Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
was he born sinless?!
i was brd on the bus today and this question just popped in my head..was jesus born sinless, like without adams sin? wasn't the savior suppose to be sinless? and wasn't jesus a full human being, and born from a normal human(i know that) i just wanna know was he born without adam's sin?
GBU
sandra
GBU
sandra
Comments
i was brd on the bus today and this question just popped in my head..was jesus born sinless, like without adams sin? wasn't the savior suppose to be sinless? and wasn't jesus a full human being, and born from a normal human(i know that) i just wanna know was he born without adam's sin?
of course He was sinless. he wasn't of Adam. from the second the Holy Spirit came upon St. Mary, Jesus was full Divine as He was and now full human except for sin only. see, the idea of the process of salvation is that someone have to be sinless and worthy enough to do save us. NO ONE on earth is, except God who through His love came and saved us.
Interesting question. Yes, Christ was born sinless. He was not born of the seed of man, but was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That, and the fact that His divinity united with His humanity ensured that not only was He born sinless, but He remained sinless.
so he could not have been born with sin
sry that it is not clear
Then how was the sin part not included..i know the holy spirit was on him and everything but i dunno..the whole thing is just not getting into my head!
GBU
sandra
i know that bas still..abouna talked to us last friday about how he was a full human with every signle human character.
Then how was the sin part not included..i know the holy spirit was on him and everything but i dunno..the whole thing is just not getting into my head!
ok. sandra, open ur mind. Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and St. Mary....ok....khalas.
He did not have the physcal seed of Adam. OK. Yes He was of St.Mary which is the only way He can come through as a full human but not from the seed of man. there for He did not have the sin in Him.
Our Lord was born completely sinless. Although he is full human, he is still full God, and as the Holy Scriptures says, "There is no one without sin, except God alone." Now the question arises that if he is full human shouldn't he have been born with the corrupt nature? The answer is positively no. We have to realize that the birth of our Lord was a miraculous one, and not like any other in the history of births. The Holy Spirit descended upon the Holy Theotokos' womb and purified it enabling the presence and birth of the sinless one who is Christ. Christ's birth was the most unique in history, and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the virgin's womb to purify it, and make this birth, is the beauty of this. So, then was born the God Word, without the original corrupt nature. This then defeats the theory of Immaculate Conception of the virgin, because if she was born without the original corrupt nature, there would have not been a necessity for the Holy Spirit to descend and purify her for the birth of the Word.
Prayers,
Abe
[quote author=sandrahanna link=topic=5203.msg69727#msg69727 date=1176521715]
i know that bas still..abouna talked to us last friday about how he was a full human with every signle human character.
Then how was the sin part not included..i know the holy spirit was on him and everything but i dunno..the whole thing is just not getting into my head!
GBU
sandra
Let's put this in perspective. Think of the first man: Adam. Was he sinless? Of course. However, he was created with free will and thus had the potential to sin. He could have very easily not sinned, but he chose to sin. Thus, sin entered into the world, and man's nature was corrupted. Now, one thing we should clarify is that man (presently) is not born with sin but born into sin. What man possesses is a fallen, corrupt nature, which is prone to sin and death. We still have the free will to refrain from sinning, but our potential to sin has increased significantly as a result of the fall.
In the case of Christ, He is the new Adam. As such, He was born sinless. However, being fully human, Christ did have the potential to fall into sin, just as Adam did. However, He chose not to, and His divinity purified, restored, and elevated our nature making it something greater than it was to begin with. Thus, while Christ was born sinless (as, I personally believe, all babies are), He, like every other man, had the potential to commit sin, but of His will, did not.
God Bless and Pray for me and my weakness
Firstly, I think it was to illustrate His humility and obedience. But more importantly, I think it was to show us by example that baptism is necessary for salvation.
We don't believe sin is something "genetic" if you will, and we don't inherit sin. We are born with a fallen nature, meaning that we are born heading the "wrong way" with (like Cephas said) a potential to sin that increased significantly.
Now, having said that, there's 2 questions:
1 Was Christ born with a sinfull nature? (ie with a post-fallen nature or a pre-fallen nature)
2 If Christ was born with a sinfull nature (even though He never sinned, being God), what was St Mary cleansed off? Does it even state so in the bible that she was "cleansed"? Didn't the Holy Spirit just overshadow her to "create" the missing chromoses if you will, to form the embryonal body?
