Posted on 07/29/2013 7:55:48 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
A non-Christian asked if we teach that Jesus was sinless because he did not have a human father, wasn't his human mother, Mary, sinful? Why wasn't her sin passed on to her son, Jesus?
Answer:
You ask an important question about the sinlessness and perfection of Jesus Christ.
As you suggest, if there is any way in which Christ partakes of sin, he is disqualified from being the only redeemer of God’s elect (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 21). The testimony of Scripture about this is clear. Hebrews says that Christ was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sinning (Heb. 4:15). Christ challenged his adversaries to prove that he had sinned and they could not (John 8:46). As the apostle Paul put it, “For our sake he made him [Christ] to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21, cf. 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5). He is a high priest unlike any other who is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). His title as the Lamb of God (John 1:29) also draws our attention to his innocence.
The early church thought deeply about this as it formulated clear statements about Jesus Christ having two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, yet being one person. Christ unites in himself uniquely and in an unrepeatable way, this union (called the hypostatic union) of the human and the divine. This is the mystery of the Incarnation that the creeds of the church confess.
The way in which God answers your question is in the mystery of the virgin birth. The Scriptures begin from, what one theologian terms, “above” (Donald Macleod). John 1 or Philippians 2 show this movement from the eternal Son of God to the incarnate Son of God. This is how the Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes it:
Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin. (Q. 22)
As Matthew described it, Mary was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (1:18), and then the angel explained it to Joseph: “that which is conceived in her [Mary] is from the Holy Spirit” (1:20). The explanation to Mary herself, in response to her “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34), leaves any human agency out of the incarnation in the normal way of conception, for the angel tells Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be called ‘holy’—the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Without further description of how this would occur, the Bible testifies that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (the same idea as the cloud which overshadowed the Mount of Transfiguration) in such a way that she indeed became the bearer of the Holy One of God (Gal. 4:4); and her offspring, Jesus Christ, remained without sin. God does not specify in greater detail than this how the conception of Jesus by-passed Mary’s own sinfulness to preserve Christ’s sinlessness, but the rest of Scripture, as I indicated above, affirms that Christ did not inherit our sin nature. He came to be the Second Adam (Rom. 5) who could forgive sins because he himself was both the One offended and himself sinless.
The glory of the grace found in Jesus Christ is that though he was without sin, yet he had pity upon sinners so as to die in their place while we were enemies, ungodly, and sinful (Rom. 5:6, 8, 10). We need a Savior who is fully human to bear patiently with us, yet is able to atone for our sin as the final and perfect sacrifice. The sinlessness of Christ makes a passage like Isaiah 53:9–11 so marvelous in that Christ had no deceit in his mouth and by his death he made many to be accounted righteous.
I hope this is of some help.
If Christ prexists with the Father how is he created in Mary’s womb as a new creature?
Human blood cells, like every other cell in the body, have 46 chromosomes, 23 of which are contributed by the father, 23 by the mother. A female egg always has X (female) chromosomes, whereas a sperm has either an X OR Y chromosome, so that an XX fertilzed egg, a zygote, is a Female, or an XY is a Male.
The Bible doesn’t tell us anything about the genetics of Jesus, however, we do know he was a normal male (as he was circumcised on the 8th day, and, was allowed into the Temple to worship (as only normal males were)).
I know of no scientific fact that makes “the blood contributed by the father,” as again, blood cells contain XX or XY chromosomes like all other human cells. [One reason why there are no real “trans-sexuals” as without artificial hormone treatments and surgery, everyone is either male or female—as they were born....and ALL their cells continue to have either XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes(discounting very rare people with chromosome deformity/disease).] Children can and do have different blood types (A+, O-, etc.) than their fathers too.
If one were to guess—at the mystery of Jesus conception He would probably have XO chromosomes, where O is that unique set of 23 chromosomes created directly by the Holy Spirit. As someone indicated above, Paul descibes Adam as the culpable sinner in the Fall...and Eve as merely decieved... Hence perhaps our sin nature is actually passed on by the Human father’s chromosome...of which every human in history has had, coming down from Adam....except Jesus.
The creedal & biblical understanding though is simply, mysteriously, that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, one Person with two natures.
Again though, we need to remain uncertain as to how Jesus conception came about....since Holy Scripture doesn’t say, and leaves it a mystery. This is where Rome has made a mistake—by proposing HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES (the New Testament) an idea of Mary’s own immaculate conception—to try to explain, what God’s Word does not. Mary’s immaculate conception really is pure myth.
