Did Mary know she was sinless?

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi D.M.

Hi,
(I had a very frustrating experience last thursday…

My total sympathy. I have done that before too – but at least SOMETIMES hitting the back button on my browser will actually recovers the text…

Some men do not experience uncontrollable sexual lusts, that is true, however, many men do, and there are biological reasons why they do so… in order for them not to have done so, it would be necessary for their biology to be radically different than what it is.

I don’t think so.
That’s why I pointed out that my situation was altered by mere medication – no bodily re-design was necessary.
My medication has the effect as a mere side-effect – it does nothing to the body in the root design of the nervous system. It merely acts on the body I have.

There are medications designed specifically to completely annihilate sexual drive. These medications, apparently. were designed with repeated sex offenders in mind. eg: the priest I mentioned before in this thread fits that class.
Fr. Joe Baccelieri (sp?), one of Portland’s most expensive mistakes.

There are two components to sexual drive, one is a unitive pull which may be satisfied by physical affection (even NON sexual) but which escalates into sexual drive when TEASED or NEGLECTED. The quaint expression here in the states about marriage is “to have and to hold”. We are not speaking of the sexual act, but rather of the close bond of affection which hugs, hand-holding, and non-blocking of self access are all essential bodily expressions. As the book of Tobit states – “I do not take this woman for lust, but for a noble purpose.”

But none the less, the antidepressant I take removes the second drive (strong drive) without affecting the first affection, tactile bonding, etc… Or consider, When a woman nurses her child (as Mary, I would assume did from psalm 22) she is actually invoking the same section of the human brain associated with a sexual encounter – merely to a lesser degree than in sexual intercourse with a spouse.

Breastfeeding is not an uncontrolled sexual lust, but rather part of the bonding mechanism between mother and child.

I point out my state because I have experienced uncontrollable concupiscence (“lust” only comes when the desire is given in to) and it was mostly due to inappropriate attention getting tactics played by STUPID high school age girls. eg: wearing her LITTLE sisters mini skirt – without underwear… while teasing the football player sitting next to me in high-school. That kind of stuff messes with a teenager’s dreams at night and is unnecessary.

But, recently, I had to WORK to get my wife pregnant because she indicated she wanted sexual relations at that time, not because I am uncontrolled.

It has been almost five months now, and nothing more has happened since she became pregnant. My body is the same one as before.

… furthermore, even if you didn’t accept this example,

What I accept is that the same design can suffer both uncontrollable and controllable urges. They differ in degree (strength) not in existence or non-existence because of the design ITSELF.

consider even biological death itself, an organism decays and the cells slow or stop their reproduction to the extent that the human being being will die, and if biological death would not have happened to Adam and Eve then it is necessary to consider that the flesh we have must really possess some radical differences than what they did.

Death in the sense of destruction is not necessary to the body. Cells die because of malfunctions not because of age itself. There are, for example, bacteria quite alive which are thousands of years old. They are not “rocks” but living cells which eat when there is food, and which hibernate when there is not. They can be found inside pockets formed in rocks in the Earth’s crust which we KNOW haven’t been opened in thousands of years – yet they are there, and quite alive.

We share the same genetic DNA/RNA system as they have.

The process of aging, for example the skin, comes from the fact that the base stem cells cease to reproduce once they differentiate in the body — this is NOT the case for stem cells in the womb and genital organs. If it were, every child would be born the same BODY age as it’s parent – just as the cloned sheep “dolly” was, and who died early because of it.

But if the body did not SUFFER damage, it would not age.
Very small genetic changes can affect the whole of the body’s mechanisms … and the live forever atheists are chasing these avenues in hopes of doing just that.
However, the universe will end – and there is no such thing as “forever” in any event.

Congratulations on your new child!

I think I understand the log truck now…

Yes, you are EXACTLY right. Two people have died already at that exact same intersection from the exact same kind of pole truck. It’s quite sad, because I don’t feel that every intersection in the state has the same hazard, yet here at the ONE which clearly does – a wiser truck driver has JUST SHOWN ALL THE “INEXPERIENCED” ones via newspaper – how to thumb their noses at the purpose of the law.

On a similar note, a few weeks ago I had to write a report on an old railway in 19th century Ontario… talk about accidents! … the president of the company never had to face a court though to answer such charges, as he was himself killed in an accident on his railway…

Yeah, I bet!. I worked in a shop environment most of my life – I have all my fingers – but Many people – EVEN following the safety guidelines would loose a finger or two, or at least smash them badly enough to have “fat finger” syndrome. shudder

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m still not convinced that pain is necessary in order to resist the devil’s temptations… could not have simply the recognition that pain existed, …

eg: Dont eat this fruit because ooogedy booogedy exists.
That’ll convince them?

Unless they participate in SOME WAY with oogedy boogedy they can not know what it is. How then, do Adam and Eve know that DEATH is BAD?

In the law, stated in Gen 2:17 God is speaking to Adam as Eve is not yet created – and he informs him of an exclusive situation – in the plural.

Hyper literally translating:
“From the (singular) fruit of knowing Good and Evil, Not you-all-are eaten from of this OR ??? the day you-all-eat from of-this to-death from [this] you-all-die,”

Again, God makes it clear that an all or nothing item is at stake here – and the first part of the construction is in the passive (you all are eaten) – but AFTER the OR statement it becomes active – you all EAT.

