Exactly! "Last Adam." not "new Adam." There's a huge difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
|
Exactly! "Last Adam." not "new Adam." There's a huge difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
I already answered this: because sin passes through the human father. Hence, Jesus had to be born of a virgin, i.e. have no human father, so He wasn't tainted by sin. When I said this, you argued. Now you are favorably quoting someone who said the very same thing. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
I don't believe I mentioned John's baptism.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes.Quote:
Baptism is a ritual acknowledgement of redemption and rebirth, are you suggesting that I re-crucified Christ when I underwent full immersion baptism even though I had been "baptized" as a child.
Adam, was created without original sin, the removal of which is a part of the efficacy of Baptism. Baptism is not simply ritual. We are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit becoming born again as new men like the first Adam before the fall.Quote:
Adam did not become a living spirit by being baptized but by being faithful to the father's plan and giving his life for us.
We receive the Holy Spirit in our first Baptism, what spirit might you be receiving in the second baptism?Quote:
We become that living spirit when we accept Christ, baptism is a public confirmation, quite literally the; "if you admit me before men I will admit you before my Father who is in heaven"
For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.[Hebrews 6:4-6]
JoeT
And which Adam do you suppose St. Paul was discussing that was life-giving?Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
JoeT
What do you suppose kept the animosity of sinful corrupted flesh received from Mary and the purity of Spirit? Such a man would become insane from the torture received from his own body. Then what do you do with the Jew's objections whose prophecies say the Messiah must be a pure lamb, sinless. Having sinful flesh confounds the problem doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
JoeT
No, because flesh isn't sinful. It's weak and subject to decay, but it's not sinful. That's another huge Catholic mistake for which there is no biblical basis, and it has done worlds of harm throughout the centuries, especially to women.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
The sinful nature, or simply "sin" as Paul often calls it, DWELLS in the mortal body, but is something separate from it. There is nothing inherently sinful about the body or the flesh. The Bible knows no distinction between "original" sin and regular old "sin." That's yet another religious construct that somebody made up and the church adopted. You like to talk about things like original sin and what baptism does to it as if these are established facts, but they're not. If Jesus didn't have "original" sin, why was he baptized? What was the point? He didn't have any "original" sin to wash away, so why? He said it was to "fulfill all righteousness." What does that mean? Well, since we agree that Jesus was sinless, it sure doesn't seem to mean that baptism washes away any kind of sin.
Jesus didn't have the kind of internal conflict that you so fancifully describe because he didn't have a sinful nature. The sin/sinful nature is passed through the father; in Adam we all die. There's a reason why it doesn't say "in Adam and Eve we all die," because generationally speaking, Eve has nothing to do with it. It's handed down paternally. Since Jesus had no human father, He had no sin/sinful nature. One again, QED.
And there's still no reason to see anything miraculous or special about Mary. She obeyed. That's enough for me.
*stare in awe as he completely misses the point*Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
'Sinful flesh' is the privation we have as heirs of Adam, unable to reason in the lower passions for the love of God, a lust or concupiscence. And we know that sin causes death which we've shown in Romans as you might recall, ". . . sin entered into this world, and by sin death" Romans 5:12. Sin corrupts the flesh which corrupts the soul resulting in eternal death of 'person', that is both body and soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
"I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would."[Galatians 5:16,17]
St. Paul adderess sinful flesh directely saying, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh" [Romans 8:3]
If there is no original sin, no original justice then explain why an eternal soul should die, why the body dies when those of us of the clan of Adam all exhibit these traits? Yet, Adam was made for eternity before being deprived of God's presence.
JoeT
"In the LIKENESS of sinful flesh..."
In Greek that is "homoioma"... to represent or resemble... it doesn't mean to BE sinful flesh... only to be in resemblance of it.
If you actually think "flesh" is literal there, we have a bit of a problem. There's a reason why the NIV translates it "sinful man."
I thought I made my point clear in post #48. It's the relationship between sin and the flesh, ". . . flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another"Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
JoeT
That's not the question. See my first sentence.Quote:
I thought I made my point clear in post #48. It's the relationship between sin and the flesh, ". . . flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another"Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
Agreed, the "likeness of sinful flesh" was the description of Christ, Divinity who appeared as man, something the Father would have found demeaning for His son. [Cf. Romans 8:3] ST. John Chrysostom lays out the glorious victory of Christ's who in human flesh had defeated sin. Three marvels were evident to St. John;Quote:
Originally Posted by hauntinghelper
One was, that sin did not conquer the flesh; another, that sin was conquered, and conquered by it [flesh] too. On Romans, homily 13
To do this Christ was a New Adam, born of the Immaculate Virgin's flesh, sinless,
JoeT
Grumpy Joe,
I honor my mother and she is a mere woman but she is special to me because she is my mother. Therefore I honor Mary because she was CHOSEN to be the Lord Jesus earthy mother. It isn't rocket science and I didn't contradict myself..
