Believing in the Holy Trinity, the Godhead of three distinct Persons in perfect unity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then are we obliged by that affirmation to understand the Blessed Mary to be singularly preserved exempt from all sin and ever virgin?

As an example we say Christ is one Person in the Holy Trinity and is the union of the nature of God and man. Also, we say that the Son of God was begotten and not made, of one essence with the God; when the incarnation took place, at that very moment of conception, the mystery of the union of God and man took place. Without a sinless Mary, the incarnation took place in a corrupted Ark, Christ is born of sin, which of course is an illogical response.

JoeT

That isn't necessarily the case. Romans 5 tells us that sin passed to all through Adam; that is, sin nature passes through paternity. Mary didn't have to be sinless, because Jesus didn't have a human father and hence sin didn't get passed to him regardless of Mary's situation.

While of course while I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as true and valid, one does not automatically prove or disprove the other.

Sin as dwashbur discussed has been shown though custom and tradition also to be passed down by the male, but of course for Mary to be without sin, there had to be another act of God to allow her to be born sinless , since she did have a father and would have been born with sin, without an act of God to change that.

But of course if one can accept and believe in the virgin birth, accepting something as merely being born without sin should be an easy leap of faith.

While of course while I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as true and valid, one does not automatically prove or disprove the other.
I don't think I set out to 'prove' or 'disprove', I used the word 'obliged' deliberately to avoid such connotations. Nevertheless, holding first the view of the Holy Trinity then the second view must logically follow unless we harm our belief in the Holy Trinity.


Sin as dwashbur discussed has been shown though custom and tradition also to be passed down by the male, but of course for Mary to be without sin, there had to be another act of God to allow her to be born sinless , since she did have a father and would have been born with sin, without an act of God to change that.

This seems to me to be an example as well. All men born of woman have original sin. The only exception would be a man born of Eve before the fall. If we don't acknowledge this then we harm the two natures of Christ, Theandros, God/Man.

We hold that the Blessed Mary was just such a woman, a new Eve, without sin, without knowledge of knowing sin. Fr. Placid Conway, in his biographical study of Saint Thomas Aquinas reminds us of St. Thomas' Commentary on the Epistle to Romans: "All men have sinned in Adam, excepting only the most Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of Original Sin". Conway also illustrates with St. Thomas' discourse on the purity of Mary.


• "Increase of purity is to be measured according to withdrawal from its opposite, and since in the Blessed Virgin there was 'depuratia' from all sin, she consequently attained the summit of purity; but yet under God, in Whom there is no capability of defect as is in every creature of itself". And again he writes in Dist. XLIV, Quest. I, art 3 "
• "Purity is increased by withdrawal from its opposite, and consequently some created being can be found purer than which nothing can be found in creatures, if never sullied by defilement of sin, and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was exempt from original and actual sin". [depuratio ab omni peccato – purified of all sin]


... Romans 5 tells us that sin passed to all through Adam; that is, sin nature passes through paternity. Mary didn't have to be sinless, because Jesus didn't have a human father and hence sin didn't get passed to him regardless of Mary's situation.

The verses of Romans 5:12-13 emphatically states that no man is born without original sin and pays the price of death for the original sin of Adam and that actual sins are known whenever there is a known transgression of God's Law.

Consequently, it is inescapable that every man enters the world through sin; being a man, this would include Christ. Since Christ is the union of man and God, that is wholly man and wholly God, the only way a man enters the world is through woman. There are only two types of woman, Eve, before the fall. And the second type of woman is the fallen woman who inherits death through Adam. Since perfection is not born of sin, the new Adam, Christ, must be born of a new Eve, a woman without sin. This compels us to the acknowledge the Blessed Virgin Mary.


But of course if one can accept and believe in the virgin birth, accepting something as merely being born without sin should be an easy leap of faith.

How great a leap is it to believe a man that was born of a virgin? If you can believe this, then how small must a step be to believe the Immaculate Conception?




Man born of a woman, living for a short time, is filled with many miseries. Who comes forth like a flower, and is destroyed, and flees as a shadow, and never continues in the same state. And do you think it meet to open your eyes upon such an one, and to bring him into judgment with you? Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? Job 14:1-4
JoeT

Joe777,

where you been? I've been wondering where you were. Missed all of our discussions... you remember them... YOU being wrong.. me being right. It was fun. :) Glad your back.

Mary was blessed by God and she was special because she was chosen to be the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ and in that way I acknowledge her. But NOwhere does the NT or OT suggest she was sinless. To make her deity is wrong and I personally think she would be appalled by it.

Christ was the last Adam.. the Bible is crystal clear about it. But there isn't a verse in the Bible that says that Mary was the new, second or last EVE. In fact, there really isn't much about Mary at all. Why? Because our focus should be on the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Not a created being.

Even if you REASONED it out it doesn't make sense. She was born with sinful parents. 1+1=2. If she could suddenly be without original sin, then why couldn't he do that for all of us.

Genesis 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent..
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Does that say anything about the NEW eve? Naaaah just the woman.. the fallen woman.

I just don't understand the need to add Mary into the divine mix? Why must we push the issue of her being sinless, which simply by definition of her being human means she had sins to deal with same as you and I. Why must we push the issue of her being forever a virgin? The bible is clear that Jesus had siblings. Joseph went on to marry her... why on EARTH would we just assume they never had sex? I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers in Christ, but my goodness... what is your focus on?

The verses of Romans 5:12-13 emphatically states that no man is born without original sin and pays the price of death for the original sin of Adam and that actual sins are known whenever there is a known transgression of God's Law.

Consequently, it is inescapable that every man enters the world through sin; being a man, this would include Christ. Since Christ is the union of man and God, that is wholly man and wholly God, the only way a man enters the world is through woman. There are only two types of woman, Eve, before the fall. And the second type of woman is the fallen woman who inherits death through Adam. Since perfection is not born of sin, the new Adam, Christ, must be born of a new Eve, a woman without sin. This compels us to the acknowledge the Blessed Virgin Mary.


No, it doesn't compel any such thing. It clearly implies that sin nature comes through paternity, so Jesus' sinlessness came not because of anything to do with his mother, but because God was his father and he didn't have any earthly father to pass sin to him. There's no reason to bring anything about Mary into it. And as ClassyT pointed out, there's no indication of any second Eve anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there a "new" or "second" Adam; Jesus is called the "last" Adam, a life-giving spirit. Maternity has nothing to do with anything. It's all about paternity, and Jesus was able to be born sinless because he didn't have a human father. It really is that simple.

Dwashbur, well said.

If Mary, being sinless, was all Jesus needed, then it would have been sufficient for him to have two earthly parents... but, no, he needed that divine nature imparted into His human life... that's what makes Him an acceptable sacrifice for our sins... it has to do with His blood and NOTHING to do with Mary.

I just don't understand the need to add Mary into the divine mix? Why must we push the issue of her being sinless, which simply by definition of her being human means she had sins to deal with same as you and I. Why must we push the issue of her being forever a virgin? The bible is clear that Jesus had siblings. Joseph went on to marry her...why on EARTH would we just assume they never had sex? I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers in Christ, but my goodness...what is your focus on?

Why then did God ‘choose’ the mother of the Son of God? Why didn’t he simply choose an incubator? Saint Ambrose reminds us that it was Mary’s flesh in which Christ was born and given in the perfect sacrifice and glorified in His resurrection. If as suggested, the flesh of Mary was impure then Christ bore the flesh of sin and His Passion on the Cross would have not been a sacrifice but atonement needed for His resurrection. To ignore this would be to ignore the contradiction that sin shall be judged. Christ being the judge then we could ask, who would then Judge then Judge?

He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

The Blessed Mary was the handmaiden that the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed. She in effect became bound to God by her vow to a spiritual marriage. Would we then say that Christ was the offspring from the marriage of sin and Divine Holiness? (Cf. Luke 1:35).


JoeT

How great a leap is it to believe a man that was born of a virgin? If you can believe this, then how small must a step be to believe the Immaculate Conception?
Why do we have to make that "small step"? There's nothing in the Bible to support it, and much to support the leap.

Why then did God ‘choose’ the mother of the Son of God? Why didn’t he simply choose an incubator?
Electricity hadn't been discovered yet. In the same way, why didn't he have Jesus produced by a great fish?

The amazement and glory of the nativity story is that God blessed a young woman "just like us" to be the mother of His Son.

God CHOSE her because he needed to be born human. I'm not doubting her purity and obviously she was someone special to be chosen to begin with. HOWEVER, aside from birthing and raising Jesus, she not sits in the background of the Triune God. I say stick to the Word and not to what the Church tells you. Spiritual marriage? Don't put words in God's mouth... the Catholic church would be taken a little more seriously if it laid off the assumptions and just stuck to Scripture. Mary has no place in the current church of God, Saint so and so and Saint whoseywhat don't either. These are not scriptural beliefs, they are man made dogma. When Mary or Saint blah-blah die for my sins... they just might get a prayer from me.

Saint Ambrose reminds us that it was Mary’s flesh in which Christ was born and given in the perfect sacrifice and glorified in His resurrection. If as suggested, the flesh of Mary was impure then Christ bore the flesh of sin and His Passion on the Cross would have not been a sacrifice but atonement needed for His resurrection.

Joe,
You're still dodging the idea that the sin nature is passed through paternity. If that is the case, and Scripture seems to say it is, then it didn't matter whether Mary's "flesh" was pure or impure or anything else. You need to address this question before we can make any more progress.

