/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Why do we need to sacrifice GOD INCARNATE IN THE FLESH instead of one exceptional HUMAN that happen to be sinless because God did her a favor

The answer is in the question anon. Unless you're equating a single human with GOD

>>717206

>>717208

Also Mary was created sinless because God needed a perfect receptacle to incarnate himself on earth. Can you imagine Christ coming out of a woman touched by sin?

Really, it might be obscure at first, but It all makes sense if you study the doctrine

Because your theory doesn't have enough Christus Victor in it

>>717209

>Can you imagine Christ coming out of a woman touched by sin?

Yes? Jesus was free of original sin because He was virgin born, not because His mother was sinless. Your doctrine is unbiblical

>>717208

the power of Christs blood to redeem all mankind of sin doesn't come from the fact that it's divine blood, it comes from the fact that it is sinless blood.

As I understood it, Christ had to come and be sacrificed because there was no human on earth who was sinless. And so God came as a man and offered himself as a sacrifice of the sins of man.

If it was just divine blood that was required, God could have come in his heavenly form and shed his blood for our sins. What was required was the blood of a sinless man or women, hence the need for Jesus

>>717212

>Jesus was free of original sin because He was virgin born

Where does the Bible say that?

Also, riddle me this. Let's say that orignal sin is an infection. What happens when you mix infected blood with non infected blood? Does the infection disappear?

>>717225

>Where does the Bible say that?

Romans 5:12-21

>Let's say that orignal sin is an infection

It isn't, it is a curse which is placed upon the children of Adam. Since Jesus had no father, he was no child of Adam, but the father of a new household, which one is a member of not by birth, but by faith.

>>717206

>Romans 5:12-21

>ctrl+f 'virgin'

>0 results

>It isn't, it is a curse which is placed upon the children of Adam

You disregard the fact that Mary was a child of Adam. One half of His human nature came from her. Which means He was 50% a child of Adam. You inherit original sin from your parents when you're conceived. Now, if one parent has it, it will also pass to the child, will it not?

>>717230

>One half of His human nature came from her

What do you mean "half"? Where'd the other half come from?

>Which means He was 50% a child of Adam.

He was 0% a child of Adam because we're talking about a lawful curse which is placed on the house of Adam. Jesus had no father, so He was not a part of that house. Patriarchy passes through the son.

>You inherit original sin from your parents when you're conceived.

You inherit original sin when you belong to Adam. It isn't biological

>>717233

>What do you mean "half"? Where'd the other half come from?

God aka God the Father. Even you prots accept the teaching that Christ was fully God and fully human in one person, do you not? It is clear from whom his human nature came and from whom his Godhood came.

>He was 0% a child of Adam because we're talking about a lawful curse which is placed on the house of Adam. Jesus had no father, so He was not a part of that house. Patriarchy passes through the son.

This sentence makes no sense. If you're from the house of Adam, you're obviously his biological relative, otherwise you're not of his house. Christ's mother was of this house. Christ took flesh from her, Mary was not a surrogate mother, as I said, Christ got His human nature and form from her.

Hence this sentence also makes no sense

>You inherit original sin when you belong to Adam. It isn't biological

>>717235

>God aka God the Father

Wow that's blasphemous. Are you a Mormon?

>Even you prots accept the teaching that Christ was fully God and fully human in one person, do you not?

Do you think a divine nature is half a human nature?

>It is clear from whom his human nature came and from whom his Godhood came

You said "One half of His human nature came from her"

>If you're from the house of Adam, you're obviously his biological relative, otherwise you're not of his house

Eve was not Adam's daughter, yet she partook in his curse. Why? Because households are not biological. Adam was her head, so his curse was her curse.

>>717240

>Wow that's blasphemous. Are you a Mormon?

I have no idea what you're getting at.

>Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."

>the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

>Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

>The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.

>Do you think a divine nature is half a human nature?

I think that His human nature came from his mother, Divine from his Father. Pretty simple. Human nature contains original sin. The only way for a human to avoid inheriting original sin is if his parents don't have it.

>Eve was not Adam's daughter, yet she partook in his curse. Why?

This is completely irrelevant. All humans are children of Adam, biologically.

>>717247

>So you have no argument?

No, you don't have one. Mary is a child of Adam, as all humans are and hence all humans have original sin. Since Christ was fully human (and fully God), He would've inherited it if his mother had had it.

Orthobro here – just to clarify, we don't believe in Immaculate Conception as envisioned by Catholic theology because we interpret the doctrine of original sin differently.

All humans are born sinless but have a proclivity to sin inherited from Adam (i.e. consequences, not guilt). Mary was born sinless, just as all humans are, but was able to remain sinless throughout her life through the grace of God and exercise of free will.

>>717248

Ok anon. You might not be able yo do anything but repeat the same strange error over and over and over again, but I am the one with no argument. 😪👎🏻

>>717252

Yeah, you have no argument, you're demonstrating it. You can't call something an error and expect it to go away. I have been perfectly clear.

Like, how many times is Christ referred to as the Son of Man in the Bible? And you're telling me He wouldn't have inherited original sin if His mother had had it? Ridiculous.

