Did Mary know she was sinless?

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi David,
This week was rather consumed…
and next week will be too – but I hope to have some Sunday time to at least respond partially.

Hi,
I think I see where you’re going with the text in Maccabbees… for you are right that it does appear that the money for the collection to give the sin offering was taken from those who (presumably) it was not being given on behalf of.
…
The argument then I think must go, that if these men can have an offering done at the temple on behalf of others, that perhaps Mary in Luke’s narrative or the woman in Lev 12 can do the same…

Yes, or even more subtly – since the forgiveness rite is not explicitly stated by Luke, nor Maccabees, (this forgiveness ritual that you allude to), that Mary may not have been giving an actual sin offering as no atonement activity is mentioned in Luke.

I challenge that, mainly for the reason as I stated that Lev 12 does not seem to give any ambiguity about who the offering is being made on behalf of when the woman offers a dove for a burnt offering and a dove for a sin offering, and she is then declared clean and atoned.

Yes, but now you admit that the law is compromised with respect to divorce. Why then would you hold it’s perfection in Leviticus?

For example: Jesus himself corrects an erroneous notion about purification in another place…

Matth 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

It is the purification Laws, again, which Jesus is referring to – that did not exist in Genesis. St. Paul, too, comments that the abstention from certain meats is not based on an absolute – but rather a relative reason. He even is able to eat meats sacrificed to idols.

So, I challenge that assertion that Leviticus 12 applies in any meaningful way to Mary at all.

I would understand that all Israel was guilty in the narrative in Joshua 7, not because all Israel had seen this man take the spoil, but because they were responsible for preventing it.

I agree. And I think the following quote shows clearly that God is even supporting the individual innocence of many in the congregation by not requiring them each to provide a sin offering – but each had to sanctify themselves.

Joshua 7:10 "And the Lord said unto Joshua, Get thee up: why do lay upon your face?
Joshua 7:11 "Israel has sinned! and they have also transgressed my covenant.

Yet God clearly does not mean Joshua actively transgressed – even though he is a child of Israel.

I would interpret or infer that Israel had a duty to take precaution, be vigilant, keep an eye out, etc., to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and they were being irresponsible by failing in that duty.

Yes, but now I think I can reasonably ask you to admit that not all people were guilty in any positive sense. One can “always” be more alert – to the point of paranoia and sleep deprivation. That type of condemnation is unrealistic for an entire army to the very last man. Yet the leader who is most responsible, God tells to stand erect.

Again, look to Jesus at the last supper ; Judas is the one who held the purse and worked with the unclean monies and even blood money. Certainly Jesus, (a child of Israel by his flesh) KNEW Judas was going to betray him sinfully – yet Jesus, then, as leader is in exactly the same position as Joshua – the leader of the army into the promised land.

I hold that if Jesus may be excused, so can Jesus the son of Nun (Joshua). Neither of them has sin in the sense of a transgression.

Even if the spoil had not been taken to prove that they had such neglect, I would assume that Israel’s neglect would still be considered sinful. …

And there is not enough concrete in the world to stop terrorists from attacking weak points in the U.S. so we too are “sinful” to allow them to do it. etc. To reverse your rhetoric, what kind of God punishes people for allowing others to kill them?

We are supposed to seek to serve the Lord with all of our being, and to be neglectful in that task is a sin. Failing to perform one’s responsibility, even without a scenario being given that that responsibility is for, is still a sin.

I do not disagree. We miss the mark when we do not love to the fullest we were originally designed to do. Sin, not transgression.

I also imagine that the man’s children were also stoned because they are assumed to have known about what the man did.

Killed based on an “assumption?” at the command of God? – the suckling infant had this knowledge in no useful way.

Yet Joshua passed Judgment on the whole family
without knowing who they were — BUT – Not a single person outside that man’s family was executed.

I think your interpretation overlooks the obvious lack of expected mercy that is implied. eg: the arbitrary nature of the burning?

Judas’ army could have been held accountable in the same way, …

I think they were held to the same standard. What is the difference?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m not sure what you mean by purification, as neither Maccabbees or Joshua appears to use that word.

Joshua is a priest and in Joshua the word “sanctify” is used which includes purification

Macabees does not mention purification at all – which is part of my point – I see a difference in Maccabees – the idols were on the people (not buried) and so when a person was invited into another’s tent – eg: they took the person in – they also unknowingly took the idol. The idols were also likely handles on “accident”.

Exodu 24:13 And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.

If the whole army was punished, than the whole army must have committed real sins.

I don’t agree. Some were simply ignorant, and unable to do what they ought to have done. These aren’t “real” sins in my vocabulary – they are merely the lesser- – “being astray”.

God will only punish people for their own sins.

I don’t agree. Jesus was punished for other’s sins.
And, even a simpler point, All children are conceived here on earth with polluted water, broken Genes, broken bodies, and death. If God would not punish someone for another’s sins, a lemma is that each would necessarily be conceived in the garden of Eden with perfect bodies rather than here. Even a physical handicap may rightly be called punishment.

If they committed no sin, but only Achor had sinned, then the army would not have been punished, but they were punished which means they must have committed real sins.

the argument isn’t convincing – it looks circular.

St Augustine, once considered the topic of the salvation of all the christians who had been martyred in the name of Jesus, but who had not yet been baptized.

Jesus calls the cross – baptism. Physical shedding of blood for his name, is the same as being baptized in his name.
Just as the sin offering in Joshua was the people themselves who sinned – human sacrifice – just so, the penalty is arguably payed by the martyr.

… they still possessed the Holy Spirit because they believed in Jesus.

That does not prove they posses the Holy Spirit, rather it means that the Holy Spirit opened their mouth. The holy spirit is given in different ways and degrees – he even opened the mouth of a donkey once. But it isn’t like the donkey became immortal…

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would not come to us unless Jesus himself accepted the crucifixion.
So even the coming of the Holy Spirit after the crucifixion is distinguished from that which went before. The “good” thief, on the cross was in the bloody garden of Eden, paradise, on the tree of life in utter agony – but, the holy spirit would be fully his only after the crucifixion – as far as I can tell.

