Did Mary know she was sinless?

[Mailman]

Dear Mailman - Well, I’m glad we cleared that up! Can I get your spin on what happened in Genesis then?

Peace,

Gail

(Continuation)

The belief on an “original sin” resulted in the practice of baptizing infants. A discussion on infant baptism and its origins would therefore be relevant to our determination on whether the “original sin” doctrine is true or not.

In his “History of the Christian Church”, the church historian Neander accounts for the early introduction of infant baptism as follows:

“… from the want of duly distinguishing between what is outward and what is inward in baptism – the baptism by water, and the baptism by the Spirit – the opinion (of the Roman Church) became more fully established, that without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt (“original sin”), or could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of MAGICAL INFLUENCE, a CHARM connected with the SACRAMENTS, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of INFANT BAPTISM. About the middle of the third century this theory was generally admitted in the North AFRICAN Church … but while in theory the necessity of infant baptism was admitted, still in practice it was very far from being generally prevailing.” (Vol. 1, pp. 313-14 – Torrey’s Translation).

Notice that infant baptism was first introduced only in the middle of the 3rd century and only in the North African church. Christ and the apostles never baptized infants, nor did the early Christian church. The promoters of infant baptism were mostly men steeped in Greek philosophy; men like Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Augustine, who was its chief defender and promoter. Augustine himself was originally a pagan and embraced the philosophy of Aristotle, teaching that the search for truth depends upon sense experience. The teachings that they brought into the early Roman Church were therefore tainted with non-Christian concepts borrowed from Greek philosophy, and even from the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians.

Rheinwald, in “The Christian Review”, says: “Though its (infant baptism) necessity was asserted in Africa and Egypt in the beginning of the 3rd century, it was, even to the end of the 4th century, by no means universally observed – least of all in the Eastern Church. Notwithstanding the recommendation of it by the fathers, it had never become a general ecclesiastical institution until the age of Augustine” (Vol. 3, p. 193).

It was not until the 6th century that infant baptism became a universal practice:

“The administration of baptism to infants was subsequently rendered compulsory by an edict of Emperor Justinian, who reigned over the Eastern Roman Empire from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565. He enacted ‘that such pagans as were yet unbaptized, should present themselves, with their wives and children, and all that appertained to them, in the church; and THERE THEY SHOULD CAUSE THEIR LITTLE ONES IMMEDIATELY TO BE BAPTIZED.’” (Cole’s Archaeology of Baptism, p. 120.)

The evidence of recorded history alone proves that infant baptism was not performed by the early church of the apostles but came very much later. If this is so, then the notion of “original sin”, from which spawned the practice of infant baptism, was also never entertained by the early apostles.

God says in the His Word that before anyone may be baptized, he must fully repent of having broken His laws. He must thoroughly abhor, be sorry for, his past sinful life. Then he must believe the Gospel of the kingdom and believe on Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour. Little infants cannot even begin to think for themselves, let alone repent or believe.

When Jesus encountered little children He never said they should be baptized and nowhere in the Bible is there an example or command for this practice. Instead, Jesus pronounced blessings upon these little children. He blessed them by laying His hands on them and praying for them.

Considering all the points presented, it is hard to believe that man inherited the sin of his first parents, as taught in the “original sin” doctrine.

I hope I’ve explained my position clearly. Do give me your thoughts on the matter.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[GailMac]

Dear mailman - Why on earth would I consider a person’s opinions as even remotely credible who calls my Baptism a “magical charm?” And the author’s plausibility begins to get even murkier when he notes it is the “African” church that promoted this “magical charm” called Baptism?

Ummmmmm…you began you explaination of why you reject original sin with a request that we remain civil, yet you quote a man who thinks my Baptism is a magical charm intorduced by an African church? Ummmmm…I’m gonna have to keep praying for you Mailman. Keep reading your Bible and praying. Perhaps someday God will remove the blinders from your eyes.

You really should find some better sources for theology though, perhaps St. Augustine’s Confessions?

Peace,

Gail

P.S. The thread IS about Mary knowing she was sinless during her lifetime, which I happen to support. She is after all Wisdom!

 

[rocketrob]

Dear Mailman,
It seems from your posts that you are confusing the state of original sin with the commission of individual sins. The scriptural evidence for the consequences of original sin are undeniable…loss of the original holy communal relationship with God, propensity to sin, subjection to decay and death, etc. These consequences were passed on to all mankind by Adam and Eve’s transgression. After all, once they were cast out of the Garden, there was no way for their children to go back…except by the grace of God eventually manifested in Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross. Many of the scriptural references you provide are related to each individual’s opportunity in this lifetime to avail his or herself of that graceful gift…to make their own choice…in spite of their wounded state due to the original sin.

CCC Article 404
…“It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.”

Article 405
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

The line of reasoning you seem to be proposing could lead to the conclusions of a false teaching called Pelagianism:

Article 406
“…Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example…”

For more detail on the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding original sin (which would probably be better as a separate forum topic), I refer you to the following web link:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.shtml

rocketrob

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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.”

Excellent translation you have chosen – it is in fact for THEIR purification which includes -->Jesus<-- and -->Joseph<-- for which that the sacrifice was offered. The author of scripture may not have been aware that she was sinless – but God prevented him from giving any evidence sufficient to convict her.

Since Mary appears to have eluded the Devil, it is perhaps fitting that the Law written in scripture by which he can accuse her of failure as a Jew – will never provide the proof. At the same time, I would agree that Mary’s humility would likely have made her unaware of her sinlessness as regards “original” sin. P.S. The Jews did not even have a doctrine of original sin – so she would necessarily be ignorant of the fully delivered doctrine from her teachers.

As to those who condemn Mary of any Actual sin:
Do not worry about those who judge Mary a sinner without evidence – pray for them. As they have judged – so will they be judged. It is not their place to accord sin to someone else – so they may prove their own sin for the day of burning with witnesses to boot.

As to the Levitical law being quoted for the purification of women (no exception being made) that is NOT the only reason these particular items could have been offered in sacrifice – nor does the NT text indicate that the sacrifice was for Mary – specifically.

