the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth

[Steven Avery]

Damasus was the Bishop of Rome. Jerome translated the Gospels at his request. There was no central superiority compared to the other locales at that time. That really began to occur more about 60 years later, with Leo. Ambrosiaster was simply giving a Christian commentary on Romans. Not sure why you would emphasize somebody calling him Pelagian.

Your pointing out that Ambrosiaster was well acquainted with Jewish beliefs only bolsters his quote. Yetzar hara is very close to the inherited sin nature, although Jewish writers who are not Messianic prefer today to try to avoid that clear similarity.

[Esaias]

Why was Christ born of a virgin?

1. It was prophesied to be so:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Isa 7:14)

No man comes into the world except by the union of a father and mother. THIS Man however was to be different and of supernatural origin, born of a virgin who had not known a man, bridging the human and the divine, being in truth "God With Us." Christ being both Man and God unites the two in Himself, that we humans might be united to God and partake of the Divine Nature. He is "God manifest in the flesh". He says "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." The Virgin Birth provides the mechanism for the Incarnation of God in human nature. He partkakes of the nature of those whom He redeems:

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
(Heb 2:11-18)

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(Heb 1:4-5)

2. To establish Christ's Divine Heirship and Divine Right to rule. While others had been called and identified as "sons of God", including the Davidic monarchs, the Christ - being greater than His father David - would be the Son of God by virtue of the direct supernatural action of God. He would be the Son of God (the reigning Monarch and Heir of All Things) by virtue of literally being God's Son:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
(Luk 1:35)

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
(Mat 22:41-45)

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(Psa 2:7)

3. Because Christ is the Second Adam. The first Adam was created by direct act of God and became a living soul. The Second Adam was conceived by the supernatural act of God and was made a life giving spirit. Although as "Son of Man/Adam" Christ is heir of Adam, as Son of God Christ is superior to Adam and transcends the First Man as Federal Head of Mankind. The First Adam was federal head of mankind in their earthly unregenerate condition, stained with sin. The Second Adam is the federal head of regenerate mankind, firstfruits of the dead. The First Adam is the archetype of failure and death. The Second Adam is the archetype of success and eternal life. Just as Adam was created directly by God with no earthly human father, Christ likewise had no earthly human father (according to the flesh), but not merely by "divine creation", but by Divine Begetting, and His Divine Origin is thus superior to that of the First Adam:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
(1Co 15:45-49)

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 5:15-21)

So then Christ was born of a virgin because it was prophesied to be so, because it was the mechanism by which humanity and Deity were united in Him, by which God shares in our weakness and we share in His power and strength because in Christ we frail humans are made partakers of the Divine Nature and united to God. Because the Son f David was to be greater than David himself, and so was to be Son of God not by mere adoption or decree but by actual begetting, by which also Christ is the Last Man or Second Adam, surpassing the first Adam, being the Author of eternal Life to all who are in Him, just as death and failure are the inheritance of all who are in the first Adam.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Damasus was the Bishop of Rome. Jerome translated the Gospels at his request. There was no central superiority compared to the other locales at that time. That really began to occur more about 60 years later, with Leo. Ambrosiaster was simply giving a Christian commentary on Romans. Not sure why you would emphasize somebody calling him Pelagian.

Because Pelagius denied the inherited sin nature. However, the wikipedia article notes that some scholars have disputed whether he was in fact Pelagian or not. Catholicism was alive and well in the time of Ambrosiaster. The Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD. Ambrosiaster is believed to have written his commentary around 370 AD.

Concerning Ambrosiaster, here:

"In addition to these chronological indications, there is internal evidence in the Quaestiones and the Commentary that contributes to a biographical sketch of our author. It seems virtually certain, for example, that he was a member of the Roman clergy. ... His writings offer early evidence for the requirement of permanent sexual continence for the higher clergy, a practice he defended enthusiastically. " (from https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbl-site.org%2Fassets%2Fpdfs%2Fpubs%2F061645P-front.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1DN4TzRj6ed_6fzcM0T876 )

The guy was a Roman Catholic clergyman.

Your pointing out that Ambrosiaster was well acquainted with Jewish beliefs only bolsters his quote. Yetzar hara is very close to the inherited sin nature, although Jewish writers who are not Messianic prefer today to try to avoid that clear similarity.

