When the Bible talks about our sin nature, it always refers to Adam — not Eve (see Romans 5). We all sinned in Adam. Therefore it is not necessary to make Mary out to be sinless, since the human sin nature is passed on through the male line.

Romans 5 has a lot to say about where our sin nature comes from — through "one man," Adam. It's interesting to note that Eve is never mentioned in this context. 1 Corinthians 15:22 also mentions the parallel between Adam (death) and Christ (life). It doesn't say "in Adam and Eve, all die." No — just Adam.

Jesus took his flesh from a sinful person.

Yes, His physical flesh — not His nature.

To me that seems inconsistent with the purity of Christ. It a way it seems almost like saying sin touched him in some way...just doesn't sit right with me.

Edit: I just saw your comment Whats and its not my intention to disturb. I was merely addressing the notion that in the view of some people here Mary was a sinful person. I do not hold this position personally, but in examining that perspective we see that they seem to hold the notion that since Jesus took His body only from His mother in this case that he recieved his body from a sinful person. I was just noting how this to me seemed incompatible with who Christ was. My apologies for any consternation I caused by not communicating that clearly.

JBC

I'm a little sad we seem to have moved on entirely from the subject of Jesus/God laughing. I didn't think that conversation was really over; Jesus is 100% God, absolutely, but as God laughs in the Bible why shouldn't Christ? And so on.

I was going to bring it up again, but you beat me too it. Anyway, I think part of the problem was we sort of were discussing different things or anyway different aspects of the same things. I think we all agree that God laughs and that laughing in itself is not sinful. I think Whatziznehm had the right idea. We’re not talking about “funny and slanderous depictions, ideas, and anecdotes that don't take God seriously.” There are so many different kinds of humor and laughter. The NEW OXFORD AMERICAN Dictionary hu•mor 1 the quality of being amusing or comic, esp. as expressed in literature or speech. In that case, I’m sure it was rather amusing to the original listeners the exaggerations (or word pictures if you prefer) that Jesus used. The speck / log example, in particular, has become so common place that the humor it has rather been lost. Another thing to consider is the purpose of the humor. Humor can be used to prove a point or skimpily for entertainment. As far as I am aware, there is no indication in the Bible that Jesus used humor to entertain. He didn’t warm the crowd up with a few jokes before telling his parables. I don’t think that laughter excludes seriousness or that seriousness excludes laughter. Have you ever seen someone simile but not look completely happy? It is possible to express amusement but not be completely happy. I think it was probably like that for Jesus. His task was always before him but that didn’t mean he didn’t express mirth at times. To me, in the Narnia movies, Aslan often looks happy and sad at the same time. Even when he appears after he has risen from the dead there seems to be a sort of sadness about him as well as a happiness. Anyway that could be what Jesus was like too. In the end, we can’t know for sure whether he laughed or not. The Bible doesn’t tell us. We’ll have to ask him when we get to heaven if things like that will even matter anymore. ChirsTian220 mentioned Abraham’s and Sarah’s laughing. I know that Sarah’s laughing was along the lines of “yeah right, as if that would happen. You’ve got to be joking.” I always assumed that Abraham’s laughter was of the same sort. Then I read this commentary that says, “Abraham showed great joy; he laughed, it was a laughter of delight, not of distrust.” I would be interested in knowing what others think about the motive behind Abraham’s laughter.

And do you really think a baby who doesn’t know how to talk yet knows right from wrong?

This rather depends what you mean by “baby.” If you go just on knowing how to talk, they definitely do have some sense of right and wrong before they can talk. I occasionally sub in a toddler room, and I’ve seen them do something wrong that they clearly know is wrong. Often they can’t speak yet except perhaps a few isolated words. How do I know they know it is wrong? I can tell by the look on their faces. Obviously they don’t have the same knowledge an older child or adult would have but they do know that some things are “right” and others are “wrong.” They know it is wrong if another child takes a toy from them and will scream when that happens. They don’t seem to understand or choose to ignore that it is wrong for them to go up to other children and take their toys.