And do me a favor: don't quote church fathers to me as if they carry some authority, because for me they don't. I speak only for myself, of course, but anything that is going to have weight of argument for me is going to have to come from the Bible itself. The writings of the fathers can give us a lot of insight into how they believed, and they can often help illuminate biblical passages. But they do not stand on any kind of par with revealed truth. That only comes from the Word. I know you probably don't agree, and you believe that authority is shared between the Bible and the Church. I don't begrudge you that view, all I'm saying is, since I don't accept church authority as absolute, it's not going to move us ahead any in the discussion to invoke it.

I hope that doesn't sound snide, because it's not meant to be. I'm having a little trouble formulating exactly what I'm trying to say there, so I hope it comes across okay.

Why do we have to make that "small step"? There's nothing in the Bible to support it, and much to support the leap.

If there is nothing in Scripture to support it we should drop it, right? Should we also drop the Holy Trinity as well? The same type of reasoning is used to in the Creed to establish the Truth of the Trinity, is it not?

JoeT

Electricity hadn't been discovered yet. In the same way, why didn't he have Jesus produced by a great fish?

The amazement and glory of the nativity story is that God blessed a young woman "just like us" to be the mother of His Son.

Nor was I, nor were Fish n Chips – by the way, it takes a deep electric fryer.

The point is the glory is much more than the blessing of a little farm girl. A godly Rabbi could've done that. This birth completely transformed heaven and earth. Deep fryers didn't come anywhere near to this type of glory.

JoeT

If there is nothing in Scripture to support it we should drop it, right? Should we also drop the Holy Trinity as well? The same type of reasoning is used to in the Creed to establish the Truth of the Trinity, is it not?

JoeT
There are many supporting Bible verses for the Trinity. The Creeds don't establish the truth of the Trinity; they only summarize Christian beliefs into a convenient package.

There are many supporting Bible verses for the Trinity. The Creeds don't establish the truth of the Trinity; they only summarize Christian beliefs into a convenient package.

Does Truth rely on the satisfaction of numbers? What is the magic number for Truth? Or is Truth a God given synthesis of reason? The Blessed Mary's purity and spotlessness is only another facet of the Truth in the Trinity.

JoeT

Does Truth rely on the satisfaction of numbers? What is the magic number for Truth? Or is Truth a God given synthesis of reason? The Blessed Mary's purity and spotlessness is only another facet of the Truth in the Trinity.

JoeT
Oh, for Pete's sake, Joe! Truth is in the Bible.

Does Truth rely on the satisfaction of numbers? What is the magic number for Truth? Or is Truth a God given synthesis of reason? The Blessed Mary's purity and spotlessness is only another facet of the Truth in the Trinity.

JoeT

How did numbers get into it? There's something here that I'm not grasping.

The truth of things like Jesus is established by God's revelation in the Bible. I have no idea what numbers have to do with anything.

But they do not stand on any kind of par with revealed truth. That only comes from the Word. I know you probably don't agree, and you believe that authority is shared between the Bible and the Church. I don't begrudge you that view, all I'm saying is, since I don't accept church authority as absolute, it's not going to move us ahead any in the discussion to invoke it.

I hope that doesn't sound snide, because it's not meant to be. I'm having a little trouble formulating exactly what I'm trying to say there, so I hope it comes across okay.

No, it doesn't sound snide, but it does take away part of Joe's belief, and you insist that he discuss the issue by your groundrules. That's not snide, but it's not fair.

As to Mary not having human paternity, and therefore not subject to original sin, the other side of that logical coin must be that Mary is half-human and half-divine since the paternal role was played by God.

No, it doesn't sound snide, but it does take away part of Joe's belief, and you insist that he discuss the issue by your groundrules. That's not snide, but it's not fair.



Good point. The problem is, there's not any good way to level the playing field in this case.

but it does take away part of Joe's belief, and you insist that he discuss the issue by your groundrules. That's not snide, but it's not fair.
The heading of this thread assumes Joe's ground rules. By the same token, then, that's not fair to non-Catholics who want to post.

The heading of this thread assumes Joe's ground rules. By the same token, then, that's not fair to non-Catholics who want to post.

In that case, the site rules were broken when Joe's citation of the Church Fathers and Catholic teaching was disregarded.

Again, there is no unfairness to non-catholics. These are perfectly free to state their opinions. They are not free to limit Joe's beliefs as noted in my first sentence above.

Since the part about Mary in my post was not answered, do I take this to mean you all now believe she was quasi-Divine?

Good point. The problem is, there's not any good way to level the playing field in this case.

I tried to give you a "helpful", but it wouldn't let me.

That's the point, isn't it? Catholics and Protestants discussing issues from different frames of reference.

Joe777,

where you been? I've been wondering where you were. Missed all of our discussions... you remember them... YOU being wrong.. me being right. It was fun. :) Glad your back.

Thanks, I've been around, but thought you guys needed a few months of rest from me being right all the time.


Mary was blessed by God and she was special because she was chosen to be the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ and in that way I acknowledge her.
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.. . The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:28-30,35 At the very moment this occurs St. Anselm reminds us the Blessed Mary becomes Queen of heaven, she is the handmaiden of the Lord, His spousal queen.

The Queen of heaven was the big ticket lottery for 14 year old girls in antiquity? She was simply 'picked' like a fatted cow?


But NOwhere does the NT or OT suggest she was sinless. To make her deity is wrong and I personally think she would be appalled by it.

And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures Ecclesiasticus 24:5. This verse prefigures Mary being 'full of Grace'. How many people are declared to be 'full of Grace in the New Testament? Do you know?

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, Proverbs 8:22; foreshadows the incarnation which is to take place within Mary.
Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers. Proverbs 17:6

Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. Canticles 4:7-8. This verse heralds God's handmaiden binding Mary in a supernatural spousal relationship with God.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:28-29

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. Ps 131:8: foreshadows both Christ and the Ark (Mary) rising to heaven, Christ ascends on his own authority, and Mary is assumed into heaven. How pure must Mary be to be assumed into heaven, just a nice farm girl, a little bit, a lot, or singularly pure (like no other) without knowledge of sin?

Having a golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. Hebrews 9:4. As in Moses' day the ark of the covenant contains an everlasting life the bread of life (Cf. John 6), a priesthood ministered (Aaron's rod) with the bread of life; likewise Mary held within her the living bread of life, the high priest and the word of God
In John's Apocalypse we are given the vision of the Ark of the Covenant being in heaven, then in John's Apocalypese chapter 12 we read "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered." This is the allusion of both the Church and Mary. In Exodus we see are told of the Ark being covered in Gold, a symbol of purity. In the same way the Ark that carries Christ across the seas of death from conception to birth, Mary is the purest vessel, free of sin. Jew's admiration and reverence for the Ark of the Covenant enhanced his love for God. Likewise revere the Mother of God which in turn magnifies our love of God. Scripture tells us the Ark is so pure that any sin that comes in contact with it dies, as did Uzzah (Cf. 2 Kings 6:7). An Ark that contained the very essence of God such as Mary would be even more holy.

As King David leapt for Joy before the Ark; so too, did John the Baptist leap for Joy before Mary. (Cf. 2 Kings 6:16 and Luke 1:41) So too, we see David asking why the Ark should come to him, we see Elizabeth asking the same question (Cf. 2 Kings 6:9 and Luke 1:43). The similarities between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary don't end here. The Ark remains for three months in Obededom's house before it was taken to the City of David. Likewise Mary remains with Zachary for three months when the house was blessed with the birth of Elizabeth's child.
A life giving cloud overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant filling it with His Glory and May was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, likewise filling her with Glory.

These correlating verses don't exist by mere coincidence. Like the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, through his Church, is showing us the relevance of the Blessed Mary to His Glory.


Christ was the last Adam.. the Bible is crystal clear about it. But there isn't a verse in the Bible that says that Mary was the new, second or last EVE. In fact, there really isn't much about Mary at all. Why? Because our focus should be on the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Not a created being.
A half a Truth is as good as a lie. In the same way, half of a revealed Truth leads us away from Truth. If there is a New Adam in the New Covenant, then there is a New Eve. As I stated before, Eve before the fall did not know sin. Mary, singularly preserved from ever knowing sin is rightly called the New Eve.


Even if you REASONED it out it doesn't make sense. She was born with sinful parents. 1+1=2. If she could suddenly be without original sin, then why couldn't he do that for all of us.

I can't count to four using all the fingers on both hands. There's nothing new, it wasn't me what figured it out; it was given the Catholic Church to teach the relevance of a doctrine that non-Catholic's hold in ridicule. Instead of ridiculing the Church, it is the Trinity that is harmed.

JoeT

Good point. The problem is, there's not any good way to level the playing field in this case.

I'm not playing a game where rules are needed to make the playing field level. I'm looking for a truth when I ask a question, if you feel the proper way to respond is 'scripture alone', that's fine with me. If you give an opinion that's not yours I'd like to know that too. My faith isn't confined to a book. I get to live my faith in living color, as well as, through the lives of the Saint, Doctors, Bishops, and Popes of the Church – why do you want to tie a book around my neck and dump me in a sea of my own opinion? If you don't agree with what I've said you can always explain why.

But, there is a more important reason for quoting the authority of the Catholic Church, and that's to show that my explanation is not entirely of my own; I likely didn't originate the ideas I might express. Don't you agree that the originator of a certain line of thought ought to get the credit?

