[dwashbur]

What about 1 Corinthians 15:45 (English Revised Version), "So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

Exactly! "Last Adam." not "new Adam." There's a huge difference.

[dwashbur]

I once met the late Dr. Adrian Rogers who aired a program where he said, "Jesus had to be born through a virgin birth because he could not be corrupted by original sin of Adam." (CHRI Radio, Dec 23, 2006). Why would the former president of the SBC suggest that Christ "had to be born through a virgin" if she was 'mere' woman. And, why would Adrian Rogers suggest that the Person of Christ was protected from the corruption of original sin?

I already answered this: because sin passes through the human father. Hence, Jesus had to be born of a virgin, i.e. have no human father, so He wasn't tainted by sin. When I said this, you argued. Now you are favorably quoting someone who said the very same thing. Interesting.

[JoeT777]

Joe I don't know where you got that idea from, biblically those who had undergone John's baptism were rebaptized.

I don't believe I mentioned John's baptism.

Baptism is a ritual acknowledgement of redemption and rebirth, are you suggesting that I re-crucified Christ when I underwent full immersion baptism even though I had been "baptized" as a child.

Yes.

Adam did not become a living spirit by being baptized but by being faithful to the father's plan and giving his life for us.

Adam, was created without original sin, the removal of which is a part of the efficacy of Baptism. Baptism is not simply ritual. We are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit becoming born again as new men like the first Adam before the fall.

We become that living spirit when we accept Christ, baptism is a public confirmation, quite literally the; "if you admit me before men I will admit you before my Father who is in heaven"

We receive the Holy Spirit in our first Baptism, what spirit might you be receiving in the second baptism?

For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.[Hebrews 6:4-6]

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Exactly! "Last Adam." not "new Adam." There's a huge difference.

And which Adam do you suppose St. Paul was discussing that was life-giving?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

I already answered this: because sin passes through the human father. Hence, Jesus had to be born of a virgin, i.e. have no human father, so He wasn't tainted by sin. When I said this, you argued. Now you are favorably quoting someone who said the very same thing. Interesting.

What do you suppose kept the animosity of sinful corrupted flesh received from Mary and the purity of Spirit? Such a man would become insane from the torture received from his own body. Then what do you do with the Jew's objections whose prophecies say the Messiah must be a pure lamb, sinless. Having sinful flesh confounds the problem doesn't it?

JoeT

[dwashbur]

What do you suppose kept the animosity of sinful corrupted flesh received from Mary and the purity of Spirit? Such a man would become insane from the torture received from his own body. Then what do you do with the Jew's objections whose prophecies say the Messiah must be a pure lamb, sinless. Having sinful flesh confounds the problem doesn't it?

No, because flesh isn't sinful. It's weak and subject to decay, but it's not sinful. That's another huge Catholic mistake for which there is no biblical basis, and it has done worlds of harm throughout the centuries, especially to women.

The sinful nature, or simply "sin" as Paul often calls it, DWELLS in the mortal body, but is something separate from it. There is nothing inherently sinful about the body or the flesh. The Bible knows no distinction between "original" sin and regular old "sin." That's yet another religious construct that somebody made up and the church adopted. You like to talk about things like original sin and what baptism does to it as if these are established facts, but they're not. If Jesus didn't have "original" sin, why was he baptized? What was the point? He didn't have any "original" sin to wash away, so why? He said it was to "fulfill all righteousness." What does that mean? Well, since we agree that Jesus was sinless, it sure doesn't seem to mean that baptism washes away any kind of sin.

Jesus didn't have the kind of internal conflict that you so fancifully describe because he didn't have a sinful nature. The sin/sinful nature is passed through the father; in Adam we all die. There's a reason why it doesn't say "in Adam and Eve we all die," because generationally speaking, Eve has nothing to do with it. It's handed down paternally. Since Jesus had no human father, He had no sin/sinful nature. One again, QED.

And there's still no reason to see anything miraculous or special about Mary. She obeyed. That's enough for me.

[dwashbur]

And which Adam do you suppose St. Paul was discussing that was life-giving?

*stare in awe as he completely misses the point*

[JoeT777]

No, because flesh isn't sinful. It's weak and subject to decay, but it's not sinful. That's another huge Catholic mistake for which there is no biblical basis, and it has done worlds of harm throughout the centuries, especially to women.

The sinful nature, or simply "sin" as Paul often calls it, DWELLS in the mortal body, but is something separate from it. There is nothing inherently sinful about the body or the flesh. The Bible knows no distinction between "original" sin and regular old "sin." That's yet another religious construct that somebody made up and the church adopted. You like to talk about things like original sin and what baptism does to it as if these are established facts, but they're not. If Jesus didn't have "original" sin, why was he baptized? What was the point? He didn't have any "original" sin to wash away, so why? He said it was to "fulfill all righteousness." What does that mean? Well, since we agree that Jesus was sinless, it sure doesn't seem to mean that baptism washes away any kind of sin.