During the course of discussion, it has come up that some people think they are Christians when they really are not. I think this also has to do with Wagga’s example about the man who thought he was doing what God wanted. Jesus mentions that some people will come to him and he will say that he doesn’t know them and they will be surprised because they did things in his name. In other words, it doesn’t seem that one knowing one has sinned will necessarily let one of from being punished. As for people who think they are Christians but are not, how does one know if one is really Christian or just thinks one is?

This is sort of related but a little off topic. I’ve always assumed that whenever God talked to people in the Old Testament it was God the Father. But then I read these footnotes in my Bible:

Genesis 16:7 "The Angel of the Lord" or "of God," or "of His presence" is readily identified with the Lord God (Gen. 16:11, 13; 22:11, 12; 31:11, 13; Exod. 3:1-6 and other passages). But it is obvious that the "Angel of the Lord" is a distinct person in Himself from God the Father (Gen. 24:7; Exod. 23:20; Zech. 1:12, 13 and other passages). Nor does the "Angel of the Lord" appear again after Christ came in human form. He must of necessity be One of the "three-in-one" Godhead. The "Angel of the Lord" is the visible Lord God of the Old Testament, as Jesus Christ is of the New Testament. Thus His deity is clearly portrayed in the Old Testament. The Cambridge Bible observes, "There is a fascinating forecast of the coming Messiah, breaking through the dimness with amazing consistency, at intervals from Genesis to Malachi. Abraham, Moses, the slave girl Hagar, the impoverished farmer Gideon, even the humble parents of Samson, had seen and talked with Him centuries before the herald angels proclaimed His birth in Bethlehem."

And

Genesis 18:10 One of the three guests was the Lord, and since God the Father was never seen in bodily form (John 1:18), only the "Angel of the covenant," Christ Himself, can be meant here; see especially Gen. 18:22 and also the footnote on Gen. 16:7.

Now I am a little confused. Is it always the Messiah that talks with people in the Old Testament or does God the Father talk to people too? In other words how does one know when “Lord” is mentioned to whom it refers? The reason I mention this is sort of related is that it might have some bearing on whether or not Jesus laughs.

Romans 5 has a lot to say about where our sin nature comes from — through "one man," Adam. It's interesting to note that Eve is never mentioned in this context. 1 Corinthians 15:22 also mentions the parallel between Adam (death) and Christ (life). It doesn't say "in Adam and Eve, all die." No — just Adam.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but I'm a tad bit confused by this thought process. Is it possible that when Paul is referencing Adam he is speaking of humanity as a whole? I mean when we reference all of humanity we tend to refer to it as "mankind", not as "mankind and womankind", and as woman was essentially pulled directly from man (via Adam's rib), the two are practically inseparable. To suggest that sin isn't passed on via women is a little puzzling to me as every single one of us sin, both male and female. Mary had a human father, and thus she was not exempt from any sin nature...at least the Bible does not indicate one way or another. As Christ is the only one who never sinned it is safe to assume that Mary did sin at some point or another.

By the same token your argument does hold water in the sense that Christ did not have a human father. He received his genetics directly from the Holy Spirit and that must account for why He never sinned. I've never heard this argument before and I always took the story of Christ's conception purely at face value without ever really thinking of the "why" before.

If I might swerve on the topic ever so gently, something I've always wondered about was if Christ inherited any of the genetic traits of Mary, such as hair color, eye color, a widow's peak, etc. And for any trait He did not inherit from her can we hypothesize that perhaps (and this is far fetched, I admit) He may have gotten those traits directly from God the Father? Is it reasonable to assume that God may have physical traits that were passed on directly to Christ? I'm no science whiz, but in school when we were studying genetic traits passed on by parents one gene tends to be stronger than another...if mom has green eyes and dad has brown eyes, for instance, Dad's genes for brown eyes may be stronger and so the children will have brown eyes. Follow? Just a slight tangent, since we are discussing a mildly related topic and I have, as I said, always been curious about it. My wife's pastor up in Wisconsin is left handed (like I am) and he was joking with me one day that he wanted to write a thesis paper on his belief that Christ was left-handed as well. Hey, we're the only ones in our "right" mind.