God could have chosen any Jewish woman who was a virgin, but he chose her. Not because she was something special in and of herself but because she had faith and his favor was upon her. Yes, the woman needed to be a virgin for many reasons but she was just a woman and she didn't stay a virgin.
I didn't suggest it was rocket science, however I did give you an alternative which in harmony with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I don't think we are talking about 'any Jewish' woman or what God 'could have done'. Instead we are discussing what God did do, and a figure that literally had God within her and brought Him forward for your Salvation.Quote:
God could have chosen any Jewish woman who was a virgin, but he chose her.
What every day, any ol' woman had an angel from God sent to them? What spiritually common person was hailed 'full of grace' and 'blessed among women'? What everyday 12 to 14 year old child girl is told they will have a child without ever knowing a man? What liar, thief, common and uncommon sinner is told all these things by God?Quote:
Not because she was something special in and of herself but because she had faith and his favor was upon her. Yes, the woman needed to be a virgin for many reasons but she was just a woman and she didn't stay a virgin.
Dave,
Not to hijack the thread but I can't reply to you because your mailbox is too full. Just saying
Grumpy Joe,
I will ponder on what you said to me and have a reply for you.
Oops. Fixed.
Tradition is not "Sacred." Tradition is tradition, nothing more. That's part of your problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
The OP doesn't cover the topic of the sacredness of Tradition. Truth, that Truth which is convertible with God and is immutable, doesn't change with time, person, location, or church affiliation. Sacred Tradition maintains God's Word within His Truth. While you might be bound between book covers please don't project your bindings onto a grounded infallible rule of faith, i.e Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church together existing in the Body of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
JoeT
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the first cause of every sin is first a voluntary act of the will which is moved by the soul. Sin subjects the soul to the flesh in turn controlling the flesh whereby the will becomes weakened unable maintain power over lusts of the flesh: “The flesh lusts against the spirit, so that you do not do the things you wish to do.” [Galatians 5:17]. Sinful flesh then is not actual flesh but our lusts which corrupt the flesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Grumpy Joe will patiently wait. I don't see that he has any choice!Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
JoeT
I never said it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
Here's where we part company. There is no such thing as "Sacred Tradition." That's my whole point. You believe it exists because your church tells you it does, and that's fine. But you cannot come at a question such as this, asking people that you know, or should know, don't accept your "Sacred Tradition," and expect us to answer your questions from within your own framework. When you say things like this:Quote:
Truth, that Truth which is convertible with God and is immutable, doesn't change with time, person, location, or church affiliation. Sacred Tradition maintains God's Word within His Truth.
I have never seen a shred of evidence that all this combination of Scripture, tradition and the Catholic church is anything resembling "infallible," in fact, church history points to just the opposite. But again, you assume that all these things constitute "a grounded infallible rule of faith" and then ask us why we don't buy part of that tradition, when you have to be aware that we don't accept church tradition as infallible or binding. That's no a valid method of discussing. If you really want to know why we don't accept Catholic teaching about Mary, you are going to have to come over to our side and take an honest look from our perspective. Otherwise, you're never going to grasp the answers you get. You call me "bound between book covers," but you're bound by much more than I am. I can look at any church's tradition and find the problems with it, take the good and toss out the bad. Why? I already answered that: because tradition is tradition, nothing more. There's nothing infallible about tradition, and frankly, I would think that the way the Catholic church has reversed itself on so many topics over the centuries would make that clear.Quote:
While you might be bound between book covers please don't project your bindings onto a grounded infallible rule of faith, i.e Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church together existing in the Body of Christ.
Still nothing to do with what I said. You're talking theology, I'm talking language. Do you believe the word "flesh" in Romans 7 and 8 is literal? Yes or no? I'm not asking about Saint Whoever or Church Father Whatever. I'm asking about your take on a particular word. Yes or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
I'll quote myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
A two-paragraph dissertation does not constitute a "yes" or "no" answer, but thank you anyway. So you agree that the physical body in and of itself is not evil?
Mary was blessed above women but she was not born of a virgin. She is not to be the mediator of our prayers.
As far as I know, nobody actually says she was born of a virgin. They say she was born without the Catholic-based idea of "original sin."