JoeT

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.. . The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:28-30,35 At the very moment this occurs St. Anselm reminds us the Blessed Mary becomes Queen of heaven, she is the handmaiden of the Lord, His spousal queen.

Anselm was wrong. He added something that has no basis in the actual story. I could say that Mary had great big dimples and therefore women with great big dimples are more blessed by God than those without. If we're going to start adding stuff that's not really there, this could go just about anywhere. Anselm was wrong.



And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures Ecclesiasticus 24:5. This verse prefigures Mary being 'full of Grace'. How many people are declared to be 'full of Grace in the New Testament? Do you know?

As you know, Ecclesiasticus isn't in our Bibles. But even so, it's a personification of wisdom; only gross assumption can see any prefiguring of Mary here. The Old Testament talks a lot about wisdom and personifies it, but that's exactly what it's talking about: godly wisdom. There's no reason to assume it "prefigures" anybody.


The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, Proverbs 8:22; foreshadows the incarnation which is to take place within Mary.
Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers. Proverbs 17:6

The first is also speaking of wisdom, not a person. I have no idea what the second one has to do with anything.


Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. Canticles 4:7-8. This verse heralds God's handmaiden binding Mary in a supernatural spousal relationship with God.

The Song of Solomon is erotic poetry. It exalts the delights of married physical love. The church of the late Roman era and the early middle ages scrambled to figure out some way to make it allegorical because of the prevailing belief that sex was evil. The idea that the Bible might actually consider sex good, pleasant and desirable embarrassed a lot of church officials, so they came up with this lame allegory that doesn't work.


And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:28-29

This one, of course, hinges on the meanings of "full of grace" and "blessed." (For the moment, I'm blowing past the fact that the clause "blessed are you among women" isn't in the best manuscripts and probably isn't part of what Luke actually wrote. For the sake of argument, we'll go with it.) "Full of grace" is better translated with the NIV, "highly favored." It simply means God had something special for her to do, it says nothing about her nature. As for "blessed," I know that Catholic dogma makes a distinction between "blest" as a single syllable, and "bless-ed" as two syllables, but that distinction isn't in the original text. There are two words in the New Testament translated "blessed" (one syllable); one means "happy," while the other one, the one we have here, means "well spoken-of" or "renowned." In this case, it just means that other women would say nice things about her. This was fulfilled almost immediately when she visited Elizabeth. Again, it doesn't say anything about her nature, it just says people would like her.


Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. Ps 131:8: foreshadows both Christ and the Ark (Mary) rising to heaven, Christ ascends on his own authority, and Mary is assumed into heaven. How pure must Mary be to be assumed into heaven, just a nice farm girl, a little bit, a lot, or singularly pure (like no other) without knowledge of sin?

The supposed identification of Mary with the Ark of the covenant is one of the biggest flying leaps in the whole system. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing at all, that ever hints that Mary and the Ark have anything at all in common. This psalm is talking about the actual Ark of the covenant as it was being brought up to the temple. The "resting place" spoken of isn't heaven, it's the temple in Jerusalem. So unless Mary died and was buried in Solomon's temple, this has nothing to do with her.

I'm not going to address the other Mary/Ark comparisons, because they're based on nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.

Don't you agree that the originator of a certain line of thought ought to get the credit?

JoeT

Absolutely. My biggest problem is that I often forget where lines of thought came from. I can tell you this much: I have pretty much never had an original thought in my life, so most everything I offer comes from someone smarter than me. I don't claim any special knowledge; I stand on the shoulders of giants.

I'm looking for a truth when I ask a question
Are you? I've never gotten that impression.

Thanks, I've been around, but thought you guys needed a few months of rest from me being right all the time.


And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. .. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:28-30,35 At the very moment this occurs St. Anselm reminds us the Blessed Mary becomes Queen of heaven, she is the handmaiden of the Lord, His spousal queen.

The Queen of heaven was the big ticket lottery for 14 year old girls in antiquity? She was simply 'picked' like a fatted cow?



And shall open her mouth in the churches of the most High, and shall glorify herself in the sight of his power, And in the midst of her own people she shall be exalted, and shall be admired in the holy assembly. And in the multitude of the elect she shall have praise, and among the blessed she shall be blessed, saying: I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures Ecclesiasticus 24:5. This verse prefigures Mary being 'full of Grace'. How many people are declared to be 'full of Grace in the New Testament? Do you know?

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, Proverbs 8:22; foreshadows the incarnation which is to take place within Mary.
Children's children are the crown of old men: and the glory of children are their fathers. Proverbs 17:6

Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. Canticles 4:7-8. This verse heralds God's handmaiden binding Mary in a supernatural spousal relationship with God.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. Luke 1:28-29

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. Ps 131:8: foreshadows both Christ and the Ark (Mary) rising to heaven, Christ ascends on his own authority, and Mary is assumed into heaven. How pure must Mary be to be assumed into heaven, just a nice farm girl, a little bit, a lot, or singularly pure (like no other) without knowledge of sin?

Having a golden censer, and the Ark of the Covenant covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament. Hebrews 9:4. As in Moses' day the ark of the covenant contains an everlasting life the bread of life (Cf. John 6), a priesthood ministered (Aaron's rod) with the bread of life; likewise Mary held within her the living bread of life, the high priest and the word of God
In John's Apocalypse we are given the vision of the Ark of the Covenant being in heaven, then in John's Apocalypese chapter 12 we read "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered." This is the allusion of both the Church and Mary. In Exodus we see are told of the Ark being covered in Gold, a symbol of purity. In the same way the Ark that carries Christ across the seas of death from conception to birth, Mary is the purest vessel, free of sin. Jew's admiration and reverence for the Ark of the Covenant enhanced his love for God. Likewise revere the Mother of God which in turn magnifies our love of God. Scripture tells us the Ark is so pure that any sin that comes in contact with it dies, as did Uzzah (Cf. 2 Kings 6:7). An Ark that contained the very essence of God such as Mary would be even more holy.

As King David leapt for Joy before the Ark; so too, did John the Baptist leap for Joy before Mary. (Cf. 2 Kings 6:16 and Luke 1:41) So too, we see David asking why the Ark should come to him, we see Elizabeth asking the same question (Cf. 2 Kings 6:9 and Luke 1:43). The similarities between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary don't end here. The Ark remains for three months in Obededom's house before it was taken to the City of David. Likewise Mary remains with Zachary for three months when the house was blessed with the birth of Elizabeth's child.
A life giving cloud overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant filling it with His Glory and May was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, likewise filling her with Glory.

These correlating verses don't exist by mere coincidence. Like the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, through his Church, is showing us the relevance of the Blessed Mary to His Glory.


A half a Truth is as good as a lie. In the same way, half of a revealed Truth leads us away from Truth. If there is a New Adam in the New Covenant, then there is a New Eve. As I stated before, Eve before the fall did not know sin. Mary, singularly preserved from ever knowing sin is rightly called the New Eve.



I can't count to four using all the fingers on both hands. There's nothing new, it wasn't me what figured it out; it was given the Catholic Church to teach the relevance of a doctrine that non-Catholic's hold in ridicule. Instead of ridiculing the Church, it is the Trinity that is harmed.

JoeT



Joe, Joe, joe,

John the baptist lept for joy in Elizabeth's womb because of the BABY Mary was carrying. NOT because of Mary.

The Lord Jesus isn't called the NEW Adam. He is called the LAST Adam. And NO that doesn't mean there has to be a NEW Eve. For by ONE man sin entered the world... God held Adam accountable. The verse didn't say by one man and woman sin entered the world.

I never said Mary was picked like a fatted cow. But I'm saying her role was no more than it was a young virgin woman who needed a savior too. God loved her, she followed God, that made her special. God couldn't fix the sin problem by simply making her without original sin. If he could do that, then he could do it for everyone. There are no exceptions to the rule. Jesus wouldn't have had to suffer and die on a cross. It would have been pointless.

I can't comment on the verses you put up that is not from the Bible. They aren't the word of God.

I for the life of me don't understand why Mary has anything in the world to do with the trinity. I don't get it.

Isn't it interesting that the Apostles never wrote much about Mary in the NT? In fact... practically nothing. If she was deity and really important to the Godhead, you'd think they may have mentioned her. They had no trouble expressing that Jesus was the Word, he was with God and he was God. I just see nothing in Acts.. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Peter.. John, Jude... why is that?

I just don't understand the need to add Mary into the divine mix? Why must we push the issue of her being sinless, which simply by definition of her being human means she had sins to deal with same as you and I. Why must we push the issue of her being forever a virgin?

Scripture clearly teaches the article of faith regarding the Holy Trinity. Holding the Holy Trinity as faith we declare “I believe …” Certainly you aren't saying, "I believe except those parts I'm unconvertible with"? Consequently, all other knowledge must by necessity recognize this truth first. As an example, never holding ‘gravity’ in my hands by inductive reasoning I can know that proportional force that draws bodies towards one another is related to the mass of the respective bodies does exist, which we call gravity. Now imagine if in daily life I decide that gravity is ‘just a definition’, i.e. not a big deal, and draw it into subjective reasoning and conclude the ramification of gravity are meaningless. What would happen then if visiting the Grand Canyon I should step off a cliff? No big splash, right? Do we take it as, just a matter of definition and whose definition do we use? Likewise, we find that the Ever Virgin Mary is a consequence of the reasoned Trinity; deny Mary is sinless and our God becomes man or our God and savior becomes a ‘second’ God or a ‘made’ God – which opens the door to paganism. That's why it is important.


