Christ's human nature...

[John317]

If they were created immortal and could not die, then why the tree of life? This just doesn't make sense to me.

They were created conditionally immortal, which means that God made them so that they could live forever if they obey Him and thus were able to partake of the Tree of Life. Otherwise they would eventually die.

This is indicated in Gen. 3: 22-24.

Originally Posted By: Dr Rich

And how come Jesus NEVER called Mary "mother"?

We never have any of the disciple calling anyone their mother, either, do we?

When do you believe Jesus should have called Mary His mother?

What's important to consider is that the inspired narrators of Scripture refer to her as Jesus' mother.

She was his mother because he inherited his human DNA, or human inheritence, from Mary. The Bible shows that Jesus was related to other human beings. That is why he was human-- because of Mary, his mother. There is plenty of Bible evidence for this, but many of them are verses that you reject.

Notice, however, that the Gospel of John says,

John 2:1, 12--

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

.... After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days."

Also--

"but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' John 19: 25, 26.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

1. ESV | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Shane: Linguists struggle with the language used in Psalms 51:5. It is very hard to translate. I certainly cannot use it for the formation of a doctrine. In context, it is about repentance.

G: If the translators had a problem with the language, why the unanimity in their understanding/translation of what it means? And in case you didn't notice, I am not basing my understanding on just ONE text. And how many texts are you using to prove your case?

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

2. ESV | Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

S: This is consistent with what I stated earlier. The child is not sinful at birth but are destined to sin. Indeed, from newborns they begin behaving selfishly. They have a sinful nature and only a sinful nature.

G: Sinless at birth but estranged/guilty/child of wrath because of what he is destined to do later? Condemn a person for what he might do? Is God THAT kind of a judge? If a child has a sinful nature that is destined to sin as you say, and begins to behave selfishly before he/she even is aware of what it's doing, why did not Christ start behaving selfishly BEFORE He was aware of what He was doing if He had evil propensities in His nature? You can't say it's because of His divinity. He laid that aside. His divinity was of NO help to Him!

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

3. ESV | Ro 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

S: Death spread because of the weakened, and thus sinful, nature of man. However man is not born guilty of sin.

G: IMHO, you are clearly going against what Paul is saying and what the psalmist is saying in Ps 51 & 58. Paul said, "all sinned, NOT "will sin." A newborn IS a sinner because it already has the sin virus already in its very make-up.

S: quoting Ez - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezk. 18:20)

G: The Bible also says: " for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me"

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Would you say Jesus had this kind of nature?

S:I am more concerned with what the Bible says.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same... For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. (Heb. 2:14, 16)

G: What I'm presenting here are not merely my own. I believe they are scripturally derived. Christ was of the seed/sperma of Abraham, but Christ was also of the Seed of God the Father! Luke makes it clear that Jesus was conceived through the power of the HS, without a human father. Sinless Adam was ALSO flesh & blood. As the Second Adam, Jesus started where Adam started, as pure & sinless, but with the body racked by >4k yrs of degeneration. I've said it before and I'll say it again, being born with a sinless nature does not put one above temptation. Sinless Adam & Lucifer both sinned.

[Dr. Shane]

1. ESV | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

G: If the translators had a problem with the language, why the unanimity in their understanding/translation of what it means?

[Gerr]

G: If the translators had a problem with the language, why the unanimity in their understanding/translation of what it means?

S:There isn't unanimity. Comparing translations shows the broad range of interpretation.

G: Here is what the major translations have to say:

1. ESV | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

2. NASB | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

3. NIV | Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

4. NRSV | Ps 51:5 Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother

5. KJV 1900 | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me

6. YLT: 5 Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

Young, R. (1997). Young's literal translation (Ps 51:5). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

7. NKJ: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

And in sin my mother conceived me.

8. NLT: For I was born a sinner—

yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

As you can see, Shane, they all say essentially the same thing. Bring out the translation that says differently.

S: The ESV quoted above says that David was brought forth in iniquity. That simply means he was born in a sinful world - not in sinless Eden. His mother even conceived him in sin (i.e. a sinful world).