The belief in the yetzer hara is part of a larger belief and includes the yetzer hatov. Why did you not mention that? The yetzer hatov is the Good Inclination, and the yetzer hara is the Evil Inclination. All are born with both inclinations, according to Jewish belief. The yetzer hara is said to be dominant until one reaches 13 years old. One's moral status is determined by whether one yields to the yetzer hara or the yetzer hatov.

This belief is simply an attempted explanation for why people experience motivations to do good, and to do evil. It is hardly Biblical, in that the Bible itself does not teach each person is born with two inclinations inherent in human nature. It is also not the doctrine of inherited sin nature as understood throughout Christendom.

The proponents of the inherited sin nature claim the Virgin Birth was necessary so that Jesus would not inherit the sin nature and thus by default be a sinner and condemned to hell. The Jewish doctrine as far as I know does not state that the existence of the yetzer hara produces that condemnation. Again, I do not think the Jewish belief in a good and evil inclination in every person is equivalent to the doctrine of original sin, inherited sin nature, or whatever else it may be called.

Now, if you want to discuss the Jewish doctrine, that's fine. But I don't think we should be confusing that with the belief in inherited sin nature as understood by Christians.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This belief is simply an attempted explanation for why people experience motivations to do good, and to do evil. It is hardly Biblical, in that the Bible itself does not teach each person is born with two inclinations inherent in human nature.

I'm going to modify this statement. The Jewish belief in yetzer hatov and yetzer hara (the Good Inclination and the Evil Inclination) is the Jewish attempt to explain the mechanism of free will. According to the Jewish view, Adam and all humans were and are created with the ability to exercise free will, to do good or to do evil, to choose one or the other. This ability is said to be the result of the two inclinations, in that the two inclinations are the two tendencies or desires of the individual that motivate or allure to one or the other class of choices. The Jewish belief does not say this evil inclination entered Adam when he fell, and was thereafter passed on to all humans like a virus or an altered DNA mutation.

Now, if we accept that the Scripture teaches human free will (in that each person can choose good or evil), then it necessarily follows that there is something that motivates or entices a person to either choice. Both choices must be genuinely possible, therefore there must be BOTH enticements or motivations present or at least potentially present in a person.

My point of disagreement with the Jewish doctrine would be that these motivations are not in fact biochemical or constitutive forces of human nature, but rather a logical by product of free will itself. Assuming of course the Jewish teaching explains the yetzer in that manner, which I am not certain of.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is covered by Arthur Custance in

The Seed of the Woman,
https://custance.org/Library/SOTW/Index.html

Who normalizes and attempts to theologize gender dysphoria (trannyism):

" In the earlier stages of embryological research it was believed that the contribution to the ovum of the X or the Y chromosome from the male parent predetermined the sex of the developing child. It is now recognized however, that the word "predetermine" is too strong and should be replaced by the word predispose. The truth of the matter is that in the very early stages of foetal development certain disturbing factors may neutralize this predisposition and despite the presence of the supposedly determinate sex chromosome contributed by the male, the individual may emerge oppositely sexed. As Professor Dorothy Price put it: (166)

Although its genetic sex has already been determined, depending on whether a Y-carrying or an X-carrying sperm fertilized the egg from which it has grown, the early fetus is structurally equipped to become either a male or a female [emphasis mine].

There are many factors which may disturb or confuse the relationship between the sex chromosome and the emergent femininity or masculinity of the individual, so that it has become useful now to make a distinction between sex and gender, between the physical appearance of the individual and his or her actual temperamental disposition which may belie the physical appearance."

This is a serious blow to Mr Custance's reputation as a rational thinking person.

[Esaias]

Having read through much of Custance's "Seed of the Woman", it seems that Custance makes an interesting case. According to him, the sin nature is passed on through male spermatozoa. Yet, also according to him, a female ovum can be developed into a complete human with no input from a male spermatozoan. Essentially a clone, necessarily female.

Yet, this would mean that - with the advent of CRISPR and genetic engineering - a female human can be developed THAT IS WITHOUT SIN!!!!! A sinless woman can theoretically come to be, yet without divine intervention.

Very strange...

[Esaias]

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
(Heb 2:16)

This seems to deal a death blow to Custance's theory concerning inherited sin passing through the male line only. Jesus' incarnation involved taking on the seed of a MAN named Abraham.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The guy was a Roman Catholic clergyman.