For example, the Law, also requires the offering of the same animals when other ritual laws are broken. The offerings could as easily have been for Joseph, eg: if he had touched a dead or unclean animal/body to get it out of the way in the animal stall during the nativity.

I find it perfectly reasonable to think that these ritual offerings were required in the Law looking forward to Jesus’ day. After all, the blood which was to be shed would have two possible spilling before the purification – eg: the circumcision, and the umbilical cord (assuming Jesus had one.)

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.”

no “Mary” here.

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.

Purity is not identical with sinlessness. I think you are over reading the text. Food laws made one impure – but were not the cause of “sin”

 

[D_M]

Excellent translation you have chosen – it is in fact for THEIR purification which includes -->Jesus<-- and -->Joseph<-- for which that the sacrifice was offered. The author of scripture may not have been aware that she was sinless – but God prevented him from giving any evidence sufficient to convict her.

Since Mary appears to have eluded the Devil, it is perhaps fitting that the Law written in scripture by which he can accuse her of failure as a Jew – will never provide the proof. At the same time, I would agree that Mary’s humility would likely have made her unaware of her sinlessness as regards “original” sin. P.S. The Jews did not even have a doctrine of original sin – so she would necessarily be ignorant of the fully delivered doctrine from her teachers.

As to those who condemn Mary of any Actual sin:
Do not worry about those who judge Mary a sinner without evidence – pray for them. As they have judged – so will they be judged. It is not their place to accord sin to someone else – so they may prove their own sin for the day of burning with witnesses to boot.

As to the Levitical law being quoted for the purification of women (no exception being made) that is NOT the only reason these particular items could have been offered in sacrifice – nor does the NT text indicate that the sacrifice was for Mary – specifically.

For example, the Law, also requires the offering of the same animals when other ritual laws are broken. The offerings could as easily have been for Joseph, eg: if he had touched a dead or unclean animal/body to get it out of the way in the animal stall during the nativity.

I find it perfectly reasonable to think that these ritual offerings were required in the Law looking forward to Jesus’ day. After all, the blood which was to be shed would have two possible spilling before the purification – eg: the circumcision, and the umbilical cord (assuming Jesus had one.)



no “Mary” here.

Purity is not identical with sinlessness. I think you are over reading the text. Food laws made one impure – but were not the cause of “sin”

Hi,

Thanks for responses:

Interesting thoughts Huiou Theou

As a matter of fact the jews did have a doctrine of original sin:

From the apocryphal fourth book of Esdras: (catholicfirst.com/thefaith/bible/4esdras.cfm)

21 For Adam the first bearing a vicious hart transgressed and was ouercome, yea and al that were borne of him. 22 And it was made a permanent infirmitie, and the law with the hart of the people, with the wickednes of the roote, and that which is good departed, and the wicked remayned

1. Al sinned in Adam. 52. and haue added more sinnes, 57.

47 For what doth it profit men presently to liue in sorow, and being dead to hope for punishment? 48 O what hast thou done Adam? For if thou didst sinne, it was not made thy fal only, but ours also which came of thee.

and From canonical scripture:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

John 9:34 They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.

There are many jews today who do not believe in original sin, but the jewish religion today is a corruption of the faith of Israel of old and this issue is by no means alone among such things (eg. some number of jews consider satan to be a good angel).

St Paul understood there to be such a thing as original sin.

I had thought about what you wrote in terms of purity/impurity not being the same as sinless/sinful except there are two thoughts that then come to mind
i) Even if the sacrifice was for impurity (as though it were something different from sinfulness), than this still, I don’t think, could not have applied to Mary as she was a pure vessel and would not have possessed a fallen body that was made unclean by giving birth
ii) when a ‘sin offering’ is offered in the old testament for any number of reasons, it would very much appear that it was being used on account of penance for a sin

for example: Leviticus 4:27-29 "If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in doing any one of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, when the sin which he has committed is made known to him he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

Hence the woman giving one of the two turtledove for a ‘sin offering’ would seem to be on account of penance for sins

I do think that the text points to this part of the Mosaic law because it was the requirement of the purification after pregnancy and the text specifically references this passage of Leviticus 12 : “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”

Leviticus 12:2-3 "Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Also a person who deliberately ate an unclean thing (the food purity laws), was committing a sin would be my understanding. Although you are right that there are point in scripture wherein purify does not really deal with sinlessness (leprosy is an excellent example). But here the person offers a sin offering, which does seem to have suggest a sin having been committed.

A most interesting thing you point out though is that it does say ‘their purification’ which is in the plural, and could not apply to Joseph alone. I wonder if also there was an assumption being made that the infant Jesus also needed to be purified?

I think that if Mary should have been suprised by what Simeon in the temple or the angel Gabriel had told her about the kind of marvellous things that her Son was going to do, than she could have been just as ignorant of her own special place as well at this point.

Although she could have learned it afterwards I suppose.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

Thanks for responses:

Interesting thoughts Huiou Theou

As a matter of fact the jews did have a doctrine of original sin:

I was pretty sure there was more to this than met the eye.

The psalm that you quote, does not indicate an “original” sin, but rather that a sin could be passed on by generation. The reference is to Jacob using trickery to cause the sheep to breed “in the presence of” a particular kind of “magic” stick. When they did so, they brought forth speckled and spotted (eg: imperfect) sheep.
The word in that psalm which indicates the conception in iniquity is the same one used for the breeding sheep in front of the “magic” sticks. I will note, that the same point applies to the sheep as with Mary – as a -->descendant<-- of speckled and spotted sheep, she is “still” able to become pure white. eg: the sheep which Jacob handed on to his children were unacceptable for sacrifice as long as they continued to be blemished – but then, the children did not breed them in front of the “sticks” – and both Jacob and his children had white sheep to offer again.

I can correlate the Greek words for you later when I get to my other computer which has all the Greek on file.

As to the Apocryphal book of Esdras, I will have to look into that further as I have it in Greek, but haven’t studied it in in detail yet.
From my searches for the references to Original sin, as Paul knew it – I am surprised I have never seen the quote you bring up before.

