- Status
A
Ads
Guest
What does the Bible tell u about Mary?
can u show me?
I no that there is no death in Heaven i was responding to LilyM’s statement that Death is not restricted to the sinful. this doesnt make sence. the penalty of sin is death, you sin if u break Gods law.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
The penalty of sin is death. If [sin fully matured] then [death] is a consequence.
There is nothing which says if [death occurred] then sin is of one’s own.
An analogy:
If [caught in robbery] then [go to prison]
does NOT mean
if [go to prison] then [caught in robbery].
There may be other reasons to go to prison. To say that death is ONLY a result of sin means that NO ONE can have the great Love Jesus speaks of – eg: The greatest love one can have is to lay down their life for a friend. Clearly men HAVE suffered death in exchange for the life of a friend. As Fr. Maximilian did in the Nazi camps, etc.
1John 5:16 "If anyone sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those who sin is not mortal.
There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
P.S. DM, I am reviewing the thread and hopefully can do some major posting next week; I am enjoying your thoughtfulness!
Blessed be the Lord; May we rest in him the true sabbath.
L
LilyM
Guest
Don’t be silly. St Paul says in Colossians 1:24 ‘I rejoice in my sufferings FOR YOUR SAKE, as I complete in my flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ’.
So our human suffering, as Paul indicates, including our death pangs, can indeed be offered for the sake of (the sins of, obviously, no-one would need the benefit of our sufferings for any other reason) others, and not just our own. So Mary certainly could die, for the sake of others, for their sins and not her own.
Furthermore St Paul tells us exactly HOW this is done - we, being Christ’s body, can join our sufferings to, ‘make up what is lacking in’, HIS sufferings. Meaning of COURSE we can, and Mary could, as He did, offer our death pangs for the sins of the world regardless of whether or not we have sins of our own that need reparations.
A
Ads
Guest
So what you are saying is that when Jesus died for our sins, it didnt quite cover everyone???Don’t be silly. St Paul says in Colossians 1:24 ‘I rejoice in my sufferings FOR YOUR SAKE, as I complete in my flesh what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ’.
So our human suffering, as Paul indicates, including our death pangs, can indeed be offered for the sake of (the sins of, obviously, no-one would need the benefit of our sufferings for any other reason) others, and not just our own. So Mary certainly could die, for the sake of others, for their sins and not her own.
Furthermore St Paul tells us exactly HOW this is done - we, being Christ’s body, can join our sufferings to, ‘make up what is lacking in’, HIS sufferings. Meaning of COURSE we can, and Mary could, as He did, offer our death pangs for the sins of the world regardless of whether or not we have sins of our own that need reparations.
A
Ads
Guest
eg: The greatest love one can have is to lay down their life for a friend. Clearly men HAVE suffered death in exchange for the life of a friend.
one would only need to do this because of sin. and it would be inevitable anyway
R
rocketrob
Guest
Ads,
First of all, welcome to the forums. As I’m sure you know, there are many different issues wrapped up in this one simple question, one of which is the disagreement between protestants and Catholics on the concept of sola scriptura (Scripture alone). Some others include whether or not the Catholic Church is that which Jesus established with Peter, and whether or not this Church has the ultimate authority in interpreting Scripture (the Magisterium). Jumping right into Marian doctrine is difficult because it skips several building blocks that establish the foundations of the teachings. Suffice it to say for now, that when you really understand what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, you may not agree with it, but neither will you find that it contradicts Scripture in any way. In fact, it is based on the entire deposit of faith found in both Scripture and Tradition.
For your info, here are some sections of the Catechism that discuss the relationships of Scripture, Tradition, Apostolic succession and the teaching authority of the Church:
Ads, I would invite you to check out the Catechism for yourself, if you haven’t already done so, at the following web-site:
usccb.org/catechism/text/
I find its best to go to what the Church actually teaches first, rather than engage in ‘straw man’ arguments that often appear on these forums.
All of the topics that I mentioned above, and many more, have been discussed throughout these forums. You will be able to search on these topics. Some of the Marian doctrine explanations can be found in the early pages of this particular thread, before it went somewhat off course.
I hope you find the forums a fruitful experience!
rocketrob
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
It is not inevitable that one is to die today, in the next 24 hours, or even the next week. You are right, we all die, eventually.
Again, I will say, it is not necessarily for one’s own sin.
It was not inevitable that a sword pierce Mary’s heart to reveal the thoughts of many, but she said “yes” at the annunciation and accepted all the unknown things which that “yes” entailed.
But, then, you appear to be willing to argue there is no great love in laying down one’s life for a friend because sacrificing the weeks or years that remain in one’s life have no value… (inevitably)
Is that what you mean?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Hi David,
Perhaps I can, at last, start to catch up. Thank you again for your thoughtfulness, I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation.
One either must claim impurity was a subset of “sin” or that touching was also considered “sin” in and of itself.
St. Paul does not say, you who “abhor” to set up idols in your home which would be more proper if touching were not also considered a sin.
