did Mary have fallen human nature?

[planter654]

virgin = sinlessness??

.

Mary lived her life daily like all of us, cooking, cleaning washing, serving family, cares, had neighbours, community etc. Mary was married to Joseph they lived like all lived, worked, etc. Mary did not understand fully everything to come in her life, life each one of us. God had planned for her, or Joseph or Jesus. I do not believe that because of the people waiting when Jesus got circumized in the temple either. The old women and the old man had messages for Mary and Joseph–“and your heart will be pierced”! Joesph must of heard this also. Joseph and Mary like all of us would ponder and keep this within themselves. Do you think for the women was speaking of a future time that would come.

When Jesus stayed behind and Mary and Joseph went looking for him they did not know where Jesus was and what Jesus was doing. Jesus brought the thought to them–did you not know I would be about my FATHERS BUSINESS?

Mary and Joseph did not know all but I sure by Jesus actions they pondered greatly and were amazed! but I would think like I am a mother would get this thoughts within, adding up all the this and that I saw! Anyway Mary lived as we lived with a human nature not fully understanding everything.

 

[emeraldisle]

I certainly do - Christ didn’t sin.

Yes thats true and God tells us this Truth in His written word, see 1Peter 2:21-22.

That Jesus is fully God (John 1:1) and fully man (John 1:13, Heb. 2:18,…)?

Yes the Lord Jesus is fully God & fully man and God tells us this Truth in His written word.

So we know that the Lord Jesus is sinless, fully God & fully man because God tells us these Truths in His written word.

Now we also know that Mary was fully human and a sinner because God tells us so in His written word.

.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Now we also know that Mary was fully human and a sinner because God tells us so in His written word.

Where? Romans 3:23? We’ve been down that road before I mean the entire time

What about her being the Ark of the New Covenant? How is that not plain from Scripture? How do you explain around that? I’m very interested to see what you say.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Now we also know that Mary was fully human and a sinner because God tells us so in His written word.

.

Wrong; heresy. Consult the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church for the enlightenment you seek my friend.

You depend on Scripture alone but you fail to recognize that it was the Church who wrote it under the Guidance of God Himself and the Church who determined its canon. Scripture, interpreted out of the context of the Church, is an oxy-moron since Scripture was written for the Church. And by Church, we do not mean some “body of believers who believe in Christ” but something much more.

In Matthew 18:15-18 we read that if a person sins against you we should tell him his fault. But, if he will not hear you, take one or more persons to establish every word “if he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector ” [note the emphasis on the church]. Jesus than reiterates what He told Peter, but this time He is addressing it to the disciples as a whole, those who would become ministers [Bishops and priests] of His One, Holy, catholic [universal], and Apostolic Church. And Yes, Judas was included at that instance so do not be scandalized when priests fall from grace for there will be those priests those that do commit horrible sins just as Judas did. **It is also important to note that the Church is the final authority here, not the bible.
**
Now, despite whatever your interpretation of this verse may be [and I’m sure if I asked 3 protestants I’d get 5 different answers], from it we can establish that “the church” is a visible entity, not like a “lamp to be put under a bushel basket” [Matt. 5:15].

Hence, depending on His written word ALONE is a fallacy, and foreign to Christianity until many, many centuries after Christ; a clear signature of its man-made origins.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Where? Romans 3:23? We’ve been down that road before I mean the entire time

What about her being the Ark of the New Covenant? How is that not plain from Scripture? How do you explain around that? I’m very interested to see what you say.

Here is another link that proves the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Mary%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

The reason this is so profound is because if you only knew how utterly holy and pure the Ark was, and you see how St. Luke compares the Blessed Virgin to it, you begin to see why her encounter with the angel Gabriel makes sense, and why almost every other encounter of an angelic being with a human 99% of the time ended with the human on his face in fear, just as Zachariah was afraid. You begin to see the mark of the Immaculate Conception, Mary does not fear the angel! Only the sinner, the one who suffers the consequence of Original Sin and hence, from disordered passions, fear the angel.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

With this in mind, I would like to attract your attention to the
starting point of the Annunciation:

“And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” but she was greatly troubled at that saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (St. Luke 1:28-29)

So much could be said about these two verses that an entire book would not be sufficient to say it all!

1. Consider first the angelic salutation. Often times, we gloss over the messenger as though he is a federal express clerk at the door (‘good evening mam, I’ve got a message for you: hail full of grace, the Lord is with you’, now could you please sign here…’ it is as though St. Gabriel’s persona is of no import.