Relating back to my point about them knowing a fruit dies when eaten – the author has said two possible things –
The passive says the action of the verb applies to the Subject— people or fruit? - the literal subject is a (singular) fruit – but ignoring that, and saying the grammar is just bad – we are still left with either “NOT – YOU ALL eat” a singular fruit, or “you all are NOT eaten” by the fruit of knowlege.

Normally, when the reverse is meant of the verb itself eg: not eat – the preceding word would be με in Greek – but here it is ου – so, I tend to think the author is purposely indicating that Adam (and progeny) will not be consumed of the fruit of knowing Good and Evil. (I am actually supporting your point here to some degree – watch)

After the OR, God then clearly states that the day YOU-ALL eat… as in the human beings are eating.

The only death Adam knew was that of eating something which would afterward not be there. Notice: In the punishment phase God says to the serpent – YOU shall eat – and WHAT is this the serpent eats? – but the dust to which Adam returns. He feeds on US and this is the death of our body in this life – that is Satan has entered a communion with our bodies.

The standard English translation makes sense too, but sort of misses the “problems” exposed here.

The problem is that nowhere in the statement is the COMMAND given NOT to eat the fruit, nor is the word FOR used in Greek – rather the passive is used. One has to infer that Adam knew being eaten was a bad thing or he understood the double death at the end of the statement in a negative or painful way.

When the serpent tempts Eve (before she is named), he changes what God says to ου με. The second word being the NORMAL one for saying do NOT something; The devil here speaks with two negatives changing what God said.

What, then, is the penalty in Adam’s eyes?

When he eats a fruit, it becomes part of HIM. This consumption then transforms a lesser thing into a greater thing. Is that so bad?

The point is, the entire story is associated with the idea of communion – the becoming one. Possibly with the serpent…

I think, though, that Adam knows he commands his body – even the fruit which is transformed into HIS body. So, if you wish to say that he had no “pain” I ask – why is this necessary in any way which affects church teaching or the story line? I am open to a better word being devised than pain – but there is only one example which we have information on regarding the “painless” state of unity / communion. That is the remarks taught in scripture about the internal nature of God in his unity.

Notice, The father has free will – the son does too – yet in a CAUSE and EFFECT statement of St. John:

John 5:19 Amen, Amen, I say unto you, The son can do nothing of himself, but that which he sees the father do: for what things soever he does; these also does the Son likewise.

Why then, can the Son, with free will, do nothing that the father is not doing? (eg: There can be no division).

This lack of division is (I think) a fundamental requirement of any eu-topia or heaven. So, with regard to Adam and Eve how is it possible that they were TRULY in unity of NO-DIVISION if it were possible for one to decide to sin, and the other NOT. The problem will not go away.
(The incarnate Son, btw, has TWO wills)

I know you do not like the word “pain”, and I have asked before if there were a better word for it – but none the less, there must be SOMETHING which is grasped by the intellect as dis-pleasure or DISGUST. People were never designed to be without FEELING; Remove all feeling from a person (experiments have been done along this line) and what remains is anesthetic numbness. People GO CRAZY when that happens – it is a terrible violation of the way the brain is designed. Yet there is no difference between sensation and pain except intensity. It becomes a word game…

Gen 3:5 does not prove that the individuals sinned as a group, but it simply has the devil claiming that if the group ate the fruit that they as a group would have their eyes opened… this doesn’t tell anything about God’s judgment of how they sin.

The aspect of Communion is so heavy in Genesis, I do not see how the INDEPENDENT results form of free will is provable either. It’s just your opinion?

If your understanding of ‘primordial law’ is that which one person instructs another upon apart from direct revelation, then I would agree that Eve could have had this.

I would include instruction in primordial (first) law for passing on through communion (communication). Not everything which is passed on is necessarily primordial, though. Primordial law may be discovered or passed on.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t see why it is then necessary to conclude that if only one of them ate that they would not have died…

.

I never said it was necessary – but you haven’t proven it impossible either.

OTOH: Many of the Greek Philosophers reasoned that the gods of their own fables were in fact FALSE based on the very fact that they could not maintain a consistent idea of “right” because it is “right” when the God’s free wills DIFFERED; the classic story is called the Euthephro; (Good arrow – as in likely to “hit the mark”)

The conjugal union unites people, does it not actually take away their separate free wills and make them into one free will to the extent that if one of them sins that both of them are then guilty…

Show examples of this from the trinity… the angels… or any other Saint known in HEAVEN – and you have an argument beyond doubt. But how, (besides your own opinion) do you PROVE this assertion?
Let me tick the thought experiment… What is a sex slave? – yet a VENIAL sin is denying your spouse their lawful desire. See: Castii connubii. (the spousal DUTY).

Clearly, then, in Eutopia there MUST BE A MECHANISM TO MAKE VENIAL SIN IMPOSSIBLE TOO…? How can two people differ on how much intercourse they wish to enjoy freely – and both be totally satisfied…

in a similar fashion, we are all part of the body of Christ and united to Him in the same one body, but if we sin that doesn’t mean that He Himself is united to us to the extent that He is also a sinner.

He died on the cross, and as St. Paul says of those who eat his body unworthily – they crucify him again to themselves.
For as long as change (a form of death exists) – there is in fact a dying of the body of Christ. There is PAIN in christ – for he says, even from heaven, “When you did it to the LEAST of my kingdom – you did it to ME”.