I don’t find it hard to imagine why, since I have seen some of these “idols” from excavations. They are (very clearly) tactile porno-lithography, large breasted “Ashtarte” and the like which were meant to be ‘fondled’ by those carrying them. I would feel dirty if I picked up such a thing!
So, what you say is still a mystery to me.
Perhaps I can, at last, start to catch up. Thank you again for your thoughtfulness, I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation.
Yet, touching an idol was clearly forbidden in addition to stealing them. Consider the evidence of interpretation shown in Romans:
It is very clear that Paul claims his opponent’s sin includes the mere touch of an idol. In the previous verse he compares Like to Like – condemnation of Adultury by an adulturer, and the theif who preaches against stealing.
One either must claim impurity was a subset of “sin” or that touching was also considered “sin” in and of itself.
St. Paul does not say, you who “abhor” to set up idols in your home which would be more proper if touching were not also considered a sin.
I don’t find it hard to imagine why, since I have seen some of these “idols” from excavations. They are (very clearly) tactile porno-lithography, large breasted “Ashtarte” and the like which were meant to be ‘fondled’ by those carrying them. I would feel dirty if I picked up such a thing!
I like what you have said here; you argue very well. I just want to add that to freeze the will (eg: in part) or equivalently to remove some of the objects it can focus on, does not require stripping a person of free will. eg: analogy – Gravity constrains how high one is able to jump without preventing jumping altogether.
And, in this very sentence, you have brought up a constraint which I would think partially “freezes” the will – eg:the removal of external temptation. I was also thinking of the parable of Lazarus, and from the book of Revelation where (I note that) the corrupt, too, are visible from the bosom and from heaven respectively.
So, what you say is still a mystery to me.
Well said!
A
Ads
Guest
Christ alone died 4 our sins at the cross, so if we live a godly life and accept him we are saved by faith. Mary would have to be alive for starters, for your comments to make sense. Christ alone is immortal and we put on emortality at the first reserection and so will Mary. As for anyone taking on others sins there realy is no need anyway, Christ did enough.It is not inevitable that one is to die today, in the next 24 hours, or even the next week. You are right, we all die, eventually.
Again, I will say, it is not necessarily for one’s own sin.
It was not inevitable that a sword pierce Mary’s heart to reveal the thoughts of many, but she said “yes” at the annunciation and accepted all the unknown things which that “yes” entailed.
But, then, you appear to be willing to argue there is no great love in laying down one’s life for a friend because sacrificing the weeks or years that remain in one’s life have no value… (inevitably)
Is that what you mean?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Excuse me? you are changing the subject. I said nothing about Need – all I said is that one may suffer on because of another’s sin – even if needlessly – the point still stands. I haven’t time for this, as the issues surrounding Mary’s knowledge is taking up all my mental bandwidth as it is…If, when I have finished with this thread, you would like to discuss those issues in more depth – I would be happy to discuss it with you on a new thread.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Hi David,
I have reviewed the thread in the hopes of getting everything straight in my mind. There are many questions to answer that you have brought up – and I humbly hope that God grants me the wisdom to shed some light on these issues.
Let’s re-start from the Law, since that is central to the argument.
St. Paul, in the book of Romans – which makes the doctrine of original sin clear is pertinent to the discussion of Mary’s knowledge.
Once she knew of the coming messiah, she too could have become aware of original sin – although that would present a problem.
In Romans, chapter 3-4 are directed at the Jewish convert to Christianity. St. Paul is speaking about the “Law” there, as he clearly says in v. 19 “So the law says, and we know that the words of the law are meant for its own subjects.”
But all the verses from 3:10-19 are from everywhere except Duteronomy - eg: second Law, and Exodus – eg:the giving of the Law. So Paul makes clear that the word “Law” applies to the old testament in whole – especially the reflections of the Psalms and the Prophets: eg: Is 59:7:8
The problem is the context in which St. Paul makes these quotes, and what is to be drawn out from them. His audience is Jewish, and opposed to St. Paul – so that; if he can be construed as misusing evidence from the O.T. they (who are VERY familiar with it) would have called him on it.
Yet the first psalm in that list – which was so important that it is essentially repeated twice for different liturgical cycles: eg: Psalm 13/(14) and 52/(53) typically – starts with this line:
“The fool says in his heart, there is no God; there is not an innocent man among them…”
The psalm refers to the “fool” or the wicked of heart which is equivalent. Yet after the semicolon; the idea continues with a denial of even one innocent man. (Period). So, that, those who are not wicked must be presumed to believe in at least one innocent man. Yet, those who live before the time of Christ would not have referred the innocence to a messiah to come.
The second half of the psalm is a retort against the first, where the “one” man who is innocent (eg:my people eaten like bread) is vindicated.
So, I would hold that a pious Jew who refuses to believe at least one man to be innocent would naturally be labeled a fool. (Including Mary). This is the root of why the doctrine of the immaculate conception exists – that a merciful God, to show a total mercy, must save at least one person from falling into guilt in the first place. The Devil is not allowed to win in every human soul.
But, before the messiah came, this psalm must also have been true in some sense. And that sense is the mysterious unity with the God who Saves, this “one-ness” of the people of God.