But I don’t accept – as there was no central scriptural authority – that the fourth book of Esdras has ever been found in a uniform Jewish/Hebrew canon of any kind – either primary or secondary.

So, again, I will repeat – I don’t think Mary would have known the doctrine in fully developed form.

The problem with referencing the command regarding the purification of women in the law – even if I set the other possible laws aside, is that it “TOO” remarks that the purification is for “them” eg: plural – when read from the LXX which is EXACTLY WORD for WORD what the NT author quotes. Who then is the “sinner”?

But also, the purification is for the issue of “blood” – as the law makes clear in the case of the woman – not for the birth of the child. The law does not make clear which issue of blood makes the woman unclean as there is blood from her – and blood from the child. In the event of a miraculous birth – neither of these are guaranteed in the case of Jesus.

eg: another example:: Jesus himself offers a sacrifice on our behalf, on the cross, but we do not say he “sinned” because he bled – although it was a “SIN” offering in the greatest sense.

So, again, imputing a “sin” to Mary based on the offering is a terrible mistake. Not only that, but since the same type of offering may be given for other ritual “sins” – there is no surprise that even in the case of the woman – that an offering of the same animals may still be called a sin offering , for all the women including Eve – who went before that DID sin – even though those animals are not offered this time for an actual offense of any kind.

Eg: in the duterocanonical (second canon) work of Maccabees, there is reference to sin offerings being made of on behalf of the dead that did sin.

And again, there are references to the “sins” of the “fathers” being imputed down to the third and fourth generation (but not the fifth, sixth, etc.) So, the passing down of sin is not purely physical – but is also due to repetitions of the sinful acts of Adam and the rejection of God’s mercy. This is why the authority of the Catholic church is required to authentically interpret the doctrine.

No such official interpretation is known before the Church’s interpretation of St. Paul. Without the catholic Church – the doctrine is only a “possibility” but not a “certainty”.

I’ll look into 4Esdras in more detail, but I would also comment that even St. Paul’s doctrine of original sin does not rise to the point of saying “every person” has sin. He is focusing on Nations – not individuals.

Not only that, but St. Paul – where he is quoted most often eg: the “No, not one” is quoting a psalm which has the effect → No not one of the FOOLS are just – eg: those who say, “there is no God”. The psalm also remarks on a second group who are NOT included with the wicked. Context clipping is bad theology – and St. Paul was writing to a Jewish community familiar with the psalms. He would have lost the argument if he meant every single person was a literal sinner.

In the gospels there is a man who says → I have kept ALL the law since my youth. Jesus, himself, does not call the man a LIAR – but looks on him with LOVE.

The reason is simply this – without the presence of God inside man to show him the proper way in detail – man is in darkness as to what the best good is, and therefore eventually makes mistakes which are at minimum physical sins against another (unintentional or not).

John 9:34 They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.

And he did teach them, for Jesus claimed the infirmity was NOT for the cause of sin – but rather for the cause of God’s glorification.

There are many jews today who do not believe in original sin, but the jewish religion today is a corruption of the faith of Israel of old and this issue is by no means alone among such things (eg. some number of jews consider satan to be a good angel).

And there were many Jews at the time of Jesus who were corrupt. This neither supports nor denies the doctrine of original sin being itself eradicated.

St Paul understood there to be such a thing as original sin.

I am sure he did – but St. Paul is reflecting on the entire fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the messiah when he writes those passages. And not even he can absolutely be used to affirm the doctrine.

i) Even if the sacrifice was for impurity (as though it were something different from sinfulness), than this still, I don’t think, could not have applied to Mary as she was a pure vessel and would not have possessed a fallen body that was made unclean by giving birth.

Many in the Catholic church do not believe she had blood emission during birth – although pain on behalf of us – not her own sin – is still possible. I have an open mind on this issue.

ii) when a ‘sin offering’ is offered in the old testament for any number of reasons, it would very much appear that it was being used on account of penance for a sin

But not necessarily the person’s OWN sin.

for example: Leviticus 4:27-29 "If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in doing any one of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, when the sin which he has committed is made known to him he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

And if Joseph unwittingly sinned at the birth , somehow, a female lamb – that is Mary, was brought to the temple where Simeon prophecy the sacrifice of her – with the sword piercing her heart. The traditional way to slay a pure lamb.

Hence the woman giving one of the two turtledove for a ‘sin offering’ would seem to be on account of penance for sins

Could be. But whose?

Also a person who deliberately ate an unclean thing (the food purity laws), was committing a sin would be my understanding. Although you are right that there are point in scripture wherein purify does not really deal with sinlessness (leprosy is an excellent example). But here the person offers a sin offering, which does seem to have suggest a sin having been committed.

see previous remarks. Also St. Paul was a tent maker, so he necessarily handled dead animal skins and blood and was unclean most of the time – on purpose. Yet these same laws were not taken to make the Priests unclean when they sacrificed clean animals in temple – but would make them unclean if this happened outside the temple.

For these exact same reasons the nativity of Jesus is special and can’t be lumped even under purity laws against Mary. We do not have the “FACTS” in this non-ordinary case or how she gave birth.
There is a psalm which indicates that the birth of the messiah was by the finger of God – not only the conception. If that is so, how can one judge?

I think that if Mary should have been suprised by what Simeon in the temple or the angel Gabriel had told her about the kind of marvellous things that her Son was going to do, than she could have been just as ignorant of her own special place as well at this point.

I am undecided as to this. Being ignorant of a formal definition is all I am fairly certain she would be. Even supposing she read 4Esdras the way you quote – she may not have understood it in the way you seem to. Historical language issues are not trivial today, nor were they even then.

God bless you too.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

P.S. My wife had a car accident Friday which has been really clouding my thinking – lost half the van to a logging truck, and my wife is rather in pain, my wife was spared by less than two feet. But, it looks as if my wife’s tradjedy in addition to the two previous deaths at that intersection is finally getting enough attention to have some laws patched up a bit.


On another thead I even said “sprinkling of the mercy seat” which is also horribly imprecise! But that’s the way my brain works when under severe stress!

