Did Mary know she was sinless?

[Huiou_Theou]

…
Deuteronomy 34:9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him; so the people of Israel obeyed him, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses.
…
I don’t think that that verse is evidence that Joshua was a priest though, as minister in this case is being used in the sense that Joshua was a servant of Moses (ie. he ‘ministered’ to Moses).
…
Furthermore Joshua was an Ephraimite (ie. from Joseph and not from Levi). He couldn’t have been a priest.

I don’t hold Joshua to be a priest based on that passage alone.
He is the Type of Jesus to come. Jesus is not a priest based on his relationship to the tribe of Levi either – directly.
But Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary, and Mary’s cousin was Elizabeth – the AAronite wife of Zechariah. So, although in theory, the tribes did not intermarry – none the less some times even that rule was violated by actual marriages, or more importantly by covenants which are equivalent, legally.

For an actual marriage example, the tribe of Benjamin had no more women after the massacre in Judges 21, so they “steal” them from other tribes… :whacky:

I secondly, note, that Moses as the giver of the Law is to be ‘godward’ in his Midianite father’s advice. That is the intermediate between God and the People; this position is priestly. How, then, would Joshua carry on the task of Moses who is a priest, if he were not also priestly in some capacity?

Secondly, the patriarchs of old were said to have seen the day of Jesus – in John 8:52 the “Jews” say: “Abraham is dead and the prophets are dead; are you greater than our father Abraham?”

and in response Jesus says:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to think he would see my Day. he saw it …”

Moses, then, clearly also saw the coming of the Day of Jesus. I say this because of Joshua (Jesus the Son of Nun) was NOT named Jesus in the tribe of Ephraim. (Joseph’s descendants).

When Abram entered the covenant, he became Abraham. When Jacob accepted the Covenant, he became “Israel”. Whomever gave Joshua his name, is entering a covenant.
Simon became Peter.

The ministering angels, higher even than the devil, are themselves called “sons of God.” His children.

How is it, then, that Moses’ own child after the 40 years in the desert, is NOT the one to take leadership after Moses?
But instead, Moses of the Tribe of Levi, names a man “Jesus”.
This Jesus to whom the angel says: “Take off your sandals.”

Not only this, but the restriction of the priesthood from the firstborn sons of Israel to the tribe of Levi was on account of the golden calf. The rule was that gold of foreign Gods was to be burned – and in a technical ploy, Aaron burns the Gold – and “out came this calf.”
Moses the Brother of Aaron, is in the hills with Jesus the son of Nun receiving the 10 commandments. Jesus clearly has no part in the Israelite sinning for he is on the mountain with God.

And, as if that weren’t all, Moses then lays his hands on him and 70 “elders”. The word “elders” in Greek is Presbuteros – the Presbyter – eg: the word which would eventually become priest.
Eg: John the Apostle uses it in greeting from himself in 2John:1;
The purpose of these was to share Moses’ office, because the load was too heavy for him.

Before the fall of the golden calf, though, the whole people of Israel were to be priests. The eldest son was the one preferred for this office. In the book of Genesis, the first book of the Law, it is the elder son (Cain) who acts as priest.

Perhaps, Joshua can be said to excercise his office “illicitly”? when he burns the evil thing from their midst? – but then, God told him to do so… so I find that hard to swallow.

In the new testament, the mere priest is not explicitly called into being by Jesus – rather, it is at the request of the church that some elders became priests and deacons. Jesus ordained bishops and Apostles.

Now, at last, to the issue of the perfection of the Law

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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

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

But Adam was not deceived.

Now, we are into one of those subtle points again. St. Paul switched to the first person when he spoke in Romans 7. He is speaking to his auditors, then, as a son of Rachel – the tribe of Benjamin – the tribe of King Saul – whom were repetitively slain by defiance of the Law. Is this the curse of all tribes… or just his?

I don’t see how this verse shows the perfection of the law.
I do see how, like Christ who condemned sin from the cross, that the law shows in a lesser way what sin is. As I said, the law is worthless without Jesus. The Israelite didn’t really see sin for what it was until Jesus fulfilled the Law. Not even St. Paul did, until he was struck off his horse.

But, to widen the argument a bit: an imperfect tool, or analogy, is often enough to get a message across. There is no need for a perfect law in order to show sin.

Consider:
Only God is truly perfect. If a creature were truly perfect in itself, it would necessarily be God. Therefore, creatures can at most be relatively perfect.

Evil is a privation, so a creature (it would seem) could always be called evil for no creature in and of itself is perfect. But a creature who is less than God experiences no privation if God makes up for what the creature lacks. God is it’s care-taker. That is the point of communion. Only God is TRULY Good. Therefore, only creatures in communion with God are TRULY Good. That is why sanctifying grace – the grace of communion – is mandatory for a creature to avoid sin FOREVER.

A broken communion is the real definition of Evil.

This is the first reason I say the Law is imperfect – or at most, relatively perfect. It could teach dimly, but not fully.

Secondly, the passage you quote is the introduction to concupiscence, which as Trent teaches is NOT active sin.

But, let’s come down from the high theology and philosophy, and re-enter the examples of the old testament:

This “Law” that Paul speaks of is the 10 commandments written ONLY by the finger of God, not the statutes of Moses.

It is these man-inclusive statutes, and divorce, that we discuss:

That law was purely divine as well even if it was sometimes influenced by human concerns (eg. God giving decrees concerning divorce, …)

If they were God’s decrees then Jesus couldn’t have said that divorce was from Moses – as it simply wasn’t.
Divorce is NOT in the 10 commandments! which God wrote himself!

it was always only of divine origin who allowed such influence, and to the example of the Midianite I would have to point out this just after the verses you quoted:

Exodus 18:23 If you do this, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace."
…
… he is assuming that God would command Moses to do as he advised… I assume that if this really is the ‘law of Moses’ (and I question this), that Moses would have only done so according to divine will as his father-in-law told him to do.