Regarding the sanctification of the child from a christian marriage, and the idea of predestination you brought up. Since you hold that the devil will not be saved by prayer – does that, therefore mean, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pray for the devil, and esp. the divine chaplet of mercy for him?

eg: This is provably false, although I do NOT recommend it – as I already have one sister in law who prayed for the devil in hopes of saving him – who now believes he will be saved – and who then began having hallucinations that Jesus would come to her for a “real” marriage and have sex, so she could have children since she was barren. She opened her mouth loudly in church about these issues, and when all that didn’t happen, she became buddhist.

Lost it all.

 

[D_M]

All I can say about this concoction of yours is wow! You actually have a Bible that says that? And you are supposedly Christian? This post of yours is definutely in the wow o wow dept for sure! God bless you man. I hope you get over yourself! Your thinking seems more Jewish than Christian. But that would be an insult to some Jews I know.

Peace,

Gail

Hi Gail,

Yes I am christian, and I do hope I can get over myself or to conquer my pride, as all christians should, which I strive to do on a daily basis.

(perhaps you would like to join me and repeat this yourself, and anyone else can say this too if they choose)

Lord, help us get over ourselves, conquer our prides and keep you at the centre of our lives. Amen

1 Corinthians 12:3 is in my bible, and it is most bibles, and hopefully it is in your bible too, and if it isn’t you should double-check the imprimatur mark.

I feel like my point on the Holy Spirit being possessed by non-baptized is misleading. I wouldn’t mean that they are baptized into the Spirit, but nevertheless no one is able to believe in Jesus in their heart unless the Holy Spirit is in that heart giving them the power to do so…(similarly perhaps, the Spirit dwelt on Moses and the prophets, even though they were not yet baptized into the Spirit)… and in truth, the church regards martyrs who died for Jesus but who were not yet baptized to have gone to heaven.

Peace and God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I would have understood original sin, in contrast to what the catechism says, to really have implied a true personal fault for every last person who has it. That is: a sin committed, and not only a state.

…

I’m reading the catechism you quote now and wondering if I need to revise my understanding… I use to think that the catechism was an infallible text… but then one day I read this entry:

img515.imageshack.us/img515/77/catechismxp1.th.jpgimg515.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

I’ll admit, the catechism text isn’t infallible … like the bible text is. But unlike avrious Bible foot-notes which ARE generally fallible, the catechism footnotes have things like this for the section on original sin…

294 Council of trent: DS 1511-1512

Also my memory seems to jingle council of Orange, but I am not sure… Hmmm… I need to go look again.

"2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.
…
Romans 2:14-15 … and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

… and yet, someone has clearly made a mistake here, because it doesn’t say that the requirements of the law (ie. to love one’s neighbour as oneself) are engraved on the heart, but the commandments themselves are on the human heart…

I will just let your comment stand with a small note; the CCC statement is qualified by that adjective “primordial”. There are not 10 individual words or “commandments” in the 10 commandments – one has to arrange the material to come up with 10. The number 10, itself, is not necessarily literal – as to the Egyptians (some of which went to the promised land with Israel) understood the number 10 to mean divine, or God given. It is a number of perfection and divinity. Moses was saying – this isn’t my Law – it’s God’s in language even the Egyptians would understand…

…this is a different topic, although it was after I saw this part of the catechism I then realized that the catechism was not necessarily authoritative on correct teaching…just as Augustine’s writings are not necessarily authoritative…

I might have phrased that a bit differently, but
let me just say, St. Paul is amazingly subtle and learned.
And if we should start a thread on that topic – it would take me a month or two to do it any justice at all.

…which isn’t to say though, that the catechism could be right here and that I may be wrong…

Most of the time, the Catechism is right – even if it uses language that leaves room for misunderstanding – and even where it seems dead wrong on the surface. That’s why faith is never fully transmitted by non-breathing words, but is a conversation in faith with Jesus. A life-long study.

The rest of your post is interesting, but goes beyond my time at the moment. I would hazard to say, that holding definitions of sin, punishment, etc. that force contradictory conclusions are strong indicators of the conflicting thoughts which can accuse, and might (I repeat ONLY might) excuse a person.

You know enough, though, that you have an obligation to dig deeper into the footnotes of the catechism, and to read the councils it refers to. John Calvin was bright enough to go that far, and reject Luther’s ridiculous claims. If he only had someone to really dig in deeper with him, perhaps that 1 sheep of the 99 would not have gone astray. And the however-many that followed him…


The catechism says also, that the mystery of original sin is not totally understood. We know some ways that it ISNT transmitted, but we don’t have enough information to say exactly how it is transmitted and how that squares with the fact that God makes each soul without transgression.

(and I am quite willing to accept that this is wrong, if it can be shown otherwise…I find it hard to believe that I could be right and all those theologians could be wrong… but then I remind myself of that other part of the catechism, and shrug)

Sort of a dangerous path, to only accept if it can be proven to you to the n’th detail. The “good” thief knew Jesus was totally innocent in spite of whatever Jews held at the time – he surely recognized him without proof. The other thief said “if you are the messiahs…” and did not recognize that we are all under the same sentence.

But in sympathy, I will admit that I find it difficult to decide exactly what the immaculate conception means in terms of her ability and nature. In essence, who has experienced Mary’s gift to be able to explain the full implications to us?

 

[D_M]

Hi Andrew,

The sin offering was explicitly mentioned in Maccabees, but it was not explicilty mentioned in Luke, but we infer implicitly that it was what was being referred to on the basis of its context.

To say that the law accepted compromises, did not mean that the law was therefore imperfect.

I assert that leviticus is perfect, because the whole of the law was given through an angel to Moses, and the angel cannot be mistaken.

Jesus and Paul did not contradict the law that came as a revelation from God…and since it came from God, He and Paul could not contradict it. But rather Jesus came and fullfilled the old covenant and set us free from our captivity under the law and we became instead captive to Him. Peter and Paul could eat unclean foods, because God no longer required them to be subject to Moses’ law concerning it.