My point?
There are a few imprecise statements in my former posts – eg: that the sacrifice would be for Jesus and Joseph is a facet of the plural, which is actually feminine in the Greek – so one can argue that point either way. But again, if one takes it for plural “women” only – it is far less likely to refer to Mary as a single person who gave birth.

The other example which comes to mind is that the church at Rome was a mixed community. A very large fraction would know the psalms intimately from temple worship and synagogue, but the converts from other nations would be expected (similar to protestants) to over read passages in Romans. However, they had the Jewish Christians to correct them if their pride should swell because they had not “diobeyed” the law. The converse is that Paul shames the prideful jewish christians on their previous Judaism, by virtue of Israel’s failure through history as a nation.
The purpose of Paul’s letter was to Quell nationalistic pride, not work out every niggling point about original sin, because that pride was sifting the community at Rome by Satan.

God bless you.

 

[GailMac]

I don’t want to throw a monkey wrench in this thread after such superb theology as has just been laid out by Huiou but I thought the compliance of Mary and Joesph and Jesus in going to the Temple for purification and redemption was in obedience to the law (?) not necessarily to be purified from sin. Certainly Jesus had no sins to be cleansed of but He was born under the law and obeyed. Neither did Mary yet she did as she was to do by both God, the law Giver, and Joseph, the head of her house. And did they not go twice? Once for Jesus’ redemption and circumcision and then back for Mary?

Now I’m only thinking of the Mystery as in relation to prayer - when we pray the Rosary and reflect on the Mystery, it is actually two events. And my understanding that the emphasis is on the obedience, not sin. What am I looking at wrongly?

Now I know asking that question in a mixed community of believers and non-believers I’m going to get answers from different perspectives. In relation to the original question of the thread though, perhaps if Mary did know she was sinless, wouldn’t that make her acts of obedience that much more sublime? And wouldn’t that make her that much more Christlike following in obedience rather than of necessity?

Peace,

Gail

 

[D_M]

Hi,

May the Lord look after Theou’s wife, Theou and everyone who cares for them. Amen

(I have a sister working as a conservation biologist in the vicinity of the Elk Valley coal mines in British Columbia…I visited her recently (I live in Toronto), and the safety of some of those mountain roads did seem sometimes suspicious… perhaps it’s the same in the states… let us hope and pray these things get fixed before there’s more trouble)

Well, for original sin, other than what was mentioned it may also be useful to point out that infant baptism is held by tradition to have been practiced in the early church from the days of the apostles onwards.

When we baptize an infant we are doing so partly because even if the infant has not sinned, he or she still is under the power of the original sin inherited from Adam.

The doctrine is mentioned or referenced by at least eleven church fathers prior to St Augustine, who wrote much about it but from whom it did not have its origin.

The fourth book of Esdras is probably the key though, as it shows Adam as the beginning for the fall of the human race and having transmitted to all posterity the taint of his iniquity. It is not accepted as canonical, but the jews (who didn’t really have an official canon as we would understand it) possessed it.

I agree that the full development of the doctrine would not have yet really been formulated, but the doctrine certainly existed and was not unknown to the jews… whether they knew and taught it, or whether they knew it and did not really grasp or accepted it, I do not know the answer to…

What I do know though is that in the jewish law there is nothing mentioned about persons who were free from sin and not subject to the penitential rites that were listed in those books. Hence, even if they did not have the doctrine in its full formation, they were nevertheless working with it in practice.

It says their purification, and then it references what is written in Leviticus 12, which would at least indicate the impurity of the mother… good question of who ‘their’ refers to, my guess is that it would mean the child as well, but I suppose if Joseph helped the delivery than maybe he counts too… I agree that does not seem to be a point in which purity and sinlessness mean the same, as a woman does not commit a sin by giving birth even if the flow of blood should make her impure… but still it says in addition that she is to give an offering of one of the two pigeons as a sin offering to make atonement for her, which I don’t think is related to the impurity of the pregnancy but rather means that she was assumed to be (as we all are) sinners who need to do penance.

When Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross though, it was a sin offering, but the lamb that is sacrificed was never considered to be the sinner in the law. The lamb in fact is blameless (it’s after all just a lamb… on that note did anyone read about the story about the goats that were arrested in the Congo recently?), whereas the person for whom the lamb is being sacrificed for is the sinner. And yes there were many sinners, who really were sinners, for whom that sacrifice was offered for.

I agree that the offering can be given for other reasons (and I don’t know of anywhere where it is called then a ‘sin offering’, but rather a ‘peace offering’ or a ‘burnt offering’… but maybe I need to double-check… for the moment my understanding is that the ‘sin offering’ was pentitential), but here in Leviticus 12 which is being referenced in Luke it is a sin offering for the woman’s atonement (and it specifically mentions the woman in answer to the question of ‘who?’).

(This may be a useful source on catholic tradition regarding how the original sin was known in the church: newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm)

In answer to Gailmac:

I think that sacrifices were always done exclusively in the temple, but I don’t know if circumicision was always necessarily done there… I don’t know if it wasn’t either though… circumcision was the covenant that started with Abraham whereas the levitical sacrifices did not begin until the ark of the covenant was crafted (which the temple held).

Very interesting thought about Mary’s obedience being magnified it was not required… I may think about that before I may get back on it…

Thank you for all your thoughts

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

May the Lord look after Theou’s wife, Theou and everyone who cares for them. Amen

Thanks!

Well, for original sin, other than what was mentioned it may also be useful to point out that infant baptism is held by tradition to have been practiced in the early church from the days of the apostles onwards.

And it is for this reason that you mention – that I hold the doctrine of Original sin as do the councils – OTOH on the tradition with respect to Mary and sin, not even Augustine (the champion of original sin and the very person the Councils quote) would argue it applied to her.

When we baptize an infant we are doing so partly because even if the infant has not sinned, he or she still is under the power of the original sin inherited from Adam.

In general yes, in fine no. God creates souls – and God does not create evil. So, I am forced to decide between two alternatives – that God formed a child with a privation which is not a sin – or God formed a child with a privation which was a sin.