Yet, who is St. Gabriel? He is one of the seven archangels who stand before the very face of God (book of revelation). By this we mean that St. Gabriel enjoys the beatific vision. He sees the Trinity. Needless to say that nothing human could impress this angel – he has seen the face of God. To understand the extent of his power and majesty it is enough to turn to the book of Daniel 8:15-17 “When I, Daniel had seen the vision, I sought to understand it and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the
banks of the Ulai, and it called “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.” So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened and fell upon my face.”

So the great prophet Daniel, the one who God favored with visions, prophecies and who was miraculously saved from the fire, the one who was so high above his brothers in faith, Daniel fell upon his face frightened!

If anyone says that Mary was just an ordinary women, ask this person if they consider Daniel to be just an ordinary guy! If therefore Daniel fell upon his face, how much more we would fall upon our faces if such a heavenly visitor would grace us by his visit.

Gabriel was sent to Zechariah in the temple (Luke 1:11-12) we read that Zechariah was troubled when he saw him (like our Lady) but then the evangelist adds “and fear fell upon him”.

This fear is a Holy fear before the Almighty. It is a fear born out of sinfulness in the presence of the all pure. “Depart from me O Lord for I am a sinful man” exclaimed Peter after the first miraculous catch. He said so because he recognized in Jesus God and he knew that no one shall see the face of God and live (as the Lord told Moses).

How does Mary react in the presence of the archangel? “She was greatly troubled at that saying”. Mary (and this is crucial) is not afraid by the presence of the angel! She is only troubled by the salutation which is the normal reaction of anyone who is truly humble. Scout the bible from beginning to end and you will not find any other human being saluted in this way by an angel.

By the way, some protestant argues that the correct translation is ‘highly favored one’ rather than ‘full of grace’. Without delving into the Greek one can say that ‘full of grace’ captures more accurately the sense of the salutation than ‘highly favored one’.

At any rate, Mary’s purity is such that the presence of an angel does not fill her with fear. If this is not the signature of the
Immaculate conception, I do not know what is!

continued…

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Next consider that salutation. Mary is ‘full of grace’. As St. Jerome’s and other fathers of the Church point out, by this the angel is acknowledging that Mary has all the graces and that she has them to the fullest. Now, since grace is the opposite of sin, how could one who has committed even the slightest sin be called full of grace? Therefore, Mary has never committed a sin! This is all the more clear by the fact that the Angel substitutes this title ‘full of grace’ to her name for whereas he should have said ‘hail Mary’, he says ‘full of grace’ which is her true name. Rightly so do we say ‘hail Mary’ in the rosary because ‘Mary’ and ‘Full of Grace’ are synonyms. She alone holds this title amongst the people of God.

Hence, Mary is full of Grace. Now if you go to Genesis 3:15, we read that the Lord (understood as the Father) tells the serpent “I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”. Here I am quoting from the RSV Catholic Edition. Other translations read “She shall crush your head you will bruise her heel”. The distinction between he (Jesus) and she (Mary) is of no consequence whatsoever due to the enmity between the woman the serpent (the devil). This is the only enmity that God establishes down the ages. This enmity is total, complete and fierce. Where the woman is, there can be no serpent, and where the serpent is, the woman is not.

If therefore, the serpent, the devil who is lie and the father of lies, who brought sin into the world, if he is in complete total and full opposition with the woman, it must be that the woman has never had any dealing with him. If she did this enmity would not be completely established. Hence, one has to logically conclude that Mary was never under sin.

Since this prophetic message was given at the dawn of time, thousands and thousands of years before Mary was born, we conclude that Mary was in God’s mind from the beginning, and as so, when he created her, he fulfilled the prophecy he established in time by creating her spotless. Mary is therefore immaculately conceived.

Without making this message unduly long, I would like to attract your attentions to one salient point that is often overlooked: “and she considered in her mind what this salutation might be”.

Mary is smart. In fact, and this may come as a surprise to many, Mary is most intelligent human being that God created. She is more intelligent than Paul, John, Augustin, Thomas Aquinas all put together. There is more: Mary is more intelligent than Newton, Einstein, and all men of science put together.

Why? Because Mary being full of grace and highly favored has had her preternatural intelligence intact. Sin weakens the will and the faculties. Not so with Mary. Furthermore due her Divine Maternity, she was endowed with all necessary graces as to be a fitting mother to the Son of God.

And it is with her mind not her heart, not her feelings or visions or other extraordinary means that Mary sets about to understand. Her reaction is stunning. Whereas I may be on the floor overcome with fear or jumping around the room with joy because an angel has visited me, she does not move, does not utter a sound but in complete control of her faculties considers in her mind what king of salutation this might be". In my daily affairs, how often do I remain recollected when considering a matter? How often do I think about it alone in the presence of the Holy Spirit rather than “sharing it immediately with others?” Mary’s self control is an indication of her own spiritual life.