G:None of these translations would give me the impression that that's what it means, i.e. born into a sinful world. They plainly say that the psalmist was conceived & born a sinner.

S: It doesn't say David was sinful at birth. That is a Catholic doctrine known as original sin. Adventists reject that because the Bible doesn't teach that.

G: The Reformers endorsed the doctrine of original sin. Here's

the commentary about original sin from the Reformation Study Bible: "Original sin," meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (it comes from Augustine)....Original sin does not mean that sin belongs to human as such; "God made man upright" Eccl. 7:29. Nor does it mean that the processes of reproduction and birth are sinful; the uncleanness associated with sexuality in the Law (Lev. 12:15) was typical & ceremonial, not moral. Rather, "original sin" means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth, in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins. It is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin."

EGW had this to say: "The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man’s experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist." Ed 29.

If that is not saying the same thing as the reformers' understaning of original sin, then I don't know what is.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

G: Sinless at birth but estranged/guilty/child of wrath because of what he is destined to do later? Condemn a person for what he might do?

S: He is estranged because he has a sinful nature. It is not a question of if he *might* sin... he is sure to sin. Christ has the same nature BUT Christ also had the divine nature too.

G: He is sure to sin? WHY? Because the sin principle derived from Adam having eaten the fruit was/is in the very make-up of man's being. That's original sin that you deny because it is Catholic. Catholic or not, that is the reality of the human experience. Fallen creatures sin BECAUSE they are sinners from birth. If Jesus had this sinful bent, He would have been estranged from birth & would have been a child of wrath & needed a savior himself, just like the rest of us.

S: Where you go wrong is getting into the sinless Adam stuff. The Bible doesn't say anything about Christ being a sinless Adam. The Bible says that Jesus was made in *all things* like His brethren and it says that in the context of Christ's nature. Hebrews 2:16 says Christ did not take on the nature of angels and in verse 17 is where it says He was made like His brethren in *all things*. In verse nine it actually says Jesus was made lower than the angels. The angels have only a sinless nature. Christ had both sinful and sinless. So the angels were better off.

G: From "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" 1988 ed., p.47:

"Thus "Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin."

"The Bible portrays Jesus' humanity as sinless. His birth was supernatural--He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:20). As a newborn baby He was described as "that Holy One" (Lk 1:35). He took the nature of man in its fallen state, bearing the consequences of sin, not its sinfulness. He was one with the human race, except in sin." Ibid., p. 49

"Jesus Christ took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from hereditary corruption or depravity and actual sin. He challenged His opponents, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (Jn8:46). And when facing His severest trial, He declared, "The ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me'" (Jn 14:30). Jesus had no evil propensities or inclinations or even sinful passions." Ibid., p.49.

Paul clearly says: "He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh," Rom 8:3, NOT "made of sinful flesh".

It seems to me, you may be the one that is out of step with what the Church teaches officially.

[Twilight]

As has been said before, Jesus was born "Born Again".

He was born connected to God and never let go...

We are different because we are born "disconnected" from God.

But we too can have Jesus' experience when we "connect" with God.

It is only as we understand our own born again nature, that we will begin to comprehend something of Christ's I suspect...

But because we do not often understand what it means to be "born again", we cannot understand Jesus' nature.

[Dr. Rich]

And Twilight, this is why I am still looking for someone who is truely born again by the Holy Spirit. Many say they have been, but they are mistaken because when one is born of God he will not sin again. (1John 3:9)

[skyblue888]

All this never-ending talk about the nature of Jesus in His humanity. The Bible plainly states that in His humanity he was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. There is only one kind of flesh in this world and that is sinful flesh. And that is why in other parts of the Scriptures it is said that as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same and he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. Rom.1:3: Heb.2:14; 4:15.

That's settled!

Now in the Testimonies we are told that "The matter of salvation is just as simple as ABC. But we don't understand it." Faith and Works, p.64.

When one considers the different views that have been expressed on this board, it is difficult to believe that the Gospel is just as simple as accepting the alphabet!

"There seems to be a cloudy atmosphere that has gathered about the soul of man and that has shut in the mind. It is next to impossible to break through this atmosphere of doubt and unbelief. It is next to impossible to arouse his vital interests so that he may understand what he must do to be saved." Ibid,64.