It is not a metaphor to say those in union with God are his “body” – although St. Paul uses an analogy of the body in addition to this truth.
So, I would hold, that Mary did not Judge herself a sinner – as I don’t believe she was a fool.
As St. Paul says – 1Cor4:3 ; I am not even at pains to scrutinize my own conduct. My conscience does not, in fact, reproach me; but that is not where my justification lies
St. Paul, here, recognizes that he is NOT his own judge. Man is to judge what is right and wrong for himself to do – that is, she is to study those laws written in the heart. But the ultimate value of a person’s life is only known to God and perhaps, in certain cases, to all when God reveals that Judgment explicitly.
Also, when speaking of the original or human sin, the authors of scripture do not say “I” – but rather “if we say we have no sin…”
St. Paul wrote what he wrote in his epistles to people who were sinning (actively). The environment was verbal combat; and St. Paul knowing the particular sins of the community at Rome had an obligation to teach about those particular sins.
Unfortunately, we only have half the conversation – and as this whole thread shows – concerning the law:
img205.imageshack.us/img205/8831/contextmg9.jpgimg205.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
I have reviewed the thread in the hopes of getting everything straight in my mind. There are many questions to answer that you have brought up – and I humbly hope that God grants me the wisdom to shed some light on these issues.
Let’s re-start from the Law, since that is central to the argument.
St. Paul, in the book of Romans – which makes the doctrine of original sin clear is pertinent to the discussion of Mary’s knowledge.
Once she knew of the coming messiah, she too could have become aware of original sin – although that would present a problem.
In Romans, chapter 3-4 are directed at the Jewish convert to Christianity. St. Paul is speaking about the “Law” there, as he clearly says in v. 19 “So the law says, and we know that the words of the law are meant for its own subjects.”
But all the verses from 3:10-19 are from everywhere except Duteronomy - eg: second Law, and Exodus – eg:the giving of the Law. So Paul makes clear that the word “Law” applies to the old testament in whole – especially the reflections of the Psalms and the Prophets: eg: Is 59:7:8
The problem is the context in which St. Paul makes these quotes, and what is to be drawn out from them. His audience is Jewish, and opposed to St. Paul – so that; if he can be construed as misusing evidence from the O.T. they (who are VERY familiar with it) would have called him on it.
Yet the first psalm in that list – which was so important that it is essentially repeated twice for different liturgical cycles: eg: Psalm 13/(14) and 52/(53) typically – starts with this line:
“The fool says in his heart, there is no God; there is not an innocent man among them…”
The psalm refers to the “fool” or the wicked of heart which is equivalent. Yet after the semicolon; the idea continues with a denial of even one innocent man. (Period). So, that, those who are not wicked must be presumed to believe in at least one innocent man. Yet, those who live before the time of Christ would not have referred the innocence to a messiah to come.
The second half of the psalm is a retort against the first, where the “one” man who is innocent (eg:my people eaten like bread) is vindicated.
So, I would hold that a pious Jew who refuses to believe at least one man to be innocent would naturally be labeled a fool. (Including Mary). This is the root of why the doctrine of the immaculate conception exists – that a merciful God, to show a total mercy, must save at least one person from falling into guilt in the first place. The Devil is not allowed to win in every human soul.
But, before the messiah came, this psalm must also have been true in some sense. And that sense is the mysterious unity with the God who Saves, this “one-ness” of the people of God.
It is not a metaphor to say those in union with God are his “body” – although St. Paul uses an analogy of the body in addition to this truth.
So, I would hold, that Mary did not Judge herself a sinner – as I don’t believe she was a fool.
As St. Paul says – 1Cor4:3 ; I am not even at pains to scrutinize my own conduct. My conscience does not, in fact, reproach me; but that is not where my justification lies
St. Paul, here, recognizes that he is NOT his own judge. Man is to judge what is right and wrong for himself to do – that is, she is to study those laws written in the heart. But the ultimate value of a person’s life is only known to God and perhaps, in certain cases, to all when God reveals that Judgment explicitly.
Also, when speaking of the original or human sin, the authors of scripture do not say “I” – but rather “if we say we have no sin…”
St. Paul wrote what he wrote in his epistles to people who were sinning (actively). The environment was verbal combat; and St. Paul knowing the particular sins of the community at Rome had an obligation to teach about those particular sins.
Unfortunately, we only have half the conversation – and as this whole thread shows – concerning the law:
img205.imageshack.us/img205/8831/contextmg9.jpgimg205.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I agree with your logic here, but I want to make a distinction.
Liars do not always lie, and evil can do good – though it will not always do so.
In the Jewish writings, (and perhaps in yours?) there is a tendency to make “concrete” statements which appear contradictory, and leave the writer to discover in what way the author really meant it.
I would say that the demons are capable of good works; John Calvin, in order to explain the phenomena in people re-invented the idea of grace being given to the wicked. I think that the theory “Total Depravity” has a special term for this – ??:“Common grace.”
I have noted, in certain writings about the appearance of the Devil – that he is apt to deny the existence of God to those he is tempting (as if his presence wouldn’t have been a dead giveaway about the truth!).
