Did Jesus have a fallen human nature?

[HollowMan]

Of course I believe Jesus lived. I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t. And of course I believe He had disciples, just as the Bible says. What I don’t believe is that those disciples described in the Bible are the Catholic Church. I fully respect your right to believe your traditions and your folklore, but I don’t.

And which is why I gave you some sources.

Once again, and I must not be doing a very good job explaining this, I am not Catholic. We do not get our theology from what the Church declares, but believe the Church is to get its theology from what the Bible teaches. As a result, it doesn’t matter what the Church says about Mary, but what the Bible says about Mary. Again, Catholics are more than welcome to your own traditions and your own folklore, but we do not share that.

No Church wrote the scriptures.

 

[HollowMan]

Tafan2…So you say, and yet Catholics say this all the time, not the least of which is the first person to respond in this thread. When I googled it, to make sure I was correct, several Catholic sources came up and confirmed it.

True, but Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine. I believe she was speaking specifically about His human nature.

 

[Wesrock]

Tafan2…So you say, and yet Catholics say this all the time, not the least of which is the first person to respond in this thread.

Please quote the part of the first response that says Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless.

 

[HollowMan]

You may not believe it’s what the Catholic Church teaches, but several Catholic sources confirm it and many Catholics believe it.

Sure. Here’s the quote: "No. By a singular grace, Mary was preserved free from original sin. "

Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8–10, Luke 1:47, etc.

No. I’d rather focus on what I said, rather than letting you pick an argument and then demand that I defend it.

 

[HollowMan]

The name of the first poster in this thread.

 

[HollowMan]

No thanks. I’m not interested in debating your religion with you. I’ve been pretty clear that although we do not share your traditions or folklore, I have no problem with you believing what you want.

Besides, when you say things like Calvinism teaches that people are robots, it doesn’t exactly make me optimistic that our conversation will be a fruitful one.

 

[Wesrock]

You may not believe it’s what the Catholic Church teaches, but several Catholic sources confirm it and many Catholics believe it.

Sure. Here’s the quote: "No. By a singular grace, Mary was preserved free from original sin. "

You’re reading into it what you want and not what she said. She never said Mary had to be sinless, she was drawing a comparison between Jesus and Mary with Adam and Eve. I also know 1ke from her posting and know she doesn’t believe what you’re saying she does.

The Church doesn’t teach Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. First, that doesn’t make sense. If Mary could be born immaculate from sinful people, why couldn’t Jesus.

Also, I can Google any number of heterodox opinions from Protestant claiming websites, that doesn’t make them representative of Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, or what have you.

Earlier you also said Roman’s 5 showed sin was passed down through the father. Where? All it does is say death came into the world through Adam’s sin.

Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8–10, Luke 1:47, etc.

Romans there would, if read as you read it, mean that Jesus was also a sinner. Or do you deny that he was a man? Paul means there is no people, gentile or Jew, no people of any nation, who are without sin. Broad strokes. This is the theme of the early parts of Romans, in which Paul is addressing a mixed gentile and Jew community of Christians and telling them not to get uppity or superior with each other. This is a typical tact with this type of quote mining (ignoring context).

1 John 1 is pastoral to his church community.

Luke 1 is totally in accord with Catholic teaching which affirms God and Christ as Mary’s savior.

 

[Wesrock]

Just to go back to Romans 3

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

The context of him speaking in regards to peoples, gentile and Jew, is right there in the immediately surrounding verses, plus the chapter 3 conclusion a few lines later, PLUS also pretty much what the entire first few chapters are devoted to as a whole. The gentiles should not consider themselves better than the Jewish Christians, and the Jewish Christians shouldn’t consider themselves better than the Gentile Christians, for God is one and the God of both. Such boasting of superiority is excluded.

 

[goout]

Of course I believe Jesus lived. I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t. And of course I believe He had disciples, just as the Bible says. What I don’t believe is that those disciples described in the Bible are the Catholic Church. I fully respect your right to believe your traditions and your folklore, but I don’t.

And which is why I gave you some sources.

Once again, and I must not be doing a very good job explaining this, I am not Catholic. We do not get our theology from what the Church declares, but believe the Church is to get its theology from what the Bible teaches. As a result, it doesn’t matter what the Church says about Mary, but what the Bible says about Mary. Again, Catholics are more than welcome to your own traditions and your own folklore, but we do not share that.

No Church wrote the scriptures.

Ok don’t call it the catholic church then.
Call it whatever you want.

If you can trace the tradition you belong to with more continuity than the Catholic Church I will be real impressed.

 

[HollowMan]

That’s odd, because I quoted her saying nearly verbatim what I said she said. You are attributing words to me, which I did not say.

If you do not believe she was being sincere when she said what I quoted her as saying, then that’s something you going to have to address with her.

Likewise, if you don’t believe God preserved Mary from original sin, that’s fine. Neither do I. But to say it’s not a Catholic belief and that Catholics don’t believe it is just foolish.