I'm open to all suggestions and critic, and hope to see patristic quotes or biblical quotes so that we can have a fundamental discussion, not just exchanging views and opinion!
[coptic]
P=,=c aftwnf[/coptic]
Matt,
In response to your first question, I believe Christ possessed the post-fallen nature (because that is the nature that was in need of redemption). I think St. Athanasius discusses it in On the Incarnation. I read it once, and I will have to read it again to be sure. Of course, I could be wrong.
As for what St. Mary was cleansed of, I believe it was the stain of sin. As a result of Adam's sin, our nature had been corrupted and stained. Think of it like you have the Mona Lisa in front of you and then you spill black paint on it. It is ruined. The Holy Spirit, in effect, removed the black paint (the stain of sin) and restored the Mona Lisa (St. Mary). Now, bear in mind, I have no Patristic writing to back this up as I am not very well versed in them. These are just my own thoughts.
Very good questions though. I'm looking forward to seeing what others, more learned than I, have to say on this matter.
I was just thinking, Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and 'cleansed' could probably be thought of as her baptism. The same sort of thing happens to us when we are baptized. The 'stain' of sin is washed away.
As for the post or pre-fallen nature, i'd guess too that it was the post fallen nature. But the matter is confusing to me because we say that Christ resembled us in everything except sin. Does the term sin here imply the "sinfull nature" or the actual act of commiting sin? If it means the sinfull nature then that means he was born with a pre-fallen nature. But that wouldnt make sense, because resembling us in every way, and having the full human nature would mean (according to my logic) that he should have taken our corrupted nature, in order to redeem it.
For now, if you would tell me in which chapter St Athanasius discusses this point, i'll try to read it this week, and i'll give this matter some more thought. I also hope that iqbal could join the discussion! ;)
I think there is a soteriological flaw in Hos Erof's logic, which is why I go back to St. Cyril. Our pre-lapsarian human nature did God's will; it is this the Incarnate Word has, and it is redeemed through this process; lapsed human nature could not redeem itself - hence the need for the Incarnation. (See St. Athanasius 'On the Incarnation' Chapter 2, The Divine Dilemma and its solution in the Incarnation).
The most Holy Theotokos is like unto us in everything, including being born with the weakened nature into the effects of sin. It is one of her many remarkable features that despite this she did not sin. As the Spirit overshadowed her she became to the first of us to be cleansed of the effects of sin. As St. Ambrose says of her: Or so, with much help from the Fathers, it seems to me. But HH Pope Shenouda's great works on these matters should be consulted, his 'The Divinity of Christ' is masterly - even by his exalted standards.
Why was Our Lord baptised? Here let me cite that other brilliant exponent of our faith, Fr. Tadros Y. Malatay. This is taken from his 1993 book of lectures, 'The Apostolic Fathers' (which is worth getting and reading carefully - as all his works are): I hope this helps what is a very interesting and well-informed discussion.
In the Risen Christ,
John
2 If Christ was born with a sinfull nature (even though He never sinned, being God), what was St Mary cleansed off? Does it even state so in the bible that she was "cleansed"? Didn't the Holy Spirit just overshadow her to "create" the missing chromoses if you will, to form the embryonal body?
i don't think the word 'cleansed' is the right word. She was purified enough to carry the fiery glory of Jesus Christ. same as us today we need to be purified enough to take communion which is Jesus Christ. But she was never 'cleansed' from thethe stain of sin as Κηφᾶς puts it. because if so, she would be saved at that time. rit....correct me if am wrong but the stain of sin is what we inherited from the sin of Adam. not sin as it was made clear in previous posts.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=5203.msg69773#msg69773 date=1176588943]
As for what St. Mary was cleansed of, I believe it was the stain of sin. As a result of Adam's sin, our nature had been corrupted and stained. Think of it like you have the Mona Lisa in front of you and then you spill black paint on it. It is ruined. The Holy Spirit, in effect, removed the black paint (the stain of sin) and restored the Mona Lisa (St. Mary). Now, bear in mind, I have no Patristic writing to back this up as I am not very well versed in them. These are just my own thoughts.