>>717234

It is hard and it isn't hard. A person who struggles in himself, trusts in God's grace, and follows in some discipline will find it very easy in time.

>>717206

Mary conceived without sin, but at the very least she had Original Sin.

Jesus Christ was God the Word who TOOK ON the flesh of a son of David.

He was/is not half Mary/half God genetically.

His human incarnation was only temporary. He was incarnated by SPIRIT, so he could choose whoever he wanted to be born from. He never NEEDED to be born from Mary, that's like saying Mary is partly responsible for bringing about the incarnation.

At any rate, Jesus Christ no longer possesses his Earthly cloak, but a spiritual body like we'll have one day.

>>717206

Because she is not God thus cannot provide a sacrifice of infinite worth to remit an infinite punishment. Also she is only given the grace of sinlessness by the merit of the crucifixion.

>>717249

According to that heresy that means that man does not need a Christ but can get to heaven simply by not sinning. This means all children who die before the age of reason go to heaven.

>>717311

>According to that heresy that means that man does not need a Christ but can get to heaven simply by not sinning.

Did Enoch and Elijah need Christ to die for them before they went to heaven? Would Adam have gone to hell had he not eaten the fruit?

>This means all children who die before the age of reason go to heaven.

Conversely, all children who die before the age of reason go to hell through no fault of their own under your heresy.

>>717258

The Catholics don't believe in inherited responsibility for sin, and both Catholics and Orthodox would agree to say that we inherit the consequences (not the personal guilt) of Adam's sin, but Catholics believe that the loss of grace is so great that Mary couldn't have responded positively to the Annunciation if she had original/ancestral sin. So if Mary was sinless during her life, and was specially prepared by the Holy Spirit to be ready to receive God in her womb, two statements both Orthodox and Catholics agree with, it means she necessarily had no original sin from the moment of her conception for the Catholics, but not for the Orthodox.

>>717311

>simply by not sinning

Even if one were to grant the part about not needing Christ, this would literally be impossible. The Law of God is absolutely perfect, like the idea of a circle compared to any circle found in nature. No man is able to meet what that would require, hence even this hypothetical person would still be in need of sanctifying grace in order to be in the presence of God.

>>717206

>>717236

And

>Immaculate Conception is accepted by many Lutherans

No, it isn't.

another reason why prot atonement theology makes no sense. you can get a 2 year old baby and sacrifice it, it will have no sins. really, so baby sacrifice is what prots believe is the way to the world. you guys really are trying to be like pagans. even 1 million babies sacrificed won't atone for the sins of the world, only LITERALLY GOD sacrificing himself can atone for all the sins of the world. despite how amazing St. Mary is, her sacrifice would not be enough for the whole world, and actually her not being born of original sin was won through the cross (the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world) Rev 13:8.

Also being born without original sin doesn't make you the savior of the world. Adam and eve were also born without original sin, and they sinned. In fact the biggest sinner of all time, Satan, was born without original sin at all either, and was a more perfect being by nature (angelic) (however human is how raised higher because of the incarnation).

Anyways hope this helps you, I know the issue is that I've seen a lot of prot street preachers with this same weird argument, that there had to be a sinless person to be a sacrifice and only God could come down for this, but that's silly, every baby aborted is sinless, for example. And don't try and play games about consent either, so if i told a 7 year old to be a sacrifice for the world, and they said yes, boom, we didn't need Jesus? The sacrifice is proportion to the amount of reparations needed. One dumb kids life isn't enough for all the sins that's ever happened in the world, that's way too much.

>>717223

new born baby is sinless, gonna sacrifice some babies to Moloch - uh.. i mean YHWH. brb

>>717234

The problem isn't being a good person or even suffering, it's about being holy.

>>717323

Would Adam have gone to hell had he not eaten the fruit?

Adam wouldn't have died… but he was on earth. Sharing the beatific vision with God in the afterlife is something supernatural. The garden was a natural paradise, which is actually what some people think the highest level of hell, Limbo (or Limbo of the infants is). Natural paradise, you do not suffer because you have not done anything wrong, but it's a far cry from the supernatural union from God you receive in Heaven, sharing in the beatific vision.

>>717414

>>Mary's is heresy to try and further deify her via RCC waifuism

So you're saying Jesus would be born to a whore sinner, that's fine with you too. Just because you are born without original sin doesn't make you a superhero, Adam and Eve didn't have original sin, neither did sinner numero uno Satan.

>>717418

>whore sinner

No one said anything about Mary having been a whore.

>>717414

The immaculate conception refers to Mary, not Jesus.

Also, Jesus need not have even died on the cross to redeem men. He could have not had to suffer and just done it by his will alone. It was because it was most appropriate of a method and you could say the most beautiful way, is why he did it.

Similarly i mean God could just have restarted the world a million times over or just created humans in heaven without all this redemption arc story. He does things because it is most beautiful and appropriate.

I'm sure if God wanted to, he could be conceived >>717424 to a whore like some prots would love to think of Our Blessed Mother. But God found it most appropriate and beautiful to be born to a woman free from original sin.

