To have been or not to have been...

[Greg Logan]

I don't buy original sin.

[Greg Logan]

TJ - I s/h added - I think that is reading WAY too much into the Rom text. There is no ontological sin in scripture. Calvin and Augustine did greatly error.

[TJ]

I don't buy original sin.

Thanks for this additional information, Greg. Do most Unitarians reject the concept of original sin?

Still, I'm not sure that this answers my question. Regardless of one's hamartiology, what remains is that according to the plain reading of Romans 3:10, Jesus is literally the only man that exists in an absolutely righteous state, correct? Why couldn't he also be literally the only man that had pre-existed?

[Greg Logan]

I doubt any BU accepts original sin - but you can check on the BU FB site. Set up a post - if possible with voting. Your question is a good question.

Men don't "pre-exist" - even at the very concept my reaction is "WTH"????? We simply know what a man is - we are one...

You are completely mixing apples and potatoes here to jump from "sinless to "pre-existence" simply because the former does not correspond to "all" men. This is desperate at best and certainly painful. Nothing!! re scripture. Jesus is declared to Son of God BECAUSE HS overshadowed Mary... etc., etc.

TJ - there simply is no reason to go through such a painful algorithm - why do so, for God's sakes....

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

TJ - there simply is no reason to go through such a painful algorithm - why do so, for God's sakes....

That's a fair question; I'll explain why I'm harping on this point later today when I have the time. In the meantime, I have a question regarding your words below, given your rejection of the idea of inherited sin.

Jesus is declared to Son of God BECAUSE HS overshadowed Mary... etc., etc.

If Jesus is simply a man in every sense as you and I, except he is completely righteous (without sin), why was he born without a biological father? Why did the Christ have to also be the Son of God?

[Greg Logan]

If Jesus is simply a man in every sense as you and I, except he is completely righteous (without sin),

Simply a man?? SIMPLY a man???? Geez.... Here is a man -

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

7You made him a little lower than the angels;
You crowned him with glory and honor;
8You have put in subjection all things under his feet.

Now then - what is this "simply" a man baloney??? That is the whisper of Satan... put that trin garbage where it belongs - into the pit of hell.

Ok -

Taking the Luke and Matt accounts of the virgin birth - and perhaps Paul at some point - thus Christ's son-ship as the result - you ask -

why was he born without a biological father? Why did the Christ have to also be the Son of God?

Off hand, I am not sure I can meaningfully provide an answer to these questions - I do not know of a specific purpose text (do you?). I am not certain that I would say "without a biological father" - I would likely simply say "without a human father" (assuming I accept the virgin birth narrative which I am not wed to).

Frankly, I am not sure these questions are meaningful in themselves - I am am not sure why an understanding of this matters. I might add that Jesus was the monogenes vios tou theou - and, perhaps, as such God was wanting in His plan to make certain that none of us silly souls would get any funny ideas that could be where Jesus is - because Jesus had one up on us in

Here is the bottom line - Jesus was our created brother (Heb2:11ff). Adam was our created father. God was Adam's father - Adam was the Son of God. Jesus was the second Adam - there is definitely a special relationship between Adam and Jesus in this regard.

To suddenly throw in a divine being - a being that created the heavens and the earth - and pawn him off as "a man"..... Geez.... you are working in a completely different reality - a reality completely foreign to 15“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

[TJ]

Hi Greg!

Thanks for your continued responses.

Simply a man?? SIMPLY a man???? Geez....

...Now then - what is this "simply" a man baloney??? That is the whisper of Satan... put that trin garbage where it belongs - into the pit of hell.

Um, Greg...I take it you didn't catch that I was specifically using a phrase that you had used earlier:

A man is simply a man that we all know is a man.

When discussing matters with a person who believes differently, I often take on the words and phrases they use precisely so I can bypass this type of misunderstanding. I presumed that if you could say that 'a man is simply a man' it would be allowable for me to pose my conditional statement as "If Jesus is simply a man..." without charges of quoting Satan himself and what not. I was quoting you.

Off hand, I am not sure I can meaningfully provide an answer to these questions - I do not know of a specific purpose text (do you?)...

Frankly, I am not sure these questions are meaningful in themselves - I am am not sure why an understanding of this matters.

Thank you for your honesty. The reason I ask is because your view strikes me as something similar to the position the Quran takes of Jesus and human nature, i.e. Jesus was born from a special virgin birth, but apparently for no special reason.

What I mean is, if there is no inherited sin, it seems to me that Jesus' virgin birth loses all meaning and is just...there. It's merely a curiosity. But if sin is indeed passed from a father to his offspring, that would require a sinless (righteous) man to be born from a source outside of the paternal line of Adam. (cf. Romans 5:12)

[Greg Logan]

Fair enuf - I was being a bit dramatic for affect - I trust you understood/understand my main point. Human beings (you!) are AWESOME!! I do appreciate you noting my prior wording.

What I mean is, if there is no inherited sin, it seems to me that Jesus' virgin birth loses all meaning and is just...there. It's merely a curiosity. But if sin is indeed passed from a father to his offspring, that would require a sinless (righteous) man to be born from a source outside of the paternal line of Adam. (cf. Romans 5:12)

This is simply idle speculation. I don't do that.

And I certainly would not acknowledge with your narrow conclusion. There is an obvious element of sonship that is much more meaningful via a virgin birth.... Jesus is not a unique man - He is a unique (monogenes) son of God - in contrast to the other sons of God (as Issac is of Abraham...).

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

As promised, I'll try to get a little more in depth as to why I've been focusing on your 'Jesus is a MAN' argument and its assumptions/consequences.

You are completely mixing apples and potatoes here to jump from "sinless to "pre-existence" simply because the former does not correspond to "all" men.

I don't think it's mixing apples and oranges at all. Let's say you're talking to a person that didn't believe as you and I do that Jesus is the implicit, sole exception to Romans 3:10 and that, consequently, Jesus lived his life as an imperfect man. He proceeds to hammer you, over and over and over again, with the line of argumentation below:

• -Literally NOT ONE MAN is righteous. (Rom 3:10)
  -Jesus is a MAN.

Why wouldn't you find this argument persuasive?

[TJ]

There is an obvious element of sonship that is much more meaningful via a virgin birth.... Jesus is not a unique man - He is a unique (monogenes) son of God - in contrast to the other sons of God (as Issac is of Abraham...).

But how is Jesus different than Adam who also had no human father? (cf. Luke 3:38)