You may think so, but I don't necessarily agree. This passage could be speaking figuratively IMO.
For example, who are the serpents' (Satan's) "offspring"? Jesus said:
John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.
NKJV
I don't think He meant that Satan literally procreated and produced Pharisees.
Maybe God doesn't mean Eve's literal seed either, but He who would come in the likeness of man to undo Satan's deeds.
1 John 3:8
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
NKJV
Then again, it could be argued that there is at least a partial fulfilment of this through the literal seed of Eve, but it's the body of Christ rather than Jesus.
Rom 16:20
20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.
NKJV
In any case, I don't think it's conclusive by that one verse alone.
Cheers.
The temptation of Christ ...
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
There is actually a scientific study on the DNA of a woman that can be fully seperated from the man's shortly after the time of egg fertilization which shows the purity of the DNA from otherwise mutated DNA contributed by the father. I am not well informed on this and it simply came to mind from this discussion, but I wonder if since the DNA of the womans side of the fertilized egg is so different in purity from the man's, is it possible the fallen nature of man is also in the man's DNA only and not the womans until such time that it developes further? If this is so and if an egg from Mary was used and the other part came strictly from God, then the Fallen nature that would have otherwise been involved, could not in this case of Jesus' birth.
I will try to find information on this study.
Here is a little more information on this proposal of mine. It is called the Eve study which examines the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) exclusive to the womans DNA.
I will try to find information on this study.
Here is a little more information on this proposal of mine. It is called the Eve study which examines the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) exclusive to the womans DNA.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Jesusfollower
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: NW
Chris, why do you kick against the pricks?
5. Because the first Adam was genetically flawless, we can safely conclude that the Last Adam was also. Scientific evidence corroborates this truth. In his book, The Seed of the Woman (Brockville, Ontario, Doorway Publications, 1980), Arthur Custance does an admirable job on the subject of the genetic perfection of Jesus Christ. Although the entire thesis of the work is important to our point, pp. 282-286 are especially relevant.
10. It is often taught, and until recently we also believed, that Genesis 3:15 was a specific prophecy of the virgin birth because of the phrase “her seed.” We assumed a literal meaning of the word “seed,” equivalent to “sperm,” and took that to be a figure of speech to emphasize that God was the author of such a seed, since a woman does not generate “seed” herself. While the Hebrew word zera, here translated “seed,” occurs more than 200 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and does mean “seed” (literally, like what is sown in the ground—See Gen. 1:11, etc.), or “semen” (Gen. 38:9; Lev. 15:16), it can also mean “offspring,” “descendants,” or “children” (Ps. 22:23; Isa. 1:4). It was quite understandable to the Hebrews, then, that in this sense a woman could have “seed,” i.e., children. That fact is very clear in the Old Testament. In Genesis 4:25, when Seth was born, Eve comforted herself over the death of her firstborn, Abel: “Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child [seed] in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.’ “ This verse makes it very clear that Eve had “seed.” In Genesis 16:10, an angel was talking to Hagar, Abraham’s Egyptian slave, about her children: “The angel added, ‘I will so increase your descendants [seed] that they will be too numerous to count.’ ” The angel was talking to Hagar, and spoke about her “seed,” yet she was not even in the genealogy leading to Christ. Later, when Abraham wanted a wife for his son, he sent his servant, who found Rebekah.
