“The man genetically passes on sin.”
I still have to respectively disagree. If Christ did not have a sinful nature He would not have been fully man in the sense that he would not have been able to “bear the sins” of us all. He resisted sin yes, but was “fully man”. When he said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” he wasn’t saying that there was another without a sinful nature, he meant anyone who, like him, had resisted all sin.
Once he chose to disobey ... his disposition against God was confirmed. Before he had the sinful nature he had the propensity to sin (which he eventually did) ... and during that time he was certainly human. I.e., Adam didnt have a sin nature initially, he was fully human, then he disobeyed and had the sin nature ... and was fully human.
I guess what I am saying is the possession of the sin nature is not germane to what it means to be human.
All tests of genetic law show that the virgin conception should have produced a daughter not a son. “The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the expected duplication of the female X chromosomes. When an artificial egg duplicates its chromosomes in response to artificial stimulation. the result is female” ( animal studies) D. Hocking from his Christology course.
The Holy Spirit who is God, protected His sinlessness, as God the Son entered the womb and the egg of Mary and took upon Himself a human nature in addition to His divine nature (clothed himself in humanity Phil. 2:5-8). There was no change of nature but an addition, adding humanity to His deity.
The female eggs source was of Mary, so Jesus was the real son of Mary, yet it was also the Holy Spirit that generated the life so he was begotten of the Father enjoying a special relationship before and during his earthly existence. Jn.1:18 (begotten meaning eternal generation as the unique son, not begotten as humans are).
Since the sin nature does not come through the female chromosomes but is dependent on the male seed, God did not have to make Mary sinless first. His sinlessness was not dependent on Mary, she didn’t need to be preserved from sin. This is known by Roman Catholics as the immaculate conception and for this reason they claim she was made sinless. The sin nature from Adam is passed on through the man, this is why it was not passed on to Jesus, he had no human father.( in Adam we all sinned, not Eve) For Mary to be without sin then her parents needed to be without sin and then their parents and so on down the line. If one argues that this was a supernatural intervention of God for the immaculate conception of Mary, why not leave it to be applied to Jesus so it will fit the biblical account. If one insists the Mary is without sin then they are denying the virgin conception of which was the supernatural means God chose to keep Jesus sinless. This whole concept of his earthly mother being preserved from original sin militates against the incarnation of the only sinless human to be born. If the Father could make Mary sinless then he could just as well have Jesus sinless- which is exactly what the scripture says. 1 Sam.2:2 says there is “no one holy as the Lord”. In Rev.15:4 we see the redeemed singing the song of the lamb in heaven “You alone are Holy.” In other words only God has intrinsic holiness as His nature. If you are without any sin, then you are Deity. Source: Let us reason.
No, Christ was the second Adam. He did not have a proclivity to sin. This doesn’t mean he wasn’t tempted, nor wasn’t susceptible to temptation. It means he wasn’t scarred in his thinking such that his natural inclination was to miss the mark of God’s Plan.
When God created man in His own image, there was no sin in man. The anthropology of man does not include sin from Creation, but after the fall, he consequences of sin impacted the body, soul, and spirit of man.
Christ, when tempted, in his humanity, remained in fellowship with God the Father, through obedience to the Will of God the Father and the power of God the Holy Spirit indwelling his humanity. It might also be argued He maintained that faith through the Word of God, although He never exalted himself as God as something to be grasped.
A popular Satanic argument is to claim sin is a part of Creation, thereby attributing its source to God, rather than to one who is disobedient to the Will of God. The argument that Christ would not be able to bear all sins unless he had a sin nature appeals to a fundamental misunderstanding as to the meaning of the old sin nature.
The converse is more accurate, in that if Jesus Christ had an old sin nature, then he, solely in his humanity, would not have had a clean account by which he could have redeemed all sins of humanity, past, present, and future, when they were imputed to his account.