How, then does this “original sin” come about – the only possible answer (to me) is that communion with God – a necessary condition for anyone to be “good” is broken at some point in the moments of conception or in the womb.
We have no records of pre-born children being baptized, nor am I aware that this point has ever been brought up with respect to the Question of Original sin. The assumption is that they are equivalent to infants – and therefore fall under original sin.
(I tend to hold this view as well, as a probable view)

But – two problems: St. Thomas, and by ‘possible’ extension the science known by the councils, thought that the forming of a child had a “vegitative” state.

Today we note:The placenta is about half of the original zygote in a woman’s womb – and yet, that may be disposed of without the accusation of “killing” a human being. If this is so, and the cell before it is indistinguishable – what constitutes the one cell being the human being and the other being – the human being’s disposable part. ( I do not champion this view, I just note the ambiguity.)

This issue is also the crux of my difficulty of the “logic” found in articles like the Catholic Encyclopedia. The councils do not use these statements given by the article author as the “logic” of the case – and I think the logic, although very close – is probably mildly wrong.

The doctrine is mentioned or referenced by at least eleven church fathers prior to St Augustine, who wrote much about it but from whom it did not have its origin.

Eg: the irrefutable tradition. I agree. Though I don’t recall the exact number of references I have seen to Original sin in the church fathers – Though I think Origin may have been a bit odd on the issue… (memory plays tricks sometimes )

The fourth book of Esdras is probably the key though, as it shows Adam as the beginning for the fall of the human race and having transmitted to all posterity the taint of his iniquity. It is not accepted as canonical, but the jews (who didn’t really have an official canon as we would understand it) possessed it.

It was a Jew who wrote 4 Esdras, if I am not mistaken. There is also a summary/torah of scripture written by a Jew of the name Josephus – which disagrees in quite a few places with the canonical texts accepted today. Both of these are valuable as historical documents – however, both, if I am not mistaken – were written after the time of Christ as 1st century works.

I agree that the full development of the doctrine would not have yet really been formulated, but the doctrine certainly existed and was not unknown to the jews… whether they knew and taught it, or whether they knew it and did not really grasp or accepted it, I do not know the answer to…

Presuming that 4 Esdras was not influenced by Christians in some way who won the argument with a Jew on this point – but perhaps lost the war in their conversion of faith. I don’t know either, but even the variety of Pelagian / Protestant / etc. theories, would cast a strong doubt on the subject. Even if the book were “somehow” known orally or otherwise at a much earlier date – there is no way to determine from a later work what form it took.

The Catholic church’s doctrine of Original sin is also tied up with the book of Tobit – which maintains that all men are descended from Adam & Eve.

What I do know though is that in the jewish law there is nothing mentioned about persons who were free from sin and not subject to the penitential rites that were listed in those books. Hence, even if they did not have the doctrine in its full formation, they were nevertheless working with it in practice.

That statement above, I totally agree with.

But in addition, note that one practices a ritual sometimes, not because they believe the significance of what the ritual portrays,
but because it is considered part of the social order.

eg: many church goers (today) do not even believe in the Eucharistic presence, although the still go to communion with their wives who do. Many Greeks did not believe in certain God’s, but when the neck is on the line – the actions happen anyway.

It says their purification, and then it references what is written in Leviticus 12, which would at least indicate the impurity of the mother… good question of who ‘their’ refers to, my guess is that it would mean the child as well, but I suppose if Joseph helped the delivery than maybe he counts too… I agree that does not seem to be a point in which purity and sinlessness mean the same, as a woman does not commit a sin by giving birth even if the flow of blood should make her impure… but still it says in addition that she is to give an offering of one of the two pigeons as a sin offering to make atonement for her, which I don’t think is related to the impurity of the pregnancy but rather means that she was assumed to be (as we all are) sinners who need to do penance.

Again, pre-supposing that Moses did not know of the Virgin Mary – or God’s intention – why would one expect to see an exception of any kind? In fact, back to the sheep of Jacob – it is by MAKING them look defective that he was able to trick his father in law OUT OF THEM.

But the inerrancy of scripture would state that Moses could not have taught an error where God wished a Teaching to occur.
That is – Moses’ intention – and God’s – may well have been different.

When Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross though, it was a sin offering, but the lamb that is sacrificed was never considered to be the sinner in the law. The lamb in fact is blameless (it’s after all just a lamb… on that note did anyone read about the story about the goats that were arrested in the Congo recently?), whereas the person for whom the lamb is being sacrificed for is the sinner.

Nice one. Like the Male scape goat – who was sent into the desert? I thought he was to bear and take away guilt. Although, I must caution you, the translation of “goat” in your original quotations on leviticus has a flaw in it. Not to get your goat.

And yes there were many sinners, who really were sinners, for whom that sacrifice was offered for.

I agree that the offering can be given for other reasons (and I don’t know of anywhere where it is called then a ‘sin offering’, but rather a ‘peace offering’ or a ‘burnt offering’… but maybe I need to double-check…

Oh, yes, please do. So will I tomorrow.

for the moment my understanding is that the ‘sin offering’ was pentitential), but here in Leviticus 12 which is being referenced in Luke it is a sin offering for the woman’s atonement (and it specifically mentions the woman in answer to the question of ‘who?’).

Nope. You have a probable reference there – which for the sake of hypothesis, I will entertain as “probable”.

But, I will remind you that the atonement is for a plural party – no information is given about the woman giving birth herself – or even if she is included in that party of women. This is a ritual which underscored the meaning of blood – which is life. There may be many reasons one was to offer a purification sacrifice on account of ones ancestors – In hope that God will “repent” as he did at Nineveh.

(This may be a useful source on catholic tradition regarding how the original sin was known in the church: newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm)

Yes and no, as I mentioned above.
Additionally, in order to give the formal name of “sin” to original sin, the article cited steps beyond what the councils actually said into a gray area of logical speculation.

I am afraid I agree with the councils, and the CCC – but not that particular article. In the CCC quoting directly from Augustine in the footnes, says “original sin” is “only a sin in Analogy” – it is called sin because whatever it is or isn’t — it can keep one out of heaven. The article tries to reason from social inheritance to a valid “sin” which may/or not be correct.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think that sacrifices were always done exclusively in the temple, but I don’t know if circumicision was always necessarily done there… I don’t know if it wasn’t either though… circumcision was the covenant that started with Abraham whereas the levitical sacrifices did not begin until the ark of the covenant was crafted (which the temple held).

