of the woman would be used of God to produce that "He."

But sin entered the world through one man. (man's sperm)

The Ovum of women does not transfer the sin nature, the man's sperm does.

That is why Jesus could have no human father.
Mary was a virgin as proof that the father was not from a fallen man.
God produced all perfect unfallen genetic material to fertilize Mary's ovum.

And, Jesus was born as Adam had been created.
The Second Adam was born!

Thus also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam ​

became a life-giving spirit. But the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. ​

The first man is from the earth, made of earth; the second man is from heaven.​

​

1 Corinthians 15:45-47​

​

​

.​

Sin entered the world through both Eve and Adam per Gen. 3, and female DNA would not be untainted by its effects,
which is why Jesus had no human father or mother via sexual procreation but rather was created when the HS
overshadowed Mary by the implantation of a zygote with clean genes.

I think Paul meant to imply Eve's inclusion when speaking of the first Adam and meant to include Adam implicitly
when speaking of Eve's seed.

 

[markss]

The Ovum of women does not transfer the sin nature, the man's sperm does.

Is that so? How would we know that? Are you saying that if we clone a woman, it would be an immaculate conception?

Much love!

 

[markss]

"Tested"... really? If Jesus could not sin, how exactly was He "tested"? Again, if He could not sin, any such "test" was a sham.

It's like this:

1 Peter 1:7 LITV
7) so that the proving of your faith, much more precious than perishing gold, but having been proved through fire, may be found to praise and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

The fire proves our faith is real.

Matthew 13:5-6 LITV
5) And other fell on the stony places where they did not have much earth, and it immediately sprang up because it had no deepness of earth.
6) And the sun rising, it was scorched; and because of having no root, it was dried up.

The afflictions prove these did not have true faith, as they fall away.

Tested and proven. Consider a bar of hardened stainless steel, you can test it all you want, it will continue to show it's hardness. The test proves the nature of that which is being tested, unless it fails the test.

Much love!

 

[Dino246]

It's like this:

1 Peter 1:7 LITV
7) so that the proving of your faith, much more precious than perishing gold, but having been proved through fire, may be found to praise and honor and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

The fire proves our faith is real.

Matthew 13:5-6 LITV
5) And other fell on the stony places where they did not have much earth, and it immediately sprang up because it had no deepness of earth.
6) And the sun rising, it was scorched; and because of having no root, it was dried up.

The afflictions prove these did not have true faith, as they fall away.

Tested and proven. Consider a bar of hardened stainless steel, you can test it all you want, it will continue to show it's hardness. The test proves the nature of that which is being tested, unless it fails the test.

Much love!

You just managed to change the subject.

 

[markss]

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

You brought this up yourself, actaully.

Much love!

 

[JayWalker]

Jesus did not need to have the stone rolled out of the way to get outside the tomb.

That's a moot point because God's Word says the stone was rolled away

Obviously the Lord wanted the stone rolled away and it became so

 

[Dino246]

You brought this up yourself, actaully.

Much love!

No. I was talking about Jesus’ temptation. You changed the subject to the testing of our faith.

 

[Dino246]

That's a moot point because God's Word says the stone was rolled away

Obviously the Lord wanted the stone rolled away and it became so

Likely because it allowed the disciples to see for themselves that He was not there. Had the stone remained in place, they could not have seen.

 

[markss]

No. I was talking about Jesus’ temptation. You changed the subject to the testing of our faith.

I brought in passages which demonstrate the kind of "proving" involved in testing that which does not fail.

And you need not reply if you don't wish to continue this point.

Much love!

 

[Dino246]

I brought in passages which demonstrate the kind of "proving" involved in testing that which does not fail.

You're still missing the point. When steel is tested, it could fail, but good steel doesn't. By implying that Jesus could not sin, you are changing the fundamental nature of the test.

Once an end result is eliminated from possibility, any test regarding that end result becomes irrelevant, and the claim that such a test has been "passed" becomes meaningless.

And you need not reply if you don't wish to continue this point.

It seems like you are trying to dismiss the conversation. If that's your purpose, then you are free to refrain from responding, but don't project that onto me.

 

[markss]

It seems like you are trying to dismiss the conversation. If that's your purpose, then you are free to refrain from responding, but don't project that onto me.

First you comment on me changing the topic, then you comment on my offer to discontinue it. Which do you want?

Much love!

 

[markss]

You're still missing the point. When steel is tested, it could fail, but good steel doesn't. By implying that Jesus could not sin, you are changing the fundamental nature of the test.

OK. So you have a bar of hardened stainless steel, at least, that's what the foundry said when they sold it to you. But how can you know for certain? Let's say, you DO know for certain, how do you show others that it's what it's supposed to be.

You perform hardness testing. You already know it's going to pass, but you test regardless to validate this knowing. Or to show others.

The fundamental nature of hardness testing is that it's an attempt to make a dent in the metal, even though it can't, if the metal is what it is supposed to be.

You seem to be starting with an "unknown", Is this steel actually hardened, I don't know. Is Jesus impeccable, I don't know.

So you can test to determine the nature of what is being tested, and you can test to demonstrate the nature of what is being tested.

Peter would disagree with you on this point of testing even when there is a known result. God allows us to be tested, knowing what the result will be. It shows our nature, proving our faith. To us, to others around us, just like Jesus being tested. Not because the answer was uncertain, but so that we could know the certainty ourselves.

Or so it seems to me.

Much love!

 

[Dino246]

First you comment on me changing the topic, then you comment on my offer to discontinue it. Which do you want?

Much love!

You changed the subject, then you suggested that I drop it.

It sure seems to me that you don't want to discuss the subject.

 

[Genez]

That's a great point, if God could make children of Abraham from stones, then He can make children of Adam from whatever He chooses.

Much love!

Children from Adam?
Must come through Adam.... to be children of Adam.

God does all as He chooses.
God does not choose to contradict his plan.

He chooses not to.

 

[Genez]

You changed the subject, then you suggested that I drop it.

It sure seems to me that you don't want to discuss the subject.

Some in the forum want to control the direction of the narrative.
They do not really know how to discuss it....

Always pulling rabbits out their hat.