As her family sent her away to Abraham, they blessed her and spoke to her of their hopes for her children: “And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, ‘Our sister, may you increase to thousands upon thousands; may your offspring [seed] possess the gates of their enemies’ “ (Gen. 24:60). The book of Leviticus also speaks of a woman having seed: “But if a priest’s daughter becomes a widow or is divorced, yet has no children [seed], and she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s food. No unauthorized person, however, may eat any of it” (Lev. 22:13). The book of Ruth contains a pertinent reference. The elders of Bethlehem spoke to Boaz, who had just stated that he would marry Ruth. The elders said, “Through the offspring [seed] the lord gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah” (Ruth 4:12). In this verse, the offspring, the seed, was the gift of the Lord given to Boaz by Ruth. Obviously we are not talking about the sperm, but we are talking about the children, because it would be by Ruth that the Lord would give children (seed) to Boaz. This same truth is found in 1 Samuel 2:20: “Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife, saying, ‘May the lord give you children [seed] by this woman to take the place of the one she prayed for and gave to the lord.’ Then they would go home.” Again, the husband is being given “seed” by the wife. From Hebrew lexicons and from the text of Scripture itself, the word “seed” can mean “offspring” or “children.” Women did have “seed,” not in the sense of “sperm,” but in the sense of “children.” This fact explains why the Jews were not expecting Christ to be born of a virgin, and even Mary herself, a believer and descendant of David, asked the angel how she could give birth to Israel’s Messiah without having a husband (Luke 1:34). We now know that Christ was born of a virgin, and looking back we can see that the possibility is allowed for in Genesis 3:15. However, to say that Genesis 3:15 specifically prophesies a virgin birth is not correct. The verse was written by Israelites for Israelites, and presumably they knew their own language well, yet they read the verse for centuries and understood that it referred to the Messiah, without knowing or believing it foretold a virgin birth. Close
11. It could be argued that God did not create “seed” or “sperm” in Mary that then fertilized her egg, but rather that He created a zygote, a fertilized egg inside Mary that then grew into the child, Jesus. This latter view is the view of all Trinitarians who argue that Jesus, who pre-existed his birth as some form of spirit being, “incarnated” (literally, “came into flesh”) in the womb of Mary.
Scripture is not explicit about this, which is not surprising because the conception of Mary occurred long before test tube babies, surrogate mothers and in vitro fertilization. Nevertheless, we believe the language of Scripture is still capable of revealing to us what happened. If God created a zygote in Mary’s womb, we believe the language of creation would appear somewhere in the records of the conception and birth of Christ. Instead, we find that Christ is called the “seed” (Greek = sperma) in the Bible. Also, the Word of God talks of Mary’s “conception,” which would not really be accurate if she had not in fact conceived. Furthermore, when the angel was explaining to Mary how she would become pregnant, the terminology he used of God’s interaction with Mary, i.e., “come over you” and “overshadow you,” seems to portray God’s role as a father and impregnator, not as a creator. Lastly, we would point out that Jesus is said to be from the line of David through his father and his mother. For us it is easier to understand him being called that if Mary were his mother in the ordinary sense of the word. We do not believe that Mary having a genetic contribution to Jesus would have placed his genetic perfection in jeopardy. This is no doubt at least a large part of what Philippians 2:6 means when it says that Jesus was in “the form of God.” That is, his body was the result of the direct action of God, even as Adam’s was. The difference between the two Adams in this regard was that one awoke fully formed while the other was formed in a woman’s womb and went through the entire process of human development.
Hebrews 2:14 (King James Version)
14Forasmuch 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
Chris you probably need yo give this article a serious look,
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... d=163#null
5. Because the first Adam was genetically flawless, we can safely conclude that the Last Adam was also. Scientific evidence corroborates this truth. In his book, The Seed of the Woman (Brockville, Ontario, Doorway Publications, 1980), Arthur Custance does an admirable job on the subject of the genetic perfection of Jesus Christ. Although the entire thesis of the work is important to our point, pp. 282-286 are especially relevant.