Being free of original sin doesn't make you God, otherwise you must think that Adam and Even and Satan (and all the demons) are gods somehow too.

>>717428

stay on topic, you can't even seem to grasp what original sin is, much who has it or not. wew.

>>717436

that's cause of original sin you dolt.

>Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Literally original sin.

So you really think fetuses and zygotes are out there sinning? my sides

the issue is protestants have no sense of God's majesty and beauty. They seem to think that God is stuck in some framework around where he has to act in and he can't just do as He pleases. Like he created humans but ahhhh gosh they won't stop sinning. Think God Think! You need to come up with a way to fix this! Now what do the rules say, oh i need to find someone sinless and then sacrifice that? Ahh i see the rules now! Okay lets see… gosh darnnit, no one is not sinning! Even those zygotes and fetuses, sinning in the womb! Okay I'll go and become a human and sacrifice myself, there is no other way!

God doesn't need to have any sacrifice for sin. And you are pretending like if someone doesn't sin they go to heaven, but they don't. So according to prots every miscarried baby pre-christ was going to heaven anyways. So humanity didn't need a savior. God could have just made all the good people die when they were in the womb and let all the reprobates live longer than 10 seconds (oh… so THIS is calvinism!).

God incarnated and redeemed because it is the most beautiful way.

>>717437

>stay on topic

Sure thing. Can you logically explain or present real evidence of her immaculate conception? >surely it isn't waifuism

>surely it isn't because Mary is being deified

I mean… It's kind of a big deal, strange it's not mentioned in scripture anywhere considering how important it is…

Also you people act like God needed to do any of this at all. He didn't need to make humans, he didn't need to make time. He could have just made angelic creatures and that's it. He could have just made a bunch of humans and angels in heaven and thats it too. You guys act like God really wanted this but he couldn't so he had to run around and make some special cheat code plays to make this all work out.

>>717445

you have literally no idea of what original sin is, so how are you going to understand what the immaculate conception is. make a new thread trying to understand that first, baby steps.

>surely it isn't because Mary is being deified

yeah, because adam and eve being without original sin means that they are being deified.

see what i mean. you have literally no idea what original sin means, so you can't know what the immaculate conception is. go spend a few days researching and then come back. put a bit of effort, sheesh.

>>717449

>refuse your groups dogma, following mine instead

<YoU dOnT uNdErStAnD AnYtHiNg

Lol,

Convince me and or show me evidence of immaculate conception of Mary, not that it matters anyway.

>>717447

>like God had to make a "pure" vessel to bare him into becoming flesh

Yeah, why do people think he "needed" to do anything?

>>717452

that's like explaining to tell you that this animal is a cat not a dog, but you have literally no idea what a cat or a dog is. listen you got the internet. first learn about what original sin is. you have proven you don't understand in the slightest what it is. neither do you know what immaculate conception is, it has never referenced to Jesus.. there is just one immaculate conception, and that refers to Mary. You need to do a bit more reading please.

>>717452

it's not you refuse, you don't even know what it is. you basically said if you don't have original sin you are deified. first of all why? what is original sin even, can you explain what we believe it is? why did adam and eve not have original sin, were they deified? do you think we believe that adam and eve were gods? do you think not having original sin means that you can't sin?

>Yeah, why do people think he "needed" to do anything?

He didn't that the point. That's why you prots find it really hard to understand most things. You guys literally believe that God had to give Jesus as a sacrifice otherwise he couldn't do what he wanted? That's the issue you guys have, why did he even create humans and have them sin, you seem to think all he wants is to have humans in heaven and he has to hack his way around things.

These are typical fedora arguments :(

>>717523

Someone's mad.

>ancient waifuism starts up

>Mary goes from being a mortal woman who sinned, died, and was buried to being "queen", sinless,and mediator of mankind

Yeah, no idea what I mean about deified.

>Yeah, why do people think he "needed" to do anything?

And you completely missed the point. Hilarious.

>>717525

oh wow, so who was the Queen during when Solomon was King? Guess what, it was his mother. That's how the Kingdom of Israel (oh guess who's the King of Kings is now? hmmm.. might be Jesus)

Oh so an aborted baby is now deified too because they are sinless. Gotcha. The absolute logic of prots.

>And you completely missed the point. Hilarious.

I don't blame you for being so dense. Well I do a little bit, since you have the internet now. I guess I can't blame people some people thinking Christianity is a stupid religion when so many people interact with this version.

And again can't stick to the topic, just jumping around like headless chickens. First it was about the immaculate conception, they didn't even know this refers to Mary, kept on talking about the immaculate conception of Jesus, like there were too. Failed to show any idea of what original sin is, and then went to "muh deification". Now once shown that Adam and Eve and Satan had no original sin, how has to run again to "muh sinless life, Queen". Now shown the mother of the King is the Queen (not the wife) and shown how aborted fetuses are sinless too, oh yeah let's jump around again.

Seriously if you even did 10 min of research on all of this it would be so much better for you.

>>717542

*like there were two