You really do not understand the 300s, where even the Councils went back and forth on doctrinal issues.

However it is not really relevant since Origen and Tertullian say much the same.

Romans
https://books.google.com/books?id=Di41DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA195

His Flesh Not Illusory.
Tertullian:
If the Father “sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" it must not be said that the flesh in which he appeared was illusory.... The Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to redeem our sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bore a resemblance to sinful flesh although it was itself free from sin.
Against Marcion 5-I4-21

What the Law Could Not Do.
Origen:
In my opinion, Paul here as in many other passages divides the law of Moses into two parts, one of which is carnal and the other spiritual. Moreover, he calls the literal observance of the law its carnal meaning... . This observance is both impossible and inadequate. For what is more impossible than observance of the sabbath according to the letter of the law? For it is commanded that no one should go outside his house, nor move away from his place, nor carry any burden.” When the Jews, who observed the letter of the law, realized that these things were impossible, they glossed the law in silly and ridiculous ways.. .. And what can I say about the system of sacrifices, which is now totally impossible to observe since there is no temple, no altar and no place to perform the sacrifices? In these instances I would say that the law is not just impossible or inadequate; it is dead!

Paul shows that Jesus had the likeness of sinful flesh but not that he had sinful flesh in the same way we do. For we are all human beings who have been born from the seed of a man who has slept with a woman, and we can only say, along with David, that: “In sin my mother conceived me." But the one who was born without contact with a male but only because the Holy Spirit came upon a virgin and covering her with the power of the Most High gave birth to a spotless body which had the same nature as ours but without the corruption of sin which is passed on by the act of conception.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. CER 3:294-96.

================

So please drop your RCC theory.

Thanks!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You really do not understand the 300s, where even the Councils went back and forth on doctrinal issues.

However it is not really relevant since Origen and Tertullian say much the same.

Romans
https://books.google.com/books?id=Di41DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA195




================

So please drop your RCC theory.

Thanks!

Since all the historians agree Ambrosiaster was a Roman clergyman, I'll continue to accept he was a Roman clergyman. As the source I quoted points out, he was "enthusiastic" about clerical celibacy, something very specific that the apostle warned us about.

Tertullian (so called "father of the Trinity (doctrine)") believing in "sinful flesh" (implying an inherited sin nature) is hardly a vote of confidence. If anything it more clearly demonstrates that the doctrine of inherited sin nature was part of the apostasy that the apostles warned us about which culminated in catholicism.

The charge is even more weighty and convincing when one brings Origen into the discussion.

In any event, what the burdgeoning catholic movement believed is irrelevent to the fact that the Bible itself does not teach any inherited sin nature doctrine.

As for not understanding the 300s, I am VERY familiar with antenicene doctrinal developments and movements and general church history. I simply do not buy into the idea that the 300s were full of pristine apostolic teachers and then voila all of a sudden at Nicea everybody flipped. The apostasy was starting out in the first century, by the third century it was in full swing, and by the fourth century had pretty much subsumed most of the known world.

[Steven Avery]

Your perspective is silly.
The early church writers said it, but I (Esaias) don't like them, so they don't count, on either side of Nicaea. I'll always come up with excuses.

Esaias, the issue is that this is historic Christian doctrine, orthodox, heretic, whatever, linking the sinlessness of Jesus with the virgin birth.

Honestly, Esais, your posts here have been among your worst. And I hope others that are actually interested in the topic will now come on board. In a sense, I feel you tried, unsuccessfully, to hijack the overall discussion of theories on the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ with pseudo-Ebionite drivel. You buried any real discussion in an avalanche of diversion. And I was suspicious when you answered the OP within minutes, and it was clear you never really considered the Arthur Custance approach.

Your seed of Abraham idea was also really silly, you do realize that the issue is the physical transmission of seed?

Usually you do better.
Why don't you set up your own thread so that real discussions can continue here?

One more try.

Originally Posted by Esaias

So then Christ was born of a virgin ... because it was the mechanism by which humanity and Deity were united in Him,

Is there any intrinsic difference, in terms of sin, between Jesus being born of a virgin, and the common Joe.

Your answer seems to be no, I just would like you to state it clearly, then we can move on.