I’m not interested in debating scripture with you, as you do not accept the authority of scripture and any scripture you cite will be slanted to support your religious beliefs. You are welcome to believe what you like about the scriptures, but for me to have a debate with someone who is not acting in good faith, no pun intended, is a fool’s errand.

 

[HollowMan]

Our religion is not based on tradition or the age of our traditions, but on what scripture says. For trivia’s sake, 2,000 years is about as far back as we go.

Whether or not you’re impressed really isn’t my responsibility.

 

[Wesrock]

That’s odd, because I quoted her saying nearly verbatim what I said she said. You are attributing words to me, which I did not say.

If you do not believe she was being sincere when she said what I quoted her as saying, then that’s something you going to have to address with her.

Yes, you quoted her verbatim. And nowhere in there did she say Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus would be without sin.

Likewise, if you don’t believe God preserved Mary from original sin, that’s fine. Neither do I. But to say it’s not a Catholic belief and that Catholics don’t believe it is just foolish.

Um… Where did you get that I don’t believe God preserved Mary from original sin?

I’m not interested in debating scripture with you, as you do not accept the authority of scripture and any scripture you cite will be slanted to support your religious beliefs. You are welcome to believe what you like about the scriptures, but for me to have a debate with someone who is not acting in good faith, no pun intended, is a fool’s errand.

You accuse me of acting in bad faith? As if your interpretations are not slanted to your religious belief? As if I do not accept the authority of scriptures?

Listen, you can quote out of context all you want and then run when challenged if you want. Everyone else can see.

 

[HollowMan]

Yes. When you attribute words and beliefs to me which I have never said, nor ever held, I accuse you of not acting in good faith. Please show us where I even said she said that “Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus would be without sin”. I did not. I merely said that it is a Catholic belief that God preserved Mary from original sin, just as 1KE said.

From your post in which you repeatedly tried to explain away what 1kE said.

The difference between you and me is that I try very hard to make sure my beliefs are based on scripture and will change my beliefs if they are not. You want only to defend the Catholic Church and will change scripture if they are not.

What, specifically, did I quote out of context? How did I run when challenged? I don’t see how “You are free to believe what you like. It is not important enough to me to debate” is “running”.

You seem to be becoming increasingly aggressive. That’s a sure sign of insecurity. It’s the night before Independence Day. Surely, there are things happening in your community. Perhaps you should go out and enjoy yourself and ease those insecurities.

 

[goout]

How is your religion not based on traditions? That’s impossible. You have a different interpretation of many things from the CC and other churches.

You say

Our religion is not based on tradition or the age of our traditions, but on what scripture says

You need to answer this in order to take scripture seriously:
where were the scriptures when Jesus walked the earth? Where were the scriptures when Jesus ascended? Where were the Gospels themselves even 20 years after?
It is a fact that The Church and Tradition existed before the New Testament existed in written form. That is an indisputable fact.

So what really are you basing your faith on?

 

[tomo_pomo]

Is it true that God unites and the devil scatters?

 

[HollowMan]

It’s not based on tradition because we have an authoritative and objective written record with codified doctrines on which to base our religion.

The scriptures were all over in the hands of faithful Jews, rabbis, etc. New scripture, as was written was disseminated among the churches.

 

[HollowMan]

No. God unites and God scatters, according to His purposes. The Devil, who doesn’t have as much power as you give him, unites and scatters, according to his purposes.

 

[Wesrock]

Yes. When you attribute words and beliefs to me which I have never said, nor ever held, I accuse you of not acting in good faith. Please show us where I even said she said that “Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus would be without sin”. I did not. I merely said that it is a Catholic belief that God preserved Mary from original sin, just as 1KE said.

Here:

Catholics will tell you that Jesus did not have original sin because Mary was preserved from sin. But, of course, we know from the Bible that this isn’t true for two reasons: First, that Mary was a sinner, just like everyone else. Second, that Romans 5 says the sin nature is passed down through the father, not the mother. Because Christ did not have an Earthly father, there was no sin nature to be passed down. Simply put, Jesus did not have original sin because His Father did not have original sin to pass on to Him.

And here:

And yet, literally the first response to the OP in this thread is from a Catholic saying Jesus did not have a sin nature because Mary was preserved from sin.

 

[Wesrock]

What, specifically, did I quote out of context? How did I run when challenged? I don’t see how “You are free to believe what you like. It is not important enough to me to debate” is “running”.

The biggest one was Romans 3:23.

I did spend two posts explaining how you were quoting out of context but if you wish to ignore them.

You seem to be becoming increasingly aggressive. That’s a sure sign of insecurity. It’s the night before Independence Day. Surely, there are things happening in your community. Perhaps you should go out and enjoy yourself and ease those insecurities.

You quote scripture and then say you won’t debate when it’s argued that your quotes are being stripped of context, accusing the other side of simply being in bad faith. This is dishonest hit and run practice.

 

[HollowMan]

So not only are you going to continue to be dishonest about what I said, you’re going to continue to be rude, too?