And even if the law were not perfect, and Mary was therefore not bound to it (which is not the case… but hypothetically speaking) she still evidently bound herself to this imperfect law in her own conscience by performing what it required of her. Which would not refute the idea that she didn’t know she was sinless.

Joshua 7 does not make any mention of a sin offering by anyone in the congregation, and I don’t believe that Joshua 7:10-11 shows that Joshua was himself not imparted in the sin. Rather I would have thought that when God asks him why he has fallen, he is referring back to how Joshua was saying things like ‘why has thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us?’…rebuking Joshua who is charging God with bringing Israel over the Jordan to be destroyed and telling him that the reason why this evil has come upon them was because of Israel’s sins, and not because God had some plan to destroy them by bringing them here.

Jesus at the last supper is not a proper comparison, because Jesus would not have been such that He did not care to stop Judas from doing evil, but rather He allowed it to happen even though He did not want Judas to do it. The negligence of the jews in the joshua narrative is not the same as this.

Why wasn’t God Himself charged as an evildoer for watching from heaven the Israelites take the plunder against the holy commandments and not stopping them?

I interpret that the negligence of the jews was sinful on account of what was in their hearts in that they were not careful to do all that the Lord had commanded them to do, and therefore they transgressed the commandment to follow God with all of their being. The jews lacked love for God in their negligence and which allowed for plunder to be taken,

It’s not strictly a question of success or outcome, but more deeply it is a question of will and heart from which actions proceed. For that reason your analogy of the US counter-terrorism measures also does not work, because whether or not they successfully fended off all terrorist attacks is not how it should be judged, but rather whether or not they sincerely did their best within whatever terms of reason to prevent such an attack is how it would be judged. The question is whether they diligently tried to prevent such an attack, or whether they did sincerely care to prevent it, and not necessarily the outcome which may be influenced but not controlled by such.

 

[D_M]

In response to your question as a reversal of my rhetorical question, God does not punish innocent people by allowing others to kill them. People punish other people by killing them, but it is not necessarily God’s will that they do so and therefore when it is not His will it cannot be called His punishment… it can be called punishment… but it can’t be said that He is one who is punishing.

Again, I am forced to ask then, what kind of God Himself punish people for doing nothing wrong?

I don’t see any distinction between a sin and transgression. The commandment says that one should love God with all of your being, and if you lack such love then you are clearly transgressing this commandment.

We don’t know what went into Joshua’s judgment of the family. There’s nothing in the text which necessitates the idea that his sons and daughters were suckling infants, nor is there any effective reason to conclude he killed indiscriminately. The Holy Spirit could very well have guided his decision.

Deuteronomy 34:9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him; so the people of Israel obeyed him, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses.

When I say ‘they are assumed’ to have been guilty, I didn’t mean Joshua was making an assumption, but we are making that assumption to avoid unfarily judging Joshua.

There may or may not be a difference between the narrative in Maccabees and the narrative in Joshua on this point. The main potential difference hinges upon whether or not Judas’ army were following the Lord with their whole heart, and if the idols under the clothing was something they would have found even while doing their best.

I see that you are right that Joshua 7 does mention sanctification of the people, which one could interpret to imply a same or similar meaning to purification. I don’t think that that verse is evidence that Joshua was a priest though, as minister in this case is being used in the sense that Joshua was a servant of Moses (ie. he ‘ministered’ to Moses).

Furthermore Joshua was an Ephraimite (ie. from Joseph and not from Levi). He couldn’t have been a priest.

God has never punished His Son for anything, Jesus was punished by men but not by God, because in order to be punished by God a person needs to have committed a sin. God doesn’t punish people who don’t sin against Him.

The point you bring up about the fallen nature of this world as a type of punishment is exactly why I argue that all in original sin are themselves guilty of sin. What kind of a God would punish people in such ways who did nothing to deserve it?

I understand that God punishes people in justice always and never unjustly. He doesn’t punish the innocent along with the guilty. Punishing the innocent is an unjust punishment.

If the jews in Joshua 7 were ignorant and unable to do what they should have done (ie. making innocent mistakes), then God would not have charged them with sin.

I don’t know where Jesus calls the cross a baptism… I know that the NT refers to baptism as a baptism into Christ’s death, but I don’t know of a reference that reverses this and says that the cross is a baptism… not that I am calling you to doubt, but to make sure for myself, where does it say this?

the burning of the family along with their possession could have been an offering; I will acknowledge that possibility. But it would still have been even then an offering for their collective sins, and Israel had paid a penalty collectively in God withdrawing His hand from helping them collectively.

I should rephrase in order to clarify and avoid misunderstanding about an unbaptized person ‘possessing’ the Holy Spirit. I don’t mean that the person is baptized into the Spirit, but I do mean that unless the Spirit was resting on them and dwelling in their hearts they would not be able to believe in Jesus in their hearts.

There are many examples in the OT of the Holy Spirit dwelling and resting upon them, like Joshua’s example that I gave above, or how the Spirit rested upon the prophets.

We would not be baptized into the Spirit until after the crucifixion, but the Spirit could be with an unbaptized person as is given example in the OT.

In terms of the devil, divine chaplet, discussion… I would say it were possible to pray for anything, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will occur. Satan’s sin is held traditionally to have been the unredeemable sin against the Holy Spirit.

I believe the story about your sister-in-law… that satan guy is no joke, you are safer and better off applying for help from the chinese mafia than you are from that guy.

‘Kids, just say no to sin.’

The catechism includes many things that are infallible as they come from either scripture, holy tradition from the apostles, the decrees of the general councils of the church as well as various ex cathedra papal statements… but what I should say though is that I think the text itself as it has been compiled is a work by fallible theologians (and mainly Cardinal Ratzinger in the 80s from what I’ve heard), who like St Augustine (who likewise had many such infallible things in his own writings) is not in itself considered as though it were a part of the things which we catholics call infallible even though much of what is in the text may come from such infallible sources.