10. It is often taught, and until recently we also believed, that Genesis 3:15 was a specific prophecy of the virgin birth because of the phrase “her seed.” We assumed a literal meaning of the word “seed,” equivalent to “sperm,” and took that to be a figure of speech to emphasize that God was the author of such a seed, since a woman does not generate “seed” herself. While the Hebrew word zera, here translated “seed,” occurs more than 200 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and does mean “seed” (literally, like what is sown in the ground—See Gen. 1:11, etc.), or “semen” (Gen. 38:9; Lev. 15:16), it can also mean “offspring,” “descendants,” or “children” (Ps. 22:23; Isa. 1:4). It was quite understandable to the Hebrews, then, that in this sense a woman could have “seed,” i.e., children. That fact is very clear in the Old Testament. In Genesis 4:25, when Seth was born, Eve comforted herself over the death of her firstborn, Abel: “Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child [seed] in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.’ “ This verse makes it very clear that Eve had “seed.” In Genesis 16:10, an angel was talking to Hagar, Abraham’s Egyptian slave, about her children: “The angel added, ‘I will so increase your descendants [seed] that they will be too numerous to count.’ ” The angel was talking to Hagar, and spoke about her “seed,” yet she was not even in the genealogy leading to Christ. Later, when Abraham wanted a wife for his son, he sent his servant, who found Rebekah.
As her family sent her away to Abraham, they blessed her and spoke to her of their hopes for her children: “And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, ‘Our sister, may you increase to thousands upon thousands; may your offspring [seed] possess the gates of their enemies’ “ (Gen. 24:60). The book of Leviticus also speaks of a woman having seed: “But if a priest’s daughter becomes a widow or is divorced, yet has no children [seed], and she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s food. No unauthorized person, however, may eat any of it” (Lev. 22:13). The book of Ruth contains a pertinent reference. The elders of Bethlehem spoke to Boaz, who had just stated that he would marry Ruth. The elders said, “Through the offspring [seed] the lord gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah” (Ruth 4:12). In this verse, the offspring, the seed, was the gift of the Lord given to Boaz by Ruth. Obviously we are not talking about the sperm, but we are talking about the children, because it would be by Ruth that the Lord would give children (seed) to Boaz. This same truth is found in 1 Samuel 2:20: “Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife, saying, ‘May the lord give you children [seed] by this woman to take the place of the one she prayed for and gave to the lord.’ Then they would go home.” Again, the husband is being given “seed” by the wife. From Hebrew lexicons and from the text of Scripture itself, the word “seed” can mean “offspring” or “children.” Women did have “seed,” not in the sense of “sperm,” but in the sense of “children.” This fact explains why the Jews were not expecting Christ to be born of a virgin, and even Mary herself, a believer and descendant of David, asked the angel how she could give birth to Israel’s Messiah without having a husband (Luke 1:34). We now know that Christ was born of a virgin, and looking back we can see that the possibility is allowed for in Genesis 3:15. However, to say that Genesis 3:15 specifically prophesies a virgin birth is not correct. The verse was written by Israelites for Israelites, and presumably they knew their own language well, yet they read the verse for centuries and understood that it referred to the Messiah, without knowing or believing it foretold a virgin birth. Close
11. It could be argued that God did not create “seed” or “sperm” in Mary that then fertilized her egg, but rather that He created a zygote, a fertilized egg inside Mary that then grew into the child, Jesus. This latter view is the view of all Trinitarians who argue that Jesus, who pre-existed his birth as some form of spirit being, “incarnated” (literally, “came into flesh”) in the womb of Mary.
Scripture is not explicit about this, which is not surprising because the conception of Mary occurred long before test tube babies, surrogate mothers and in vitro fertilization. Nevertheless, we believe the language of Scripture is still capable of revealing to us what happened. If God created a zygote in Mary’s womb, we believe the language of creation would appear somewhere in the records of the conception and birth of Christ. Instead, we find that Christ is called the “seed” (Greek = sperma) in the Bible. Also, the Word of God talks of Mary’s “conception,” which would not really be accurate if she had not in fact conceived. Furthermore, when the angel was explaining to Mary how she would become pregnant, the terminology he used of God’s interaction with Mary, i.e., “come over you” and “overshadow you,” seems to portray God’s role as a father and impregnator, not as a creator. Lastly, we would point out that Jesus is said to be from the line of David through his father and his mother. For us it is easier to understand him being called that if Mary were his mother in the ordinary sense of the word. We do not believe that Mary having a genetic contribution to Jesus would have placed his genetic perfection in jeopardy. This is no doubt at least a large part of what Philippians 2:6 means when it says that Jesus was in “the form of God.” That is, his body was the result of the direct action of God, even as Adam’s was. The difference between the two Adams in this regard was that one awoke fully formed while the other was formed in a woman’s womb and went through the entire process of human development.