A body has parts – a brain has parts – even thoughts are composite. To say Christ as a whole can no longer suffer in HIS GLORIFIED body is not to say he experiences nothing.

I think that the quote from Timothy points at this, in that it says she was deceived and she transgressed, and I interpret a linkage between being deceived and transgressing. And since she was deceived before she talked with Adam in the narrative, her sin then occured before his.

When did she transgress according to the scriptures?
How do you KNOW? It is this KNOWLEDGE of sin which is so vital to the whole thread. How is it ESTABLISHED WHEN who knew what and in what way.

As a lightener of mood…

youtube.com/watch?v=4b4bGAoVR7g

 

[Huiou_Theou]

David, I want to thank you again for the conversation. I have found being pushed toward my limits quite enjoyable.

There are many things I have left out simply because of how events played out in my life since Thanksgiving holiday (Nov 27/28) and these times – the Holidays (Christmas and Thanksgiving) tend to intensify friction points in family matters.

A certain amount of the argument, quite frankly, has escaped my mind since other things became … ah … overwhelming.

I hope to be able to perhaps (sort of thinking out loud) review and consolidate some points this evening into a more focused and coherent discussion. God willing, I shall catch up soon to where you are – and perhaps be clearer about the relevance of certain arguments to the the doctrine of Original sin, and Mary’s knowledge of them.

I posted mostly this morning (, sort of in a rush ) to kind of kick start myself into finishing what was begun.

Prepare ye the way for the Christ Child this Advent Season!
Peace to His people on earth.

–Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

(I’m not sure if you wanted to post anything else before I posted again, as you said you wanted to post last thursday evening… hopefully this isn’t a problem if I send a response now)

I think I grasp your argument about the lusts and decay of the body better now, and I’m finding myself more convinced of what you’re saying.

If Adam and Eve were provided a means, like the drugs you refer to, which would have stopped the body from experiencing those types of biological lusts (although I think you prefer to call it concupiscence and not lust), then I could see it conceivable how their flesh would not have had to change. Likewise that is possible if the world was so perfectly arranged that their cells didn’t suffer damage.

However, I’m now thinking, could not the same be said about pain? Could they have had a capacity to have pain in their bodies, just as they did biological lust or physical death, but have never actually experienced it prior to the fall just as they never experienced those other things prior to the fall?

Lord, correct this log truck situation that Andrew speaks of and look after all of the victims who have been and the victims who will be. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

You mentioned you worked in a shop environment for most of your life, and I wonder what you would think of this: I was researching a 19th century wagon factory that also did planing, sawing, and other woodworking, and it was claimed by a local newspaper that they had cut 125,000 feet of lumber and had not experienced a single accident for 35 years… I’m not an expert on the subject of woodworking, but would that sound believable to you or should I be skeptical?

(Note: they would have been using moving machines and saws at this point which were powered by steam, although nowhere near to the same degree as you would find in a modern environment)

I’m not convinced by your claim that a person needs to participate in an evil until they know it. I have never contracted HIV, yet I nevertheless know what it is and what it would do to me, and I understand that I would not want it. I have never had a heart attack, but I still know what it is and I can understand that I do not want it, even without having ever experienced. Likewise, I think it possible for Adam and Eve to have understood that death was a bad thing that they should not have had, but without actually experiencing it themselves… just in the same way that we who live have never experienced death either, but we all nevertheless somehow think that it is a bad thing to have even if though not one of us can state from personal experience what it is like.

I think I comprehend… at least partly… of what you’re saying about the Greek translation. That the statement in Greek is conveying a plural meaning the text and that you interpret this to mean that this then conveys a necessary sense of communion in the sin… what I would wonder though, is if we applied this principle to other parts of scripture if it would hold up?

Exodus 20:8-10 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates;

And this is in the septuagint:

8 μνήσθητι τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων ἁγιάζειν αὐτήν 9 ἓξ ἡμέρας ἐργᾷ καὶ ποιήσεις πάντα τὰ ἔργα σου 10 τῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ σάββατα κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ σου οὐ ποιήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ πᾶν ἔργον σὺ καὶ ὁ υἱός σου καὶ ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ὁ παῖς σου καὶ ἡ παιδίσκη σου ὁ βοῦς σου καὶ τὸ ὑποζύγιόν σου καὶ πᾶν κτῆνός σου καὶ ὁ προσήλυτος ὁ παροικῶν ἐν σοί

(I just realized the greek root to sabbath - ‘sabbaton’)

I can’t read greek very well, and you’ll have to tell me if this is speaking in the plural or not. If it is in the plural, however, consider this passage:

Numbers 15:32-35 While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”

I’m going to read into the text that says the congregation did not know how to punish the sabbath breaker by making the conclusion that up until this point, there had not yet been a single case to decide upon of how a breaker of the sabbath ought to be punished. However, what we notice here is that even if the law was given applying only in the plural, that only one person was punished and put to death. If this is correct, then I don’t see why the same couldn’t have occured with regard to Adam and Eve.

 

[D_M]

Your discussion on the two possible meanings in the greek is very interesting… and perhaps there is something important there as well…

I don’t have the interpretation that the verse from John you quote literally implies that the Son was incapable of doing what the Father would not do in the sense that He didn’t have a choice…rather I interpret it to mean that by the Son’s own choice in always following the Father’s will, He would only do what the Father willed. It is like saying I can only do what the law tells me… it doesn’t mean I am unable to choose to break the law… but it means that there is an imperative upon me to follow the law, just as there was an imperative on Jesus to work entirely for God.