The bible is clear that Jesus had siblings. This is your opinion, the Catholic Church holds otherwise as do I.


Joseph went on to marry her... why on EARTH would we just assume they never had sex? I consider Catholics to be fellow brothers in Christ, but my goodness... what is your focus on?

So, your faith is the worship of SEX? Because you can’t live without SEX, nobody can?

More likely, the new Eve was ascetic. Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. In antiquity Jews and Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable. The Jewish sect of Pharisees also had an ascetic nature; you might say the Pharisees were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe St. Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer. Many believe that Mary lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity. That being the case, she wouldn’t have been bound by the Jewish ordinance to marry and have children. You can pick up on this by noticing little comments in scripture, e.g. ‘Joseph was a just man’ was no simple eulogy made by his divine visitor. It implied that Joseph had lived a Holy life, a righteous life, “an ordinary sort of man on whom God relied to do great things,” Saint Josemaria Escriva.

Saint Joseph was a just man, a tireless worker, the upright guardian of those entrusted to his care. May we always guard, protect and enlighten families. Pope John Paul II.

Evidence exists in early Christian writings of an early tradition (c 150 A.D.) which included an Immaculate Mary. While we can’t rely on all these writing like we can the Gospels they tell of the nature of early Christian worship. Some are pseudepigraphic in nature, one such writing is The Gospel of James sometimes, called Protoevangelium of James. The problem is that while this work can be dated to 150 A.D. the authorship is questionable. The Gospel of James claims to have been written by James, presumably James the Just, however most scholars are of the opinion that it is pseudography. In any event The Gospel of James provides us a look into early Church Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity and a veneration of Mary and at least proposes one idea of why Mary chose an ascetic life. At least it shows that the Immaculate Conception wasn’t a recent construct.

Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow; " He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow cannot be broken. Both the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, as does the Protoevangelium of James, indicate both St. Joseph and the blessed Virgin Mary had made such vows CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm).

JoeT

Scripture clearly teaches the article of faith regarding the Holy Trinity. Holding the Holy Trinity as faith we declare “I believe …” Certainly you aren't saying, "I believe except those parts I'm unconvertible with"? Consequently, all other knowledge must by necessity recognize this truth first. As an example, never holding ‘gravity’ in my hands by inductive reasoning I can know that proportional force that draws bodies towards one another is related to the mass of the respective bodies does exist, which we call gravity. Now imagine if in daily life I decide that gravity is ‘just a definition’, i.e. not a big deal, and draw it into subjective reasoning and conclude the ramification of gravity are meaningless. What would happen then if visiting the Grand Canyon I should step off a cliff? No big splash, right? Do we take it as, just a matter of definition and whose definition do we use? Likewise, we find that the Ever Virgin Mary is a consequence of the reasoned Trinity; deny Mary is sinless and our God becomes man or our God and savior becomes a ‘second’ God or a ‘made’ God – which opens the door to paganism. That's why it is important.

You haven't established this at all, merely asserted it several times. Nothing about the Trinity requires anything about Mary. This is especially the case since you refuse to address my contention that the sin nature comes through paternity, so Jesus was able to be sinless even though Mary wasn't. Until you address that question directly, you haven't really gotten anywhere.



So, your faith is the worship of SEX? Because you can’t live without SEX, nobody can?

That's not what hauntinghelper said, and I think you know it. Sorry, Joe, but this looks like a dodge.


More likely, the new Eve was ascetic.

This is assumed without evidence. There's nothing "likely" about it.


Jewish communities practiced different degrees of asceticism, as do the Religious of today’s Church. In antiquity Jews and Christians would exercise both the body and the mind with physical and spiritual exercises along with fasts for the purpose of strengthening virtue. It is dated as far back as the Prophets. The Essenes or Healers were the most notable.

Not so. Some of the prophets were celibate, yes, but we know of at least two, Isaiah and Hosea, who were married. As for the Essenes, the evidence is contradictory, because there are some reports that they were celibate but there are others that say they married. Whoever the people at Qumran were, they had at least a few women around because some are buried in their cemetery. So your assertion doesn't square with the evidence.


The Jewish sect of Pharisees also had an ascetic nature; you might say the Pharisees were the Puritans of the Old Testament Law. There are those who believe St. Paul might have lived an ascetic life because he described himself as a ‘Pharisee, the son Pharisees.’ Life in these communities sometimes included both men and women. It was a unique lifestyle marked by poverty, chastity, labor, solitude, and prayer.

Are you joking? One of the primary duties of a Pharisee was to marry and raise children, especially sons. Check your facts again, Joe, because somebody has given you horrible information. Paul described himself as a son of Pharisees, which indicates that they did in fact have sons. And in fact, there's evidence to suggest that in order to be a Pharisee, you HAD to be married. I have maintained for a long time that Paul was married at some time in his life, and this is one of the reasons. The lifestyle you attribute to the Pharisees is just about as opposite to the truth as it can be.


Many believe that Mary lived in one of these communities and had set out to live a life of Holy chastity.

"Many" who? In the gospels, the few times she' s mentioned after Jesus reached manhood, she's traveling with his disciples. On the cross, Jesus entrusts her to John's care. This "community" you claim is a myth.
[/QUOTE]

[snip]

You haven't made any kind of case here, and much of the info you're offering is just wrong. If you want to believe these things about Mary, I don't have a problem with that. But the evidence is firmly against you and you need to address that fact if you want to persuade anyone else.

Some literature of ascetic life styles in antiquity.


Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman antiquity: a sourcebook
By Vincent L. Wimbush (Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=u-nnDNGozk0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=ascetic+antiquity&hl=en&ei=nLZmTbW_GczAtgfEpqjmAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) )


Orientalia, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Volume 41
By F. Young, M. Edwards, P. Parvis (Orientalia, Clement, Origen ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=Flf-UnQVPv4C&pg=PA26&dq=ascetic+antiquity+Mary&hl=en&ei=5LZmTcOsEYq3tgfqkZnnAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=Virgin%20Mary&f=false) )


JoeT

Some literature of ascetic life styles in antiquity.


Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman antiquity: a sourcebook
By Vincent L. Wimbush (Ascetic behavior in Greco-Roman ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=u-nnDNGozk0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=ascetic+antiquity&hl=en&ei=nLZmTbW_GczAtgfEpqjmAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) )


Orientalia, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Volume 41
By F. Young, M. Edwards, P. Parvis (Orientalia, Clement, Origen ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=Flf-UnQVPv4C&pg=PA26&dq=ascetic+antiquity+Mary&hl=en&ei=5LZmTcOsEYq3tgfqkZnnAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=Virgin%20Mary&f=false) )


JoeT

I'm familiar with them, but they only tell us about certain groups after the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as some pagan practices outside Palestine. I suggest you check some actual Jewish sources to find out about the Pharisees and such.

And you're still dodging the main question.

I'm familiar with them, but they only tell us about certain groups after the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as some pagan practices outside Palestine. I suggest you check some actual Jewish sources to find out about the Pharisees and such.

And you're still dodging the main question.

This is the best synopsis I've found. There seems to be little question among the scholarly historians and archeologists that there was some movement among the Pharisees toward asceticism. One scholar wrote in another paper the were various 'ranks' of asceticism among the Pharisees (those who fasted, who were chaste, who abstain from meat, who lived in and off the wild lands, etc.).

ASCETICS: By : Kaufmann Kohler

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ASCETICS: (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1888&letter=A&search=Ascetic) Pharisees

I'm not dodging, I'm not out to prove anything. You might recall it was my question put to the forum participants - but I'll get you a response.

JoeT

This is the best synopsis I've found. There seems to be little question among the scholarly historians and archeologists that there was some movement among the Pharisees toward asceticism. One scholar wrote in another paper the were various 'ranks' of asceticism among the Pharisees (those who fasted, who were chaste, who abstain from meat, who lived in and off the wild lands, etc.).

ASCETICS: By : Kaufmann Kohler

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ASCETICS: (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1888&letter=A&search=Ascetic) Pharisees

That article mentions Pharisees a total of once, and only in passing. You need better sources. It's also irrelevant, because none of it says anything about Mary being anything approaching ascetic. That's still an idea that you created out of whole cloth. ClassyT has already shot down your "New Eve" terminology, because there's no such thing, and you have no evidence at all that she even thought about an ascetic life.


I'm not dodging, I'm not out to prove anything. You might recall it was my question put to the forum participants - but I'll get you a response.

JoeT

You brought the subject up, and raised the question of how Jesus could be sinless if Mary wasn't. I gave you an answer, and you have consistently evaded any comment about it. That's dodging. So, how about it?

You haven't established this at all, merely asserted it several times. Nothing about the Trinity requires anything about Mary.

You seem to misunderstand my question. It's what the Holy Trinity is that produces my question. I won't repeat, but to say that Christ is one person, with two natures, God/man yet homoousion (consubstantialem), of one essence or substance . That is Christ is wholly man and wholly God, not conjoined, but God incarnate. Consequently, Christ's conception, birth, and rearing is of extreme importance to us if we are to maintain this view. If Christ the Messiah is created by God, then he can't be God as God is uncreated, now can he? Therefore, if God's spirit creates the flesh he wore as Jesus then he is created and not a God. If the Messiah is the Perfect Lamb, not knowing or experiencing sin, then he can't be born of a woman after Eve; otherwise he is given the putrid flesh of a sinner – how does one composed of sin be Perfect? The only way I can't raise an objection is for the Blessed Mother to be a New Eve, sinless. The Catholic Church holds that this was precisely the case.

