www.ArgumentCenter.org - Where hard questions are answered

< STRONG No, because God didn't have to use Mary’s genes, instead He used His "own."

Mary’s just the vessel to create the body of Jesus, the sin passed down through genetics didn't play a role:

"From the results revealed in the Bible, it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum, thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that was perfect from its start. Whatever the case, the operation of God’s holy spirit at the time guaranteed the success of God’s purpose. As the angel Gabriel explained to Mary, “power of the Most High” overshadowed her so that what was born was holy, God’s Son. God’s holy spirit formed, as it were, a protective wall so that no imperfection or hurtful force could damage, or blemish, the developing embryo, from conception on.—Luke 1:35." (Insight On The Scriptures - Volume 2 p. 56)

< No. The sin nature is passed down through the father.

Sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve.  Remember, Eve was the one who sinned first.  However, sin did not enter the world through her.  It entered through Adam. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." The concept behind this is called Federal Headship.  This means that a person (a father) represents his descendants.  We see this concept taught in Heb. 7:9-10, "And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." We see in Hebrews that Levi, a distant descendant of Abraham, is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when Abraham was the one offering the tithes, not Levi.  What this means is that there is biblical support for the idea that the sin nature was passed down through the father.  Since Jesus had not a literal, biological father, the sin nature was not passed down to Him.  However, since He had a human mother, he was fully human but without original sin.  Jesus has two natures:  God and man.  Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form." Jesus received His human nature from Mary, but He received His divine nature through God the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, Jesus is both God and man.  He was sinless, had no original sin, and was both fully God and fully man. [emphasis added]

- CARM http://carm.org/why-wasnt-jesus-born-original-sin

< STRONG No. Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet he did not have a sinful nature.

"Much of the purpose of the virgin birth was to allow Jesus to be fully human but without the Adamic nature. Joseph was "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matthew 1:16). Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus did not receive the sinful nature of Joseph. However, He was born in the natural body and in the full likeness of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 states, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." He was born in the flesh, but the inner sin nature was not His nature. He was only born in the "likeness" of sinful flesh. If He had had a sin nature, John could not have said of Him, "in him is no sin" (1 John 3:5) and Paul could not have spoken of Him as the one "who knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21)."

Jesus could be tempted, yet his perfect sinless nature enabled him to overcome temptation and to remain free of sin.

>> No, because original sin is a false doctrine and therefore isn't inherited.

Click here for more: http://www.revivaltheology.net/11_born_sin/index.html