Therefore, I don’t see how this implies a communion in that if one sinned that both therefore sinned.

If people went crazy without experiencing pain, then are they not then experiencing a form of pain?

The independent results from free will of the different subjects in the Garden narrative is seen by the fact that the different beings are punished differently from each other. If they all committed the same sin, why are they then treated differently?

Furthermore, as the letter to Timothy was quoted earlier, Eve was deceived and Adam was not. The nature of their sins was different.

You ask for examples from either the Trinity, the angels or the saints of when one sins that the others do not also sin… and the only example I can supply comes from the angels, because some of the angels did sin when originally they were all sinless, and yet not all of them became sinners following after the fallen ones.

In another way, we all are members of Christ’s body, yet if we sin that doesn’t mean that He sins as well.

Furthermore, even in the marital bond, there is something that may be seen in the law in how a husband is not condemned if his wife commits adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

There is nothing here about the other spouse also being put to death for having sinned. For the two partners in a married couple are cabaple of doing sins which the other partner does not.

The quote from Timothy I think points at how Eve sinned, in that she was deceived and she transgressed. In the garden narrative we can see when it is that Eve is deceived when the devil tempts her and she believes the lies that the devil is telling her about how God is supposedly keeping something from them, and was lying to them about how eating from this tree would cause their deaths. That is where she sinned, which Timothy points to.

Could she have believed God was a liar and not have sinned, if Adam had not also taken the fruit? That seems contrary to justice for that to have been true.

Thank you for the clip from Monty Python…

It’s also been very nice to meet you and I find this discussion has really helped me to try to think more deeply and critically about theology.

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, look after all of the difficulties with regard to the log truck issue or other issues that Andrew has, and correct them if it is your will. We ask that you help us to know if Mary knew she was sinless, and also to help us understand these mysteries we have been discussing better. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Have a very merry Christmas and God Bless,

-David

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi, D.M.
Sorry I am so slow, my eyes are giving me trouble and I can’t read small print; But I’ll try to get to this as soon as things clear up.
Peace of Christ;

–Andrew.

 

[D_M]

Hi, D.M.
Sorry I am so slow, my eyes are giving me trouble and I can’t read small print; But I’ll try to get to this as soon as things clear up.
Peace of Christ;

–Andrew.

Hi,

That’s totally OK,… Lord, help Andrew with his trouble with his eyes, and cure him of what afflicts him if it is your will. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen

God Bless,

-David

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi David,
A blessed feast of the Holy Family today! I hope you don’t mind a handy little Cheshire index into the thread – I get lost trying to find stuff… so I just want to have a few important memory points up…

img229.imageshack.us/img229/3007/tryagainak3.gif
http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tryagainep7.gif

Our argument so far, generally examines the idea:
Is there a sin which Mary might have thought applied to her, original, or implied by the law?

#45 Luke 2:22-24 does not say “her” purification.

Luke 2:22-24 … original sin … NOT the only reason …

#50 (Original sin. V. Generational sin)

rather … sin could be passed on by generation … Jacob

#56

Hi,
In terms of Israel knowing that all people are sinners as part of their religion though, we could consider scripture again:

#70 #71 (Miraculous birth & Grammar possibilities)

law introduces … “sin offering” based on … catharsis

#73 Joseph blamed for nothing at all.

He is a righteous saint … ignorance, is equivalent to … Original Sin
Hallel YAHWEH – `Alleluia – Amen

Addendum to post 73: Huiou Theou Does not know Hebrew.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4469409#post4469409

78 – Lev12 Ransom/Atonement proves what… means what… (see also post #82)​

and Holocost vs. sin offering.

… “sin offering” … same reason(s) in different places …
… Jesus, Mary, and Joseph … pay back … because of … Egypt …

#86 If .X. then Mary appears to have evidence of a “sin” …
see also post #93
EG: see Leviticus 12:4 forbidding to touch holy things.

Jesus was holy, Mary touched him (even if she bled) ergo, Mary broke the Law of Moses if she conceived in blood for – as it is written:

#87 “Their purification” must refer to more than one part of the Law.
(D.M. distinguishes “on behalf” vs. “rememberance”) I need to return to that point.

#87 – I must yet refute “All women were required…”

#90 Passover is example of someone ELSE (a lamb) suffering for another’s sin. Intro example of touching idols…

… Judas offered … (sin offering)

#91 Analogy continues: Mitigation of son’s damage by parent – adds question of “responsibility” and “rulership”, but neither are addressed – needs a new thread.

#95 Begin sinned in Adam exploration / idea of communion or collective introduced by D.M.

One comment on post 95, D.M. Priests were expected to go to the lepers – eg: Levit 13, and esp. Lev 14:3 show that the priest may initiate the touching, but the “unclean” may not initiate touching anyone else – as they are unclean.

Technically – if Mary was unclean, Jesus could touch her (he is a priest) – but she could not touch him (as the Law stands regarding Holy Things…)
When a priest touches someone unclean, they do not cause that person to sin.

#100 ONE POINT AGREED TO – LEVITICAL NATURE OF SIN OFFERING IN MACCABEES.

#101 – the idea of repentance. I need to mention perfect v. imperfect contrition at confession. another thread…

#105 reinforce ignorance == original sin, bring up the general resurrection (the Damned and Just both).