As far as I am aware, there is no indication in the Bible that Jesus used humor to entertain. He didn’t warm the crowd up with a few jokes before telling his parables. I don’t think that laughter excludes seriousness or that seriousness excludes laughter. Have you ever seen someone simile but not look completely happy? It is possible to express amusement but not be completely happy. I think it was probably like that for Jesus. His task was always before him but that didn’t mean he didn’t express mirth at times. To me, in the Narnia movies, Aslan often looks happy and sad at the same time. Even when he appears after he has risen from the dead there seems to be a sort of sadness about him as well as a happiness. Anyway that could be what Jesus was like too. In the end, we can’t know for sure whether he laughed or not. The Bible doesn’t tell us. We’ll have to ask him when we get to heaven if things like that will even matter anymore.

I'm glad you pointed this out, esp "there is no indication in the Bible that Jesus used humor to entertain" and "His task was always before Him." I tried to say this in my earlier post and failed. And I liked your Narnia parallel.

Abraham: I think his laughter was along the same lines as Sarah's, i.e. “yeah right, as if that would happen. You’ve got to be joking.” Why? After Abraham laughed, he "said in his heart, 'Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" [Gen 17] God then reminded Abraham of His promise to give them a son. Behavior of babies and toddlers: I'm sure you know more than me.

Someone said in a Bible footnote [gotta look that up tonight] that "angel of the Lord" always refers to the pre-incarnate Christ. And there are a few pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. But this phrase doesn't appear every time God talks to people, only sometimes. "Lord" depends on the spelling.
A. "LORD" [all caps] means "Jehovah, the existing One." It's the name of redemption.
B. "Lord" [only L uppercase] means "Adonai":

1) my lord, lord
a) of men
b) of God
2) Lord - title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence

@jbc003: Mary was sinful. Why? She was born with a sin nature, as were both her parents. God just chose Mary as a vessel to bring Jesus into the world. Yes, she submitted to what God asked of her, but she could have chosen not to.

@wisewoman: I thought the reason Paul compared Adam to Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 was to make the point that Christ is the new Adam, and to contrast death and life, not to say that sin came from man alone, without women. Where would this world be without women? In 1 Timothy [2], Paul says, "Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Genesis 3 makes it clear that both Adam and Eve sinned, Eve first. Every person conceived, both men and women, has a sin nature.

EDIT

Is it possible that when Paul is referencing Adam he is speaking of humanity as a whole? I mean when we reference all of humanity we tend to refer to it as "mankind", not as "mankind and womankind", and as woman was essentially pulled directly from man (via Adam's rib), the two are practically inseparable. To suggest that sin isn't passed on via women is a little puzzling to me as every single one of us sin, both male and female. Mary had a human father, and thus she was not exempt from any sin nature...at least the Bible does not indicate one way or another. As Christ is the only one who never sinned it is safe to assume that Mary did sin at some point or another.

I wrote my response to wisewoman before reading yours, Shadowlander. I fully agree with the "mankind" = "humanity" argument.
/EDIT

It's easy to feel superior to people who don't like Shakespeare, isn't it? But prideful. I struggle with this with people who don't like to read at all; I must be so much better educated and smarter than them, right? I have to repent of this frequently...

The only reason I brought up Shakespeare was because someone I was witnessing to online did. He didn't like the KJV, or Shakespeare either, and wanted me to find another Bible version. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding Shakespeare, too. But I keep plugging away.

However, no amount of positive environmental influences will make a child choose God. Only a sovereign work of God in that child's heart will do that. God may use a godly upbringing to prepare a person for that work He will do — or He may choose to work in other ways. The beautiful thing is that His will is always done, no matter what our background!

Agreed. Parents can do everything right and still have a wayward child, whom God may or may not draw to Him. Are the parents at fault? No, even though some may blame them and ask, "What did you do wrong?" It's just the child's sinful nature at work, and evident for all to see. Also, some parents can do everything wrong and still have a child who seeks and finds God. Does it happen this way all the time? No. I think environment matters. But faithful prayer and a godly witness matter more.