I do tend to agree with you concerning the promises of the Chaplet – they may in fact not be absolute, but just concrete statements… So, when my mother completed them for Bill Clinton, and then (immediately) the Lewinsky thing broke, well I have hope – but not much.
I’ll agree – but I have to add, since you suggest with regard to Macabees that “completely loving” is a requirement – since Saints in heaven differ in their degree of Glory, I would think their capacity for love is therefore different. Some love more, others less; but I am bothered if you mean to say that sins stem merely from lack of love – for that would still suggest those in heaven have sin! It is another of these concrete statements, as what is lacking in a person can (at least in some mysterious way) be made up by Christ – the “all” in every thing.
That is another of the reasons why I think Mary may have known she was sinless – albeit, not in a formal doctrinal way. She was fully graced – not just “common grace”, but full of grace. Jesus, I would presume, is the same. And as Jesus could learn and grow in wisdom, this gift was also Mary’s.
Thanks for the quote from Augustine’s “City of God.” Perhaps my memory has played a trick on me at last, but I will keep looking for the in ignorance quote from Augustine.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I still have yet to hear any understandable meaning assigned to “our own sin” in Adam. eg: How it is that we do so.And what you say here is probably brings up some of the most difficult issues yet. I’ll have to check the LXX later, but as I recall…
KJV.
Deute23:1 “He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter…”
The Rock of Abraham and the quarry of Sarah, (Isaiah?), show quite plainly that the Jewish expression of rocks refers to parents and children as well as to faith. To me it looks as if John was recalling the offer made to Moses to wipe out all the REST of Israel and make the descendants of him alone – the entire people of Israel is not necessary for there to be offspring of Abraham. The popular belief is expressed in the lament over the tribe of Benjamin (St. Paul’s tribe) in Judges 20 & 21.
From Rachel’s idols, to the women and children being exterminated for what the Men of Benjamin did – as the families of Joseph and Benjamin had (by far) the worst problems of any of the tribes. How interesting in the Martyrdom of the infants by Herod that scripture would recall Rachel, weeping for her children – “because they are no more”.
Consider also: This “bastard” child syndrome – would especially apply to Jesus’ whole tribe if Tamar (Judah’s DIL) happened to be non-Jewish. (Notice Judah married a non-Israelite to begin with. An Adulamite woman even. What then of his son’s marriage partner?)
I accept that the idea of Covenant was certainly in the argument – but more-so, the covenant included the promised land. The true promised land is heaven with Jesus. So this directly relates to the doctrine of original sin.
I have no doubt that the Pharisee & Sadducees could trace their lineage back to Abraham; therefore they had no reason (nor need) to defend themselves in this manner for a physical genealogical charge.
The subsequent passage, “We recognize one father; even God”, shows that they understood his argument outside of physical genealogical argument in any event – they call to mind the idea that “Israel is the firstborn son of God.” The former statement of theirs adds nothing to the argument on their behalf; so I take it to be an insult aimed at Jesus.
God chose to call Israel, as a nation, his firstborn son.
So they did have reason to expect the promise was theirs by inclusion in that covenant. And, as Birth was not the only way to enter that covenant, foreign wives are only a theoretical problem. Jesus is also a descendant of Ruth (a foreigner) etc.
If what you notice were fully applicable, then Mary would (as a descendant of David) also be cut off from the covenant. Then (obviously) what becomes of the Law with respect to them?
Mary, then, was never under the Law to be condemned by it…
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
D.M.
Thank you again for your prayers, although God does seem at times to be deaf! All works out for good, somehow. I feel kind of obliged to let you know how things have gone, putting the election aside…
If you recall the pole truck thing from early on:
img378.imageshack.us/img378/61/crashtrami4.jpgimg378.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
Here are the pathetic results so far…
img375.imageshack.us/img375/8212/polesmalre7.jpgimg375.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
Setting aside the “negligence” of the Seventh Day Adventist thing: the pole truck in the picture (you’ll notice) has no trailing car to protect anyone from hitting the back end. The cross in the foreground is for the two accidents and fatality that occurred before my wife’s at this very intersection.
The shadow of the logs shows that it is about to swing out of the turn lane and into the highway; So, it is just about inevitable that the accident will happen again.
The loggers got around the rule mandating a following car by attaching an extra axle so that the logs no longer “technically” extend the trigger distance behind the final axle – but as you can see that final axle isn’t even attached to the logs and doesn’t really shorten the swing of the logs.
You can see why my wife thought the truck had left the highway, since it is in the turn lane now. The Scappoose Spotlight™ ran an article on this, which gave me the idea for the photo – Kudos to them for following up – and especially Darryl Swan who wrote the article. That’s a reporter able to get the story!
P.S. has anyone seen the article in the “Catholic Sentinel” about the St. Helen’s parish? Someone told me they interviewed my wife, so she is in the news again, but I wonder if they’re pulling my leg (so to speak).