P.S. A minor bibliography of oblique references…

#108 D.M. does not agree touching an idol is a sin, must scrap Maccabees argument or reinforce it. Note: I could reference Targum on “technicalities”

#109 D.M argues loss of forgiveness = new sin. I deny based on law.
Eg: There was prior forgiveness even if a new sin occurred later.

#110 – need to revisit, outcome based argument.
#111 – in my response, I do not point out that a “collective sin” is one where the individual does not necessarily commit the crime. The idea of collective or sin in “communion” is the most basic one to explore in the case of Mary who has a communion we do not. Husband and wife are analogous.

#113 partial agreement; I still need to note: Luke 2:22 allows an ambiguity even if Leviticus 12 does not appear to.

… you are right that it does appear that the money … taken from those … not being given on behalf of

.

#114 D.M. lays out arguments, I have answered none of these yet. D.M. Begins arguing the Law is perfect. ( Ambiguity about Law being Deuteronomy, or rather all 5 books of the Law)

#120 Unfinished argument, Joshua the priest, and his role in the “sin offering” or purgatory of the ONE man in Joshua.

#123 – I need to build argument of what it means that the “Law” is on its right footing according to Paul – crux of issue with D.M. here.

***#124 – D.M. Asserts no difference between a “sin” and a “transgression” – this is an easy point, ought to correct it soon.

#125 knowledge of the Law, fallibility of catechism, etc. Fallacy in the argument: if every child without sin == in a state of perfect grace.

#127 Begin study of the notion of communal sin in children, eg: the idea of pain as a learning tool.

#129 – I need to point out that Jethro is not bringing the people’s concerns, rather he is judging Moses as he said it “is not good”.

passages … of interest to … my line of thinking…

.

#133 – Begin study of the body and the idea of communion, since the fall is intimately tied to the idea of Original sin, and why many think every last person is in sin. Need to challenge basic notions, as the salvation of our flesh required it to be our flesh, not redesigned…

pain … preternatural gifts

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,
I think I grasp your argument about the lusts and decay of the body better now, and I’m finding myself more convinced of what you’re saying.

If Adam and Eve were provided a means, like the drugs … (although I think you prefer to call it concupiscence and not lust),

That is correct. The reason I am balking so strongly at the idea of a “redisigned” body is that it would no longer be the same flesh – but a different one.
Christian theology, and the incarnation, revolve around the idea of salvation of us and our bodies.

For example, I have said that A&E could not experience death themselves, but that food could be eaten, and hence die. When Jesus arises from the dead, he shows that even the glorified body is capable of eating. His body (at least) shares the eating aspect with ours; so did Adam and Eve.

A redesign is not a salvage, nor is it a wounding – it’s sort of an annihilation and new construction.

However, I’m now thinking, could not the same be said about pain? Could they have had a capacity to have pain in their bodies,…

This is a difficult point – there is no qualitative difference between touch and pain – it is the intensity which distinguishes them. Theoretically, yes, if all the right choices were made. But, again, I see this as a word game.

You mentioned you worked in a shop environment,

I may be wrong, but I am extremely skeptical. Steam engines were among the most dangerous when they aged – esp. the boilers!

I’m not convinced by your claim that a person needs to participate in an evil until they know it. I have never contracted HIV, yet I nevertheless know what it is,

I said participate in some way. I do not mean one has to sin, nor contract HIV. One form of participation, for example, is the reception of images in the eye. You share the image in your mind.

There is a philosophical Q. about the tree falling in the forest which “no one sees” – does it matter?

I say yes – because someone told me about it, therefore I saw it in my imagination, and thus participated in it (superficially). (And I am not nobody!)

I think it possible for Adam and Eve to have understood that death was a bad thing ,

Adam and Eve were not fallen like us. Why would death have the same meaning to them as us? The more anesthetic one tries to make Adam and Eve’s body – the less meaning Death has.

Creation had not yet fallen. either,

Most people get the idea that death is bad by experiencing it in part – for example, sunburned skin dies – pain is felt. etc.

I think I comprehend… at least partly… of what you’re saying about the Greek translation. That the statement in Greek is conveying a plural meaning… what I would wonder though, is if we applied this principle to other parts of scripture if it would hold up?

If it were only the plural in speech, I would not be certain of the point. It goes deeper than that, it goes to the meaning of harmony between two people in the married state. Our existence is a fallen form of that original state; so it isn’t proper to argue from us back to them – but rather to argue based on the conditions that must exist between them, and that shall exist in Christ and his Bride in perfection of Heaven.

To say all “sinned” in Adam is a statement of unity – as is to say, we Christians are the body of Christ. Through one man came death, through the other life. We are not descended physically from Jesus – so our unity to him is on another basis – the basis of covenant. Eg: we marry him more deeply each time we receive the Eucharist. But not only in the body, but in the Spirit, for the Holy Spirit had to be poured out on all flesh before we could cry out “abba”.
In other words, a spiritual union is required to be saved in addition to a bodily union.

Exodus 20:8 μνή-σθη-τι τ-ὴν ἡμέρ-αν τ-ῶν σαββάτ-ων ἁγιάζ-ειν αὐτ-ήν

The word for “Day” (ημερ-) is preceded by a singular form of “The” (την). But, the phrase “of the Sabbaths” is plural. So, I take this to mean any given day of all Sabbaths. The word for Remember, or “memory” is used of single persons, and of groups
“remember day of sabbaths to-holy/sanctify her.”