And, because of his father in laws “sympathy” Moses probably notices his pains more than he would have otherwise. Moses talked to God face to face, there was no need for the Midianite!
What, then, was the result of his father’s wisdom – MOSES STARTED COMPLAINING TO GOD, FEARING THE PEOPLE, etc.

St. Peter walked on water – until he “perceived” the danger in the waves. Moses did well, until his father-in-law planted a doubt in his mind.

eg:
And the devil said to the woman, did the LORD really say…

Let me probe this a bit more::
Can a spokesman for the LORD tempt or deceive?
If this is true, how is it that this same priest taught his daughter wrongly about the law of circumcision, such that God nearly killed Moses on her account?

But, let me be more explicit, let us take the example from a bit later when another mouthpiece of the LORD comes into action:

“Numbers 22:20 And that night the LORD said, IF they are here to summon thee, RISE and go with them, but do whatever I bid thee.”

and Balaam does DO what God tells him, and a bit more:

“Numbers 31:15 What means it, he asked, that you have spared the women folk? Was it not these that beguiled the sons of Israel, at the prompting of Balaam and led you to play the LORD false …”

Balaam the soothsayer of the LORD.

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

Lev 12:1 The Lord said to Moses,

Aye. But the part of the Law we are referring to does not say that a woman MUST offer a sin offering. What prophet interpreted the LAW the way you seem to take it?
I am not infallible, do you claim it?
How do we overcome the issue of the “OR”.
(It might be possible…convince me.)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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

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

I understand, from a Thomistic Priest by the name of Fr. Vincent, that eating unclean things made one impure – but did not constitute SIN. Now, perhaps he is wrong – it won’t be the first time a Thomistic thinker told me a whopper. But, I need a little more evidence than has been given.

P.S.
The passage in Romans 7 refers to coveting, which is the mental decision to achieve the desire (concupiscence) one is tempted by. The very things that made Balaam betray the LORD once he CHOSE to allow them to master him.

The ten words address these, written by the finger of God in concrete, rock solid language, for a concrete block headed people.

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

No, because if the LORD sent a lying angel, one could still write that the LORD inspired it – and the Demon did the heavy breathing. Now, the demon – like Balaam – may have been constrained to say certain TRUE things, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t phrase them in a subtle way as part of the punishment.

img213.imageshack.us/img213/933/sainai2uw3.jpgimg213.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

Unless we have no free will and God’s grace is lacking, the law could have been fulfilled prior to Christ’s coming, but rather the law was not fulfilled… not because it was impossible… but because men sinned and were faithless so that they transgressed the law.

And when Jesus asks the rich man if he had followed the LAW, the man said “yes, from my youth”. Apparently HE wasn’t from the tribe of Benjamin. He lacked nothing of obeying the LAW, as Jesus “Looked on him with LOVE” – but he didn’t accept the reward of the LAW at that moment!!! And it is to this man that Jesus says “If you seek perfection…” by which Jesus condemns the law as imperfect without himself.
Come; follow me.

If the law was imperfect (and it wasn’t),

(non - segue)
The law is not clearly stated in such a way that Mary definitely would have had to offer a sin offering. The LAW includes an “OR”
in that Passage.

I assign sinned to them, not on the basis of my ‘theory’, but because I would have thought that the punishment applied to all of Israel …

Joshua did not die. The punishment did not affect him directly, but only caused him to fear needlessly. Fear is the beginning of wisdom – LOVE is the end which many say “casts out fear” – although this statement is concrete…

“All” Israel means a representative of all constituent parts, eg: all tribes being considered in the passage. It could mean every last person, but all does not have to mean every last person.

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

I don’t know that Joshua HAD sinned (actively) before the time we are discussing. If the rich man can obey the whole law for all of his life up to a point, why can’t Joshua have done so?

I don’t see anything which would have mandated that Mary offer a sin offering for certain, even now.

— I turn the typewriter over to you.
God bless you abundantly this day.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

(you’ve given me quite a bit to respond to, I hope you don’t mind if I try to be efficient in my use of time by shortening some points)

You’re right and I wasn’t thinking about how pain could be different from suffering. I suppose that if there was some kind of primordial pain which somehow wasn’t suffering, then that could have existed in the garden, although I don’t feel that the interpretation is necessarily compelled. I don’t believe that Adam and Eve would have suffered either spiritual or even biological death had they not sinned, and if somehow they could have bodies that did not age and die, they could also have bodies that experienced no pain.

I don’t know what actually happened though.

And you are correct that the suffering from the fall dealt not with bodily pain only, but also with the deeper spiritual pain.

In terms of the original sin scenario, my answer for why they did recognize their nakedness until after they had both eaten the fruit was because this was a punishment for their sin, and God chose at that moment to punish them… why He chose that moment is not an answer I know, although I will hypothesize that perhaps when the narrative says ‘then both their eyes were opened’ it doesn’t mean immediately after Adam then took the fruit, but some time after (ie. days, weeks, months, etc.) they came to see their nakedness and then made clothes for themselves. I put this hypothesis forward in the belief that when the narrative says they saw that they were naked, it didn’t mean that they then came to realize that they didn’t have clothes (they already knew that) but that they experienced the beginnings of concupiscence (which I hypothesize occurred in an interval of time) and felt ashamed of their bodies such that they then made clothes for themselves.

And traditionally it is true that Eve’s sin (as she was deceived) is often considered greater than Adam’s, although Paul didn’t write that sin came through Eve but rather he wrote that sin came through Adam. I suppose that what we have then must be Adam’s lesser sin of the two.

Adam wasn’t punished for Eve’s sin, but he was punished for his own sin. There is no rule for when it is that God will punish us for our sins, it can be immediate and it can be also in the future. In the narrative you will also find that the woman and the man were punished differently, thus reflecting that each was punished for their own sin.