I don't think you've grasp the complexity of harm done to the Holy Trinity without a Blessed New Eve.

Whether she was ascetic is only a way by which we can understand how this would be in 'our' world. But, in her world she may have had all the attributes of an ascetic and yet not necessarily of a community of ascetics.


This is especially the case since you refuse to address my contention that the sin nature comes through paternity, so Jesus was able to be sinless even though Mary wasn't. Until you address that question directly, you haven't really gotten anywhere.

She was singularly protected from her conception from sin, a feat more understandable than creating God.


This is assumed without evidence. There's nothing "likely" about it.

There is no Scriptural evidence for the Holy Trinity yet we profess our faith in it. How so? If we accept this as a profession of faith, then are we not obliged to profess his mother as the Blessed Virgin?


Not so. Some of the prophets were celibate, yes, but we know of at least two, Isaiah and Hosea, who were married. As for the Essenes, the evidence is contradictory, because there are some reports that they were celibate but there are others that say they married. Whoever the people at Qumran were, they had at least a few women around because some are buried in their cemetery. So your assertion doesn't square with the evidence.

This is something you might want to check out afresh.


Are you joking? One of the primary duties of a Pharisee was to marry and raise children, especially sons. Check your facts again, Joe, because somebody has given you horrible information. Paul described himself as a son of Pharisees, which indicates that they did in fact have sons. And in fact, there's evidence to suggest that in order to be a Pharisee, you HAD to be married. I have maintained for a long time that Paul was married at some time in his life, and this is one of the reasons. The lifestyle you attribute to the Pharisees is just about as opposite to the truth as it can be.

No, I'm not joking, in fact I'm more than serious. The Tradition of the Apostles have, since the ascension of Christ, held similar views – which of course is my source, handed me through the Magisterium of the Church. There is nothing said that Mary 'had' to bear children, especially if she had taken a vow of chastity, and more likely had this vow been made in the Temple.


You haven't made any kind of case here, and much of the info you're offering is just wrong. If you want to believe these things about Mary, I don't have a problem with that. But the evidence is firmly against you and you need to address that fact if you want to persuade anyone else.

Again, I'm not making a case, I've asked a question. It's up to you to answer or not. If you want me to put any credibility into your answer it needs to be substantiated; if, in doing so, you want to limit yourself to the Scripture that's fine.

JoeT

You seem to misunderstand my question. It's what the Holy Trinity is that produces my question. I won't repeat, but to say that Christ is one person, with two natures, God/man yet homoousion (consubstantialem), of one essence or substance . That is Christ is wholly man and wholly God, not conjoined, but God incarnate. Consequently, Christ's conception, birth, and rearing is of extreme importance to us if we are to maintain this view. If Christ the Messiah is created by God, then he can't be God as God is uncreated, now can he? Therefore, if God's spirit creates the flesh he wore as Jesus then he is created and not a God. If the Messiah is the Perfect Lamb, not knowing or experiencing sin, then he can't be born of a woman after Eve; otherwise he is given the putrid flesh of a sinner – how does one composed of sin be Perfect? The only way I can't raise an objection is for the Blessed Mother to be a New Eve, sinless. The Catholic Church holds that this was precisely the case.

Your logic doesn't hold up here. What did the angel say? The power of the Most High will overshadow you, so what is born from you will be called the Son of God. It doesn't say anything about being created. You said "f God's spirit creates the flesh he wore as Jesus then he is created and not a God," but even if Mary was sinless, this is still the case. Why? Because that flesh was still created. Mary's status has nothing at all to do with it. And he was obviously "putrid flesh" since he was hungry, he wept, and he died. Your argument makes no sense. And you are still missing my point that having a mother does NOT convey sin, having a human father does. Hence, since Jesus had no human father, he did not have sin. You're making this so much more complicated than it needs to be, it's making my head spin.


I don't think you've grasp the complexity of harm done to the Holy Trinity without a Blessed New Eve.

You're right, I don't grasp it, because it doesn't exist. You're creating a cure for which there is no known disease.


Whether she was ascetic is only a way by which we can understand how this would be in 'our' world. But, in her world she may have had all the attributes of an ascetic and yet not necessarily of a community of ascetics.

And she may have had a wart on her nose. This is speculation, nothing more. Again, the gospels and Acts tell us that she hung out with the disciples and apostles most of the time. Attributing asceticism to her is just silly. It has no basis in fact.




She was singularly protected from her conception from sin, a feat more understandable than creating God.


Repeating an assertion does not make it true. You still haven't answered the main objection.


There is no Scriptural evidence for the Holy Trinity yet we profess our faith in it. How so? If we accept this as a profession of faith, then are we not obliged to profess his mother as the Blessed Virgin?

There's plenty of scriptural evidence for the trinity. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's grossly misinformed.


No, I'm not joking, in fact I'm more than serious. The Tradition of the Apostles have, since the ascension of Christ, held similar views – which of course is my source, handed me through the Magisterium of the Church. There is nothing said that Mary 'had' to bear children, especially if she had taken a vow of chastity, and more likely had this vow been made in the Temple.

And there's the rub. There is zero evidence that she took any kind of vow, zero evidence for the tradition you speak of, zero evidence that women even took vows of chastity, zero evidence that the words "brothers and sisters" in the gospels mean anything other than brothers and sisters - Jesus apparently had several of both - and all of the traditions that the Catholic church bases this stuff on are at least two to three centuries after the events themselves. You are welcome to accept the authority of your church, but I don't. I follow the evidence, and the evidence says that a) Mary was a normal young woman who was chosen for a unique privilege, b) after that she married Joseph and had several other children, and c) died and was buried like any other person.

Again, her status has nothing to do with the Trinity. You have not made your case. You claim you're just asking a question, but the majority of your posts on this topic are assertions, not questions; you make a claim that, if we deny Mary being immaculate, we do violence to the concept of the Trinity. This is not the case. QED.

You seem to misunderstand my question. It's what the Holy Trinity is that produces my question. I won't repeat, but to say that Christ is one person, with two natures, God/man yet homoousion (consubstantialem), of one essence or substance . That is Christ is wholly man and wholly God, not conjoined, but God incarnate. Consequently, Christ's conception, birth, and rearing is of extreme importance to us if we are to maintain this view. If Christ the Messiah is created by God, then he can't be God as God is uncreated, now can he?

JoeT

Hi Joe,

I'll stick my neck out here and say your deductions seems to be sound.

I can also see you are wrestling with Plato here. I am sure you are familiar with Saint Augustine's treatment of Plato's forms. Perhaps to a lesser extent Saint Anselm's use of the Platonic forms in his Ontological Argument.

In a nutshell I think you are saying that if Jesus participates in the perfect form of God then he cannot be an 'exact copy' of that form. He becomes a lesser being, i.e. human. If we want to claim that he is exactly God then he must be identical to the form of God.

The problem is that the physical world is only a poor copy of perfection. This obviously includes humans and every other physical thing.

For an actual form to exist in the physical world in must be perfect in every way. Being born of a human (sinful by character and by nature) immediately negates the possibility of someone being born as a perfect entity. In other words, this immediately takes them down to the level of a imperfect copy of perfection.

How close am I to your argument?

Tut

Hi Joe,

I'll stick my neck out here and say your deductions seem to be sound.

I can also see you are wrestling with Plato here. I am sure you are familiar with Saint Augustine's treatment of Plato's forms. Perhaps to a lesser extent Saint Anselm's use of the Platonic forms in his Ontological Argument.

I don't know that I'd call it wrestling. I thought I did pretty good – maybe the grammar wasn't so good.


In a nutshell I think you are saying that if Jesus participates in the perfect form of God then he cannot be an 'exact copy' of that form. He becomes a lesser being, i.e. human. If we want to claim that he is exactly God then he must be identical to the form of God.

Something like that, let's make it simpler.




• Christ is God with all the Divinity and Perfection implied,

• Jesus is man, human.

• the Messiah is Jesus Christ, the hypostatic Union of human with the Divine Nature of God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the perfect God/man, Christ.

How then does the perfect Messiah and man reconcile themselves in the Second Person of the Trinity whom we call Christ?


The problem is that the physical world is only a poor copy of perfection. This obviously includes humans and every other physical thing.

There is nothing imperfect in creation, man was made perfect but because of sin is fallen, i.e. has become imperfect. (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 26-28). Man was not made evil, but rather good.


For an actual form to exist in the physical world [it] must be perfect in every way.

If God created heaven and earth then everything contained therein is good. (I really don't understand what you are driving at).


Being born of a human (sinful by character and by nature) immediately negates the possibility of someone being born as a perfect entity.

This is my point. There are two variants, of sorts, of the human species. We'll call the first variant 'AE-human': Adam and Eve prior to the fall – those without knowledge of sin. The other variant comes after the fall which we'll call P-human variant: this is the human that inherits Adam and Eve's sin and its consequence, and act of war which caused a privation of sanctifying grace.


In other words, this immediately takes them down to the level of a imperfect copy of perfection.

Close, we are talking about the same 'them'. Your outline of the premise was good enough, but I was left with some confusion at the end. I contend that in order to hold Christ wholly man he must be born of woman and to be wholly god he must be uncreated. If he is born of the P-human variant then he inherits original sin; which we've already shown can't coexist with the Divinity, God would be born of the sin of flesh. If God were to 'make' man from the flesh of the P-human then this says:




1) His creation is not 'good' - which is not true.
2) His creation is incapable of holiness – God has shown this statement false in AE-human - man did exist sacred and holy in utopia.
3) He is effectively 'creating' Himself in Christ – duplicating God which of course doesn't exist in the Holy Trinity.