I would wonder if there is a “special” sabbath on the basis of the singular,… but I would treat it as meaning each sabbath – unless further information gave me reason to believe otherwise.

Verse 9 just says:
six works-days and you-all-accomplish all the work of-you (singular).

So, no it isn’t exactly plural. But let’s assume it was anyway for a moment:

I’m going to read into the text that says the congregation did not know how to punish the sabbath breaker by making the conclusion that up until this point, there had not yet been a single case to decide upon of how a breaker of the sabbath ought to be punished.

OK, and I take your meaning to restrict it to breaking the sabbath in this fashion – gathering sticks while the presence of God is with them.

However, what we notice here is that even if the law was given applying only in the plural, that only one person was punished and put to death. If this is correct, then I don’t see why the same couldn’t have occured with regard to Adam and Eve.

Remember Joshua, eg: 1 person (and maybe family?) sinned, yet all of Israel could not stand before their enemies.

The foremost point I need to underscore, though, is that Adam and Eve share the same BODY. That is the marital state shares the body – in some way.
This sharing of the body, I think, is quite important to understanding heaven for Jesus says “This is my body given up for you” – and also, Heaven is spoken of as a marriage.

More tomorrow… It’s good to be back!

 

[D_M]

Hi,

The one problem I generally have had with the idea of us possessing the same bodies is that verse in Paul’s epistle to the Romans

Romans 7:15-24 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

The new body that will come into being at the time of the general reserruction will be different from our current bodies, because while it can eat, it will not be required to eat, and I would assume that this same principle would apply for other areas as well, in that we would no longer be dependent on physical sustenance even if we can still have physical sustenance.

1 Corinthians 6:13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food” - and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

I’m not sure what you mean by there being no difference between touch and pain… isn’t there one? Not all touch is painful, but some touch feels good, etc.

You’re right that steam engines in the 19th century could be very dangerous… although what I was wondering though, is if it would seem likely that in all that time when they were cutting wood (125,000 square feet) that no one would have a serious accident with the saws or other machines?

I’m still not convinced that Adam and Eve couldn’t have known that death was bad without ever having participated with it in any way. They had perfect knowledge in the garden and God could have enlightened their minds to understand this thing which they had never seen or felt.

I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by the married union… I think what you’re saying is the point you brought up before in how you believe that both Adam and Eve needed to consent in order for the sin to exist…

I can’t see how it is possible for both members of a married couple to sin in order for either member to be guilty of sin. They have one flesh, but they have two free wills, and one member may sin while another may not.

I would have understood the sabbath breaker to have been guilty of profaning the sabbath because he was gathering sticks, which was a form of labour, on the sabbath day.

God doesn’t punish people for sins they do not commit, and in the narrative in Joshua, He did not punish Israel because of the sin of one family, but He only punished Israel for Israel’s sin.

I have better verses to prove this point with this time, which I have run across recently:

Wisdom 12:13-15 For neither is there any god besides thee, whose care is for all men, to whom thou shouldst prove that thou hast no judged unjustly; nor can any king or monarch confront thee about those whom thou hast punished. Thou are righteous and rulest all things righteously, deeming it alien to thy power to condemn him who does not deserve to be punished.

Sirach 7:1-2 Do no evil, and evil will never befall you. Stay away from wrong, and it will turn away from you.

It is alien to His power to punish people for sins they did not commit. A person who doesn’t do evil, will not be be punished.

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, help us in this dialogue in understanding better these mysteries we have been discussing and especially help us understand whether Mary knew she was sinless. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi D.M!
Murphy was an optimist! Between fixing my son’s Christmass present (which I broke), preparing for lectoring tomorrow, finishing a patented circuit test, and trying to fix my graphic pad so I can draw REALLY nice pictures… I can’t really spend the time to think things through – but. By Wednesday I hope to have some freedom…

Hi,

The one problem I generally have had with the idea of us possessing the same bodies is that verse in Paul’s epistle to …

And perhaps where Paul comments of earthly, telestrial, and celestial bodies would server to highlight the differences as well.

i. Paul’s statement is about the fallen body. We all share SOME of the experience Paul relates here. I am focusing on Mary as the “Unfallen” state of the body for dogmatic reasons.

The new body that will come into being at the time of the general reserruction will be different from our current bodies,

ii. The bodies we have now are being saved (even now) incrementally – they are not the fruit of a full death. eg: as a seed sprouts into a plant (says Paul) our bodies (planted in the tomb) will sprout into glorified bodies. Think, now, of the incorruptible saints also – and that not all will die before the final resurrection.

1 Corinthians 6:13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food” - and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

iii. Our glorified bodies will not be meant for lust – eg: gluttony is a form of lust. Those in HELL will suffer the pains of the stomach. A condemnation of “this generation” by the prophets often includes the statement “this people’s God is their belly.” eg: they worship food/the flesh-pots in Egypt over God almighty.

The very last sentence in that passage again refers to the idea I am trying to convey – the body is meant for the Lord – and the Lord for the body.

I’m not sure what you mean by there being no difference between touch and pain… isn’t there one? Not all touch is painful, but some touch feels good, etc.