Prior to this time a separate (rival) temple in northern Israel existed, which after their demise disappears/becomes Samaria.
Many of the Israelites still did mountain top worship (in imitation of Abraham, and local pagan customs.)

Also, In the time of the Maccabees – the history just prior to Jesus’ time – The promised land was recovered for a time by the Israelites. For many centuries before that time, the promised land was under Greek (Macedonian) rule from Alexander the Great.
At this point in time there was a schizm in the aarionic priesthood. King David – presumably in reward for the priestly family of Zadok who aided him – had given the Zadokites the high priestly office permanently. However, in contradiction to this, Judas Maccabeus & co – who were AAronitic – usurped the Zadokite privelege and ruled as High priest themselves. The uproar that this caused led the last of the Zadokites to go to Egypt and the records suggest they built a temple there. Because of the ambiguity of the Gospel – one could even speculate the flight into Egypt included the circumcision. But the ambiguity might also have been to not-offend Grekoized Jews who lived in Egypt at that time.

The typical view is that it happened in Jerusalem (and I assume it myself) but as John the Baptist’s dad was of AAron , and everyone knew the child’s birth was miraculous – John the baptist ,too ,would have been a prime target for Herod. Zechariah, I understand was slain though John survived – the historical facts I am not entirely certain of.

Vis. The pharisees asked John if he was the messiah…

 

[Mailman]

Dear mailman - Why on earth would I consider a person’s opinions as even remotely credible who calls my Baptism a “magical charm?” And the author’s plausibility begins to get even murkier when he notes it is the “African” church that promoted this “magical charm” called Baptism?

Ummmmmm…you began you explaination of why you reject original sin with a request that we remain civil, yet you quote a man who thinks my Baptism is a magical charm intorduced by an African church? Ummmmm…I’m gonna have to keep praying for you Mailman. Keep reading your Bible and praying. Perhaps someday God will remove the blinders from your eyes.

You really should find some better sources for theology though, perhaps St. Augustine’s Confessions?

Peace,

Gail

P.S. The thread IS about Mary knowing she was sinless during her lifetime, which I happen to support. She is after all Wisdom!

Dear Gail,
I’m sorry if that quote offended you. It was not my intention to highlight those words you mentioned. I did a “copy and paste” on the text and left it as it is. Anyway, the main purpose for bringing out those references (there were 3) was to examine the early history of infant baptism as recorded by historians.

God bless.

 

[Mailman]

Dear Mailman,
It seems from your posts that you are confusing the state of original sin with the commission of individual sins. The scriptural evidence for the consequences of original sin are undeniable…
rocketrob

Dear Rocketrob,
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Looking at Articles 405 & 406, I think my understanding of the “original sin” doctrine is correct.

I agree with you that the consequences of the sin of Adam are the loss of our close relationship with God, our propensity to sin, subjection to decay and death, etc., as clearly revealed in Scripture. However, that does not mean we “contracted” the sin of Adam that’s why we are in this condition today. We have not contracted the sin of Adam (are sinless at birth) but we live in a condition that is a result of Adam’s sin. The reason why we do not have a close relationship with God, why we are prone to sin, etc., is because God has withheld His Holy Spirit from us. Contrary to the teaching of Pelagius, we need God to work in us for us to lead a life acceptable to God.

When Adam ate of the forbidden tree, he in effect rejected God’s law and took to himself what is right and what is sin (God’s law defines for man what is right and what is sin). This opened Adam’s mind to the deceptions of Satan. From that time on, Adam and all of his progeny were receptive to the sway of Satan. Satan began to work in the mind of Adam, even as God would have worked in his mind had he taken of the tree of life, which symbolized God’s Holy Spirit. Had Adam taken of the tree of life instead of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would have received God’s Holy Spirit, begetting him as a child of God and imparting to him the earnest of immortal life.

That symbolic tree is offered today to those called by God. The only difference between Adam and the called today is that Adam had not yet sinned and so no repentance was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, while the called of God today needs to repent of his sin (not “contracted” sin) before he can receive God’s Holy Spirit. God’s Word says the true Christian today is one where Christ is in him (Col. 1:27); and so he has the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5). This is possible because God’s Holy Spirit dwells with the true Christian. Similarly, the very mind of God would have been in Adam had he received God’s Holy Spirit. But instead the mind and attitude of Satan entered into Adam. The same happened to all of Adam’s children, not because of Adam’s sin but because they, too, do not have the Holy Spirit. Adam, by choosing to take of the forbidden fruit, cut off himself and his children from God. Yet because all humans born from Adam have sinned, each human has in fact cut himself off from God (Isa. 59:1-2).

Except for a chosen few (the called-out of God), God has cut off all of mankind from Him and left Satan to rule this world. We read in Ephesians 2:2 that Satan is “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” When Satan tempted Christ and told Him that he will give Him all the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4:8), Satan was not lying. He indeed was, and still is, the ruler of this world. Jesus could have refuted Satan’s claim, but did not because it was true. In the book of Revelation, Satan is described as having “deceived the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). This can only mean that ALMOST ALL – the vast majority – of the people in this world who worship Jesus Christ have been deceived – deceived by Satan into thinking they are worshipping and following the true God when in reality they are following Satan and his ways. Indeed Satan is the ruler of this world, that is, until Christ returns.

Your comments would be highly appreciated.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[rocketrob]

Mailman,
Reading your last post, it seems like some of your ideas or thoughts are close to what the Catholic Church teaches on these topics, except for perhaps some terminology differences. But then your thoughts appear to lead you to conclusions that aren’t fully supported, either by your prior arguments or by accepted interpretations of the scriptures you reference.

Perhaps you are reading the scriptures with the intent of supporting your own personal ideas rather than letting them do the revealing to you??