 

[D_M]

I think you must be right about your note of the ‘primordial nature of the ten commandments’ as being what those theologians must have meant to have said… the thing is that I’ve met a few catholics, even on catholic answer forums who have argued that non-christians are committing a sin by not keeping the Lord’s day because it is one of ten commandments… and I think the catechism must have been the source that inspired the incorrect argument, as they used the same wording as is in the catechism in what they posted on these forums…

they should have written: ‘the ten commandments in their primordial existence are engraved on the human heart’

On Original Sin, there are the Council of Carthage, the Council of Orange, the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent… all of which I’ve looked into, and I haven’t found any decree or definition being made setting down what the catechism says about the original sin being transmitted and to which we are supposedly conceived into without having committed any sin ourselves… the closest that came to saying this was one article in Trent which reads:

"3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11]

Whence that declaration:
Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;[12] and that other:
As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]"

The thing of course is that, is that the infallibility of the councils deals exclusively with the doctrine and definitions set down (ie. above, the infallible part would be definition that original sin cannot be taken away through any other means than Jesus, and the merit of Jesus Christ comes to all ages through baptism), and it does not deal with the theological reasons or beliefs (which themselves, may or may not be infallible) upon which the decree or doctrine was based upon. And I will quote the catholic encylopedia as reference here:

“The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up. These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope.”

That is to say, since the council here was not declaring or defining in its function anything regarding this point about the original sin being trasmitted and not imitated, but rather this was a theological reason upon which their other point was based upon, the infallibility would not extend to this… assuming I understand tradition correctly…

It’s true that we don’t understand the whole of the mystery of original sin… and there may very be well be important things dealing with this point which have yet to be revealed to us mortals… but I’ve given the reasons as to why I have come to think what I do…

if every child is conceived without committing any sin, then every child is in a state of perfect grace at their conception (since we can only do good with the assistance of grace… and there are infallible concilar decrees I can quote that will say this…), and that they then lose this grace through some personal sin after their conception… except that doesn’t squre with our understanding, in that we know every child is conceived without grace in a state of sin…

The fallen nature in ourselves (concupiscence) which we retain something of dormant within ourselves, even after we have been baptized, is itself a punishment for sin and not a personal sin itself… if we were referring to something which we have regardless of whether or not we were actively committing personal sin.

The Council of Florence sixth session (1439) defined the following point of interest as well which I picked up when I was reading through the different documents:

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

Since it is a general council, and it is defining that those who depart this life in original sin go straight to hell… it is then an infallible doctrine of the church that people who die in original sin (which certainly includes unbaptized infants in its context here of ‘original sin alone’) without God’s grace go to hell. It does not define a difference between original sin and mortal sin in the same fashion, but rather that is simply a fallible theological point upon which the defined point here was based upon… assuming I understand tradition correctly…

 

[D_M]

St Augustine’s writing about the unbaptized infants going to hell, is therefore in fact a defined teaching of the universal church… the only manner non-christians could then find salvation after going to hell would be in some manner known to the all merciful God in whom all things are possible.

I hope I’m not doing anything dangerous in this… if I am, may the Lord correct me, Amen.

If am correct though, then may the Lord help and support me, Amen.

The beautiful thing about mysteries, is that even if we don’t completely understand them, we didn’t need to; sincerely seeking for wisdom will provide reward in itself.

(anyone can say this themselves if she chooses

Lord, we thank you for the wisdom you have given us, and we ask that you help us understand these things better, so that we may come to know, if it is your will, whether St Mary knew she was sinless. We also ask, since it is appropriate at this time, that you look after the people of the United States and bring them to make the right choices in the upcoming election. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus name, Amen.

God Bless,

PS: I don’t know if you have seen it or not, but St Augustine had a comment that he wrote about the meaning of Cain’s sacrifice and the nature of the sin. In case you are interested see:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XV.7.html

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I haven’t the time to respond to everything, and so many things are going unsaid… I will back up for a moment, and try to tersely cover what I can.

Your priest did what?..

There are defintely some stories out there about the behaviour of some priests in the history of our church, and I think that one should be added to them.

Probably the greatest I know of is this one:

Fr. Jozef Tiso became the fascist dictator of Slovakia in 1938, …

I can’t imagine what it would have been like if someone ever confessed to him…

I can. Try having a priest play technical “not” revealing what you said in the confessional in a semi-public setting.
Technically, he broke no rule…

I shall say, as the descendant of Check blood – but Catholic, I would rather have gone to the gas chambers than go through what I have. Betrayal by what appears to be a perpetual envy of my close friend (as was Judas to Jesus) through the assistance and provocation of priests has led to my wanting to be dead – although, not suicidally. Things from the outside do not bother me, as do things from the inside.

I have also had a pedophile priest, who was assigned to my parish by archbishop Leveda. Leveda met Ratzinger, apparently, during the penning of the Catechism – and being as he is quite smooth with the tongue, I am not surprised at the promotion. I am amazed he has lasted this long at the Vatican, but perhaps I am ignorant of many things and blinded by pain.

In terms of the vase example, I know that the mother may require the child to pay even though it were an accident, but God would not do so because He doesn’t punish or require penance on account of accidents.

Children learn from accidents by punishment – esp. natural consequences. God created neither eu-topia nor u-topia.
Apparently, since God wills no “punishment” in your eyes, then God wills no one to learn. But – punishment is not always for one’s OWN sin.

Think of Eve – God did not say she would have no pain at all with respect to her children, but in fact said that the pain would be increased – once the sin had happened.

If, then, the parents could sin – I think it follows that the children could too, EVEN if Adam and Eve had not sinned.
The question is merely, would they too have had to take the test?

I think that you and I carry different vocabularies and basic definitions on certain terms. I very much appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I must insist that you at least try and see my perspective – as playing Devil’s advocate is a dangerous game in and of itself.

What would remain true here though is that even if God required such payment, that He would not be angry with the child for what was an accident on the child’ part.