Yes, and perhaps I have stated my point too boldly – and the word pain is confusing. Not all pain is an extreme, not all pain is necessarily the same FEELING as touch. But, as a simple example of touch/pain think of — someone holding your hand a bit too tightly (just not letting go). Or again, think of a slightly burnt finger that DOES NOT hurt when it isn’t touching something – but the “feeling” goes rapidly from nothing to pain as the finger is brought near heat again.
eg: there is a place “in between” where you know the feeling is increasing, but it is not really painful yet.

Adam and Eve, in my conception, would only need a hint of one kind of pain, to have an idea about death. Seeing a fruit “die” is one example, another could be intense touch.

I would also comment, that the sexual act in our fallen bodies is a “broken” experience. Dr. Daniel G. Amen “Change your brain, change your life” is a bit too clinical, but he shows how the body is actually physically affected by that act – that is; a permanent change is wrought by the act which most people deny because they “want” the pleasure without the communion.

… although what I was wondering though, is if it would seem likely…

No, It wouldn’t seem likely.

I’m still not convinced that Adam and Eve couldn’t have known that death was bad without ever having participated with it in any way. They had perfect knowledge in the garden …

Yet eve was deceived?!

I’m not sure if I understand what you mean by the married union… I think what you’re saying is the point you brought up before in how you believe that both Adam and Eve needed to consent in order for the sin to exist…

I can’t see how it is possible for both members of a married couple to sin in order for either member to be guilty of sin. They have one flesh, but they have two free wills, and one member may sin while another may not.

And yet – there is a paradox in the two views you are trying to hold simultaneously – either each person is guilty only for themselves, or we are all guilty for what we allow our brother to do. This is the mystery which I don’t understand perfectly either – but BOTH propositions are true in some sense – and therefore, we are looking at the problem wrong if we can not reconcile how they BOTH can be true at the same time. I don’t hink God “changes his mind arbitrarily” about who is responsible.

I would have understood the sabbath breaker to have been guilty of profaning the sabbath because he was gathering sticks, which was a form of labour, on the sabbath day.

And Jesus says “my father is at WORK until now and so am I”. A work in communion, or community (charity?) is not breaking the sabbath – this man was a loner.
In Vatican two, I think, there is a statement made about Mary – which again hints at what I am thinking – for in apparently naming the theological virtues faith, hope, and something else – Vatican II said “Faith, hope, and communion” – at Least Fr. Jim in Scappoose mentioned that in his homily…

God doesn’t punish people for sins they do not commit, and in the narrative in Joshua, He did not punish Israel because of the sin of one family, but He only punished Israel for Israel’s sin.

But this argument goes in circles. One moment we are arguing a communal sin – the next “ONLY” an individual sin.
I find these ways of thinking inconsistent. If the whole of Israel is held accountable, then I see no reason Adam could not be held accountable for Eve. Furhturmore, if “perfect” knowledge were truly “perfect” Eve would not have been decieved – and they would have KNOWN that eating the fruit would not make them equals of God. In fact, only God is perfect – everything else MUST be relatively perfect…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… cont;d …

Lord, help us in this dialogue in understanding better these mysteries we have been discussing and especially help us understand whether Mary knew she was sinless. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Some passing thoughts – With respect to the bodies in heaven, the Sadducees argued the Marriage question itself with Jesus – and he says, of the sexual act, they neither marry – nor are given in marriage but live like angels.
The union of bodies in heaven does not require the sexual act – ergo – Jesus is not a Polygamist. We are distinct in some ways – and in communion in others. Not a confusion; but as the body is changed in a fallen marriage here – they will much more change in heaven.

From Mary Jesus TOOK flesh, so he could save us in union – and through WHATEVER he took – we all share as we received in salvaged form Jesus. The goodness of the body (in some way) is at the heart of the immaculate conception – in contrast to say-- the Holcost where the body was looked upon as disposable.

Amen. (till at least Wednesday )

 

[D_M]

Hi,

Mary’s body would not have been fallen… neither would Jesus’ body, but they both assumedly experienced pain… is that what you mean by focusing on the unfallen state?

If so, I am becoming more convinced that Adam and Eve originally may have been capable of experiencing pain… but I still tend to think it may be the case that they simply never did prior to the introduction of sin into the world.

Our bodies are being redeemed now… and we are not going to lose them, but they are going to be changed such that they no longer require consumption of food as Paul said in the part I quoted earlier.

So by pain… you mean ‘intense feeling’ and not really the suffering experience we get when we feel pain?.. if that were so, I could then understand how Adam and Eve could have had that in the garden.

I could also imagine them being able to understand what death is by seeing an animal die and comprehending what that would have meant for them… I don’t know if that’s how they would have come to understand, but I can see that as a possibility.

I’m not sure what you mean with regard to change your brain, change your life… do you mean that people who engage in sexual activity are physiologically affected such that they become wired or conditioned into the behaviour?

When Eve was deceived she would have lost her perfect knowledge.

I don’t think there is a paradox in what I’ve presented. Each person is guilty only for themselves, and when we are consenting to our brother’s sin, that is another thing we have done which we are guilty for ourselves.

Work done for God on the sabbath is not breaking the sabbath, but work done for one’s temporal needs on the sabbath is breaking the sabbath. Moses in fact explicitly mentioned that kindling a fire was forbidden.

Exodus 35:1-3 Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel, and said to them, "These are the things which the Lord has commanded you to do. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death; you shall kindle no fire in all your habitations on the sabbath day.

I’m not sure what you mean by faith, hope and communion.