What must I do to be saved? Here is the essential thing which is to believe that "The merits of Christ's sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." If the merits of Christ's sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf, then why don't we talk more about that?

Everything we need for this life and the life that is to come is promised to those who believe this implicitly. If we believe that the merits of Christ are all-sufficient and that we need only to appropriate them to ourselves, by faith, by claiming them, then the law will take care of itself which means that the Holy Spirit will bring the righteousness of Christ into our lives so that all the requirements of the law may be fulfilled.

Then we shall experience, as a people, what it means to be clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness. We shall know by experience what it means to live the life of Christ which was a life in perfect harmony with the will of God as it is expressed in the precepts of His holy law. We shall overcome as He overcame. We will be enabled to live a sinless life in sinful flesh. Then the world shall be lightened with the glory (character) of God and the end will come.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

While I would agree with much of this, Jesus said "And no one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." (John 3:13) So while Jesus did appear in the flesh, this flesh had no connection to human sinful state, for if it had, then Jesus would not have been the perfect, spotless Passover Lamb as required.

We have been told to become perfect just as Jesus was perfect and the Father in heaven is perfect. How is this done--by overcoming sin with knowing and practicing the truth. "Trust and obey, for there is NO other way...."

[skyblue888]

If we trust in the merits of Christ for salvation (an entire conformity to the law of God)we shall be enabled to obey. Obedience to the precepts of God's holy law will be the natural result of our trusting wholly in the all-sufficient merits of Christ's infinite sacrifice for then we shall be clothed with the robe of His righteousness which accomplishes everything.

sky

[pnattmbtc]

What must I do to be saved? Here is the essential thing which is to believe that "The merits of Christ's sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." If the merits of Christ's sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf, then why don't we talk more about that?

Why don't we talk more about God's character? That seems to me to be the most important thing.

[pnattmbtc]

Rather, "original sin" means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth, in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins. It is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin."

EGW had this to say: "The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man’s experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist." Ed 29.

If that is not saying the same thing as the reformers' understaning of original sin, then I don't know what is.

A key concept of original sin is that one incurs guilt simply by existing. There is no such thing as living without sinning, even for an instant, even after one is converted.

There's a big difference between that idea and what Ellen White wrote, which, as far as I'm aware, is not a subject of any debate. That is, I don't know anyone who disagrees with what she wrote, regardless of their view of Christ's human nature, or whether they are an SDA or not.

[pnattmbtc]

If we trust in the merits of Christ for salvation (an entire conformity to the law of God)we shall be enabled to obey. Obedience to the precepts of God's holy law will be the natural result of our trusting wholly in the all-sufficient merits of Christ's infinite sacrifice for then we shall be clothed with the robe of His righteousness which accomplishes everything.

Pardon me for nit-picking, but shouldn't this read, "If we trust in Christ for salvation ... Obedience to the precepts of God's holy law will be the natural result of our trusting wholly in Christ ..." We're trusting in a Person, not simply believing a concept.

This is why understanding God's character is so important. Faith involves trusting in a Person, but if we don't believe in our heart that the person is trustworthy, how we can trust in Him? To believe in our heart that the person is trustworthy, we can't have ideas regarding His character that would render Him incapable for us to trust Him.

Also it seems to me that we can say that we trust in God (or Christ) for salvation on the basis of His mercy and compassion rather than on the basis of any merit that we have, and that would cover it. I don't believe God is dependent upon Christ's merit.

But this is really a conversation for a different topic.

[pnattmbtc]

But because we do not often understand what it means to be "born again", we cannot understand Jesus' nature.

Please flesh this out.

[pnattmbtc]

And Twilight, this is why I am still looking for someone who is truely born again by the Holy Spirit. Many say they have been, but they are mistaken because when one is born of God he will not sin again. (1John 3:9)

I can't think of a verse more taken out of context than this one. This thread is covering all bases, isn't it?

[pnattmbtc]

(quoting "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" 1988 ed., p.47:)Thus "Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen because it had never descended into moral impurity.