Dear John,
Thank you very much for the references. As always, very insightful post.
let me see if I get this correct:
Our pre-lapsarian (i assume the pre-fallen nature) did God's will, and this is also the nature that Christ took. We, by uniting with Christ (litteraly I would say) and through renewal in the water of baptism are renewed and become a new creation, which helps us to do God's will (to lessen the natural tendency to head towards sin if you will) with the goal to attain theosis.
Could you just explain to me in more detail why Christ could not have had a post-fallen nature? I remember reading elsewhere on a forum that what is not attained cannot be redeemed, seemed logic to me back then ;D.
Feel free to correct anything I say, i'm here to learn, and I'll try to find time to read that 2nd chapter of "On the Incarnation".
[coptic]P=,=c aftwnf[/coptic]
rit....correct me if am wrong but the stain of sin is what we inherited from the sin of Adam. not sin as it was made clear in previous posts.
Yes, you are right. The sin that we are born into is a result of Adam and Eve's original sin in disobeying God.
What St. Gregory meant when he wrote that what was not assumed could not have been healed was that if the Incarnate Word had not been fully human, He could not have healed what was wrong with us by restoring us to our real destiny of being one with God.
How do we know He was without sin? - Because He and the Scriptures tell us so; so that we must believe. That was the whole point of the Virgin birth. Where the Docetists were heretics was in their belief that the Christ occupied a human body. But that would have meant He was only human and his nature would have been, like our own, marred by the effects of sin. The Virgin birth ensured that Christ's human nature was our original nature - our real nature, if you like. By assuming our nature He thus restored it to what it was meant to be, bringing us back to our willing obedience to the Father.
Even as we, now, when we take communion, take Him into us, so He can do the same work with our fallen nature. Of course, we need that, we need His Grace and mercy, we need good works, and we need the guidance of the Church and the support of our fellow Christians; but with all this help, and with repentance and prayer on our part, we too can begin to walk in His way.
I think part of the problem about whether of not His nature was without sin comes from the Eastern Orthodox Christology which, as our Church has always held, can be read in a semi-Nestorian sense of allowing two persons with two wills to operate in Christ. I do not mean to say that that is what the EO believe, but it is how some EOs have read the Chalcedonian definition. This is why we have always stayed with the Christology of St. Cyril in its pure form; this presents us with no such problem. The Chalcedonians had to go through the Monergist/Monothelitist crises before they could find a stable formulation to avoid the idea of two separate wills. The Oriental Orthodox Christology meant we had no such problems; of course, the EOs have long ago dealt with the problem their Christology caused, and arrived at a position which is scarcely different from our own - which is why we can have successful talks about moves towards unity.
Hope that helps - and if I have offended any of our EO brethren, I do apologise, but this is a Coptic site and one must expect to encounter a firm defence of the Coptic Christology.
In Christ,
John
God the Son came as a sinless man. Philipians 2:5-8
so i guess he was lol.. and you could read philipians more to understand....
Jesus was born sinless. The Bible specifically says this. If He was not sinless, how was He able to overcome sin and overcome death? How can He save us from sin if He has not saved Himself from sin? We must remember, Jesus is God, and God is sinless, even from the corruptable nature of Adam.
Please forgive me and pray for me,
Godhelpme3691
If Jesus was born of a virgin, is that implying that a sexual union is what brings us into our corrupt nature.
This is a very interesting question. I think the answer is no, however. Our corruptibility is a property of our nature. It was a consequence of the Fall and not a consequence of a physical union between a man and a woman. Sex is the means God has given us to procreate. Humans could not exist (in this world) by any other means. So it is not the act that produces this corruptibility in us, it is the fact that we are, by virtue of our nature, corruptible.
Indeed, you are quite correct. It is a Gnostic heresy to believe that sexual intercourse is, in itself, sinful. Of course, improperly directed, that is in fornication or adultery or in some other non-blessed way (Sodomy for example) it is sinful.
Remember that Our Lord's first miracle was at the wedding at Cana - and He would hardly have given such a blessing to an event that would be sinful.
It is a curious fact that one of the things God gave us to express our love for the most special person in our life, and through which we bring fresh children of His into the world, should have been the subject of so much misunderstanding, even by some Christians.
In Christ,
Anglian