We can conclude that God will not 'make' Christ the perfection of God which would not be wholly God in Hypostatic Union with wholly man.

Consequently we are only left with one possibility. The Hypostatic Union took place between God and a man born of a woman that was of the AE-human variant, i.e. Christ was born of a New Eve. We can further surmise that like the original AE-human woman, this woman was without knowledge of sin. We call her the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ's mother, the mother of God.


JoeT

Something like that, let’s make it simpler.




• Christ is God with all the Divinity and Perfection implied,

• Jesus is man, human.

• the Messiah is Jesus Christ, the hypostatic Union of human with the Divine Nature of God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the perfect God/man, Christ.



I have a big problem with this, because nothing anywhere in the Bible even hints at this kind of separation between "Jesus" and "Christ." We don't know the actual nature of the hypostatic union, because it's beyond our finite minds to comprehend. But this sure isn't how it worked. He is and always was Jesus Christ, that perfect union. There's no separation between the God and the man in God's mind. Bear in mind that Jesus' coming to earth was an incarnation, not a creation; in your schema here, we still have a creation, the man Jesus, so any way you slice it, you end up with a "created God" in the second person of the trinity. Yet, you say yourself that it's not so. Hence, your approach is internally contradictory and needs a lot of work.

Furthermore, and I'm getting weary of saying it, the human Jesus was born without sin because he had no earthly father, and sin is passed through the father. You are still not addressing this issue, and it's the crux of the whole matter.

I have a big problem with this, because nothing anywhere in the Bible even hints at this kind of separation between "Jesus" and "Christ."

I only separated them for my own clarity of mind, as it were to keep the two natures separated. I could have as easily used Christ in every instance, or Jesus Christ. No harm was intended, nor was there a separation intended.


We don't know the actual nature of the hypostatic union, because it's beyond our finite minds to comprehend.

I suppose that's why they say it was a mystery. Yet in every mystery we can still come away with the knowledge of certain attributes.


But this sure isn't how it worked.
I'm not trying to make it 'work' like you would a mechanical problem – you know the spark plug goes here, the piston there. What I'm saying is that when the motor runs, the wheels go round, and exhaust comes out the back. Knowing nothing about how the automobile works, we can certainly see that we don't want to drive in the ditch – rather we keep it between the lines.


There's no separation between the God and the man in God's mind. Bear in mind that Jesus' coming to earth was an incarnation, not a creation; in your schema here, we still have a creation, the man Jesus, so any way you slice it, you end up with a "created God" in the second person of the trinity.

Which was my argument Christ is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, one Person with two natures, God/Man, i.e. Theandros. Holding Christ to be this then fusion between man's flesh and soul and God's will must be perfect.


Yet, you say yourself that it's not so. Hence, your approach is internally contradictory and needs a lot of work.
I haven't contradicted myself. How would you explain the fact that God and man, one Person two natures in perfect union. Explain how you can have this Divine Person come of anything less than a New Eve.


Furthermore, and I'm getting weary of saying it, the human Jesus was born without sin because he had no earthly father, and sin is passed through the father.

But the flesh that was His came from Mary. When was the last time you heard of a man born of a man? (never mind, I don't hear it if you know of such a thing!)


You are still not addressing this issue, and it's the crux of the whole matter.

And what was your crutch, I guess I got so far down the line I've forgotten.

JoeT

I only separated them for my own clarity of mind, as it were to keep the two natures separated. I could have as easily used Christ in every instance, or Jesus Christ. No harm was intended, nor was there a separation intended.

Then once again you have created a cure for which there is no known disease.


I'm not trying to make it 'work' like you would a mechanical problem – you know the spark plug goes here, the piston there. What I'm saying is that when the motor runs, the wheels go round, and exhaust comes out the back. Knowing nothing about how the automobile works, we can certainly see that we don't want to drive in the ditch – rather we keep it between the lines.

And the music comes out there - wait, that was something else. What I meant was, that description bore no resemblance to the actual union.



Which was my argument Christ is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, one Person with two natures, God/Man, i.e. Theandros. Holding Christ to be this then fusion between man's flesh and soul and God's will must be perfect.

You haven't really made a good case for this idea.


I haven't contradicted myself. How would you explain the fact that God and man, one Person two natures in perfect union. Explain how you can have this Divine Person come of anything less than a New Eve.

Again, you haven't made a good case for this, merely said it. But the fact is, it's unnecessary. Also, I have already explained it, but you're not listening.


But the flesh that was His came from Mary. When was the last time you heard of a man born of a man? (never mind, I don't hear it if you know of such a thing!)

Only in the Enquirer... Seriously, it doesn't matter that his flesh came from Mary. It wouldn't have sin in it because SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER. I'm not sure what part of that concept is so difficult to grasp. Having no human father kept sin nature from being passed to Him, even though he was born of a normal human woman. Again, I'm not sure why you're having such trouble with this, because it's a perfectly simple idea that seems to have support from the Bible.

In addition, it wouldn't matter what Mary's status was, because the presence of the Divine nature is surely enough to sanctify the flesh he got from her, regardless of her own sinfulness. I have to repeat: you're making a solution for which there simply is no problem. NOTHING in Jesus' nature requires Mary to be sinless. NOTHING. Being fully God and fully man, He had no sin. It's that easy and has nothing whatsoever to do with his mother.



And what was your crutch, I guess I got so far down the line I've forgotten.

JoeT

Uh, that's crux, not crutch, thank you ;) And the crux is the fact that sin comes via human paternity; Jesus had no human paternity; therefore, there is no need to posit any special sinless status to his mother because her condition doesn't matter. I have now explained this five times; please give it your full attention this time.

And the music comes out there - wait, that was something else. What I meant was, that description bore no resemblance to the actual union.

It wasn't meant to, I don't know, you don't know how the music works.


You haven't really made a good case for this idea.
I won't make the 'cases' for doctrines of faith. We make this as a profession of faith.




Nicene Creed:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven...

I will be happy to explain it though – It'll take some time. See CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm)


Again, you haven't made a good case for this, merely said it. But the fact is, it's unnecessary. Also, I have already explained it, but you're not listening.

I'm trying to use well defined terms here to avoid a misunderstanding. How Catholics understand 'The Holy Trinity'. Clance through the following link – if you disagree. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm) and CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Homoousion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm)


Only in the Enquirer... Seriously, it doesn't matter that his flesh came from Mary. It wouldn't have sin in it because SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER. I'm not sure what part of that concept is so difficult to grasp. Having no human father kept sin nature from being passed to Him, even though he was born of a normal human woman. Again, I'm not sure why you're having such trouble with this, because it's a perfectly simple idea that seems to have support from the Bible.

In addition, it wouldn't matter what Mary's status was, because the presence of the Divine nature is surely enough to sanctify the flesh he got from her, regardless of her own sinfulness. I have to repeat: you're making a solution for which there simply is no problem. NOTHING in Jesus' nature requires Mary to be sinless. NOTHING. Being fully God and fully man, He had no sin. It's that easy and has nothing whatsoever to do with his mother.

Which would lead to my privious objection, if man's flesh needed such 'purification' then God created evil, man is evil (which was Martin Luther's contention), and irredeemable except by election.

Uhm, how much flesh does a man contribute to his child? Can you show in Scripture how many people were born of men and how many were born of woman? You're not hearing me, without a sinless Mary Christ would have been surrounded by sin, both in His own flesh and in the flesh of the womb that carried Him. Have you never heard of tracing ancestry through mitochondrial DNA where the maternal lineage is traced? As I understand it is much easier than tracing paternal linage. Never the less, Mary's linage is of David, a requirement for the Jews to recognize Christ as the Messiah – it's to the Jew He came for first, not us gentiles.


Uh, that's crux, not crutch, thank you ;) And the crux is the fact that sin comes via human paternity; Jesus had no human paternity; therefore, there is no need to posit any special sinless status to his mother because her condition doesn't matter. I have now explained this five times; please give it your full attention this time.


Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Romans 5:12
So, are we to understand that Woman doesn’t have original sin? Also see 1 Corinthians 12. We are all guilty of Adam's sin which causes a privation of sanctification in a moral unity of the human society tracing it's fathered by Adam. (De Malo, I've, 1). We haven't even begun to discuss actual sin which the Blessed Mary was singularly protected. Don't fall off your crutch when I do?

JoeT

Which would lead to my privious objection, if man's flesh needed such 'purification' then God created evil, man is evil (which was Martin Luther's contention), and irredeemable except by election.

I never used the word "purification." You pulled that out of nowhere. If that's how you're going to deal with what I'm saying, then we're done. However...

If man's flesh is indeed NOT evil, then it doesn't matter whether Mary was sinless or not because there was nothing evil in Jesus' flesh. You're going in circles here.


Uhm, how much flesh does a man contribute to his child? Can you show in Scripture how many people were born of men and how many were born of woman? You're not hearing me, without a sinless Mary Christ would have been surrounded by sin, both in His own flesh and in the flesh of the womb that carried Him. Have you never heard of tracing ancestry through mitochondrial DNA where the maternal lineage is traced? As I understand it is much easier than tracing paternal linage. Never the less, Mary's linage is of David, a requirement for the Jews to recognize Christ as the Messiah – it's to the Jew He came for first, not us gentiles.

