Thanks for waiting TS. Now to your points.
Yet, I suspect the Holy Spirit was a witness at the time - as indeed Mary probably was as well. In history we also have the witness of both Matthew and Luke who recorded it - and Isaiah who prophesied about it.
I meant human witnesses. We learned about it after the fact, but did not witness it, though we are witnesses for it in that we testify Christ.
...but I don't recall Jesus talking about that either. Nor do I recall any of the disciples or other letters mentioning it too.
Correct. There was no need to. Unlike other miracles, it's main purpose was not to validate that Jesus had come from God, but was needed for the inner mechanics of the plan of salvation.
I am not persuaded that "everything after its kind" is referring to spiritual death or even covenantal death.
I agree. "After its kind" is referring to a state, not to any kind of death. For example, ducks give birth to ducks because "duck" is a state of being. The state of duckness so to speak. Ducks can only reproduce ducks, or to be more precise, ducks can only reproduce others in the same state as they are, and that is the state of duckiness. (Sorry, no better words)
I don't agree that so called original sin is unbiblical. It may well not be the best term for what happened to Adam, but the concept is clear.
We were born in the same state Adam was, but we did not inherit his sin. No one is charged with the sins of their parents.
Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself ”
Jesus' death covers not only sins - all sins past present and future, but also the estate of sin - that which I would term original sin.
Then we agree, but use different terms. I don't call it original sin because first, the term causes confusion, it makes people think we are being charged with Adam's sin, and second, the bible clearly says children do not inherit the sins of their parents.
I am not sure I like the word "hooked", I think I prefer the notion of adoption rather than hooked.
The bible itself used the word adopted, so we have no real disagreement here. "Hooked" referred to how were were adopted into the new line. I could have said "grafted" as Jesus did in John, but our young audience today may not be as familiar with horticulture as Jesus' audience was in His day.
So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)
I am not sure of that line. It sounds rather "out there".
Of course it does. God's plan of salvation is intelligent brilliance. But every point in my argument can be verified with verses. If you ask, I'll cite them.
Jesus was descended from Adam. Luke 3:38.
Luke 3:23 says, And Jesus.....being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.
Jesus did have an earthly mother, her name is Mary.
A mother in the sense that she birthed Him. But I will give you two reasons why Jesus could not have been the genetic child of Mary.
His father was the Holy Spirit. Joseph was his step father.
All true. But if Mary's egg was used for Jesus, then it was the Holy Spirit who fertilized Mary's egg with the other 23 chromosomes, and this would lend credibility to the gross atheist's charge of God having sex with Mary. Jesus' divinity was not because of His genetics. Jesus was divine despite His humanity.
But there is another, more profound reason Mary's egg could not have been used which I will come to shortly.
If you are correct, then Jesus was only Fully God. He was not fully human. (If that is not what you are saying, then please explain more fully how he can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans.)
OK. (I'm so used to people not thinking here that your rational responses are making me swoon) : )
...how he [Jesus] can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans
Was Adam genetically descended from humans? No.
Was Adam genetically human? Yes.
The book of Romans goes to pains to show us that God created a New Line of Humans with Jesus! Fully human, but not from the line of Adam.
2Co 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
If you remember the account in Genesis, Eve was created using the cells of Adam. Thus Eve had the same genetics as Adam. She was essentially a female clone of Adam! (Some interesting thoughts about man and wife being one here!)
And this is the more profound reason Mary's egg could not have been used, Mary's egg was from the same tainted line as Adam.
Gen 2:23 - And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
...I reject (at least until I can be shown otherwise) that it was to demonstrate he was not genetically descended from humans.
But does Jesus need to be descendent from Adam to be human? No, for Adam was fully human and yet not descendent from any humans.
God is able to create ex nihilo, that is, God does not need raw materials to create, He can create from nothing.
You are correct in thinking that Jesus had to be fully human, the bible says so, but you are wrong in thinking that the only way He could be fully human was to use the genes of Adam (or any of his descendants, including Eve)
If our ancestry terminates in Christ and not Adam, then Christians ought not to sin any more. This is not the case.
This very question was posed in the Bible by Paul!
Rom 6:2 - God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
And the full answer deserves a whole thread on its own.
Rom 7:18 - For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Our ancestry has changed, but our corrupt flesh has not.
Instead of going into it now, because it will make an already long post unwieldy, let me suggest some reading material and we can tackle it in another thread or after we have settled most of the current topic.
Read Romans chapters 3 to 7
Yet it is because we remain descended from Adam genetically that we continue to sin.
Rom 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Are you sure? Does the Bible say that it is ancestry of Adam that causes us to sin? Adam was not descendant from any human, and he continued to sin. So did Satan.
We don't need to be descendant from humans to have a tendency to sin. But we can come back to this topic later.
I just cannot come at parts of it. In particular, Jesus not being descended genetically from Adam. Nor that Mary was not his genetic mother. It is true that only in Jesus can we be reconciled back to the Father - and that only by trusting him can we be truly redeemed and have our sins and sin forgiven. We must be born again - because we cannot save ourselves. Yet Jesus is FULLY MAN and he is FULLY GOD. This cannot be the case if Jesus is not descended genetically from Adam.
I hope you will agree I've demonstrated that this can indeed be the case if Jesus, as the Bible tells us, is the first human in a new line created purposely for the adoption of His new sons and daughters in Christ.
Jesus had to be fully human, true, but to be so, He did not have to be descended from Adam.
Adam did not gain the genes that made him human from anyone but God, exactly the same with Jesus. The difference with Jesus is that He was not ONLY human.
Thanks Ethang, for this topic.
And thank again you for your thoughtful reply. I like how you clearly state what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. That forces me to think.