I understand what you mean when you say that Adam could have been held accountable for negligence with regard to Eve… although that doesn’t necessitate that he was, and I think he couldn’t have been because unless there was a change in what he was doing at that moment when Eve sinned and he hadn’t yet known about it, Adam is understood to have been in a state of grace up until his sin and that wouldn’t make sense if he was committing a sin through negligence.

The perfect knowledge in the garden is not omniscience, it is that they didn’t have any error in their knowledge, I think (as we often do in our fallen condition).

The sacrament of marriage is a foreshadow of what exists in heaven. The sexual act will have to be replaced with something greater… I’ve often wondered what our bodies in heaven are going to become… I think of that verse in Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,”

It’s an interesting point you have about the goodness of the body being at the heart of the immaculate conception.

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, we thank you for the wisdom you have given us, and we ask that you help us understanding these mysteries we have been discussing and especially if St. Mary knew she was sinless. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi DM…(& all else)
I switched medications, and … well … things have been rather unstable for me – so the long delay in writing back. Today really does have enough problems of its own…

Hi,

Mary’s body would not have been fallen… neither would Jesus’ body, but they both assumedly experienced pain… is that what you mean by focusing on the unfallen state?

If so, I am becoming more convinced that Adam and Eve originally may have been capable of experiencing pain… but I still tend to think it may be the case that they simply never did prior to the introduction of sin into the world.

Yes, that is one way of looking at it – although, I would emphasize that Jesus’ body is not fallen, and Mary’s is not fallen on account of Jesus – but not independently. I have an incomplete thought along this line which may help – The book of Hebrews speaks of those who are baptized that “crucify him again”. Hebrews 6:6 – Yet clearly Jesus no longer suffers, nor dies, – so what Hebrew’s says is a contradiction unless there is another word besides “pain” that Jesus experiences when any evil thing is done to the “least” of his people and body. As Jesus said to Saul, – why do you persecute me?

Ps 68:27 Benjamin, the youngest, is there in the lead. (NAB)
Ps 68:27 There is little Benjamin … (KJV)
Romans 11:1 ; 1Cor 15:9;
1Cor 15:8 And last of all he was seen by me also; as one born out of season

Our bodies are being redeemed now… and we are not going to lose them, but they are going to be changed such that they no longer require consumption of food as Paul said in the part I quoted earlier.

So by pain… you mean ‘intense feeling’ and not really the suffering experience we get when we feel pain?.. if that were so, I could then understand how Adam and Eve could have had that in the garden.

I agree here with all you have said.

I could also imagine them being able to understand what death is by seeing an animal die and comprehending what that would have meant for them… I don’t know if that’s how they would have come to understand, but I can see that as a possibility.

I’m not sure what you mean with regard to change your brain, change your life… do you mean that people who engage in sexual activity are physiologically affected such that they become wired or conditioned into the behaviour?

I am not one who views the mind as solely a computer, but at least the physical part of the body inside the skull – is definitely changed during sexual activity. Not necessarily to a “behavior” is one conditioned – but one is changed irreversibly. some of these changes have been scientifically measured in the brain; eg yes.

When Eve was deceived she would have lost her perfect knowledge.

I don’t think there is a paradox in what I’ve presented. Each person is guilty only for themselves, and when we are consenting to our brother’s sin, that is another thing we have done which we are guilty for ourselves.

Work done for God on the sabbath is not breaking the sabbath, but work done for one’s temporal needs on the sabbath is breaking the sabbath. Moses in fact explicitly mentioned that kindling a fire was forbidden.

Exodus 35:1-3 Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel, and said to them, "These are the things which the Lord has commanded you to do. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death; you shall kindle no fire in all your habitations on the sabbath day.

I need to refresh my mind on several points, and start some (hopefully) short threads to address some of these side issues – for myself and my own understanding as well. Particularly is the absolute issues associated with marrriage of foreign wives, etc. And perhaps I will find out if you are still interested in this topic before diving in any farther.

Lord, thank you for the son rising today – and the people in my life who have made life possible for me today in the midst of dispair. Amen.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

I’ve still been praying for you.

I think the pain referred to in Hebrews 6:6 or in other places when it is said that Jesus is being harmed when His church is being attacked, is the kind of pain felt by the members of the body and not the head. The head doesn’t hurt when the finger gets a paper-cut, but only the finger experiences this pain, although the head of the body still says that He has been hurt.

I didn’t know that there were irreversible changes that occured in the brain after sexual activity… although I could certainly believe it. What do the changes do?

Starting up other threads would make sense to better addressing some of the side issues, as you may get more (name removed by moderator)ut from other posters than just me. I’d be willing to discuss the topic.

Lord, look after Andrew and keep him healthy in body, mind and spirit. I ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hey, sorry for the long delay – the medication I switched to was a mistake.
I still shake, and my memory locks up – but – at least I am able to type again.

As to the side threads – I started one way back when, and I thought I posted a link to it for you! Now I see that I never did that…

So, On the marriage to foreign women, and what I came across.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315355

I did get a few replies, but I think I asked too many questions at the end and scared other would be’s off… I think that would be a good place to restart if you’re interested.

–Andrew.

 

[peary2]

Of course not. Mary, in all humility, probably believed that she was a sinner just as much as the next person. Oh wait…not like today’s contemporary Catholics who think that THEY are sinless! Otherwise, the confession lines would be overflowing…