So now you're saying flesh IS evil? You're not making any sense. And you're still not paying any attention to what I'm telling you. I never said anything about paternity contributing FLESH. Please get that word out of your system, because it's NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about sin, sin nature, original sin, whatever you want to call it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with flesh. I said the Bible teaches a simple truth: that sin is passed THROUGH THE FATHER. Jesus was sinless because He had no earthly human father. I really think you're dodging that fact because it doesn't square with your preconceived notions. And that's your problem, not mine. But don't claim that you're answering me when all you're doing is tap-dancing around what I say.





Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Romans 5:12
So, are we to understand that Woman doesn’t have original sin?

Oh, good grief. Where do you get this stuff? I never implied any such thing. I said sin is PASSED TO THE OFFSPRING through the father, not the mother. You really are just dodging, most likely because you don't have an answer but can't bring yourself to admit it. This is getting absurd. This will be my last post on the subject, because you're just playing games and I don't have time for it.

Something like that, let’s make it simpler.




• Christ is God with all the Divinity and Perfection implied,

• Jesus is man, human.

• the Messiah is Jesus Christ, the hypostatic Union of human with the Divine Nature of God, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, the perfect God/man, Christ.

How then does the perfect Messiah and man reconcile themselves in the Second Person of the Trinity whom we call Christ?



There is nothing imperfect in creation, man was made perfect but because of sin is fallen, i.e. has become imperfect. (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 26-28). Man was not made evil, but rather good.




JoeT

Hi Joe,

You have really got me interested. Before I jump to conclusions I would like to see if I am still with you here.

The early christian theologians seems to support the idea of substance dualism. There is a definite similarity between God and Man. An example from the Bible would be ," Let us make man according to our image and likeness" I think there are probably other similar types of quotes, but I can't remember them.

All of this seems to indicate an argument for God and man being of the same substance. In other words, two ontological separate entities, characterized by having the same essential unchanging substance.

Substance dualism has been the bane of philosophers for a couple of thousand years. Notably, Descartes, Leibniz and more recently Max Black has shone some light on the subject. I don't think the problems in this area are insurmountable.

Is this your position thus far?

Tut

Hi Joe,

You have really got me interested. Before I jump to conclusions I would like to see if I am still with you here.

The early Christian theologians seem to support the idea of substance dualism. There is a definite similarity between God and Man. An example from the Bible would be ," Let us make man according to our image and likeness" I think there are probably other similar types of quotes, but I can't remember them.

All of this seems to indicate an argument for God and man being of the same substance. In other words, two ontological separate entities, characterized by having the same essential unchanging substance.

Substance dualism has been the bane of philosophers for a couple of thousand years. Notably, Descartes, Leibniz and more recently Max Black has shone some light on the subject. I don't think the problems in this area are insurmountable.

Is this your position thus far?

Tut
That's an interesting take on what I've written. How do you get dualism out of it? I'm not suggesting any such thing; in fact just the opposite. My point is that unless Mary is singularly protected from original sin and actual sin we would have to contend with a dualist system. Where did I mislead you?

JoeT

I never used the word "purification." You pulled that out of nowhere. If that's how you're going to deal with what I'm saying, then we're done. However..
Oh, but you did, maybe without realizing it. By saying “SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER” is to say to me that sin is likened to a virus. That is like a physical thing transmitted from father through the mother to only the son. But, that is not what original sin is. Original sin is God’s ‘withdraw,' a privation of sanctification. This withdraw doesn’t make us sick in the sense that we can get over it with chicken noodle soup and plenty of rest. Nor is mankind so doomed as to be made reprobates incapable of good.

Original sin illustrated in Romans 5:12 sqq is God’s judgment for Adam’s sin. Because of Adam's sin a physical death comes into the world; “For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead” as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15. The spirit remains alive but hampered in its conflict of sin from the withdrawal of sanctifying grace. This too is transmitted, not from father to son, but from one man, Adam, to all humanity. We can’t say sin comes into the world because of Adam’s bad example and that sin is a learned response to the world, rather it is because of the lack of sanctification we sin. (Cf. Augustine, Against Julian, 6 24) Our loss of sanctification because of Adam’s sin stains the soul or you might say hampers the soul. Nor is original sin the loss of free will as Martin Luther would say, the essence of man changes into evil that moral truths are beyond the capability of man to know. Catholics describe original sine as “privation of justice that man contracts at conception” (Trent, Session 6, iii). This privation is not totally regained in Baptism however the Sanctifying graces received are sufficient to ‘turn towards God’ (concersio ad Deum) which counters the stain of Adam’s sin which that causes a turning away from God (aversion a Deo). And that every man has this original sin and is liable. Catholics Baptize infants for this very reason, without the remission of this sin, even a child without actual sin is condemned – we must rely simply on an extraordinary mercy of God to save these tiny souls. This may also help explain why Catholics are adamantly opposed to abortion – such a death condemns a child mercilessly and we can only hope and pray that God views such souls as martyrs whereby all sins are wiped clean from a baptism of blood.

Consequently, an individual man cannot transmit, in this case sanctification, something he does not have. Therefore, to say that original sin only comes from the male species is a mistaken notion. Any man or woman born after the fall of Adam has original sin – unless he is born of a woman whose privation of sanctification is restored at conception, e.g. the Immaculate Conception of Mary.


If man's flesh is indeed NOT evil, then it doesn't matter whether Mary was sinless or not because there was nothing evil in Jesus' flesh. You're going in circles here.
So now you're saying flesh IS evil? You're not making any sense.
Sin being in the flesh was simply a manner of speech, to say that if one is flesh and blood, man or woman, then he has the stain of original sin. Wherein comes your problem, if we hold Christ to be the union of God and man, then contrary to our understanding of Divinity, he is born with original sin. The only way unity there can be a unity of God with man is for this unity to take place at conception in the womb of a New Eve, a woman whose sanctification has been restored as such does not taint the child with the stain of original sin either through contact with her flesh or the flesh she gives the child.



And you're still not paying any attention to what I'm telling you. I never said anything about paternity contributing FLESH. Please get that word out of your system, because it's NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about sin, sin nature, original sin, whatever you want to call it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with flesh. I said the Bible teaches a simple truth: that sin is passed THROUGH THE FATHER. Jesus was sinless because He had no earthly human father. I really think you're dodging that fact because it doesn't square with your preconceived notions. And that's your problem, not mine. But don't claim that you're answering me when all you're doing is tap-dancing around what I say.
The ‘father’ of a child after the fall of Adam cannot of his own transmits something he does not have. Original sin is ‘the privation’ of sanctification. If the man doesn’t have the flue virus, how then does he transmit it? It’s the same concept; God’s judgment to deprive the sons of Adam of sanctification is present in all mankind, whether he be born to a Catholic, an Irishman, a Jew, a Hindu, etc.


Oh, good grief. Where do you get this stuff? I never implied any such thing.
Actually, that’s what I understood you to be saying.

Joet

Oh, but you did, maybe without realizing it. By saying “SIN COMES THROUGH THE HUMAN FATHER” is to say to me that sin is likened to a virus. That is like a physical thing transmitted from father through the mother to only the son.
Viruses aren't transmitted that way. Autism is though -- through a father who is on the spectrum and often to a son, sometimes to a daughter. :)

Dwashbur said that the transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.

Viruses aren't transmitted that way. Autism is though -- through a father who is on the spectrum and often to a son, sometimes to a daughter. :)

Dwashbur said that the transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.

It isn't the pathology I'm addressing here. Primarily because you can't transmit something you don't have. Original sin being the privation (removal of, deprivation or) Sanctity, one can't transmit to their offspring something they don't have.

JoeT

The transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.


Original sin is God's 'withdraw,' a privation of sanctification.
No, original sin is man pushing God away. God never withdraws. In fact, He comes to us wherever we are, and doesn't wait for us to "fix" ourselves and make ourselves holy.

The transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children.


No, original sin is man pushing God away. God never withdraws.

How does one transmit that which is withdrawn by God?

JoeT

How does one transmit that which is withdrawn by God?
What did God withdraw?

That's an interesting take on what I've written. How do you get dualism out of it? I'm not suggesting any such thing; in fact just the opposite. My point is that unless Mary is singularly protected from original sin and actual sin we would have to contend with a dualist system. Where did I mislead you?

JoeT

Hi Joe,

I don't think the problem was in you explanation. I think I took the Homoousian account to literally. Jesus as homoousios with God . In other words both being of the same substance. Coupled with taking Jesus as fully human too literally as well. I put 2+2 together and got a dualistic conclusion. I have re read your posts and I am with you now.

What I have accidentally proposed in terms of dualism might be worth some investigation but it would be definitely off topic. Perhaps, a question for some other time. For now I am happy to follow your posts.

Regards

Tut

What did God withdraw?

Sanctification

JoeT

Sanctification

JoeT
No, He didn't! When? From whom?

He would have absolutely no reason to do that. Silly man backs away while God's moving in his direction.

Good morning, Joe.

Let's talk about this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children, both male and female.

Good morning, Joe.

Let's talk about this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through the father (no mother is involved in transmission) to the children, both male and female.

Let's restate this just a bit: because of Adam's one voluntary act of disobedience the effect of sin is transmitted to the whole of mankind for which God's justice is a punishment of which is a physical death and death of the soul of all those born of Adam.

This punishment is often referred to as banishment from Eden, sometimes called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22), where Adam and Eve communed with God, Adam spoke to God and God spoke to Adam. Adam having fee will was one with God (oneness such as John 6:57 and John 17:21-22). Both Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God, and they were one with God, i.e. spoke face to face with God. Whether Eden was a physical place on earth or a state of being is not important here. In either case, "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good."