My wife got a notice from the other insurance company (based on 1 witness who said – “I could have avoided it.”) that she was negligent, and $300+ tow bill is all hers. So, that is that and I don’t need to worry about angry loggers…
I also wanted to show you the pedophile priest we had, as I think he needs prayers as well. You’ll excuse the Mary’s mantle, that my wife and I are covered by. When our local priest was doing the intimidation thing, he mentioned that the priest was “out of commission” – but I suspect he is still alive.
img153.imageshack.us/img153/5474/cenbaptbp2.jpgimg153.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
The one thing that strikes me, since we have been talking about the Israelites being negligent – is if mercy can be negligence.
Putting that priest back in a parish with children was certainly a mercy, but even though my wife and I were as vigilant as possible, we got the bad end of that deal. So were we negligent somehow, too? If this is so, then Mary being negligent doesn’t seem impossible.
I’ll have to finish up the ephraim and Joshua priesthood thing tomorrow, as I am too tired tonight.
God bless you and keep you; May the son shine in your life.
–Andrew
Thank you again for your prayers, although God does seem at times to be deaf! All works out for good, somehow. I feel kind of obliged to let you know how things have gone, putting the election aside…
If you recall the pole truck thing from early on:
img378.imageshack.us/img378/61/crashtrami4.jpgimg378.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
Here are the pathetic results so far…
img375.imageshack.us/img375/8212/polesmalre7.jpgimg375.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
Setting aside the “negligence” of the Seventh Day Adventist thing: the pole truck in the picture (you’ll notice) has no trailing car to protect anyone from hitting the back end. The cross in the foreground is for the two accidents and fatality that occurred before my wife’s at this very intersection.
The shadow of the logs shows that it is about to swing out of the turn lane and into the highway; So, it is just about inevitable that the accident will happen again.
The loggers got around the rule mandating a following car by attaching an extra axle so that the logs no longer “technically” extend the trigger distance behind the final axle – but as you can see that final axle isn’t even attached to the logs and doesn’t really shorten the swing of the logs.
You can see why my wife thought the truck had left the highway, since it is in the turn lane now. The Scappoose Spotlight™ ran an article on this, which gave me the idea for the photo – Kudos to them for following up – and especially Darryl Swan who wrote the article. That’s a reporter able to get the story!
P.S. has anyone seen the article in the “Catholic Sentinel” about the St. Helen’s parish? Someone told me they interviewed my wife, so she is in the news again, but I wonder if they’re pulling my leg (so to speak).
My wife got a notice from the other insurance company (based on 1 witness who said – “I could have avoided it.”) that she was negligent, and $300+ tow bill is all hers. So, that is that and I don’t need to worry about angry loggers…
I also wanted to show you the pedophile priest we had, as I think he needs prayers as well. You’ll excuse the Mary’s mantle, that my wife and I are covered by. When our local priest was doing the intimidation thing, he mentioned that the priest was “out of commission” – but I suspect he is still alive.
img153.imageshack.us/img153/5474/cenbaptbp2.jpgimg153.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif
The one thing that strikes me, since we have been talking about the Israelites being negligent – is if mercy can be negligence.
Putting that priest back in a parish with children was certainly a mercy, but even though my wife and I were as vigilant as possible, we got the bad end of that deal. So were we negligent somehow, too? If this is so, then Mary being negligent doesn’t seem impossible.
I’ll have to finish up the ephraim and Joshua priesthood thing tomorrow, as I am too tired tonight.
God bless you and keep you; May the son shine in your life.
–Andrew
A
Ads
Guest
Sorry mate answered to the wrong posting. My Apologies, sorry 4 making u upset it wasnt intended. It confused me to read this at first. :O)
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
No problem; I was just annoyed. I don’t mean to snap, but it has been a difficult week (eg: family issues). Answering you, I bit off more than I could chew at the moment (my fault).
I would encourage you to ask questions, though, as ego’s tend to get set off less quickly that way. I forget, sometimes, that others can’t hear the tone of my voice when I write – and I know how I said it in my head…
I don’t know if the owner of the thread, David, will continue much further as I think we have nearly covered this subject as far as I understand it at the moment, so (speaking kindly), I really am happy to discuss these issues with you on a different thread.
It’s the “turn the cheek” thing going on, eh? see: John 18:22
May your walk with Jesus and quest for his way bring all of us edification!
P.S. if you click on the button next to my name, you can send private messages (PM) to me so as to get my attention which thread you start…if you choose to do so.
D
D_M
Guest
Hi,No problem; I was just annoyed. I don’t mean to snap, but it has been a difficult week (eg: family issues). Answering you, I bit off more than I could chew at the moment (my fault).
I would encourage you to ask questions, though, as ego’s tend to get set off less quickly that way. I forget, sometimes, that others can’t hear the tone of my voice when I write – and I know how I said it in my head…
I don’t know if the owner of the thread, David, will continue much further as I think we have nearly covered this subject as far as I understand it at the moment, so (speaking kindly), I really am happy to discuss these issues with you on a different thread.
It’s the “turn the cheek” thing going on, eh? see: John 18:22
May your walk with Jesus and quest for his way bring all of us edification!