For the increase from nothing, I am wondering if this reference could potentially be it:

Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt

← the narrative doesn’t record any signs and wonders in the land of Egypt until later on when first comes the plague of frogs (Exodus 8), but God promises that these wonders will be ‘multiplied’ in this passage.

The alternative meaning you give for Genesis could be still valid if pain doesn’t mean suffering though.

Absence of saving is condemning when we are referring to eternal damnation.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

God is judging the wicked and this implies condemnation. He doesn’t, however, comdemn the righteous just as He condemns the wicked.

In the Sodom narrative, Abraham intercedes for the doomed city and asks God if He finds x number of righteous in the city, if He will still destroy it, and God says that He will not destroy it if there are righteous in the city. In short, He doesn’t do collective punishment in the sense that a guiltless person is punished along with the wicked, but He only punishes a sinners for their own sin.

I think I understand what you say about the Greek word implying ‘being off the path’, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate that the Hebrew had the same ambiguity.

Now I don’t read any hebrew, but I decided to research this myself:

Here is Lev 12:5-8 טָהֳרָהּ׃ 5 וְאִם־נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁשִּׁים יֹום וְשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב עַל־דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה׃
6 וּבִמְלֹאת ׀ יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אֹו לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתֹו לְעֹלָה וּבֶן־יֹונָה אֹו־תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל־מֹועֵד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן׃ 7 וְהִקְרִיבֹו לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ וְטָהֲרָה מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ זֹאת תֹּורַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר אֹו לַנְּקֵבָה׃ 8 וְאִם־לֹא תִמְצָא יָדָהּ דֵּי שֶׂה וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי־תֹרִים אֹו שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יֹונָה אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְאֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה׃ פ

Now, according to what I’ve read there are three words in Hebrew that may be translated as ‘sin’, the first type (פשע - Pesha) is for direct intentional transgression, the second type ( Avon)is used to describe lust or uncontrollable emotion, and the third type (חַטָּא - Cheit) is for the unintentional wherein a person misses or errors from a mark.

Avon isn’t used in this passage, but Cheit is used twice, for what I think is translated in English for ‘unclean’ in Lev 12:5 and in Lev 12:8 I think it is used in reference to part that says ‘she shall be clean’. I don’t think Pesha is here either though.

The phrase sin offering, uses a different word ‘Chatta’ah’, which I have this definition for:

chatta’ah (khat-taw-aw’)
an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender

 

[D_M]

While I am just beginning to understand anything about hebrew, I have done a search and I find that this word is used in such places as describing the sin of Sodom, what the Israelites did with the golden calf in the Sinai, or when Samuel describes what Saul did when he disobeyed God after he fought the Amalekites and the Lord removed him from being king.

I am going to therefore put forward the theory that the ‘sin offering’ in the original hebrew in Leviticus might not leave room for ambiguity but actually implies a true offence as it used for true offences in scripture and the definition relates it concretely to an offender. (I am tempted to e-mail a hebrew scholar to ask her/him though.)

In terms of concupiscence, Paul calls it sin not because he is sinning becaue he has it or that it is a punishment for him (it is a punishment for those in original sin, but not for a person who has undergone baptism), but rather I think we understand that his body was doing something wrong even though he was not, and our flesh has sinful lusts, even if it is not our choice that they should be there.

That is why Paul wrote ‘it is not I who sin, but sin that dwells within me’ when referring to this.

A human being can be angry at someone who does no wrong, but God will not be angry at someone who does no wrong.

I’ve considered Romans 2:22, and your interpretation has some sense to it in that worshipping an idol and robbing a temple are not as equal (in the context) as touching an idol and robbing a temple… although I wonder if perhaps one can also interpret this passage not as a literal touch, but rather an aversion. That the jews kept themselves away from idols, not that literally touching them was a sin but that they simply avoided them and did not allow them to exist in Israel (eg. when the Israelites conquer the land of Canaan they hew down the asherims, and destroy the pagan pieces of worship), and that the hypocrisy Paul here is saying that they had an aversion for such things but that they would sometimes rob temples and steal the idols which were often decked in gold, silver or jewels.

With reference to the notion of ‘freezing the will’, I think you’re right in that our free will would no longer be weakened by sin or temptation as it is in our present state once we finally leave this world (perhaps then we ought to say that our present condition is a ‘freezing of the will’, or rather to use Augustine’s phrase ‘a bondage of the will’), although I still think that those in heaven do not have their wills frozen such that they unable to disobey God, nor is it necessary for a person to have an external temptation in order to commit sin (satan didn’t require one when he originally fell, but he had to have created his own temptation in order for him to be tempted).

Psalms 53 (52) 1-2 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none that does god. God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any that are wise, that seek after God.

The fool only says ‘there is no God’, and the rest of this passage is not the fool speaking but rather a description of the iniquity of the sons of men. According to Augustine, this doesn’t even apply universally even in their time but the righteous were excluded:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVI.10.html (last paragraph)

I don’t think passage would have necessarily taught about the nature of original sin and how we are all fallen, although many do interpret it that way.

I don’t believe that the demons do good works, and I don’t believe they are doing a good work when they believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I can’t state for certain that that is the case though, but it just doesn’t seem right to me that the devil should be praised for anything.

I hadn’t thought of the possibliity of certain saints being able to love more than other saints… if that is possible, then you are right that lack of love does not necessitate sinfulness, but it would still be true that all sinfulness is related to a lack of love.

I think we sin in Adam because at our conception we are conceived into Adam’s sin, and how we do so… I don’t know… perhaps we don’t seek for God at our conception…

This is what mine has for that passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 23:1 He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.