@Draugin: you asked about sin, what it is, and where it comes from. I like Watz's answer: "sin is everything that is not aligned with and serving God!" Sin is disobedience to God. Sin is lawlessness. And it starts with a sinful nature inherited from Adam and Eve. That sinful nature in us produces sinful thoughts, desires, and acts. For a Christian, "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" [Romans 14]. That's a much broader definition!

I don't recall Eve saying "no" to anything...wasn't that what caused the Fall in the first place? Her inability to say "no" to the serpent (and Adam's inability to say "no" to her)?

Well, Eve basically said "no" to God, i.e. disobeyed, by saying "yes" to the serpent. Adam did the same. There's no in-between.

To me that seems inconsistent with the purity of Christ. It a way it seems almost like saying sin touched him in some way...just doesn't sit right with me.

Jesus lived in a sinful, fallen world. He ate and drank with "tax collectors and sinners." He lived each day around sinners and in their homes. Sin was all around him. It "touched Him" (as you put it?) all the time. Not His nature--He was still perfect of course.

But I don't see why Mary being a sinner (just like the rest of us) doesn't bode well with you. The ONLY One who is perfect is God. Mary was not God. Therefore, she wasn't perfect.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

As it is written: “ There is none righteous, no, not one

Are these scriptures not in your Roman-Catholic 'Bible', Jbc?

Hey, we're the only ones in our "right" mind.

Oh dear.
I don't know--about your question on Jesus' physical traits... Hm. Even if some of them were 'directly from God' as you put it--we have no clue what either Jesus or God looks like... So of course, it's only a matter of interest. I forget the one verse that I'm thinking of right now... Who knows if it even fits the topic, I can't remember all of it either.

To me that seems inconsistent with the purity of Christ. It a way it seems almost like saying sin touched him in some way...just doesn't sit right with me.

Jesus lived in a sinful, fallen world. He ate and drank with "tax collectors and sinners." He lived each day around sinners and in their homes. Sin was all around him. It "touched Him" (as you put it?) all the time. Not His nature--He was still perfect of course.

Excellent points, QS. Having a sinful, human mother doesn't make Jesus a sinner. His nature is perfect. Interestingly, I read somewhere that when Jesus touched a leper [Matthew 8], He became ceremoniously [not morally] unclean. Does it matter? Not really. He didn't sin, of course. So why did Jesus touch the leper? To let him know that He didn't think him unclean. Instead of the leper's touch making Jesus unclean, Jesus' touch made the leper clean! Jesus allowed a woman with an issue of blood, which would have made her ceremoniously unclean, "touch[] the hem of His garment" [Matt 9]. But again, this touch made her clean, not vice-versa. And think about all the miracles Jesus did on the Sabbath! To the Pharisees, sin. To Jesus, compassion and upholding the law of "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19]. One time Jesus and His disciples walked through a field and picked grain on the Sabbath. They were hungry. To the Pharisees, sin. But not to Jesus. Check out Deuteronomy 23:25 and Matthew 12:3-8. "For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" [Hebrews 4]. The only time Jesus was "unclean" was when He became sin for us on the cross: the Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice.

But I don't see why Mary being a sinner (just like the rest of us) doesn't bode well with you. The ONLY One who is perfect is God. Mary was not God. Therefore, she wasn't perfect.

Perfection [moral, etc] is an attribute of God ALONE--just like omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. In Jesus Christ, God gives us His righteousness and calls us perfect, and when we stand before Him we will be perfect. But what's the source? God.

Yes indeed Christ lived in a fallen sinful world and spent time with sinners. Thats different than having it in your very skin isn't it? All I'm saying is I think the notion that Christ took his flesh from a sinful person diminishes who He is.

Queen Susan I would kindly ask you not to put Bible in quotations. I have already said that we use the same Bible that you do. Of course the book of Romans is in the Bible.