I hope you will find these notes helpful in understanding who Mary is in the eyes of God and sharing it with those who have difficulties understanding our devotion to her.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

So we know that the Lord Jesus is sinless, fully God & fully man because God tells us these Truths in His written word.

Amen.

Now we also know that Mary was fully human and a sinner because God tells us so in His written word.

Perhaps the disconnect here is that most of us are talking about the Bible which exists on earth, while you appear to be referring to the version that (apparently) exists only in your head.


Since the Bible does say Jesus is both free of sin, as well as both fully God & fully man, then it cannot & does not say that all humans are sinners.

So again, where does the Bible say that Mary was a sinner?

Regards,

Chris

 

[planter654]

Wrong; heresy. Consult the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church for the enlightenment you seek my friend.

You depend on Scripture alone but you fail to recognize that it was the Church who wrote it under the Guidance of God Himself and the Church who determined its canon. Scripture, interpreted out of the context of the Church, is an oxy-moron since Scripture was written for the Church. And by Church, we do not mean some “body of believers who believe in Christ” but something much more.

In Matthew 18:15-18 we read that if a person sins against you we should tell him his fault. But, if he will not hear you, take one or more persons to establish every word “if he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector ” [note the emphasis on the church]. Jesus than reiterates what He told Peter, but this time He is addressing it to the disciples as a whole, those who would become ministers [Bishops and priests] of His One, Holy, catholic [universal], and Apostolic Church. And Yes, Judas was included at that instance so do not be scandalized when priests fall from grace for there will be those priests those that do commit horrible sins just as Judas did. **It is also important to note that the Church is the final authority here, not the bible.
**
Now, despite whatever your interpretation of this verse may be [and I’m sure if I asked 3 protestants I’d get 5 different answers], from it we can establish that “the church” is a visible entity, not like a “lamp to be put under a bushel basket” [Matt. 5:15].

Hence, depending on His written word ALONE is a fallacy, and foreign to Christianity until many, many centuries after Christ; a clear signature of its man-made origins.

I do not agree with all you have said–sorry God Bless-- we are all human,all human beings, we all fall from grace so do priests bishops etc. I have also have asked 3 priest questions concerning subject matter and also got three different answers–So please also, do not be scandalized also for us!

Thank you and God Bless

 

[planter654]

Amen.

Perhaps the disconnect here is that most of us are talking about the Bible which exists on earth, while you appear to be referring to the version that (apparently) exists only in your head.


Since the Bible does say Jesus is both free of sin, as well as both fully God & fully man, then it cannot & does not say that all humans are sinners.

So again, where does the Bible say that Mary was a sinner?

Regards,

Chris

No, human being on earth knows that! I also believe, no more then anyone can truly say that Mary and Joseph did not have also other children. God Bless

 

[planter654]

Where? Romans 3:23? We’ve been down that road before I mean the entire time

What about her being the Ark of the New Covenant? How is that not plain from Scripture? How do you explain around that? I’m very interested to see what you say.

I believe Scott Hagn did he not bring that to the attention of us, or written books. God Bless

 

[brycelaliberte]

I believe Scott Hagn did he not bring that to the attention of us, or written books. God Bless

…Uhm. What? Restate that so I understand what you’re saying?

 

[planter654]

this is my thought and reflexing on the Little child Jesus–Saint Teresa–we must be careful not to add our own myths about Mary–Blessed Virgin Mary. In Hebrew there was a Jew that told me I do not quite remember but “virgin” in Hebrew means —woman!

woman and virgin or change or what ever!
Hebrew–Greek–Latin—English

English-- translations made-- can change the whole meaning just one word! How does it read in the Scriptures in Hebrew?

 

[planter654]

aramic also! I am just afraid that when we create our own myths or add things that are not simply written in the bible about Blessed Mary like on another thread on this siste pictures of Icons it is said Angels came and brought bread to Mary when she was in the temple sewing threads for the veil in the temple. Now who was there and saw that or witness that, or where is it written? Little Teresa mentions this in her diary–myths and we must be very careful not to do this–it becomes our story and goes on and on that we lose the pure truth, not about Mary’s true life on earth.

God Bless

 

[adam_in_ohio]

No, human being on earth knows that! I also believe, no more then anyone can truly say that Mary and Joseph did not have also other children. God Bless

:nope: Why would you say no one knows if Mary and Joseph did not have other children. Scipture is clear that Jesus was Marys only child.

 

[planter654]

:nope: Why would you say no one knows if Mary and Joseph did not have other children. Scipture is clear that Jesus was Marys only child.

No! it does not. It only says before Joseph knew her ( Mary). Many would challenge that! And the fact term brother or sister, or cousin the words could be challenge also in Aramaic language or Hebrew language. There is a Hebrew word for the name of brother and a hebrew word for cousins, brothers, sisters , in the time of Jesus etc.