My bible says that Judah married a Canaanite woman named Shua.

Moses himself married a non-Israelite

Numbers 12:1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman;

The commandment regarding to not take foreign wives is seen in this passage though:

Deuteronomy 7:1-4 "When the Lord our God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites and the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the Lord you God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons. For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

 

[D_M]

I think its children from these sinful marriages which are being referred to, and it would not have applied in Judah’s case who had not yet heard the law, nor would it have perhaps applied in Moses’ case if he had married his wife in Egypt before he had heard the law (and technically Cushites aren’t mentioned in the list above). Moab isn’t mentioned in the list either, and the Moabites as descendants of Lot could have been considered kindred in some sense, although even if they weren’t considered so, the law Moses wrote concerning foreign wives didn’t specifically mention them but mentioned the nations that the Israelites would drive out, hence the house of David would not have been cut off from the covenant.

In Ezra it says that those who married foreign wives:

Ezra 10:44 All these had married foreign women, and they put them away with their children.

If I am guessing correctly that ‘putting away’ implies separating from them, then I think these children and their descendents is perhaps what the Pharisees referred to as the children of fornication.

I do believe that the law applied to Mary just as it did to Jesus, and neither of them ever transgressed the law, but I question if Mary knew this for herself.

I think I understand the pole truck thing, but I’m not sure… is it that the driver in an adjacent lane to the truck’s rear end would have difficulty avoiding the logs when the truck changed lanes?

I must admit it doesn’t look very safe, although I’ve lived my whole life in a city and have not really seen much of forestry to know how it compares. I was once on a city transit bus in Toronto that got into an accident… a car made an illegal U-turn right in front of the bus on a residential street, and the bus driver couldn’t avoid him, so the bus hit him and completely destroyed the car by the impact (it went on someone’s lawn, and the car was smashed into a smaller size it originally was, and the driver was seriously injured - but not killed)… the bus had a dent of about 2-3 inches in the front bumper… I was once on a bus that caught fire too, but that’s a different story…

(anyone can this if she chooses)

Lord, look after the pedophile priest that Andrew mentions, prevent him from violating his ministry by following evil temptations, and make him into the minister of your Son’s church that you meant him to be. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

I think that mercy wouldn’t be negligence in the sense that we were talking about wherein a person is negligent about something God required them to keep. I doubt you would be considered negligent for simply being in a parish with that priest, especially if you were being vigilant. If that were true, than no family with children should be in those types of parishes.

Recently in my work I was researching the old Indian Residential Schools in Canada… I don’t know if you know the history or not… in Canada there was a government policy that was adopted first by the colonial administration and then later by the dominion government to assimilate the Amerindian population into proper english-speaking ‘canadians’, which employed a system of boarding schools ('residential schools) all around that country which Amerindian nations sent their children to in order to be educated in the white man’s ways. The government didn’t want to really pay for these schools, since they were very expensive, and so they made an agreement with the mainstream Canadian churches (roman catholic, anglican, methodist, presbyterian, and united) who were allowed to run the schools and at the same time they were allowed to give a christian education to the children whom otherwise would have followed the animist and pagan practices of their Amerindian parents. It had a benevolent aspect on paper (teaching the natives how to survive in the modern world), but what actually happened was one of the sadest stories in Canadian history.

I’m not exagerrating when I state that there was a 50% death rate of children at these schools. The lack of funding meant that the children were not given proper food, and so they suffered from chronic malnutrition, which along with rampant tuberculosis outbreaks, killed 1 out of every 2 children that attended classes. The churches have been issuing apologies in the past few years about that kind of neglect. And there is a truth and reconciliation commission (based on the one in South Africa) that started up not too long ago that has given voice to all sorts survivors who have also been telling stories of sexual and physical abuse at the schools. In Vancouver last easter there was even a protest by amerindians wherein they entered the cathedral during mass and made shouts about genocide.

Now that story is one of true criminal neglect… but I doubt that your vigilance in your parish would be considered so.

I think that a child must be capable of sinning in the womb, because I think of the story of the flood or the destruction wrought by Israel in the book of Joshua… are we to understand that unborn children were not included within those who were killed by these events?

And if they were killed, and God had either killed them directly Himself or indirectly through commandment to the Israelites, it must be because those unborn children must have sinned, since God does not punish the wicked with the righteous (Sodom narrative again).

 

[D_M]

Your talk about the metaphorical meaning of stones is interesting, and you may very well have discovered something true and important if you are correct.

Satan can punish people too. And I do see what you mean in terms of the consequences of original sin being caused by satan, but what I would state is that God can punish people through indirect means, such as letting a person or an angel cause harm to someone He wishes to chastise… that doesn’t mean however, that whenever a person or an angel causes such harm that God is punishing through them, even if sometimes He is.

Genesis 18:23-26 Then Abraham drew near, and said, “Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

My problem then here is that if God will withhold the whole of his punishment on account of the presence of some righteous, how could it then be said that God will punish people for a sin they do not commit? He does not punish people for sins they do not commit, but He only punishes people for sins that they do commit.

I can’t tell from the forbidden loot narrative in Joshua whether or not God punished the whole of Israel. But I do know that He could have only punished those who truly sinned against Him and not those who didn’t, because He doesn’t punish the righteous with the wicked… far be it from Him to do such a thing, He must rather do right.

The romans quote was the one I was remembering,

I think the injustice that the saints in heaven are having their tears wiped away for are the sins of this world, to which we all commit and are also victims of.

Why would you believe that the tribes never intermarried?

Joshua was not a levitical priest and neither was Jesus. Jesus was in fact of a higher order than the levites. I don’t know if Joshua could be considered a different type of priest, or if he could be considered a priest in the sense that all believers are supposed to be ministers. But since he did not descend from Levi, he could not have performed the ordinances which were exclusively performed by the levites.