P.S. if you click on the button next to my name, you can send private messages (PM) to me so as to get my attention which thread you start…if you choose to do so.
I’m still here, and hope to respond soon in case your wondering… I would have replied last weekend but you said that you would send out more stuff during the week, and I would have replied yesterday but you said you planned to finish up the Ephraim/Joshua thing,
It’s up to you if you want to call it quits or not, I think we have essentially covered much of the topic and have been getting into some different areas that other threads might be better suited for. I will try to respond later to the last thing you’ve written though.
(In case your wondering, St Augustine did understand that infants in original sin did not have personal sin… I think when I claim that there is a personal sin here that this is my own departure from the classic teaching… he did, however, most certainly claim that those in original sin were sinners though and all were bound to the second death unless freed by grace.)
God Bless,
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
All is well, D.M.
You understood my intentions just fine, I’m just slow. Predicting the future is not my strong suit. It’s not a matter of wanting to quit, but rather I have only limited time & energy – esp: as when I am nice to my wife, she manages to forget her manners – and I am usually drug through an emotional roller coaster which can take a day to get over.
And – As the house I am at is totally torn up right now, I have intermittent internet & no email, which makes the Retrovaille program nearly impossible, and even CAF hit and miss.
This week the results of her new counselor became apparent.
It became an “you are Pontious Pilate (coward) attack” along with accusations of abandonment complete with definitions supposedly from canon law. The Irony was incredible as I watched the kids run for the garage, bedrooms, and wherever else they could hide.
(P.S. I take care of kids most of the week, and would happily do so all the week.)
sigh
Really, I try to be nice; I do love her.
In any event, to restart…
As to Augustine, the links you provided to the “City of God” are ones I have seen before (and had mostly forgotten). I found the commentary on Genesis quite interesting, because I just studied that passage some months back, and as I read Augustine, I had my old impressions of him brought to mind. I had originally thought Augustine was being loose with the Genesis interpretation; Wow, was I wrong. Even though I know that I don’t have a perfect grasp of the grammar; I can see how he is supported by that difficult text.
My recollection of Augustine’s mention of ignorance with respect to infants came from a separate work of his from the classic one discussing the pains of hell (eg: the lightest ones) possible – which many falsely interpret as “limbo”. It may be months before I figure out what trick my memory is playing on me…but it just seems certain that somewhere he uses logic along the lines of ,“They are ignorant of what they ought to do.”
I do not know whether or not a child with free will can sin in the womb. It would seem that not all can, as Jacob and Esau had “done nothing right nor wrong” in the womb – although that may refer to the nations which they represent. Yet, in catholic doctrine, the presumption of the infants innocence also shows up regularly. So, I will have to say – I do not know if some can and others can not, or if none can, or if all must. I do not have enough information, but I do believe their wills are free.
As to my mention of the stones, and the KJV quote I made.
I need to retract it – as the Greek uses neither lithos, nor petros, (stone/rock) so essentially the KJV exaggerates the connection.
I don’t know Hebrew and will bump Copland3 on it momentarily for extra verification in private.
I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument concerning John the baptist. I am just fascinated with the idea of Rock, and how it is used in the OT as a symbol of the tribes of Israel (children).
Eg: the named stones for AArons Ephod and breastplate.
The named stones that Elijah builds the altar out of on Mt. Carmel, the named stones left as a memorial at the crossing of the Jordan, and the book of revelation which mentions each of the saints being given a “white” stone with a special name. eg:He has called us by name.
The connection goes deeper, in that the only other kind of stone typically mentioned, biblically, is the milling stone. The one which makes wheat into bread. When John makes his statement three things come immediately to mind:
That “Bethlehem” is literally – “the house of bread”
That the wicked “eat up my people like bread”
That Jesus, in the desert, is tempted by Satan with – “turn these stones into bread” (an equivocal temptation by inference.)
and – “when a son asks for a loaf of bread, who would give him a stone … if you who are evil know how…”
Therfore, I am glad if stones does not really refer to genitals as the English would seem to make of Peter; eg: salt Peter. For the last saying could be quite, um, equivocal.
But, in any event, the children/(tribes) of Israel are stones in the OT analogy. So, in the NT, that Makes Peter the one in place of Abraham with respect to churches; and St. John the baptist’s saying has multiple levels of meaning of which, I will assert, one prominent one is the re-building of God’s people from a remnant.
Call to mind, Elijah says “I am the only one left” in despair, and the OT condemns the whole people under Ahaz, but God says to Elijah that he has saved “700 people”. They hidden is the obvious reason Elijah didn’t know of them.
True spiritual sons of Abraham, I would say, is offered by birthright to the Israelites – as a promise – but that promise can be rejected or sold. The deeper meaning you allude to, being true in any event.
Now, on to Joshua et all.
You understood my intentions just fine, I’m just slow. Predicting the future is not my strong suit. It’s not a matter of wanting to quit, but rather I have only limited time & energy – esp: as when I am nice to my wife, she manages to forget her manners – and I am usually drug through an emotional roller coaster which can take a day to get over.