As you noted in your verse it says, "Death came to all..." Yet we know that Eliajah was taken up in a chairot of fire, and we know that Enoch walked with God. These two individuals did not 'die' as far as we know from Scripture. Does that prove that verse false? Of course not.

Edit:

Tell me. Before the fall was Adam perfect? Was Eve? Did this somhow detract from the glory of God. By no means. I think you are confusing perfection as a creature and perfection as God...which is infinitely higher. There is a real difference.

JBC

Thank you for the definitions about Mennonites/Anabaptists and Gnosticism. I can see how they might tie into beliefs that could be regarded as religious fundamentalism today - maybe.

As for Jesus laughing, I'm sure he was allowed a discrete smile or more on occasions, and whilst He may not have used humour to entertain, he certainly used humour to drive a point home. Take for example the rich man who wanted to go to heaven, whom he advised to give all he had to the poor, and thus become one of them. That is sarcasm if anything was going to be. You just know the rich man can't do that. Because then, he, too, would be struggling to survive, and unlike the poor people, he will be called an idiot, into the bargain.

You don't need to give everything to the poor to become poor. Such are the chances of life it would be very easy to become poor anyway. The rate of exchange doesn't matter much within a country, but it becomes of enormous importance outside that country, when the magnificent amount allotted to spending money starts dwindling to nothing when in wealthier countries, whose currency is worth at least twice as much, and all that separates you from the Bosnian beggar asking for money for the sick brother needing an urgent operation, is the knowledge you have a plane ticket back home, a credit card and pre-arranged lodgings and transport. Especially when one of your party suddenly needs first aid the following day....

So how does Jesus distinguish between his elect and those who aren't? Just check out Matthew 25, which I read this morning (at church, during the sermon ). It is quite a long passage so I won't quote it here. But it concerns 6 of the 7 corporal acts of mercy. That is to say, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, give shelter to the homeless, clothe the naked, tend to the sick and visit those in prison. The seventh, added later on, is to bury the dead. Jesus said, that to do these things to the least of others, is to do it to him as well, you see. And, as he said also, 'By their fruits he will know them'.

What about babies? Maybe you are right. Some will go to heaven and some not, depending on their parents' beliefs. But let's not consider the babies, themselves, poor little mites that they may be. How about considering the poor grieving parents? I doubt I would be game to tell a grieving, heartbroken mother that her poor little one won't go to Heaven because the poor little darling has not been christened, let alone made a commitment to Jesus.

It happens I am blessed to live in a country whose homeless don't necessarily beg as they do in France or UK, such as at tourist spots like Notre Dame, L' Eiffel Tour ou Montmartre, presque le Moulin Rouge. (oops I slid into French ) Australia is founded on Christian principles, even if we don't customarily sing that verse of our national anthem, and which looks after everyone, out of our taxes, regardless of beliefs, other than Christian. We have a taxpayer funded health scheme which we expect will look after us in emergencies, from out-of-hours minor first aid to hospital care in truly life threatening situations. As well as government social security, charitable organisations like the Red Cross/Red Crescent, Sallies (Salvation Army), Anglicare, the Wesley Mission, the Smith Family, or Vinnies (St Vincent de Paul) or B'nai Brith (Jewish charity) assist in feeding, clothing and housing those in need, whatever their background, from our own sometimes less than generous contributions. And Australia, itself, has not stinted aid to those overseas affected by such natural disasters as the recent earthquakes in Sumatra and Samoa.

And I am equally certain that countries like UK and France also have such aid available, despite the obviously Muslim beggar who approached us in London. She asked for food, opening a palm of change, including a 2 pound coin. In the middle of the day in the middle of Ramadan. It happened we did have some food with us which cost us somewhat less than the 2 pound coin she already had in her palm. It was only an unopened bag of chips made from parsnip, carrots and other root vegetables.

What would she have done with such food, do you think? Keep it for later on? Eat it on the spot, if she was hungry, in defiance of her obvious beliefs? Blamed us for pushing food onto her at the wrong time of year? Or would she have thrown away the food because it was not halal? The sort of change I could have given her would barely buy a pair of undies let alone new clothes, for the forthcoming Eid ut Fitr, but as she was already in full Muslim regalia, including what passed for a niqab, she was already rather less naked than I was myself, on such a relatively warm London day.