Hebrews 7:11-14 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whome these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

You’re correct that the law didn’t fulfill itself, and could not do what Christ did, but that doesn’t mean it was therefore imperfect. I am unconvinced that Paul is here speaking about the ten commandments only and not about the whole of what Moses wrote.

Romans 10:5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righetousness which is based on the law shall live by it.

Leviticus 18:5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my odinances, by doing which a man shall live: I am the Lord.

Paul references this part of what Moses wrote when Paul said that those who practice the righteousness based on the law shall live, and Moses did not write of the law being the ten commandments but rather he references ‘statutes and ordinances’ which refer to everything Moses wrote.

Moses didn’t write that divorce was a good thing, he simply wrote this:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.

God told Moses to write this, and Jesus is not contradicting Himself when He says that divorce is wrong, for Moses writing God’s commandments didn’t write that it wasn’t wrong, rather Moses simply wrote certain ordinances that applied to couples who had divorces. He didn’t outlaw it, but that doesn’t mean he also declared that it was right.

Moses talked to God face-to-face, but he often brought the concerns of the people of Israel to God when he talked to Him, and what his midian father-in-law said could be one such thing. I’m still not necessarily convinced though that this particular passage would be considered in the same way as the rest of the law.

 

[D_M]

Lev 12 does clearly state that the woman must offer a sin offering. She has two choices:

i) offer a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and either a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering

ii) offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering

Both choices necessarily have a sin offering.

Ezekiel 4:14 Then I said, “Ah Lord God! behold, I have never defiled myself; from my youth up till now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has foul flesh come into my mouth.”

Daniel 1:8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s rich food, or with the wine which he drank; therefore he asked the chief of the eunuch to allow him not to defile himself.

1 Maccabees 1:62-63 But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.

The text in Maccabees gives the strongest case for why it would be that eating unclean food would have been considered sinful. If it wasn’t sinful to defile the covenant by wilfully breaking it and eating the food, then why would they rather chose to loose their lives on account of it? If it wasn’t considered sinful, then surely it would have been better to eat the food then to be killed on account of it.

I could not believe that the Lord sent a lying angel to teach the law to Moses just as He had sent a lying angel to deceive the false prophets to have Ahab killed. If that were so, then the Spirit could not have caused Moses to write that the Lord was speaking through the angel.

When the rich young man said he had followed the law from his youth, the interpretation that he therefore never broke the law is not suggested, but rather he simply committed less sins such that he could say that he had followed the law.

Jesus did not condemn the law.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

You’re right that Joshua did not die. But God could have punished some by killing them, and others He could have given a lesser punishment… but I don’t know, after second thoughts, if this passage necessarily refers to every last person as you have suggested it may not.

Anyone could have obeyed the whole of the law prior to Jesus, as God’s grace was never lacking, but it is simply rather that no one ever did. All who are conceived in sin are also sinners. For that reason Joshua must also be considered to have sinned in his life, just as the rich young man was.

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, we thank you for all the wisdom you have shared with us, and we ask, if it is your will, that you reveal to us the answers to these things we are discussing and also to know whether our virgin mother knew that she sinless. We ask for these things, so far as it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

(you’ve given me quite a bit to respond to, I hope you don’t mind if I try to be efficient in my use of time by shortening some points)

It’s your thread.

You’re right and I wasn’t thinking about how pain could be different from suffering. I suppose that if there was some kind of primordial pain which somehow wasn’t suffering, then…

As I would expect.

What compels me is that Adam as a whole would not have had to experience death. But, in that Adam was to be fertile – he could donate a part of his body (the seed) to a new life. In this limited sense, Adam was always capable of dying.

The complete anesthetic “no pain” part I find questionable. The body is designed to experience pain. To say that Adam would have experienced no shock when jumping into cold water, or pain if Eve poked him in the eye – would suggest that the body we have now is not just fallen, but radically re-designed. This causes logical problems: If Adam decided he liked the woman better Blindfolded, she could not have been pained by his blindfolding her. etc.

If that is the case, I find it hard to believe the Devil’s temptation was surmountable. They wouldn’t have been able to muster the pain of disgust in order to reject his suggestions. Pain is merely touch in high intensity, a sensation. eg: When someone speaks to you, they touch you indirectly ‘in the ear’.

BUT – I suspect if they had no pain, nor separation, then if Eve sinned – Adam necessarily consented. eg: there is no separate or individual sin possible – for the sin must have happened fully together.

On the other hand, Eve was not around when God spoke the Law to Adam. She was drawn out of his flesh and bone later, and upon questioning by the devil – she proves that she had a “primordial” sense of the law which disagrees in part with that given to Adam.

Notice; St. Paul, says that HE was deceived*. In other words, St. Paul is in the position of the woman – not Adam.

Why He chose that moment is not an answer I know, although I will hypothesize that perhaps when the narrative says ‘then both their eyes were opened’ it doesn’t mean immediately…

Fair enough. But then, Adam was left to decide in a situation that the Law did not explain. Eg: his flesh and bone had touched the fruit. As Adam was not deceived, he apparently judged correctly.

…they came to see their nakedness…

The LXX phrases it that they knew they were “stripped”.
concupiscence was certainly there…

And traditionally it is true that Eve’s sin (as she was deceived) is often considered greater than Adam’s …

I never intended to imply that the woman’s sin could be more serious than Adam’s. To the contrary!

Eve was incapable of initiating the sin, alone, I think is a consequence of the way the text was written. eg: I think the devil indicates this in the temptation – when “you(all) eat – then – your(all) eyes will be opened.” – I’ll double check in the morning.

Adam wasn’t punished for Eve’s sin, but he was punished for his own sin. There is no rule for when it is that God will punish us … each was punished for their own sin.

Not so fast! You haven’t proven that Eve would have been punished at all if Adam had refused to eat.

