Re: To have been or not to have been...
Posted: Mon May 09, 2016 1:15 pm
I don't buy original sin.
http://www.agreatcloud.com/forum/
Thanks for this additional information, Greg. Do most Unitarians reject the concept of original sin?Greg Logan wrote:I don't buy original sin.
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.Greg Logan wrote:TJ - there simply is no reason to go through such a painful algorithm - why do so, for God's sakes....
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 wrote: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),
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).why was he born without a biological father? Why did the Christ have to also be the Son of God?
Um, Greg...I take it you didn't catch that I was specifically using a phrase that you had used earlier:Greg Logan wrote: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.
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.Greg Logan wrote:A man is simply a man that we all know is a man.
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.Greg Logan wrote: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.
This is simply idle speculation. I don't do that.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)
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:Greg wrote: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.
But how is Jesus different than Adam who also had no human father? (cf. Luke 3:38)Greg Logan wrote: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...).