And – As the house I am at is totally torn up right now, I have intermittent internet & no email, which makes the Retrovaille program nearly impossible, and even CAF hit and miss.
This week the results of her new counselor became apparent.
It became an “you are Pontious Pilate (coward) attack” along with accusations of abandonment complete with definitions supposedly from canon law. The Irony was incredible as I watched the kids run for the garage, bedrooms, and wherever else they could hide.
(P.S. I take care of kids most of the week, and would happily do so all the week.)
sigh
Really, I try to be nice; I do love her.
In any event, to restart…
As to Augustine, the links you provided to the “City of God” are ones I have seen before (and had mostly forgotten). I found the commentary on Genesis quite interesting, because I just studied that passage some months back, and as I read Augustine, I had my old impressions of him brought to mind. I had originally thought Augustine was being loose with the Genesis interpretation; Wow, was I wrong. Even though I know that I don’t have a perfect grasp of the grammar; I can see how he is supported by that difficult text.
My recollection of Augustine’s mention of ignorance with respect to infants came from a separate work of his from the classic one discussing the pains of hell (eg: the lightest ones) possible – which many falsely interpret as “limbo”. It may be months before I figure out what trick my memory is playing on me…but it just seems certain that somewhere he uses logic along the lines of ,“They are ignorant of what they ought to do.”
I do not know whether or not a child with free will can sin in the womb. It would seem that not all can, as Jacob and Esau had “done nothing right nor wrong” in the womb – although that may refer to the nations which they represent. Yet, in catholic doctrine, the presumption of the infants innocence also shows up regularly. So, I will have to say – I do not know if some can and others can not, or if none can, or if all must. I do not have enough information, but I do believe their wills are free.
As to my mention of the stones, and the KJV quote I made.
I need to retract it – as the Greek uses neither lithos, nor petros, (stone/rock) so essentially the KJV exaggerates the connection.
I don’t know Hebrew and will bump Copland3 on it momentarily for extra verification in private.
I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument concerning John the baptist. I am just fascinated with the idea of Rock, and how it is used in the OT as a symbol of the tribes of Israel (children).
Eg: the named stones for AArons Ephod and breastplate.
The named stones that Elijah builds the altar out of on Mt. Carmel, the named stones left as a memorial at the crossing of the Jordan, and the book of revelation which mentions each of the saints being given a “white” stone with a special name. eg:He has called us by name.
The connection goes deeper, in that the only other kind of stone typically mentioned, biblically, is the milling stone. The one which makes wheat into bread. When John makes his statement three things come immediately to mind:
That “Bethlehem” is literally – “the house of bread”
That the wicked “eat up my people like bread”
That Jesus, in the desert, is tempted by Satan with – “turn these stones into bread” (an equivocal temptation by inference.)
and – “when a son asks for a loaf of bread, who would give him a stone … if you who are evil know how…”
Therfore, I am glad if stones does not really refer to genitals as the English would seem to make of Peter; eg: salt Peter. For the last saying could be quite, um, equivocal.
But, in any event, the children/(tribes) of Israel are stones in the OT analogy. So, in the NT, that Makes Peter the one in place of Abraham with respect to churches; and St. John the baptist’s saying has multiple levels of meaning of which, I will assert, one prominent one is the re-building of God’s people from a remnant.
Call to mind, Elijah says “I am the only one left” in despair, and the OT condemns the whole people under Ahaz, but God says to Elijah that he has saved “700 people”. They hidden is the obvious reason Elijah didn’t know of them.
True spiritual sons of Abraham, I would say, is offered by birthright to the Israelites – as a promise – but that promise can be rejected or sold. The deeper meaning you allude to, being true in any event.
Now, on to Joshua et all.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
From several past posts, the rhetorical question was raised:
“What kind of God would punish people for a sin they never committed?”
With respect to terrorists, the comment was made that people punish people. Yet, I do not see why you are avoiding the obvious parallel that Satan can punish people too. eg: That original sin could be the devil affecting people through posession, etc.
God does not say to Joshua himself, that he sinned. He says Israel sinned, and the inference is made that Joshua is of Israel – so therefore he sinned too. But the problem with this, is, that God’s statement would be true whether or not all sinned, or only one.
They are a nation and a group; I will make of (you) a great nation is the form of the promise to Abraham.
Now, God does not say, “you are all sinning” when correcting (rebuking) Joshua. In fact he uses the third person – “they”…
God makes it clear, that Israel entered into a contract which was violated by at least one person under the scope of that contract.
eg:He says; “Remove the thing under the ban from among you.”
“Among” is not a word generally used when every man is indicted.
Rather “you(plural)” is more indicative of the entire group person by person. So, I have a problem, in charity, with the assumption that every person is guilty as an individual when God does not reveal this in his judgment but even suggests otherwise.
God does not himself, punish, the Israelites. It is not God inflicting the wounds directly, but merely God refusing to confuse the enemy. The idea being that nothing unclean can dwell with God, and that Israel (his son) was to be his (inheritance) and therefore has to be clean. The blessings and curses were not only made to individuals, but the nation as a whole.