Nothing shows that their sins are independent of each other.
Dependent sins, require, that at least one person is receiving punishment on account of another for we can say, the other would not receive punishment except that Adam had sinned.

I imagine, from the ECF, one might say that so long as his body had life – it could inexhaustibly communicate it to his wife.

You do not need to defend your point on this argument, I am not using it as proof – but only to show terminology issues. When did it become a punishable sin for the woman to EAT the fruit? (eg: How do we know for certain?)

For the increase from nothing, I am wondering if this reference could potentially be it:

Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt

Signs, portents, dreams, all of these had happened before in the land of Egypt even if the present Pharaoh refused to acknowledge them. Previous Pharaohs had witnessed signs from God, dreams, validation of dreams. etc.

Absence of saving is condemning when we are referring to eternal damnation.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Hmm… elucidate – if I am to go literally::
analogy:: The fig tree Jesus cursed did not bear ROTTEN fruit, it had NO fruit either good or bad. So, are you saying that no fruit good or bad is condemnable by Mark 16:16? That seems possible … but sort of harsh…

in the Sodom narrative, …

God refused to tell Abram he wouldn’t punish in the case that only one just man were found; I agree with you anyway.

I tend to think that God has lowered the gauntlet against anyone who tries to claim a double standard with respect to him. There will be no excuse on the day of Judgment.

,but that doesn’t necessarily indicate that the Hebrew had the same ambiguity.

Bravo. I have a hard time recognizing the glyphs in Hebrew. I am going to take your definitions for granted at the moment; as I don’t think this affects my argument.*

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… I find that this word is used in such places as describing the sin of Sodom, what the Israelites did with the golden calf …

That’s fine. But, the NT is written in Greek.
The Masoretic text you use (Hebrew) is only one variant, and it was not taken care of through the early A.D.'s by the church – rather it was by a group biased against Christianity.

But, even accepting the Hebrew, you are ignoring the argument I have put forth… There is a conjunction “OR”.
In english I can say things like; You may pay rent or go to jail;
These are exclusive of each other.

In leviticus 12, the “sin offering” is an alternate possibility after an “OR”.

Perhaps you are right, but I have just come across Talmudic writing which shows the offering of Leviticus 12 does NOT always apply to a woman.

(I am tempted to e-mail a hebrew scholar to ask her/him though.)

If the Hebrew scholar documents HOW she knows what she says, I’ll seriously look into it.

In terms of concupiscence, Paul calls it sin not because he is sinning becaue he has it or that it is a punishment for him (it is a punishment for those in original sin, but not for a person who has undergone baptism),

Uh!-- I don’t buy that. I find concupiscence quite punishing! – but that doesn’t make it active sin – I agree!

but rather I think we understand that his body was doing something wrong even though he was not, …

And his body is still “him”. However, he does not say “You” were deceived by the law NOR “all” were deceived by the law. Rather he says “I”.

That is why Paul wrote ‘it is not I who sin, but sin that dwells within me’ when referring to this.

Which fits exactly the idea of missing the mark (amartia).

A human being can be angry at someone who does no wrong, but God will not be angry at someone who does no wrong.

But God can be angry at a situation, that anger can STILL be applied in an active way to someone who has not done the particular wrong themselves in order to fix the problem.

It may not be POSSIBLE for a consistent creation to be any other way. God can’t lie – some things are not POSSIBLE.

I’ve considered Romans 2:22, and your interpretation has some sense to it in that worshipping an idol and robbing a temple are not as equal…

What I see is that the context is a hypocritical following of the Law.

In the third one, for the pattern to hold, touching an idol must be against the law. (The audience’s interpretation of the Law may be wrong, and – whether they incur sin or not is another question.)

although I still think that those in heaven do not have their wills frozen such that they unable to disobey God…

I’ll let this go – I was never intending to say the will could do nothing at all; But, if there is no time – in eternity, then I am still puzzled.

Psalms 53 (52) 1-2 The fool says in his heart,
The fool only says ‘there is no God’, and the rest of this passage is not the fool speaking …

I doubt it; I think the rest still describes a fool. But, taking your exegesis:
The Jew reading the Psalm would automatically assume there were righteous Jews – eg: my point. In the context of Paul, then, – a Jewish audience wouldn’t interpret Paul the way most protestants DO.

I don’t think passage would have necessarily taught about the nature of original sin and how we are all fallen, although many do interpret it that way.

OK.

I don’t believe that the demons do good works, and I don’t believe they are doing a good work when they believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I can’t state for certain that that is the case though, but it just doesn’t seem right to me that the devil should be praised for anything.

Who said to praise the devil?!
If you who are evil know how to give good things…

but it would still be true that all sinfulness is related to a lack of love.

If you mean God is love, and therefore lack of God, OK.
but excessive love of one’s self is called PRIDE.

I think we sin in Adam because at our conception we are conceived into Adam’s sin, and how we do so… I don’t know… perhaps we don’t seek for God at our conception…

I think it a tautology to say, that if a child has not Christ – he can not be in heaven. eg: Christ is heaven. Therefore, if it is possible for a child not to be baptized – then, it follows, that child can never be in heaven. SO, in the hypothetical IF a child leaves the world without baptism, it is a tautology to say they are damned.
I have no need to interpret sin IN Adam, to accept the church’s teaching.

My bible says that Judah married a Canaanite woman named Shua.

Shua, is supposedly in the Peshitta for rock… Hmmm…
She isn’t a Jew though…

AND even in the case after the law you cite – King David married BATHSHEEBA the wife of Uriah the Hittite – she is NOT a Jew. Yet Solomon, the second son, IS considered in the covenant…

Jesus’s Geneology also includes Solomon … Solomon married who…

God bless you.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

You’re right the body would have to be radically re-designed in order for it not to have experienced pain… but that still wouldn’t seem problematic to me… we already accept the notion that concupiscence would not have existed before the fall, and since uncontrolled sexual lust is part of the way our biological bodies function, Adam and Eve’s bodies would have had to have been radically different than what we have now.