Don't know how that is possible, the curse was for all mankind. Mary was a most favoured and blessed woman, but she has been elevated to a position of goddess and this is not what God intended. Jesus is our salvation, there is none other
A good question would be what verse do Catholics use to think Mary was born without original sin? AND... if that was possible why didn't the Lord do it for everyone?
Exactly, if they're going make these claims... the proof is on them, not us.
To my knowledge, they don't use verses. They use tradition. That's part of the problem: Catholicism elevates church tradition to a level of authority that is essentially equal to the Bible, so when they appeal to their saints and Fathers and popes and clerics and priests and Levites and all that, as far as they know they're citing people with just as much authority as Paul or John. The average non-Catholic looks at that and says "Why are you quoting those guys?" That's why we so often end up talking right past each other. Some of us - me, for example - understand this and try to explain our view of church history and tradition vs the Bible, but most lay Catholics have trouble grasping it because they've had the opposite pounded into their heads from birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
And your second question is an excellent one!
I'm very disappointed, dwashbur, to see you using this kind of language about how "most lay Catholics" believe. I'm sure, with some justice, the same could be said how you acquired your beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
But, like yourself, many Catholics believe what they believe because of thoughtful, sincere, (and often scholarly), examinations of their faith. Would that you had given the benefit of the doubt instead of such a scurrilous comment.
I'm one of the 'they' so I can respond quite emphatically that the rule of faith used by Catholics is the sole and infallible rule of faith. It includes Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together combined with the Catholic Church. Neither Tradition, or Scripture, or the Church stand alone; all three principles are in harmony with each other and teach through the office of the Magisterium.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
Tradition holds no authority in and of itself. What Sacred Tradition does do is to maintain and guard Sacred Scripture from error and to enlighten and guide the Holy Church in those things the Holy Spirit wishes to reveal to the Church. It is joined in this task by the Popes, the Bishops, the Doctors of the Church and the council of Bishops. Combined with the Church the Magisterium authenticates Scriptures. Tradition is that chain of truth from Christ to present day. Without Tradition we have no way to validate that the witness of Scripture are in fact sacred. Christ taught the Jews an indisputable New Tradition of His own, As did the Apostles.Quote:
That's part of the problem: Catholicism elevates church tradition to a level of authority that is essentially equal to the Bible, so when they appeal to their saints and Fathers and popes and clerics and priests and Levites and all that, as far as they know they're citing people with just as much authority as Paul or John.
Faith locked into a book becomes a dead faith. Catholicism is a living faith still alive teaching those truths revealed to her. On the other hand the other sole and infallible rule of faith fails itself. Sola Scriptura ignores the conflicts with right reasoning in faith. The theological doctrine of Sola Scriptura is neither theologically practical nor doctrinally supported within Sacred Scripture:
- Sola Scriptura is not formulated within scripture itself. St. Jude suggests that the faith is handed to you through the Bishops, (Saints). A tradition of Christ's word passed to the faithful through the Church.
- When alone, without Tradition, and the Church, Scripture Alone is subject to very fallible individual judgment failing among order in faith, i.e. Scripture Alone is anarchy of doctrine.
- Textual meaning of the words and phrases as understood today are not the same as the author wrote them.
- Conflicting beliefs of any one philosophy supported by Scripture cannot be resolved textually.
- Scripture in and of itself cannot remove its own ambiguity and contradictions making it insufficient in and of itself. Without the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture resides in an "epistemological vacuum " (Patrick Madrid) needing the Church for both validity as well as context.
- Scripture didn't exist in biblical format for 400 years. The original books and letters of the New Testament were not written for nearly 60 years after the crucifixion and remained in various private collections for nearly 400 years separately. As such their validity and context of Scripture is subject to the Catholic Church. That has maintained it intact, accurately and within the context of faith.
This didn't seem appropriate enough to be worthy of a response.Quote:
The average non-Catholic looks at that and says "Why are you quoting those guys?" That's why we so often end up talking right past each other. Some of us - me, for example - understand this and try to explain our view of church history and tradition vs the Bible, but most lay Catholics have trouble grasping it because they've had the opposite pounded into their heads from birth.