St. Paul says, be angry but do not sin. Since it is possible to be angry and yet not sin – I see no reason to believe God is incapable of anger.

The body of a window can be good thing when it is broken, but the body of a man when it is broken is always a corruption.

The body of a man being broken can be a good thing. It can prevent him from actualizing worse sins.

I would agree that God could have some purpose with a whole window such that He would want it whole, but He nevertheless would not be angry with the child on that account if the child committed a mere accident.

God is not in my image – And If my image of Love were not imperfect, I would already see God as he is.

For forgiveness, I would say that forgiveness can be offered and that the offer can be repudiated.

In the parable I quoted, the servant did not “OWE” (legally), mercy to his fellow servants. Nor did the master owe his servant mercy. Otherwise, the master is a hypocrite at the end of the story AND a fresh sinner TOO. The point of the story is, rather, “you will be judged as YOU judge”. Nothing unjust happened in the story as far as the law goes…all happens based on the same law – The primordial golden rule. It is not a sin for the master to judge the servant by the servant’s measure, nor was it a sin for the servant to judge is fellow servant’s in this way. Justice was served strictly in this story.

My caution is this: If one judges all men sinners, the judge automatically condemns himself by golden rule.
Therefore, Judge everyone better than yourself for this reason.

I can’t recall Augustine damning the infant on account of ignorance, but rather I think he would have damned the infant on account of sinfulness as he did to all who were not in God’s grace.

Lack of God’s grace, his “enlightenment”, is ignorance of God. Baptism in Jesus’ name, is the introduction to Jesus.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Andrew,

The sin offering was explicitly mentioned in Maccabees, but it was not explicilty mentioned in Luke, but we infer implicitly that it was what was being referred to on the basis of its context.

Again, David, and I am really not meaning to be harsh – so I apologize if it seems that way… I will also post verse references soon, as I know many references I make are obscure.

I am not part of this “we”. I do infer things from the text, but as little as possible. The context is only known to you and I through a tiny piece of scripture – a lamp to our feet – not a clear vision of the whole truth at once.

I do not even know for certain that a “sin” sacrifice is required of the woman according to Leviticus 12. It has the word “OR” between the two sacrifices. When I look for further textual evidence that it happened as a SIN offering of Mary – I find none. Nor is there further explanation in the Law (Genesis - Duteronomy) that I have ever seen to clarify the point.

To say that the law accepted compromises, did not mean that the law was therefore imperfect.

If the law were “perfect” there was no need for Christ to come. If the law were purely divine, there was no need for a MIDINANITE priest to Give Moses Advice on how to implement the law through statutes of Judgment.

I assert that leviticus is perfect, because the whole of the law was given through an angel to Moses, and the angel cannot be mistaken.

And scripture has it “who will be a LYING spirit” …
And one answers in the affirmative – the devil too is but a fallen angel. Angels do not know all, are not infallible, and EVEN NOW wait for the revelation of what is to come.

Jesus and Paul did not contradict the law that came as a revelation from God…

The revelation of the law was to Moses with Jesus (the son of NUN) the TYPE of the messiah. The law has no purpose without Jesus and can’t be fulfilled without Jesus.

And even if the law were not perfect, and Mary was therefore not bound to it (which is not the case… but hypothetically speaking) she still evidently bound herself to this imperfect law in her own conscience by performing what it required of her. Which would not refute the idea that she didn’t know she was sinless.

That last double negative — could you restate it?
I think the law being unable to require her to perform a sin offering would be evidence to her – herself – that she was sinless among women.

Joshua 7 does not make any mention of a sin offering by anyone in the congregation, and I don’t believe that Joshua 7:10-11 shows that Joshua was himself not imparted in the sin.

Back up – in the sin of the Calf, the originating sin of the Idol, where was Joshua (Jesus the son of Nun?)

Rather I would have thought that when God asks him why he has fallen, he is referring back to how Joshua was saying things like 'why has thou,

He was asking Joshua to think about it, yes, as he does to Cain in the Garden, and Adam and Eve. In the case of Joshua, though, what is the sin if not ignorance?
He had evidence that God, the master of history, was destroying Israel. But, God does not punish him – he explains, and tells Joshua to rise to a position of HONOR.
Not so much of a rebuke – rather a reassurance.

Jesus at the last supper is not a proper comparison, because Jesus would not have been such that He did not care to stop Judas from doing evil, but rather He allowed it to happen even though He did not want Judas to do it. The negligence of the jews in the joshua narrative is not the same as this.

And by this you accuse Jesus (the son of Nun) of wanting Israel to sin?! How does Joshua as a MAN differ from Jesus as a MAN? I would hazard to say the holy spirit was on Joshua as his annointing. The laying on of hands IS the consecration of priests even until this day.

Why wasn’t God Himself charged as an evildoer for watching from heaven the Israelites take the plunder against the holy commandments and not stopping them?

Paul, Romans, – O Man, who are you to talk back to God?
The same reason Joshua is not accused as an evildoer.

I interpret that the negligence of the jews was sinful on account of what was in their hearts in that they were not careful to do all that the Lord had commanded them to do, and therefore they transgressed the commandment to follow God with all of their being. The jews lacked love for God in their negligence and which allowed for plunder to be taken,

God is love, they lacked God. Yes? No? what is baptism…
etc. etc.
One can ALWAYS be more vigilant in Theory, but not reality.

It’s not strictly a question of success or outcome, but more deeply it is a question of will and heart from which actions proceed. For that reason your analogy of the US counter-terrorism measures also does not work, because whether or not they successfully fended off all terrorist attacks is not how it should be judged, but rather whether or not they sincerely did their best within whatever terms of reason to prevent such an attack…

You have nothing to accuse Joshua (Jesus) of. You don’t know, and are arguing based on the outcome of your argument – not the evidence of the text. You assign sin to whomever suits your theory. The text does not say ISRAEL failed in vigilance as a whole to the very last man woman and child.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Here are some passages which may be of interest to understanding my line of thinking…

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

eg: The ruling angels of note are called sons of God.
Gabriel and Michael “minister” (stand beside) God – just as Jesus (Joshua) stood beside Moses, as is attested elsewhere in scripture.