Hebrews 2:14 (King James Version)
14Forasmuch 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
Chris you probably need yo give this article a serious look,
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... d=163#null
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
JF,
When you begin a response with something like:
Forgive my bluntness, but for someone who calls himself "Jesus Follower" you sure don't exhibit the fragrance of Christ very well.
I realize you think you've found the fountain of truth, but the rest of us do not necessarily agree with you. Why not exercise a little more humility in your answers?
Generally speaking, I've found most of your arguments to be not only empty, but antagonistic. Your references are even less impressive.
I'm with Rob. You can keep your websites, I won't read them.
That's all I have to say. I value my time too much to go around in circles with you.
Good day.
When you begin a response with something like:
Do you really expect someone to read the rest of what you posted?Chris, why do you kick against the pricks?
Forgive my bluntness, but for someone who calls himself "Jesus Follower" you sure don't exhibit the fragrance of Christ very well.
I realize you think you've found the fountain of truth, but the rest of us do not necessarily agree with you. Why not exercise a little more humility in your answers?
Generally speaking, I've found most of your arguments to be not only empty, but antagonistic. Your references are even less impressive.
I'm with Rob. You can keep your websites, I won't read them.
That's all I have to say. I value my time too much to go around in circles with you.
Good day.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
speaking of the "fragrance of Jesus"--
have any of you heard of the candle that came out a couple of years ago called "His Essence?" it was supposed to have the fragrance of myrhh and aloes and cassia, which according to the inventors, follows Ps.. 45:8: "you robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia."
my thought was-- "what if i don't like that smell?"
sorry for the diversion--
TK
have any of you heard of the candle that came out a couple of years ago called "His Essence?" it was supposed to have the fragrance of myrhh and aloes and cassia, which according to the inventors, follows Ps.. 45:8: "you robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia."
my thought was-- "what if i don't like that smell?"
sorry for the diversion--
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Re: The temptation of Christ ...
SamIam wrote:Questions:
How real was Jesus’ temptation?
very real
Was it possible for Jesus to sin?
No , by definition sin is doing
something contrary to God's will. As
God Jesuscan do nothing against his
own will.
Is the tension in these statements real or imagined? real
The second question is a good one. Had to think that one over. If Jesus could not sin then what was Satan tempting him with. Jesus could not sin but He could change His will , and I think that was what was going on. If you keep in mind the three temptations in relation to Christ's later ministry
maybe you can see what I mean.
1. After a 40 day's fast Satan tempted Him with bread. In other word's He was tempted to put His fleshly needs ahead of spiritual matters. His answer : “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
His coming ministry was to be about spiritual things and not earthly.
2. In the second temptation He was offered life. He chose death (on the cross) instead of life protected by His Angels.
3. He was offered an earthly Kingdom of power as opposed to the Heavenly one of faith that He instituted. (and Satan asked a price for this one)
What He was temped with was in fact exactly what the Jews and even His own Apostles were expecting in the Messiah. i.e An earthly Kingdom with a living King who is concerned with their earthly well being.
Just something to kick around.
Thomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Jesusfollower" responded to Chris' last post, but in the same nasty spirit as usual. I deleted his post, and will delete all others that are posted under the name "Jesusfollower." By using this name, I believe this person is taking the name of the Lord in vain.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Steve,
I agree with you on this and your decision to remove him from the forum. But won't deleting his posts leave some odd gaps in some of the threads? In some cases it might be like listening to one side of a phone conversation since there are some lengthy goings back and forth between him and others.
Just something to consider.
I agree with you on this and your decision to remove him from the forum. But won't deleting his posts leave some odd gaps in some of the threads? In some cases it might be like listening to one side of a phone conversation since there are some lengthy goings back and forth between him and others.
Just something to consider.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32