Jesus didn't have the kind of internal conflict that you so fancifully describe because he didn't have a sinful nature. The sin/sinful nature is passed through the father; in Adam we all die. There's a reason why it doesn't say "in Adam and Eve we all die," because generationally speaking, Eve has nothing to do with it. It's handed down paternally. Since Jesus had no human father, He had no sin/sinful nature. One again, QED.

And there's still no reason to see anything miraculous or special about Mary. She obeyed. That's enough for me.

'Sinful flesh' is the privation we have as heirs of Adam, unable to reason in the lower passions for the love of God, a lust or concupiscence. And we know that sin causes death which we've shown in Romans as you might recall, ". . . sin entered into this world, and by sin death" Romans 5:12. Sin corrupts the flesh which corrupts the soul resulting in eternal death of 'person', that is both body and soul.

"I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would."[Galatians 5:16,17]

St. Paul adderess sinful flesh directely saying, "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 of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh" [Romans 8:3]
If there is no original sin, no original justice then explain why an eternal soul should die, why the body dies when those of us of the clan of Adam all exhibit these traits? Yet, Adam was made for eternity before being deprived of God's presence.

JoeT

[hauntinghelper]

"In the LIKENESS of sinful flesh..."

In Greek that is "homoioma"... to represent or resemble... it doesn't mean to BE sinful flesh... only to be in resemblance of it.

[dwashbur]

If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

[JoeT777]

If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

I thought I made my point clear in post #48. It's the relationship between sin and the flesh, ". . . flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another"

JoeT

[dwashbur]

Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

I thought I made my point clear in post #48. It's the relationship between sin and the flesh, ". . . flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another"

That's not the question. See my first sentence.

[JoeT777]

"In the LIKENESS of sinful flesh..."

In Greek that is "homoioma"...to represent or resemble...it doesn't mean to BE sinful flesh...only to be in resemblance of it.

Agreed, the "likeness of sinful flesh" was the description of Christ, Divinity who appeared as man, something the Father would have found demeaning for His son. [Cf. Romans 8:3] ST. John Chrysostom lays out the glorious victory of Christ's who in human flesh had defeated sin. Three marvels were evident to St. John;

One was, that sin did not conquer the flesh; another, that sin was conquered, and conquered by it [flesh] too. On Romans, homily 13

To do this Christ was a New Adam, born of the Immaculate Virgin's flesh, sinless,

JoeT

[classyT]

Grumpy Joe,

I honor my mother and she is a mere woman but she is special to me because she is my mother. Therefore I honor Mary because she was CHOSEN to be the Lord Jesus earthy mother. It isn't rocket science and I didn't contradict myself..

God could have chosen any Jewish woman who was a virgin, but he chose her. Not because she was something special in and of herself but because she had faith and his favor was upon her. Yes, the woman needed to be a virgin for many reasons but she was just a woman and she didn't stay a virgin.

[JoeT777]

Grumpy Joe,

I honor my mother and she is a mere woman but she is special to me because she is my mother. Therefore I honor Mary because she was CHOSEN to be the Lord Jesus earthy mother. It isn't rocket science and I didn't contradict myself.

I didn't suggest it was rocket science, however I did give you an alternative which in harmony with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

God could have chosen any Jewish woman who was a virgin, but he chose her.

I don't think we are talking about 'any Jewish' woman or what God 'could have done'. Instead we are discussing what God did do, and a figure that literally had God within her and brought Him forward for your Salvation.

Not because she was something special in and of herself but because she had faith and his favor was upon her. Yes, the woman needed to be a virgin for many reasons but she was just a woman and she didn't stay a virgin.

What every day, any ol' woman had an angel from God sent to them? What spiritually common person was hailed 'full of grace' and 'blessed among women'? What everyday 12 to 14 year old child girl is told they will have a child without ever knowing a man? What liar, thief, common and uncommon sinner is told all these things by God?

[classyT]

Dave,

Not to hijack the thread but I can't reply to you because your mailbox is too full. Just saying

Grumpy Joe,

I will ponder on what you said to me and have a reply for you.

[dwashbur]

Oops. Fixed.

[dwashbur]

I didn't suggest it was rocket science, however I did give you an alternative which in harmony with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Tradition is not "Sacred." Tradition is tradition, nothing more. That's part of your problem.

[JoeT777]

Tradition is not "Sacred." Tradition is tradition, nothing more. That's part of your problem.

The OP doesn't cover the topic of the sacredness of Tradition. Truth, that Truth which is convertible with God and is immutable, doesn't change with time, person, location, or church affiliation. Sacred Tradition maintains God's Word within His Truth. While you might be bound between book covers please don't project your bindings onto a grounded infallible rule of faith, i.e Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church together existing in the Body of Christ.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the first cause of every sin is first a voluntary act of the will which is moved by the soul. Sin subjects the soul to the flesh in turn controlling the flesh whereby the will becomes weakened unable maintain power over lusts of the flesh: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, so that you do not do the things you wish to do.” [Galatians 5:17]. Sinful flesh then is not actual flesh but our lusts which corrupt the flesh.