Thus we view original sin as the privation of sanctification, a privation from an abiding in God and God abiding in us. Eck continues exposing the converse view, that original sin is an applied guilt.




Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says "Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil," Deut 1:39. (Johann Eck, The Confutatio Pontificia, 1530)

More succinctly we see that guilt requires a voluntary act and sin is an evil act,




“… sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. See Contra Faustum . xxii, 27 CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XXII (Augustine) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140622.htm), St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, II, 71,6

Key to the point here is to apply guilt or innocence, to wit punishment or merit, of any act of sin must be voluntary. As Augustine explains; "Now both justice and injustice, to be acts at all, must be voluntary; otherwise, there can be no just rewards or punishments; which no man in his senses will assert." (Contra Faustum . Xxii, 78) Adam's sin was a voluntary act for which God's justice brought death, physical and spiritual, i.e. the life leaves the physical body, and life (sanctification) leaves the soul. It is God's plan in the New Covenant through the first graces of Baptism that sanctification re-instills, as it were, drop by drop or bite by bite, the 'fullness of salvific grace' in man. In Baptism the punishment for the first sin of Adam is removed, there being no guilt in the individual because the sin committed by Adam was not a voluntary act of the individual. We can see through the lens of Baptism how the nature of original sin stains all of mankind. St. Thomas explains it best:




"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).

We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation. Rather, it is a condition of being a member of the human species after the fall of Adam. We use the term inherited only to explain that all of mankind, except One, after Adam's fall receives the effects of God's justice without the guilt, whereby we receive from Adam a privation of sanctification. Iin this way, a child born, even from a process of cloning, without father or mother, is subject to original sin. Conversely, a child born whose Father is the Spirit of God and whose mother is one without the stain of sanctification's privation is a New Eve, a human like Adam prior to the fall in perfect union with God, i.e. Christ.

JoeT

No, Joe. Nice try, but we're not at Justification or Sanctification yet. All I want to know is if you agree with or disagree with this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through only the father to the children, both male and female.

Circle one: Agree Disagree

No, Joe. Nice try, but we're not at Justification or Sanctification yet. All I want to know is if you agree with or disagree with this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through only the father to the children, both male and female.

Circle one: Agree |Disagree|

I explained correctly. How would you contort my explanation so that original sin only comes from the father? Aren't you obligated to something more than 'nice try'? Otherwise, I'm left with an unsupported opinion – and everybody has one of those.

JoeT

I explained correctly. How would you contort my explanation so that original sin only comes from the father? Aren't you obligated to something more than 'nice try'? Otherwise, I'm left with an unsupported opinion – and everybody has one of those.

JoeT
Your "explanation" wandered so far afield of the subject on the table, even the angels were weeping.

Not comes FROM the father, but THROUGH the father.

Dwashbur had asked pages ago if you agree or disagree, but you refused to speak to the question and wandered all around it like a drunken hamster. I tried to simplify it, but no go. Guess I'll seek out a bowl of chocolate ice cream as comfort food.

Your "explanation" wandered so far afield of the subject on the table, even the angels were weeping.

Not comes FROM the father, but THROUGH the father.

Dwashbur had asked pages ago if you agree or disagree, but you refused to speak to the question and wandered all around it like a drunken hamster. I tried to simplify it, but no go. Guess I'll seek out a bowl of chocolate ice cream as comfort food.

Agreed. That was one of the most meaningless circumlocutions I've seen since the last political speech I tried to analyze.

No, Joe. Nice try, but we're not at Justification or Sanctification yet. All I want to know is if you agree with or disagree with this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through only the father to the children, both male and female.

Circle one: Agree Disagree


I think Joe's argument might go something like this. I am sure Joe will correct me if I am wrong.

About 10 years ago in Australia our then leader proposed to have a "Sorry Day" The idea was to apologize to the indigenous people of this land for all of the atrocities committed during the founding years.

There was an immediate backlash from from sections of the community who rightly claimed that cannot be held responsible for the actions of their great-grandfather. Even though these people claimed to be sympathetic to the cause they reject any idea of sin being 'passed on', transmitted through to them.

The counter argument to this is pretty much Joe's argument (at least I think it is). That is to say, this 'original sin' is not to be looked at in terms of being transmitted from one generation to the next.

As Joe says, An individual can be considered as an individual or as part of a whole, viz. a member of society. Another way of saying it would be the whole is the individual.

Tut

this 'original sin' is not to be looked at in terms of being transmitted from one generation to the next.
But that's the Bible's -- and the church's -- definition of original sin.

But that's the Bible's -- and the church's -- definition of original sin.


Hi Wondergirl,

I'm not saying I agree with it. I just said I think this is what Joe is saying. More correctly, what Aquinas has said from De Malo.

Tut

I am not held accountable for any sin other than my own. The concept of Original Sin has to do with transmission, not with responsibility.

St. Thomas explains it best:




"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).

We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation. Rather, it is a condition of being a member of the human species after the fall of Adam. We use the term inherited only to explain that all of mankind, except One, after Adam's fall receives the effects of God's justice without the guilt, whereby we receive from Adam a privation of sanctification. Iin this way, a child born, even from a process of cloning, without father or mother, is subject to original sin. Conversely, a child born whose Father is the Spirit of God and whose mother is one without the stain of sanctification's privation is a New Eve, a human like Adam prior to the fall in perfect union with God, i.e. Christ.

JoeT


Hi again wondergirl,

Don't blame me. This appears to be Joe's position. You can read it for yourself. No doubt Joe will have a fair bit to say on the issue when he gets round to it.

If he's Catholic, then he agrees.* And that quoted statement shows he agrees.

*from the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Original Sin") --

"(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e. all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19).

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

Hi again wondergirl,

Don't blame me. This appears to be Joe's position. You can read it for yourself. No doubt Joe will have a fair bit to say on the issue when he gets round to it.

You can bet on that!

You can bet on that!
So you don't agree with this --

"(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

If he's Catholic, then he agrees.* And that quoted statement shows he agrees.

*from the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Original Sin") --

"(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19).

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

You shortchange the article. You're confusing the transmission of the original sin with the nature of original sin.




We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:

(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death — "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.

(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).

However, the transfer of God's judgment (not guilt) is explained by the following:




"Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam." That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.

source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm)

JoeT

So you don't agree with this --

"(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

Yes I agree with it, but that 'transmission' is only in the sense that Adam committed the original sin, it's him we attribute our condition before baptism. And those that follow Adam receive the effects of that sin by being human of the same clan, nation, kingdom etc. It is sin only in "in an analogous sense". Such a sin doesn’t need male or female in the transmission, only humans of Adam's clan.

JoeT

You shortchange the article.
I did not. I quoted what supports my position and cited the article not only by title but also with a clickable link.

If I shortchanged the article, then you, Joe, shortchanged the Catholic Encyclopedia by not quoting the entire thing.

I did not. I quoted what supports my position and cited the article not only by title but also with a clickable link.

If I shortchanged the article, then you, Joe, shortchanged the Catholic Encyclopedia by not quoting the entire thing.

Reading the article that he posted, Joe's view sounds more like the Pelagians than the Catholics. Curiouser and curiouser.

Reading the article that he posted, Joe's view sounds more like the Pelagians than the Catholics. Curiouser and curiouser.

Then you don't know what Pelagianism is. There is nothing in what I've written that would suggest simi-Pelagianism or full fleged Pelagianism.

JoeT

There is nothing in what I've written that would suggest simi-Pelagianism or full fleged Pelagianism.
Written -- or quoted in toto?

Ah, I see where dwashbur is coming from --

...the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death — this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases — but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6).

Then you don't know what Pelagianism is. There is nothing in what I've written that would suggest simi-Pelagianism or full fleged Pelagianism.

JoeT

"Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it."

"We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation."

The words of the encyclopedia and the words of Joe. They sound remarkably similar to each other.

"Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it."

"We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation."
The words of the encyclopedia and the words of Joe. They sound remarkably similar to each other.




"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

I don't see the word 'transmit', I don't see 'passed on" but passed upon, that is entering into. Sin enters the world and is heaped upon them. Like the ruler that causes calamity to fall on his kingdom, the penalty is heaped upon the populous.

In the Marine Corps; during training, one man doesn’t perform hi s duty properly; the punishment is heaped upon the entire platoon. The guilty party commits the original sin, the entire populous pays the price – but not to worry, we had ways to pay the jerk back.

Is this the type of Scripture we are talking about? Maybe we should consult the words of Scriptures more than the encyclopedia, dwashbur

JoeT

I was talking about Pelagian tendencies in Joe's posts; suddenly we're talking about the Marines. More dodging. I will not respond again. Feel free to do your avoidance dance all you want.





"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

I don't see the word 'transmit', I don't see 'passed on" but passed upon, that is entering into. Sin enters the world and is heaped upon them. Like the ruler that causes calamity to fall on his kingdom, the penalty is heaped upon the populous.

In the Marine Corps; during training, one man doesn’t perform hi s duty properly; the punishment is heaped upon the entire platoon. The guilty party commits the original sin, the entire populous pays the price – but not to worry, we had ways to pay the jerk back.

Is this the type of Scripture we are talking about? Maybe we should consult the words of Scriptures more than the encyclopedia, dwashbur

JoeT

Maybe we should consult the words of Scriptures more than the encyclopedia, dwashbur
They were passages from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I thought that would work for you.