This thread has really gone off topic, so I think I’ll just leave it at this for now.

rocketrob

ps,
I am not the scholar that others posting on this thread appear to be. I just wanted to make sure that the discussions regarding Mary were taking place based on what the Catholic Church actually teaches, rather than impressions or mis-statements of what is actually taught.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Mailman, As Rocketrob has noted you are close but no cigar! I’ll try to weed through your post to sort things out a little if I can.

I agree with you that the consequences of the sin of Adam are the loss of our close relationship with God, our propensity to sin, subjection to decay and death, etc., as clearly revealed in Scripture. However, that does not mean we “contracted” the sin of Adam that’s why we are in this condition today. We have not contracted the sin of Adam (are sinless at birth) but we live in a condition that is a result of Adam’s sin. The reason why we do not have a close relationship with God, why we are prone to sin, etc., is because God has withheld His Holy Spirit from us."

A little Catholic knowlege could clear this part up easily. We have sacraments and each is an encounter of the soul with God. He remains in them. When we encounter any Sacrament, we encounter the living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When a person is given Baptism, the Holy Spirit is present in the Sacrament whether this Sacrament is given to an infant or an adult. For us as Catholics, we know that each Sacrament contains God, that is all 7 of them! You continue…

“Contrary to the teaching of Pelagius, we need God to work in us for us to lead a life acceptable to God. When Adam ate of the forbidden tree, he in effect rejected God’s law and took to himself what is right and what is sin (God’s law defines for man what is right and what is sin). This opened Adam’s mind to the deceptions of Satan. From that time on, Adam and all of his progeny were receptive to the sway of Satan. Satan began to work in the mind of Adam,”

This is really close to understanding what we mean by concupisence, but your conclusion in the rest of the statement requires correction.

“even as God would have worked in his mind had he taken of the tree of life,”

THAT tree would have given man immortality! And he would have remained in his fallen state forever! God in His great Mercy removed Adams access to it.

“which symbolized God’s Holy Spirit.” This is just erroneous speculations of your own.

“Had Adam taken of the tree of life instead of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would have received God’s Holy Spirit, begetting him as a child of God and imparting to him the earnest of immortal life.” NO! Adam would have remained in his fallen state forever! 22 Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.(emphasis mine) Gen. 3:22. So your speculations about this tree being the Holy Spirit doesn’t wash. God’s plan is contained in the Protoevangelium if you read it carefully you will find the Promise of the Redeemer in God’s words to the devil: 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel. Gen. 3:15. God tells us here that the offspring of the woman will crush the devil! This is the Promise of Jesus destroying the works of Satan.

“That symbolic tree is offered today to those called by God. The only difference between Adam and the called today is that Adam had not yet sinned and so no repentance was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, while the called of God today needs to repent of his sin (not “contracted” sin) before he can receive God’s Holy Spirit.” This is pure speculation on your part for Adam and Eve **had sinned **and its consequences were devasting not only for them but for all of us. Theirs was the original sin.

“Except for a chosen few (the called-out of God), God has cut off all of mankind from Him and left Satan to rule this world.” YIKES! This is a total denial of the Kingdom! Where do you think we are? Has not Christ conquered? Does He not reign? This is too far left for me to accept.

“We read in Ephesians 2:2 that Satan is “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” When Satan tempted Christ and told Him that he will give Him all the kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4:8), Satan was not lying.” EXCUSE ME BUT Satan is the father of lies. That’s his business - deception, lies, half truth.

“He indeed was, and still is, the ruler of this world. Jesus could have refuted Satan’s claim, but did not because it was true. In the book of Revelation, Satan is described as having “deceived the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). This can only mean that ALMOST ALL – the vast majority – of the people in this world who worship Jesus Christ have been deceived – deceived by Satan into thinking they are worshipping and following the true God when in reality they are following Satan and his ways. Indeed Satan is the ruler of this world, that is, until Christ returns.” Ummmmm…once again too far off the mark for me to take, but I’ll try. Christ conquered the devil. He reigns in Heaven and on earth. He reigns in your heart if you give it to Him. I suppose this is a lead in of sorts to scare people into accepting some sort of salvation you or your congregation might offer, but it ain’t cuttin’ it around here!

“Your comments would be highly appreciated.”

Thank you and God bless.

Well you sure got a few of mine. Sorry I haven’t figured out how to multi-quote and typed this all in one. I hope it doesn’t make it to difficult for you to read or for others to figure out where your words end and mine begin.

Peace,

Gail

 

[D_M]

Hi,

I do think that Lev 12 is the probable verse in reference, and since I don’t know a better one that could be referred to by when Luke writes about what is written in the law, I take it as the part he must mean… although I understand your point about a lack of 100 % certainty.

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

Psalms 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Job 4:17 'Can mortal man be righteous before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?

Isaiah 64:6-7 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righetous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one that calls upon thy name, that bestires himself to take hold of thee; for thou hast hid thy face from us, and has delivered us in the hand of our iniquities.

Is there a different approach we should take than thinking that they imagined that all people were sinners just as we all really (with only a few tiny exceptions in all of human history)?

I don’t think that the levitical sacrifices were ever offered anywhere but the temple or at the ark… maybe other sacrifices could be offered in other places, like when Abraham or Noah offered sacrifices… but here I am thinking about the story in Joshua about the altar by the Jordan:

Joshua 22:22-24 "The Mighty One, God, the Lord! The Mighty One, God, The Lord! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the Lord, spare us not today for building an altar to turn away from following the Lord; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the Lord himself take vengeance. Nay, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the Lord, the God of Israel?

I don’t think that the purification and the atonement are necessarily the same thing, which is why the purification can be for more than one person in Luke whereas the atonement mentioned in Lev 12 is for the woman’s sin offering. I interpret it that the atonement was part of the overall purification, but the sin offering for the atonement was only one of the two pigeons and the whole process was the purification.

I did double-check references to the ‘sin offering’ in the mosaic books and there were two interesting things I have found
i) It appears to always relate, when it is explained, to be for the sin of the person who is giving it or for the sin of the group of persons for whom it is being given on behalf of.

