Graham Morbey wrote:
> yet without sin?
The simplest answer is to note that I said, "proper to
But this shouldn't be taken to mean that somehow Jesus inherited some
pre-fall nature of a sinless Adam & Eve. That is a traditional
which, carried to its logical conclusion, results in the Roman doctrine of the
immaculate conception of Mary. It is better to say that Christ had
the same humanity
that we all do and, with Barth, that "'Without sin' means that in our human and
sinful existence as a man He did not sin."
The whole idea of a return to a sinless pre-fall nature goes
in the wrong
direction. Christ _is_ "genuine humanity," what God always intended
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 18:09:18 EDT