Exodu 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

Exodu 18:12 And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God

Exodu 18:17 And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
Exodu 18:18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
Exodu 18:19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
Exodu 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
Exodu 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

eg: Jethro advised Moses on how to delegate authority which became itself part of the Law of Moses.

1King 22:21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
1King 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
1King 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Genes 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

eg: Physical pain is to be multiplied with births, this is also symbolic of the disobedience of children.

Psalm 127:1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain

 

[D_M]

Hi,

I’m wondering if you would mind if I offered prayer for your priest situation…

(anyone can repeat this to herself if she chooses)

Lord, look after Andrew’s problems with priests, and if the shepherds are abusing their office, may you bring them to repentance and if they will not repent, then may Andrew be delivered from their wicked hands and be given better priests. We ask also if they have been abusive, that whatever damage they have inflicted be healed. We ask this as well for all other situations out there which are like your beloved Andrew’s. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

People do learn from suffering, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is therefore necessary for anyone to learn. People can learn without suffering, and in a perfect world we would learn without suffering.

I still say that God only punishes people for things that they did and not things that other people did. I don’t understand what justice there could be in it if it were otherwise.

I believe that the original creation was one without any form of human suffering.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

It does says, ‘I will multiply your pain’, which in one way would seem to suggest that she experience pain before but now the pain is being multiplied, but then it says ‘in pain you shall bring forth children’, and if she experience pain before, then what is the effect of this verse?

I think she would have experienced no pain before, but now God tells her she will experience pain in giving birth as a novelty.

I agree that if Adam and Eve had never sinned, that their children could still have done so. I don’t know what we would then say about original sin if that were the case, but it would be an interesting thought.

I am trying to discern your perspective… Lord, help me if it is your will, as Andrew insists I must, try and see his perspective. I ask this in Jesus’ name, Amen.

I think your perspective is trying to claim that sin can be something other than your personal or collective wrongdoing, and includes such things as mistakes or even being counted a sinner on account of what someone else did… I do understand this I think, but I disagree with it.

I don’t understand how a just God could possibly condemn people for doing what He wants them to do.

God is quite capable of anger, but He is always and only angry with just cause, and a person who does His will will not receive His anger.

You are right that a body of a man being broken can sometimes serve a good purpose, but just as Jesus says that all the hairs of your head are numbered, the body as a whole will be complete and perfect at the resurrection…even to the last hair on your head… when I say that a broken body is corrupted I mean that it falls short of this, and I realize that corruption is an incorrect word in this sense (since Jesus’ body was broken, but it was most certainly not ‘corrupted’).

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say about God not being in your image.

The story of the servant, I would interpret that the master did not commit a sin by forgiving his servant his debts, but the servant did commit a sin by not forgiving his fellow servants their own debts. In the legal sense there is no sin, but in the sense that Jesus means it, wherein the debts refer to sins and not to money, we are really commanded to forgive our brother every time he turns to us and repents, and if we do not follow that commandment then we are transgressors and sinning.

Matthew 18:21-22 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

And we understand that Jesus did not mean to forgive him 490 (7 * 70) times, and at the 491st time you stop, but rather he meant that you always forgive when asked for it. If you do not forgive then you are breaking this command, and therefore committing sin. If you do not forgive others for their sins, then God shall likewise regard you as a sinner.

You are right that if I judge all people sinners, that I do also condemn myself… except that I am correct, because I am a sinner as well. We are required to judge ourselves too.

Ok, if by ignorance you mean that they do not know God in the sense that they do not possess His grace, then I think you are partly correct. Lack of grace necessarily implies that the person is committing real sin though as anything which is not done in grace is sin. Therefore if the children do not possess God’s grace, since grace is necessary to do any good action, therefore they are not doing any good action (ie. they are sinning).

I agree with your reservations on account of scripture that the case for either Lev 12 or the interpretation offered is not certain. You agreed that Lev 12 was probable on the basis of our knowledge of scripture, and I would state the same… a person who lived at that time and he understood exactly what the law meant would have been able to know with greater certainty… on the basis of scripture only then, you are right that it is probable and not certain. Technically most human knowledge and what we call knowledge are simply probabilities and not certainties though.

We infer implicitly that Lev 12 is the probable reference on the basis of its context.

 

[D_M]

The law was perfect, but Christ did what the law could not… it is not that the law was lacking something in that regard, but rather it was not capable (nor meant to) of saving men from their sins.

Romans 7:11-13 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and byt it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. Did that which is good, then bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

That law was purely divine as well even if it was sometimes influenced by human concerns (eg. God giving decrees concerning divorce, even though He hates divorce, on account of Israel’s hardness of heart) and even when the law was influenced by such human things, it was always only of divine origin who allowed such influence, and to the example of the Midianite I would have to point out this just after the verses you quoted:

Exodus 18:23 If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace."

It appears that it says here, ‘if God so commands you to do this’… that is, even though the Midianite was giving Moses advice (and I’m not even sure if this part was necessarily included as part of Moses’ everlasting laws which begin in Ex 20), he is assuming that God would command Moses to do as he advised… I assume that if this really is the ‘law of Moses’ (and I question this), that Moses would have only done so according to divine will as his father-in-law told him to do.

Furthermore, the parts of the law we are referring to are clearly ordained by God:

Lev 12:1 The Lord said to Moses,

as well as with the example you brought up before concerning the unclean meats:

Lev 11:1-2 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts which are on the earth.

Jesus could not have contradicted God’s commandment, and it is God’s commandment, when He talked about what goes into the man does not defile him. But rather we understand that Jesus had fulfilled the law, and that the laws of Moses, while perfect, are no longer applicable to us but rather we are subject to Jesus instead.

The angel that gave the law to Moses could not have been a lying spirit or have been speaking words that did not come from God, or else the Spirit would not have inspired Moses to write ‘And the Lord said to Moses’ when the angel was delivering the Lord’s message.