I don’t know why pain would have been necessary for them to resist the devil’s temptation…

I would think that Adam, Eve and the devil sinned as individuals separately from each other.

I don’t think that the fact that Eve came after Adam proves that she had a primordial sense of the law… could either God or Adam have simply told Eve, just as God had told Adam, not to eat from the tree after it had been created, and this was not mentioned in the narrative?

I’m assuming you are referring to this verse with St Paul:

Romans 7:9-11 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceive me and by it killed me.

He does say that sin deceived him, which you are perhaps correct would place Paul here in the position of Eve who was likewise deceived.

A person doesn’t need to be deceived in order for them to sin. Adam was not deceived in the same way that Eve was, but he still sinned. He was not deceived as Eve was, but he still chose incorrectly and sinned himself. Eve sinned with her eyes closed, but Adam sinned with his eyes opened.

We know that Eve sinned apart from Adam:

1 Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The only sign I can think of which we know to have happened in Egypt prior was when Pharaoh was told by God that Sarah was Abram’s wife.

Genesis 12:17 But the Lord afflicted Pharoah and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife.

I suppose that God could have meant multiplied from this perhaps?.. in which case I don’t have a clear example for when God would multiply from nothing in scripture. Perhaps this gives added validity to your argument about pre-fall pain.

What is the difference, between a fig tree that produces bad fruit and a fig tree that produces no fruit, for the purpose of the person who wants good fruit? Either tree provides no good fruit, and either tree is equally useless to the person who is looking for good fruit.

A sinner who does no good works, is doing an evil work, even if they are doing nothing, for refusing to do good is itself an evil work. I don’t believe there is such a person who does no works, either good or evil… every action we do is either good or evil, and therefore in order not to do either good or evil works, it is necessary that we do not then have any actions, and therefore we must not exist for that to be true.

I think the argument I gave about the hebrew does affect your argument, because while the NT was written in Greek, the OT which contains the Mosaic laws we are scrutinizing was written in Hebrew.

I’m going to reference what St Augustine wrote about the authority of septuagint vrs. the masoretic:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XV.13.html

The sin offering is not an option after an ‘or’ in the text I am reading:

Leviticus 12:6 "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 turtledove for a sin offering,

the choice is not between offering a burnt offering or offering a sin offering, but rather the choice is between which type of bird to offer for the mandatory sin offering. The mandatory nature of the sin offering is seen in what follows:

Leviticus 128 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.

The choice is between what type of bird to use, not over whether or not to perform a sin offering, for one bird must be used for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

Baptism is a marvellous gift which wipes away not only our sins, but also all of the penalties attached to those sins. The sacrament of reconciliation does not do what baptism does, for even after we go to confession and are absolved, we may still in the future be punished for what we did if we had not already received that punishment, but in baptism that punishment is removed. Hence, death, concupiscence, and all those things which humanity was punished with by the fall which we were conceived into… we become freed from those punishments after we have been baptized. Those things may still affect us, but they are no longer punishments at that point.

Paul’s concupiscence has nothing to do with him being deceived, for he acknowledges that his body is doing something evil. His body was doing something against his own freel will, because he did not want to lust after evil, but his flesh determined to do so outside of his own choice… therefore it is not he who sins, but it is sin within him.

God is not angry with those who do not do wrong, if He was, then He is punishing the righteous with the wicked, but the Sodom narrative shows otherwise.

 

[D_M]

I don’t know if there is time in eternity or not… my suspicion is yes though, because a general resurrection is promised to happen someday and I have difficulty conceiving how we would come back to our material bodies on this earth in some manner without time.

I do think the psalm describes a fool, but what I meant was that the fool was only speaking for those words, and the rest of referred to the fool in the third person. We understand that foolishness and wickedness are co-related here.

If the devil did a good work, he would be rewarded for it, and therefore since praise is a reward, if he did such a thing he could be praised.

When Jesus said ‘you who are evil’… did He really mean that these people were as evil as the devil? or was there a possibility of them doing good works within their wickedness?

alternatively giving good things to their children might not be counted as a good work, if they had evil intent even though they knew what should be rightly given to children.

All sinfulness is related to a lack of love for God and neighbour.

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

If we love Jesus we will not sin, because He says that those who love Him will keep His commandments.

I don’t think that it is a tautology to say that a child who is without Christ cannot be in heaven, because a person can be with Christ in this life and not be in heaven. If we are truly His disciples, then we two are with Christ, but at the same time we are most certainly not in heaven.

I agree that you don’t need to interpret original sin as personal sin in order to accept the church’s teaching… I don’t believe the church has stated this… but at the same as I was previously looking at, I haven’t found the church defining it to the contrary either, and I’ve given my arguments for why I think it as a type of personal sin.

I don’t know of where in scripture Bathsheba’s (Uriah’s wife) nationality is stated. She didn’t have to be a hittite in order to be married to a hittite.

Solomon’s wife who gave birth to Rehoboam was an amonitess, and the ammonites were not one of the seven nations that Moses mentions in Deuteronomy 7.

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, we thank you for all the wisdom you have given us, and we pray that you may help us understand these things we are discussing and also help us know if Mary knew she was sinless. We ask for these things, if it is your will, in Jesus name, Amen.

Thank you for kindly blessing me,

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

You’re right the body would have to be radically re-designed in order for it not to have experienced pain… but that still wouldn’t seem problematic to me… we already accept the notion that concupiscence would not have existed before the fall, and since uncontrolled sexual lust is part of the way our biological bodies function, Adam and Eve’s bodies would have had to have been radically different than what we have now.