[John317]

...This is why I am still looking for someone who is truely born again by the Holy Spirit. Many say they have been, but they are mistaken because when one is born of God he will not sin again. (1John 3:9)

We've already been over this verse many times. It's not saying they won't ever sin again. The Greek verb makes clear-- and it comes out clearly in the New American Standard Verion-- that they won't continue to deliberatly and willfully practice sin. The verb is in the present tense, which means, "will not continue to practice sin." That is quite different from never committing a sin again.

Your view would mean that no one has ever been born again.

It's another case of your theology being based on a faulty understanding of the Scriptures.

Do you see in your translation of 1 John 3: 9 where it says, "practices sin"? What does "practice" mean? Have you ever heard of anyone practicing anything without doing it willfully and deliberately?

Does anyone practice the piano or the violin accidently or unintentionally? Of couse not. People practice something in order to improve and get better at it. That is how most people commit sin. They practice it because they love it and want to get better at it.

But the Bible says in 1 John 3: 9 that people who are born of God don't love sin and want to get better at sinning. They learn to hate sin. They give their sins over to Jesus and ask Him for power to resist and overcome sin. So John is not saying that born-again believers will never again commit sin-- he is saying that they won't continue to practice sin. They repent and confess their sins and turn away from them.

What happens when we confess and turn away from the sins we are convicted of? Does that mean we never sin again? Of course not, and the reason is that as soon as we have overcome a sin, the Holy Spirit gently and lovingly convicts us of another sin that we may not have even been aware of. So we grow in Christ, becoming more and more like Him. It's truly a process of a lifetime.

[John317]

Christ took upon Himself fallen nature, "degraded and defiled by sin."

This gives us assurance that Christ (God) knows from his own personal experience what it means to struggle against temptations. As He resisted and overcame, so can we. He can sypathize with us and knows exactly we need at the very time we need it.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

The ESV quoted above says that David was brought forth in iniquity. That simply means he was born in a sinful world - not in sinless Eden. His mother even conceived him in sin (i.e. a sinful world).

G:None of these translations would give me the impression that that's what it means, i.e. born into a sinful world. They plainly say that the psalmist was conceived & born a sinner.

[Dr. Shane]

It seems to me, you may be the one that is out of step with what the Church teaches officially.

Not at all. Everything you quoted from "Seventh-day Adventists Believe..." is consistent with what I have been saying. It seems you don't see where you are in conflict with what you quoted. No where does it say we are born sinful.

Jesus had an advantage that we don't have. He was born with both the fallen and divine nature. We are born with only the fallen nature. You have stated that Jesus had Adam's pre-fall nature. What you quoted clearly rejects that.

[Dr. Shane]

As has been said before, Jesus was born "Born Again".

He was born connected to God and never let go...

We are different because we are born "disconnected" from God.

But we too can have Jesus' experience when we "connect" with God.

DING, DING DING!

Someone gets a prize.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

(quoting "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" 1988 ed., p.47:)Thus "Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen because it had never descended into moral impurity.

Pnat: This isn't correct. As quoted earlier in this thread:

G: This isn't correct? I was baptised around 1954, so I don't even remember what I was taught about the humanity of Jesus at that time. It was only during this discussion that I actually pulled out the book, "Seventh-day Adventists Believe." I was honestly surprised to see that what I was presenting here was actually in line with the official doctrine of the church.

By the way, you left out the last line in the above quote, which is: "It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin."

According to the footnote, the whole paragraph was a quote from Henry Melvill, in Sermons by Henry Melvill, B.D., ed., C.P. McIlvaine (New York, N.Y.: Stanford & Swords, 1844), p.47. By "innocent infirmities" he meant hunger, pain, sorrow, etc. He called this view of the pre- and post-Fall nature of Christ "the orthodox doctrine" (ibid.)