If, then, there had been others guilty of stealing banned loot – besides the one man, and his whole family – all Israel would still be under the curse. My point in bringing up the suckling babe was NOT that one existed – but rather, my point was that Joshua was willing to make the judgment without knowing if there was one. The unknown family COULD HAVE BEEN any of the hard hearted families, many with suckling infants. It did not matter to Jesus the son of Nun. (Joshua). His sentence was collective of all the man possessed – including his children.
Perhaps the practical mentality of the day played into the decision – as if one exterminates the father of a child, there is the distinct possibility the child will suffer and grow up looking for revenge.
The father may have been guilty, but the child will be angry that he is deprived of a father, or perhaps he will even follow his father’s sin.
To answer the rhetorical question directly, the same God will punish those who did not sin themselves as would allow people to bargain collectively in a union. The same God who would invent a world where it is POSSIBLE for one man to slay another. The same God who can punish indirectly by leaving one to their own natural consequences rather than bending creation to suit the creature’s every whim.
eg: The same God who would allow us to share in sufferings that will reveal the sins of others.
Matth 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mark 10:38 …
Luke 12:50 …
Luke 12:49 I [Jesus] am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Ephes 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Ephes 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
and, finally, is this the quote you are remembering?
Roman 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
If so, I would say this, Satan was thrown down to earth and now is in communion with this creation. All of this creation he can irritate and torture. The only way out of this injustice is a new body, one which the devil owns nothing of. That is why I will say, that baptism is a necessity either in this world or by the hand of Jesus himself outside the sacrament. But it is baptism when one is introduced to the body of Christ.
And finally, to the idea of injustice, the saints in heaven will have their tears wiped away. But why can one have tears at all if there is no injustice?
So, I think at heart a great injustice does exist and God is planning to compensate us for that injustice by a glory.
I do not fully understand what that injustice is.
(sorry, sort of long winded…, and more to come yet!)
“What kind of God would punish people for a sin they never committed?”
With respect to terrorists, the comment was made that people punish people. Yet, I do not see why you are avoiding the obvious parallel that Satan can punish people too. eg: That original sin could be the devil affecting people through posession, etc.
God does not say to Joshua himself, that he sinned. He says Israel sinned, and the inference is made that Joshua is of Israel – so therefore he sinned too. But the problem with this, is, that God’s statement would be true whether or not all sinned, or only one.
They are a nation and a group; I will make of (you) a great nation is the form of the promise to Abraham.
Now, God does not say, “you are all sinning” when correcting (rebuking) Joshua. In fact he uses the third person – “they”…
God makes it clear, that Israel entered into a contract which was violated by at least one person under the scope of that contract.
eg:He says; “Remove the thing under the ban from among you.”
“Among” is not a word generally used when every man is indicted.
Rather “you(plural)” is more indicative of the entire group person by person. So, I have a problem, in charity, with the assumption that every person is guilty as an individual when God does not reveal this in his judgment but even suggests otherwise.
God does not himself, punish, the Israelites. It is not God inflicting the wounds directly, but merely God refusing to confuse the enemy. The idea being that nothing unclean can dwell with God, and that Israel (his son) was to be his (inheritance) and therefore has to be clean. The blessings and curses were not only made to individuals, but the nation as a whole.
If, then, there had been others guilty of stealing banned loot – besides the one man, and his whole family – all Israel would still be under the curse. My point in bringing up the suckling babe was NOT that one existed – but rather, my point was that Joshua was willing to make the judgment without knowing if there was one. The unknown family COULD HAVE BEEN any of the hard hearted families, many with suckling infants. It did not matter to Jesus the son of Nun. (Joshua). His sentence was collective of all the man possessed – including his children.
Perhaps the practical mentality of the day played into the decision – as if one exterminates the father of a child, there is the distinct possibility the child will suffer and grow up looking for revenge.
The father may have been guilty, but the child will be angry that he is deprived of a father, or perhaps he will even follow his father’s sin.
To answer the rhetorical question directly, the same God will punish those who did not sin themselves as would allow people to bargain collectively in a union. The same God who would invent a world where it is POSSIBLE for one man to slay another. The same God who can punish indirectly by leaving one to their own natural consequences rather than bending creation to suit the creature’s every whim.
eg: The same God who would allow us to share in sufferings that will reveal the sins of others.
Matth 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mark 10:38 …
Luke 12:50 …
Luke 12:49 I [Jesus] am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Ephes 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Ephes 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
and, finally, is this the quote you are remembering?
Roman 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
If so, I would say this, Satan was thrown down to earth and now is in communion with this creation. All of this creation he can irritate and torture. The only way out of this injustice is a new body, one which the devil owns nothing of. That is why I will say, that baptism is a necessity either in this world or by the hand of Jesus himself outside the sacrament. But it is baptism when one is introduced to the body of Christ.
And finally, to the idea of injustice, the saints in heaven will have their tears wiped away. But why can one have tears at all if there is no injustice?
So, I think at heart a great injustice does exist and God is planning to compensate us for that injustice by a glory.
I do not fully understand what that injustice is.
(sorry, sort of long winded…, and more to come yet!)
- Status