So I have a dilemma with these 7 acts of mercy, especially the sixth. When I live somewhere that does so much for its citizens on my behalf, ably assisted by such charitable organisations and community groups such as Rotary and Lions, with my full support, do I assist every beggar that approaches me?

Do I really want to visit in prison the Australian murderer of British backpackers? The very conspirators who were tried in UK when we were over there, whose plot to sabotage planes was responsible for the heavy security arrangements needed even to get on a plane overseas? Or the sorts of thugs responsible for rapes, murders and robbery here? And yet I have met those who would, not necessarily those of Christian faith.

I would kindly ask you not to put Bible in quotations. I have already said that we use the same Bible that you do. Of course the book of Romans is in the Bible.

Ok, I apologize--I was unsure as to what the Roman Catholics used, etc. I didn't mean to be demeaning in my attitude, I was just unsure.

All I'm saying is I think the notion that Christ took his flesh from a sinful person diminishes who He is.

Hm, interesting. I don't think anything can "diminish" God's nature. Especially not something He Himself chose. ...

As you noted in your verse it says, "Death came to all..." Yet we know that Eliajah was taken up in a chairot of fire, and we know that Enoch walked with God. These two individuals did not 'die' as far as we know from Scripture. Does that prove that verse false? Of course not.

And your point is...?
You could also say that God said: "In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." (In relation to eating the forbidden fruit.) Did they literally die that day? No. But they died spiritually.
I'm pretty sure that Romans 5:12 is saying that spiritual death spread to all men. We all died spiritually. We all were dead in our sin.

Before the fall was Adam perfect? Was Eve? Did this somhow detract from the glory of God. By no means. I think you are confusing perfection as a creature and perfection as God...which is infinitely higher. There is a real difference.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve were both sinless, yes. This didn't at all detract from God's glory. I wasn't trying to say that human's being sinless would. God is omnipotent, and we as humans aren't and can't be.
My point was, God is the only sinless Being. We can be viewed as righteous in God's eyes, yes. But we can never be sinless on this earth. And Mary couldn't have either.

Hi QS,

What of the angels, are they not naturally perfect? (the ones that didn't fall of course). All that I'm saying is that it is entirely possible and we know from Scripture for a being to be naturally perfect. I'm not talking about being omnipotent...which is rightly an attribute of God alone. I'm just talking about simple natural perfection. I think sometimes when discussing this topic people like to create straw men to knock down.

I don't necessarily expect anyone to agree with me. All I'm hoping to accomplish is greater understanding.

What I do find odd though is the notion that God somehow cannot do it. God did so many miraculous things in Scripture. While people may disagree I sometimes don't understand the strong negative reaction.

JBC

I'm still waiting for a verse where it says Mary was sinless, or even implies such a thing.

Hi Warrior,

It can be found in the greeting of the Angel Gabriel, "Hail full of grace..." It can also be found in what Mary herself said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my being rejoices in God my Savior." Later she rightly notes, "All generations will call be blessed for the Almighty has done great things for me and holy is His Name."

JBC

jbc, none of those verses even imply that Mary was sinless. Given the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, you and I can be said to be "full of Grace" in at least a very similar way to Mary. Mary was a special person, elected by God as the vessel whereby He took on human form and thus she is theotokos, but none of that implies that she was sinless.

TBG

Angels can be perfect in that way because they don't automatically inherit original sin from Adam.
All humans (except Jesus alone) do. All humans (except Jesus) are naturally sinful. All humans (except Jesus) sin.

While people may disagree I sometimes don't understand the strong negative reaction.

People give a negative reaction to this, because they believe the Bible says that the only sinless human is Jesus.
Therefore, when they hear something that contradicts with what they believe the Bible says, their reaction is bound to be negative since they believe the other person going against God's word.

TBG stated my thoughts precisely, so I won't repeat them.