And if Mary and Joseph had children what is the problem they were married be “fruitful and multiply the earth”. It is not a sin to bare children but a blessing. I just find it interesting that at the foot of the cross Jesus calls his mother— woman behold thy son, but says to John—behold thy mother–interesting. So Jesus knows the word mother–right for Jesus uses it for John–right.

But through the life of Jesus on earth he calls Blessed Mary—woman–interesting. That is all

God choose the Blessed Mary and Joseph! God spoke to both.

God Bless

 

[Thing]

And if Mary and Joseph had children what is the problem they were married be “fruitful and multiply the earth”. It is not a sin to bare children but a blessing. I just find it interesting that at the foot of the cross Jesus calls his mother— woman behold thy son, but says to John—behold thy mother–interesting. So Jesus knows the word mother–right for Jesus uses it for John–right.

But through the life of Jesus on earth he calls Blessed Mary—woman–interesting. That is all

God choose the Blessed Mary and Joseph! God spoke to both.

God Bless

Could you be more clear about this?
St. John did not know he was Mary’s son?
Why would Jesus tell John the obvious?

 

[adam_in_ohio]

And if Mary and Joseph had children what is the problem they were married be “fruitful and multiply the earth”. It is not a sin to bare children but a blessing. I just find it interesting that at the foot of the cross Jesus calls his mother— woman behold thy son, but says to John—behold thy mother–interesting. So Jesus knows the word mother–right for Jesus uses it for John–right.

That is a problim because it’s not biblical!!!:bible1: In Ezekiel there is a prophetic allusion to Mary’s womb. " Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, 'This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened and no one shall anter by it; for the Lord, the God of Isreal, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Ezekiel 44:1-2
St Augustine in his letters no.137 “*That same power brought forth the body of the infant from the inviolate virginal womb of the mother, as afterward the Body of the Man penetrated closed doors. It will not be wondered at is an explnation is asked of this; it will not be remarkable if an example is demanded. Let us grant that God can do something which we confess we cannot fathom. In such matters the whole explnation of the deed is in the power of the Doer.” *

 

[adam_in_ohio]

No! it does not. It only says before Joseph knew her ( Mary). Many would challenge that! And the fact term brother or sister, or cousin the words could be challenge also in Aramaic language or Hebrew language. There is a Hebrew word for the name of brother and a hebrew word for cousins, brothers, sisters , in the time of Jesus etc.

St. Jerome in his letter on holy virginity.
"6. Our reply is briefly this,— the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not. Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord’s human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? although elsewhere he says, My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness. I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.

1. The word of God says in Genesis, And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day. Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day. We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery.
2. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, Matthew 1:20 that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, Matthew 1:20 Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife. The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord; and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will; and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation; and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? Mary at all events kept all these sayings in her heart. You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, Luke 2:33 His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him. And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.
3. Helvidius will answer, What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, Genesis 38:26 ‘And he took his wife, and knew her again no more’? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? ‘He knew her not,’ he says, ‘until she brought forth a son.’ He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered.
4. If you are so contentious, your own thoughts shall now prove your master. You must not allow any time to intervene between delivery and intercourse. You must not say, If a woman conceive seed and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the separation of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. She shall touch no hallowed thing, and so forth. On your showing, Joseph must at once approach, her, and be subject to Jeremiah’s Jeremiah 5:8 reproof, They were as mad horses in respect of women: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. Otherwise, how can the words stand good, he knew her not, till she had brought forth a son, if he waits after the time of another purifying has expired, if his lust must brook another long delay of forty days? The mother must go unpurged from her child-bed taint, and the wailing infant be attended to by the midwives, while the husband clasps his exhausted wife. Thus forsooth must their married life begin so that the Evangelist may not be convicted of falsehood. But God forbid that we should think thus of the Saviour’s mother and of a just man. No midwife assisted at His birth; no women’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, Luke 2:7 and laid Him, we are told, in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn."

 

[clmowry]

Since you’ve previously said before that Jesus didn’t sin (which we all agree on, BTW), the only possibility your claim leaves is that Christ’s incarnation was false – Jesus is He is “mostly God & partially human” but NOT fully God & fully man.

Catholics reject that, because the Bible shows that Jesus is fully God and fully man, & that He did not sin.

As such, the Bible could not claim that “all of humanity is sinful” without including Jesus, or without it being a qualified statement that did not necessarily include “every single human.” (For that matter, it can’t claim that every human committed personal sins either, without contradicting itself.)

Regards,

Chris

Yeah what he said for the umpteen millionth time.

Chuck