There also does not seem to be a case wherein a pigeon (rather than a goat or a bull) was offered for more than one person’s sin… although again I wasn’t checking that part, and I could spend more time.

and

ii) In the book of Numbers I found this reference concerning the Nazirites:

Numbers 6:6 "All the days that he separates himself to the Lord he shall not go near a dead body.

and

Numbers 6:9-11 "And if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day,

What I’m not positive about here is if the man is being called a sinner for an accidental breach of the law or a deliberate preach… I thought at first it must be accidental, but then I re-read and saw in addition to if a man should suddenly die it says ‘and he defiles his consecrated head’… which makes me think it must be more than an accident by the addition. If Moses meant that a person who accidentally breaches the law was committing a sin which required the sacrifice, than that would also go towards refuting the logic of the pigeon being a penitential rite, although if it was for a deliberate action (which does make more sense) than it would appear that the ‘sin offering’ was done on account of the sins of the person for whom it was for (and in Lev 12 it is the woman).

God Bless

 

[Mailman]

Dear Mailman, As Rocketrob has noted you are close but no cigar! I’ll try to weed through your post to sort things out a little if I can.

Peace,

Gail

Dear Gail,
Your comments, although fiery, are very welcome. Let me address the issues you brought up. (By the way, as Rocketrob correctly pointed out, this post is off topic so this would be my last, unless you want to continue and we’ll just create a new thread.)

“When a person is given Baptism, the Holy Spirit is present in the Sacrament whether this Sacrament is given to an infant or an adult.”
We are not far off on this. What I believe is: When a person repents of his sin, accepts God as his Savior, and gets baptized he will receive God’s Holy Spirit. Where we differ from is this: Baptism for me requires repentance and belief. For you, it does not.

“This is pure speculation on your part for Adam and Eve had sinned and its consequences were devasting not only for them but for all of us. Theirs was the original sin.”
It seems you misunderstood me. I did not say Adam and Eve did not sin. They sinned when they took of the forbidden tree. What I was trying to say was that they had not yet sinned PRIOR to their taking of the forbidden tree.

“THAT tree would have given man immortality! And he would have remained in his fallen state forever! God in His great Mercy removed Adams access to it. God tells us here that the offspring of the woman will crush the devil! This is the Promise of Jesus destroying the works of Satan.”
I do not disagree with you on these. It’s the timing that we are not in agreement with.

“YIKES! This is a total denial of the Kingdom! Where do you think we are? Has not Christ conquered? Does He not reign?”
Where indeed are we? With all the injustice, wars, killing, famine, sickness and disease, etc., that we see everywhere around us today, could we honestly say Christ is ruling in His kingdom now? He tells us in His Word that when He rules in His kingdom He shall rule “with a rod of iron.” And this is what God promised: “Behold, the days come, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth” (Jer. 23:5). Is there justice on the earth today? I do not deny God’s Kingdom. I do not deny Christ has conquered. What I am saying is that He has not ruled in His Kingdom yet. That is why Jesus asked us to pray to the Father for His kingdom to come – “Thy Kingdom come” – precisely because it has not come yet.

“This is too far left for me to accept.”
I am not trying to let you, or anyone else, accept it. I am only telling you what God has revealed in His Word. Is this something new to you? The apostle Paul also taught something new to the Bereans and they would not have known the truth had they not been “more open-minded than the people in Thessalonica,” in that: “They listened …, and every day they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was really true.”

“EXCUSE ME BUT Satan is the father of lies. That’s his business - deception, lies, half truth.”
Yes, Satan is the father of lies. That’s why we have to be very careful in what we believe in. Satan is that great master deceiver and he can come to you “in sheep’s clothing”; even transform himself into “an angel of light” and his ministers into “ministers of righteousness.”
But Satan does not lie all the time. That’s how cunning he is. He mixes lies with some truth so we can be deceived. Satan did not lie to Eve when he told her she “shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” if she eats of the forbidden fruit. The Scripture that Satan used to counter Jesus’ use of the Scriptures when he tempted Him was true. Satan handed Jesus a truth but mixed a lie into it. I say we need to pray hard, sincerely study His Word and religiously follow it so we won’t get deceived. We all want to have nothing to do with Satan, so let’s help each other.

God bless,

PS - If you want to change the font color, for example to blue, just type COLOR=“Blue” in brackets at the beginning of the statement and /COLOR (also in brackets) at the end of the statement.

 

[GailMac]

Hey there DM! All those laws concerning contact with corpses! I wonder what Protestants think of the pieta?

One of our Lady’s sorrows is the removal of Christ from the Cross. Is the sorrow in knowing she was ritually unclean and the sun was going down! Or was it already down? Yet there she was, beneath the Cross with Jesus being lowered into her waiting arms? And no place for Him to rest His head accept her bosom. In light of the laws, how could this be? More of the scandal of the Cross!

And how silly we must look to some thinking she is sinless! I imagine just suggesting she held the dead Body of her Son and pointing to the pages of Numbers could give some Protestants many a good speculation!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Mailman]

“THAT tree would have given man immortality! And he would have remained in his fallen state forever! God in His great Mercy removed Adams access to it. God tells us here that the offspring of the woman will crush the devil! This is the Promise of Jesus destroying the works of Satan.”
I do not disagree with you on these. It’s the timing that we are not in agreement with.

Correction…This should read:

“THAT tree would have given man immortality! And he would have remained in his fallen state forever! God in His great Mercy removed Adams access to it.”

“God tells us here that the offspring of the woman will crush the devil! This is the Promise of Jesus destroying the works of Satan.”

These are two separate statements and talk of two different things.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Mailman - You state:" He mixes lies with some truth so we can be deceived.’ in regards to the operative nature of Satan. I am very glad that you can see that the devil uses half truths as part of his deception to keep folks away from the Truth of Christ! This is progress. Praise Jesus! I will pray to the Lord your eyes are opened to the half-truths you use and believe and call it Christianity!

Please come home to Rome! It will do your poor soul a whole lot of good! You could toss all those half truths and speculations to the winds and live a life in Christ freed by a new ability to trust in His Church and all she believes and teaches! Freed from Satan’s influence in your own life you would truely put on the new man! The devil laughs at you! I will pray for you.

Peace,

Gail