And according to "Seventh-day Adventists Believe" p.57, "One of E. G. White's favorite authors, Henry Melvill, wrote, "But whilst he took humanity with the innocent infirmities, he did not take it with the sinful propensities. Here Deity interposed. The Holy Ghost overshadowed the Virgin, and, allowing weakness to be derived from her, forbade wickedness; and so caused that there should be generated a sorrowing and a suffering humanity, but nevertheless an undefiled and sportless; a humanity with tears, but not with stains; accessible to anguish, but not prone to offend; allied most closely with the produced misery, but infinitely removed from the producing cause (Melvill, p.47)

If Melvill had this view which was endorsed by EGW, this view which was thought to be the "orthodox view" in 1844, then the Haskell quote that you brought up came up LATER, and must therefore be understood according to the previous prevailing "orthodox view." This means that Jesus had ALL those liabilities of fallen human nature except one - sin or the propensity for sin.

[Gerr]

Shane: Someone gets a prize.

G: Not so fast! Before you hand out the prize, as Pnat says, let's flesh this out:

Originally Posted By: Twilight

As has been said before, Jesus was born "Born Again".

He was born connected to God and never let go...

We are different because we are born "disconnected" from God.

But we too can have Jesus' experience when we "connect" with God.

G: What does it mean that Jesus was born, "Born again?"

a) The need to be born again means that one had an OLD nature that needed to die. Did Jesus have an "old man", an old nature that needed to die before He was born?

If He had an "old man" that needed to die, then that "old man" must have sinned to deserve death. Since He was not capable of committing sin as a fetus, that means then that He would have been a sinner at conception. A preposterous notion!!!

c) The new birth is a conscious decision. How can He do that as fetus? If He could do that as a fetus, then He was not like anyone of us after all, like I've been saying.

d) Born connected to God? Then He had an enormous advantage over everyone of us after all. NONE of us are born connected to God. Isn't this just another way of saying, He was born without any inherent propensity/inclination to sin?

e) If we are born disconnected from God, what have we done before we were born that disconnected us from God? WHAT CAUSES DISCONNECTION/SEPARATION? IS IT NOT SIN? WHOSE SIN CAUSED THAT DISCONNECTION/SEPARATION?

[John317]

The Adventist understanding rejects the false doctrine of original sin. A son is not guilty of the sin of his father. The child is born with a sinful nature and is destined to sin but is not born guilty sin.

I agree with this. WE're born with fallen natures but we're not born guilty of sin. The Catholic theolgy says that if Christ had merely been born with a fallen nature-- whether Himself had chosen to sin or not-- Christ would be guilty of sin, but this is false. We are guilty of sin only when we choose to sin. We're not guilty of sin apart from our choices. Sin is a choice, not nature. Catholic and Orthodox theology says sin is nature. That's why they require the Immaculate conception-- that Mary herself was born without original sin.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Originally Posted By: Shane

The ESV quoted above says that David was brought forth in iniquity. That simply means he was born in a sinful world - not in sinless Eden. His mother even conceived him in sin (i.e. a sinful world).

G:None of these translations would give me the impression that that's what it means, i.e. born into a sinful world. They plainly say that the psalmist was conceived & born a sinner.

S: No that is not what they say and no they are not plain. Lets look.

1. ESV | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

S:This does not say he was born a sinner.

2. NASB | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

S: This does not say he was born a sinner.

3. NIV | Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

S: This verse say he was born a sinner. Here we see the translators disagreeing. Many fundamentalist Protestants reject the NIV and this verse is one of the reasons they often give.

4. NRSV | Ps 51:5 Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother

S: Here again, we see a translation stating he was born a sinner.

5. KJV 1900 | Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me

S: This does not say he was born a sinner.

6. YLT: 5 Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

Young, R. (1997). Young's literal translation (Ps 51:5). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

S: This does not say he was born a sinner.

7. NKJ: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

And in sin my mother conceived me.

S: This does not say he was born a sinner.

8. NLT: For I was born a sinner—

yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

S: This does say he was born a sinner.

So of the eight translations here, five do not say he was born a sinner and three say he was. Linguists say this verse is very difficult to translate which is why we see different versions of the Bible going different directions with it.

G: Since English was not my native tongue, then I'd leave it to others to see whether they are not in fact, all saying ESSENTIALLY the SAME thing. One thing I'm certain of is that nowhere does any of these translations suggest what you are saying, i.e. that he was born INTO a sinful world, instead of what they are all saying - that he was conceived and born sinful.