Unless we have no free will and God’s grace is lacking, the law could have been fulfilled prior to Christ’s coming, but rather the law was not fulfilled… not because it was impossible… but because men sinned and were faithless so that they transgressed the law. The law could not make men holy, only righteousness through faith could do this, but it still had a purpose in that it revealed God’s will and taught humans how to conduct themselves.

If the law was imperfect (and it wasn’t), we find in scripture that Mary nevertheless followed this imperfect law to the point of (as we inferred to be probable) offering a sin offering as stated in Lev 12, which I think is a pentitential rite… even if the law was imperfect, she still then would have followed it to the point of thinking herself a sinner therefore.

The sin of the golden calf has this reference to Joshua:

Exodus 32:17-18 When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” But he said, “It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the osund of singing that I hear.”

For Joshua’s sin and that of all of Israel, this is what the text says:

Joshua 7:12-13 Therefore the people of Israel cannot stand before their enemies; they turn their backs before their enemies, becausee they have become a thing for destruction. I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you. Up, sanctify the people, and say, 'Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow; for thus says the Lord, God of Israel, “There are devoted things in the midst of you, O Israel; you cannot stand before your enemies, until you take away the devoted things from among you.”

I think that it refers collectively to all of them, both because it doesn’t make any exceptions with regard to who God is withdrawing His help from… perhaps there were exceptions which are not included in the text I will admit this possibility and perhaps that could include Joshua (although I still don’t believe Joshua 7:10-11 effectively clears him).

I assign sinned to them, not on the basis of my ‘theory’, but because I would have thought that the punishment applied to all of Israel, which is how I would have interpreted the text (although perhaps I have done so incorrectly…), and if it did apply to all Israel, then all Israel must have sinned.

Joshua as a man is different from Jesus as a man, because Joshua committed sin in his life and Jesus did not. I would not have implied by the interpretation which you have caused me to question, that Joshua would have sinned because he actively wanted Israel to sin, but rather because he would not have necessarily been concerned or cared about it… nothing of that sort could be said of Jesus.

 

[D_M]

Deuteronomy 12:1 "These are the statutes and ordinances which you shall be careful to do in the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live upon the earth.

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

If you do not keep His commandments, then you do not love Him, and He commanded Israel to be careful to do all the statues and ordinances which He commanded to be done, and if Israel is not careful or not vigilant, then they are transgressing the commandment to be careful, which means they lack love for God, which means they are transgressing the commandment to love God… which means that they sinned.

I understand what you mean that a person can always be more ‘vigilant in theory’, but it is also true that people can really fail to be vigilant in practice and not simply in theory.

(anyone can say this herself is she chooses)

Lord, help us understand these things we are discussing better, and teach us most especially whether or not St Mary knew she was sinless. We also ask at this time again on account of Andrew’s priest situation, and that you may give whatever assistance is needed. We ask these things, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

I’m wondering if you would mind if I offered prayer for your priest situation…

I usually wait for an answer when I ask a question like that.
Peace also be with you, and Peace also to those priests who have already reconciled with me.

People do learn from suffering, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is therefore necessary for anyone to learn. People can learn without suffering, and in a perfect world we would learn without suffering.

I know “suffering” is “pain”, but parallel ideas, can emphasize different things. Total redundancy is pointless…

I think it obvious that in a real world, pain is unavoidable – even in Eden. (Neither Eu-topia, for the Devil was there, nor u-topia for God PUT them there.)

By this, I do NOT mean that Adam and Eve could die THE death, nor had to suffer infirmity, illness, that sort of thing – but that change was possible and tactile sense also possible.

eg: Adam could eat a fruit and spit out the pit – so surely the fruit died in his eating of it, and what’s more – biblically, the pit dies when a new tree should sprout from it. That is clearly not a suffering or pain death …

But there must be an equivalent to pain or their can’t be exclusive conditions.

Does Adam, the Gardner have no consequences for where he chooses to plant the trees – as it seems that if the world is real, he could certainly imprison himself in a tightly knit tree circle.

He might not suffer, eg: that thing which pain brings about in the mind. She might not groan at the births and the death of her children – but does that mean there is no pain of any kind at all?
(It is a subtle question – perhaps another word exists in our fallen vocabulary which would better describe what I am grasping at?).

An example; Before the deity defying fall, suppose A&E rejected Satan rather than fall … would that not mean they found his attitude distasteful? (or, in paradise, is even evil naturally sweet to them?)

Were the organs of our body which transmit the sensation of physical pain absent, and then created during the fall? Or that our body is of a different and not just a fallen, nature?
Would it be more proper to say that merely nerve function could not overwhelm them as it can with us? Contrarily; Sometimes I find mild pain a pleasurable experience like the wake up of jumping into a cold pool of water.
Eutopia certainly isn’t anesthesia?!

I don’t reject the church’s preternatural gifts – I just note the ones we humans are in need of don’t appear to do with mild physical pain. Rather, They have to do with communion.

What I am driving at, is that in paradise – there must somehow be more harmony and less variables in the relationships. Or perhaps no relationships at all?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A brief rundown of the OriginSin scenario:

1. Eve ate the fruit, and in the Greek it even makes it clear she ate it first – then gave it to Adam who was with her.
2. Eve did not experience shame and nakedness at the MOMENT she ate the fruit – Nor does Adam during HER moment. eg: the point we have been discussing about the relationship between the sufferer and the sinner. Dr. Scott Hahn makes the astute point that Adam had a responsibility over Eve – but there’s a small rub that bothers me.
3. Adam was not deceived, So unless he could control Eve remotely (whom he names personally only AFTER the fall, Suggesting he had no “power” over her before the fall) she acted freely apart from him.

In other words, unless their wills were united in marriage, somehow there are two separate actions here and Adam was free Not to eat it himself. But then – why does Eve not have her eyes opened when she eats the fruit BEFORE Adam.

The Serpent also uses the plural when speaking to Eve: The eyes of you-all will be opened… It was an all or nothing deal.