Virtually every one of the Church Fathers you quote can also be shown have believed specific heterodox things—which neither the Roman Church, the E. Orthodox, nor classical Protestatants teach today.
Besides that—in none of your quotes is it proven, however virtuous and admirable they understood Mary to be, that they believed she was BORN without sin......
Interesting because AB is the referred to as the UNIVERSAL ACCEPTOR.
BTW, the blood on the Shroud of Turin is said to be AB also.
His humanity was added to his Deity at the Incarnation.
So incarnation took place at the moment of conception with the egg in Mary’s womb.
As opposed to . . . ?
Irrelevant. There's a reason to stick with the inspired word of God. People stray.
Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.
So if Catholics insist that Mary was sinless because of the use of kecharitomene they must also believe that Stephen was also sinless since the version of the word charitos along with the word plErEs gives Stephen the same “full of grace” as Jesus but does not give that to Mary.
Scriptural reference please. Book, chapter, verse.
Not so. Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.
You've not been drinking your Kool-Aid®. He may give you a quote from Ignoblius or Hippocampus or somebody but . . . Bible verse . . that's a tough one there.
Quote your points with scripture citations....and I will agree to what is written. Offer me man’s words, popish or otherwise, and I’ll still defer to the Word of God....
You are free to disagree, as am I, it’s the beauty of liberty!
Best;
Where did you get this hoopla from? The blood does mix, which is why sometimes it's fatal for a mother whose blood has the opposite Rh factor status, when the first child's blood sensitises her blood, and her body fights the second child due to her body learning that the child is "foreign". This is aside from the fact that fetal cells enter the mother's circulation, get lodged in different places in the mother's body and thrive, and likewise, mother's cells in the fetus. It's an open connection. It's why when a mother drinks alcohol whilst pregnant, the child gets it, too.
It's astonishing how much folks are willing to perform mental gymnastics to cram reality to bend around their dogma.
I think verse 35 is about as close an explanation as possible
According to Proloevangelium of St. James:
Saint Ann was born in Bethlehem and married Joachim from Nazareth in Galilee. Joachim was a shepherd given the task of supplying the temple of Jerusalem with sheep for sacrifices.
After twenty years of marriage Ann and Joachim had no children. Once, when Joachim overheard ridicule because of their childless state, he is said to have gone into the desert to plead with God to give them a child. After a time of fasting an angel appeared to assure Joachim he and Ann would be given a child they were to name Mary and dedicate to God.
In the meantime Saint Anne wondered where her husband had gone and in her despair at having been barren she prayed while she watched newborn birds in their nests in her garden. She cried out, “Why was I born, Lord?” That is when angel appeared to tell her she would soon give birth to a daughter she was to name Mary. The story continues with Ann and Joachim’s joyous reunion at the golden gate of Jerusalem.
After her birth Ann and Joachim dedicated Mary to God at the temple of Jerusalem and she spent much of her childhood there. When Mary was fourteen they betrothed her to Joseph of Nazareth and so Mary’s story continues with the birth of her son, Jesus, and his life on earth.
The life of Saint Ann and her connection as holy mother of Mary and grandmother of Jesus was very popular to early Christians. In the year 550 a church was built in honor
of St. Anne in Jerusalem. It is believed to be near where Anne, Joachim and Mary lived.
Since the Seventh Century the Greek and Russian Churches have celebrated feasts honoring St. Joachim and St. Ann. The Western Churches began to celebrate the feast of St. Anne in the Sixteenth Century.
The feast of St. Ann is July 26th (western) or July 25th (eastern calendar). There is no mention of Ann in the New Testament. The story of St. Ann comes chiefly from the Protoevangelium of James which only dated back to the second century.
St. Ann, patron saint of mothers and women in labor and minors, is symbolized by Mary in her lap holding the infant Jesus.
This is my, and millions like me, faith and to try to explain it to a thick headed agnostic is very difficult.
“Not so. Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, which literally means “full of grace” and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.”
No, he isn’t. He is described as pleres pistis - Full of faith:
“And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.Full of faith, not of grace.
Look at the source.
This is not truthful in my opinion.
Is so.
The problem arises with the syncretism of goddess worship (the slow invasion of what was once powerful and shoved aside by Christianity). Whether the object of worship is Diana, Athena, Semiramis, Astarte...each and all have tried to elbow their way into Christianity and corrupt it.
This is the tension regarding Mary and her position in the Church. How do we make sure that our honor and devotion to Mother Mary is not subverted by those demon goddesses who seek the same?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.