I'll answer for you which verses show that Mary is Immaculate and is the Mother of your Redemption. Every place we find Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity then you are obliged by faith to believe that the Blessed Mary must be Immaculate and the mother of God as an imperative to Christianity (beyond papal decree). As you know, the Holy Trinity is God the Father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit; three Persons in a perfect unity as one essence of God. Christ is One Person with two natures perfectly joined, God/Man. Christ to be in one hypostases of one essence of God (the uncreated and the creator of all) and yet born of woman, i.e. man – wholly God and wholly man, God/man. The prophecies of the Old Testament tell of God's plan that the Messiah is God (uncreated) born of woman (creature). Thus, according to God's revealed plan Christ is wholly the perfectly God, and perfectly a whole man born of a new creature who is the new Eve – sinless, i.e. the Immaculate Mary; i.e. the Ark of the New Covenant. It was out of man that woman was created, it was out of woman that the whole man was born.Quote:
And your second question is an excellent one!
"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (et Verbum caro factum est); a term that came to be known as the incarnation by the first century Church Fathers. The incarnation is understood as a perfect hypostatic union of God and man, body and Spirit, not a conjoining of two parts, rather a perfect union where the essence is homogeneous. The begotten Son is the Person, body and Spirit as every human is body and spirit, this man however, is the Personification of His Word, The Second Person of the Trinity who is the essence of God the Father and the same essence of the Holy Spirit.
If this Person is only the essence of Word is Jesus Christ you've removed the essence of man, as if partitioning or cleaving God into a Divine part and discarding the man part. Where such a conditioned is allowed the Passion would be meaningless – the passion would be of little consequence to an omnipotent being and of little sacrifice.
Therefore we find Mary at the very beginning of the new man being the Blessed Virgin Mary as Immaculate, or as the mother of God, or as the mother of your redemption, is to deny Christ as God/man thereby fails to acknowledge Him as Theandros. In effect it becomes blasphemous against God by accrediting His great works to another. Consequently, true faith makes the improbable conclusion obligatory; bringing us to a Woman with child, who is the perfect union of both God and man. Mary literally and metaphorically full of grace, mother of God, mother of your redemption, and as Christ is King Mary is Queen Mother of heaven.
JoeT
You are correct. At the very least, I expressed myself quite poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ;
There can be no proof just opinion. The catholics don't believe in sola scripture because it invalidates some of their beliefs particularly those associated with Mary as I have said before we are asked to believe in Jesus and his atoneing sacrifice God never said Mary is your salvation
Proof of what, an objective truth? Let's look at sola scriptura. The primarily reason that sola scriptura is a false doctrine is its absence from scripture. We know that the Holy Spirit guides and teaches to move closer to Christ instructing an objective truth (one truth). The tenet holders of sola scriptura have a cacophony of 'one truths'; how can this be coming from a single infallible source?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We do not live in the same social and cultural environment as did the writers of the Scripture. Words have changed since the first century, i.e. the language and in meaning. Thus it can be said, textual meaning of the words and phrases used in Scripture as understood today are not the same as the author wrote them. The doctrine of sola scriptura is doctrine of man not found in scripture as illustrated:
.
- Scriptures cannot be cross-examined to explain simplest of philosophical views, e.g faith & works vs. faith alone. Thus it can be said that conflicting beliefs of any one philosophy supported by Scripture cannot be resolved textually. Two infallible doctrinal truths on the same matter cannot exist. One is true the other is false.
- Scripture does not definitively determine the origins, nature and limits of man's knowledge. Thus, contained within Scriptures themselves are ambiguities within which there is no self contained and cannot remove its own ambiguity or contradictions making it insufficient in and of itself. Without the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture resides in an "epistemological vacuum " (Patrick Madrid) needing the Church for both validity as well as context.
- History is clear; Scripture was not canonized until the Nicene Council of 365. Before then any number of books were used as 'Sacred Scripture', some of which were heretical. Thus, Scripture didn't exist in biblical format for nearly 400 years. The original books and letters of the New Testament were not written for nearly 60 years after the crucifixion. As such the validity and context of Scripture is subject to the Catholic Church. Further if sola scriptura were self sufficient it would contain an index of canon.
- A faith that relies strictly on knowledge alone as faith alone is a dead faith. [cf. James 2:17 sqq] This is because our knowledge is moved by our own passions which cannot be trusted. Therefore, read within a vacuum, i.e. alone, Scripture becomes subject to very fallible judgments of individual.
- Sola Scriptura is not formulated within scripture itself. Can you provide us with verse validating the concept of Sola Scriptura using Sola Scriptura - it hasn't been done by anybody yet
However, the sole and infallible rule of faith does exist in the Catholic Church in a few primary principles, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together and in harmony along with the Catholic Church.
Show where Sola Scriptura is the sole and infallible source of doctrinal truth using the principles of Sola Scriptura.
JoeT
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:33 PM. |