1. Adam ratified her choice. Then, they both fall at once.

What then is the relationship between husband and wife that the man is required to bring the actual wounding on them and their children?
This is the original sin which Mary did not have.

I still say that God only punishes people for things that they did and not things that other people did. I don’t understand what justice there could be in it if it were otherwise.

Then, why does God prevent the consequences until Adam eats too? He seems to ratify Satan’s deception.

I believe that the original creation was one without any form of human suffering.

I won’t argue, as I may yet agree with you.

It does says, ‘I will multiply your pain’, … then what is the effect of this verse?

She had already fallen by this verse; so pain before the verse is ambiguous. It either implies nothing or alternate future possibilities.

I quoted it in reference to paradise/heaven and free will IF (hypothetically) Adam had not sinned. Could the children sin? If so, the alternate future could have less pain than this one.

I am probing the idea you brought up about heaven and free will and what original sin IS. We have mentioned two possible statements – They can, but will not sin – or they simply can’t sin in heaven. Eden is analogous.

I think she would have experienced no pain before, but now God tells her she will experience pain in giving birth as a novelty.

As in – increase from nothing… well, that’s possible, but can you find any other example in the bible? That’s why I tend to think it does have some alternative meaning implied.

I am trying to discern your perspective… Lord, help me if it is your will, as Andrew insists I must, try and see his perspective. I ask this in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Amen.

I think your perspective is trying to claim that sin can be something other than your personal or collective wrongdoing, and includes such things as mistakes or even being counted a sinner on account of what someone else did… I do understand this I think, but I disagree with it.

Fair enough.
I will keep trying, and Lord grant me the words, not for my sake, but in order to fulfill your will, and show your glory if it please you.
Grant me also the wisdom to soften my often abrupt sentences, and to hear what is needed and accept where I have need as well.
Amen.

I don’t understand how a just God could possibly condemn people for doing what He wants them to do.

I don’t claim he condemned them, as in actively sought to cut them off. God wills(wishes) that all men be saved. But, he says to the wicked – “I never KNEW you” which implies something peculiar about being saved, and is one reason I think, that St. Paul understood immediately the analogy of the body when Jesus said “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

This “Condemn”, What is that? I mean – this sounds like “You’re innocent, but go to hell anyway…” Is that the only way this is meant / an active judgement? Why is absence of saving necessarily condemning, as this puzzles me mildly.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Ps. I must “insist”, is not you must anything. It was a rhetorical must …

Hi,
I think your perspective is trying to claim that sin can be something other than your personal or collective wrongdoing, and includes such things as mistakes or even being counted a sinner on account of what someone else did… I do understand this I think, but I disagree with it.

Sin (`amartia) is being off the planned path. That is the Greek definition of the word “sin”; And so, therefore, when the unqualified word “sin” appears – one is not able to determine the person’s state from that word alone;
One must look at what the author is trying to say contextually;

The nuances would require an exhaustive study of the word, and I am unable to do so, but would enjoy exploring the topic with individual questions as I have still some of my own to work out.

I hold this regardless of how one gets off the planned path. For this reason, “Concupiscence”, which the Catholic Church teaches is NOT ACTIVE SIN – can still be called sin even in scripture; eg: it is NOT transgression, lawlessness, … etc. because as Paul says –

Rom 6:4 – “there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death.”
And again;
Eg: Trent 1510-16: “This concupiscence, which at times the Aposle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy synod declares that the catholic church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin…”

If this is so for the word sin, then be very careful about drawing the meaning out of “original sin.”

I don’t understand how a just God could possibly condemn people for doing what He wants them to do.

Again, what do you mean by condemn?

God is quite capable of anger, but He is always and only angry with just cause, and a person who does His will will not receive His anger.

I lost you here; And that kind of stirrs up the anger, not malice, but just anger at the situation. It would seem I must say something more than I have – but what? hmmm…

You are right that a body of a man being broken can sometimes serve a good purpose, but just as Jesus says that all the hairs of your head are numbered, the body as a whole will be complete and perfect at the resurrection…even to the last hair on your head… when I say that a broken body is corrupted I mean that it falls short of this, and I realize that corruption is an incorrect word in this sense (since Jesus’ body was broken, but it was most certainly not ‘corrupted’).

A body of “sin” loosely speaking – but not corruption. And of the hairs which grew on the head twice, both of them do not need to be on the resurrected body. Jesus is not like us in sin.

 

[Ads]

Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according wo what is said in teh law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12:6-8 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

My question for anyone who has thoughts on the matter: Did St Mary, who bore the Lord in her womb, know that she was sinless in her lifetime (as catholic mariology holds) or did she think herself to be a sinner as every other human being and which the religion taught?

In the above quotation from Luke it is said that Mary sacrificed two young pigeons, or turtledoves in place of a lamb (thus revealing the holy family must have been financially poor), one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Although the sacrifices in the temple have not been occurring for almost two thousand years now, I think that the sin offering is a pentitential rite is it not? Not that giving birth is a sin, but that the person offering it, like every human being, is herself a sinner and is asked to make such an offering as she begins motherhood.

Is it possible that St Mary was so obedient to God and what He had instituted, that she even in ignorance assumed herself as an impure vessel requiring such cleansing as her religion taught?

Whoever has thoughts on the matter please share, even protestants who will undoubtedly take this as proof that catholic teaching must be wrong…

Only Christ was sinless. If Mary was sinless then why did she die? for the penalty of sin is death.

 

[LilyM]

Only Christ was sinless. If Mary was sinless then why did she die? for the penalty of sin is death.

Jesus was sinless and yet died. Death is not restricted to the sinful, since He has shown that we can all use sufferings, including the pangs of death, to make reparation for the sins of others if not our own.

 

[Ads]

Jesus was sinless and yet died. Death is not restricted to the sinful, since He has shown that we can all use sufferings, including the pangs of death, to make reparation for the sins of others if not our own.

Christ die for our sins not his own. Mary died because of hers, as we will die for ours.
and death is restricted for the sinful, there was no death in Heaven or anywhere b4 Satan arrived.