Mike wrote: Maybe if you explained what you mean by being in Adam, it might help John. I think he wants to know how the sin nature is passed from Adam, only through fathers to the children, male and female, yet no passing of that nature via the mother, though she be in Adam, too. Not evil to ask the question, is it? If the answer is not actually known, maybe better to say so.
John for Jesus wrote: What people are choosing to ignore is that the sin nature, if there was one, would still have been passed on through any descendant of Adam. Including Mary. I would agree with the second point in the Aig link, if there is a sin nature, that isn't the same as sinning.
The discussion isn't about Mary, only the RCC believe she didn't have a sin nature.
No John you are ignoring what all have been telling you. What you know to be true. Jesus did not have an earthly Father. The sin nature isn't something you get in your genes. It comes from being in Adam, something Christ was not but you are.
I Corinthians 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.Â
45-49Â And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.Â Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.Â The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.Â As is the earthy, SUCH ARE THEY ALSO THAT ARE EARTHY: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.Â And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
That is what you are choosing to ignore. Everyone is telling you the sin nature passed through the Father. In this case Adam. Remember Levi paid tithes being in the loins of Abraham. When Adam sinned, you sinned in him. Christ is the 2nd Adam,, because of His virgin birth. He did not sin in Adam like the rest of the human race. Thus He was not born with a sinful nature like you
Jim Lincoln wrote: Morality by legislation is- s*t*u*p*i*d
So it would be okay if someone murder your best friend, because laws against killing are morality by legislation. It be okay if your car was stolen, because laws against stealing are morality by legislation. It would okay if they burned down your church, because laws against arson are morality by legislation. It would be okay sexually assaulted your neighbor, because laws against such crimes are morality by legislation. It would okay if they came in your house to make illegal drug deals, because laws against trespassing and illegal drugs are morality by legislation. It would be okay if they blew up your sibling's house, because laws against this crime would be morality by legislation. The list could go on and on. Laws are not amoral for the most part. Your statement is what is ludicrous.
seeing that it never comes up, it would be a violation of the rules to comment on it.
seeing you continue to break the rules by spamming let me ask you a few questions.
How come in none of your posts do you decry the thousands of black children killed by their mothers in the abortion clinics and concentrate on a handful of people?
How come in none of your posts do you decry the thousands of blacks that are killed by blacks every year, their families are devastated, but it doesn't seem to bother you at all?
How come you don't decry the thousands of black mothers that are left without a husbands and fathers to their babies they have and must struggle as single moms, sometimes with multiple babies by multiple irresponsible fathers?
There were more murderers done by whites but you have chosen to emphasize blacks, how come you have no upset for the nearly 2,500 victims and their families who were murdered by black people in the latest crime data?
How come your not upset that people were booed off the stage for saying all lives matter instead of black lives matter, do you not think that all people of all races have significance?
Your outrage is selective at best and hypocritical at worst.