Although it is true that MANY men experience uncontrollable sexual lust, it is NOT true that all do. Nor is it true that a body had to be redesigned for this to happen or for it to be repaired. eg: My body is not redesigned from its birth – but I do not experience heavy sexual drive any more. The mere medication I take kills that as a side effect. ( It would have made High School SOOOOO much easier and less distracting. )


P.S. My wife is pregnant, (eg: because she told me she was praying for a baby on our anniversary – and when I objected she said whatever happens – happens… so I told her I wouldn’t refuse her since I had sworn, and I had to make an active effort to do my Duty. )

Some men are eunuchs by birth, others by choice.

P.S. on the Log truck, you’re close. Basically, the first photo is the same part of the street as the second one. The truck has already left the freeway in the lower picture (eg: see the white lines? those are the turn lane off to the right.) The logs, notice, are TOTALLY in the turn lane and have left the highway.

My wife’s single skid mark in the upper picture is where the back end of the logs left the turn lane and re-entered the highway lane. The reason there is only one skid mark is because the log came through the passenger side window at a downward angle (the exit the Log truck took slopes UP). So the log was at a cutting angle pushing DOWN on the van – my wife never had a chance to hit the brakes. The door is stronger than the front window frame so all that was ripped down the side of the van and out the back. 50% of the van was cut off.

The passenger door was still hanging off the end of the Log with the log sticking through the window – showing how it entered the side.

In any event, the one witness was also a truck driver – go figure!..

And apparently, logs swinging out of a turn lane and re-entering the freeway are legal if a small red flag is on any of them. My wife isn’t a physics oriented person, and just didn’t realize that a truck turning to the right can nail someone quite far to the left of it.

$5000 van down the drain, and not a prayer of replacing it.

I don’t know why pain would have been necessary for them to resist the devil’s temptation…

Pain is a sensation and a feeling – it isn’t necessarily torture. One can even enjoy it – although it isn’t “bliss”. But if “everything” was totally pleasant, then the devil’s speech was also pleasurable. If this was so, of course the woman would be deceived.

Analogy: When a man comes into a room and starts cussing and swearing, I will say the man is a pain. It isn’t the same kind of intense feeling as a burnt finger – but because he puts strong sensations in my ear which I reject. It is a physical sensation which I find dis-pleasurable because of what it means.

Now, in one sense people might argue that this is just “in my head” – but I would point out that pain, even when coming from a wound inflicted on the skin, is merely a representation in the head.

Even a proud person bites back because their pride is “hurt” – a pain, or displeasure to their ear, an offense to their eye – and since they are proud, we know this isn’t a suffering. The pain is purely representational.

I would think that Adam, Eve and the devil sinned as individuals separately from each other.

And yet the Greek does explicitly say from the devil’s lips that when “you-ALL eat” in the PLURAL.

Genes 3:5 ηδει γαρ ο θεος οτι εν η αν ημερα φαγη-τε απ’ αυτου διανοιχθησονται υμων οι οφθαλμοι και εσεσθε ως θεοι γινωσκοντες καλον και πονηρον^M

fagE-te is “you-all eat”, and possibly a command…

I don’t think that the fact that Eve came after Adam proves that she had a primordial sense of the law… could either God or Adam have simply told Eve, just as God had told Adam, not to eat from the tree after it had been created, and this was not mentioned in the narrative?

She quotes the law partially WRONG. Her version is clearly NOT perfect. I tend to agree with you that Adam possibly told her the law – just as Pagan mothers teach their children a version of the Law “unto themselves.” This is still a primordial law – if but for the very reason it is the first law.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,
I’m assuming you are referring to this verse with St Paul:

Romans 7:9-11 …

He does say that sin deceived him, which you are perhaps correct would place Paul here in the position of Eve who was likewise deceived.

Yes, that’s the quote.

A person doesn’t need to be deceived in order for them to sin. Adam was not deceived … incorrectly and sinned himself. Eve sinned with her eyes closed, but Adam sinned with his eyes open.

I am not sure where you are going with this argument.
I like what you say regarding the eyes – for the scripture says (paraphrased) “Gen 3:6 … she saw that the fruit was beautiful …”

From here on the prophets will quip “look, look, you shall not see…” to Israel, and as Jesus says to the Pharisees “If you were blind there would be no sin in that …”

I wasn’t arguing that St. Paul needed to be deceived in order to sin – rather I was arguing that St. Paul was deceived.
Adam’s sin is far greater than even St. Paul’s, but there is a catch I don’t want to explore right now … and so I will say “It seems like Adam’s sin is the greatest by far.”

But, again – I want to emphasize the fact that the entire narration of the fall in Genesis – does not recognize that the option is “hers” alone, or affecting “her” alone. The law which the woman paraphrases says “we”, and the serpent says “you(all)” and not “you”. I humbly suggest, again:
Their wills (spirits) are linked to some extent.

eg: CCC 1643 – It [conjugal love] aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving.

There are, by inspection, two unions spoken of in marriage.
One physical (one flesh even without children.), and one oriented from the act of love.

We know that Eve sinned apart from Adam:

1 Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

So, when did she become a transgressor ? I will hypothesize that Eve’s transgression only came for certain by the time she succeeded in getting Adam to eat. (eg: How can it be proven hers was before his? ).

I Timothy 2:10 – "a virtuous life is the best adornment for women who lay claim to piety. Women are to keep silence, and take their place, with all submissiveness, as learners; a woman shall have no leave of me to teach, and issue commands to her husband; her part is to be silent.

Now this is not an unqualified kind of statement. It is, again, a figure. St. Paul does not understand this as an INDIVIDUAL statement, but a relational one: eg: – Rom16:1 “I commend our sister Phoebe to you; …help her in any business where she needs your help;”

Christ is the groom, we all are the bride. We keep silence when he teaches – but His priests, acting in his person give commands.

Again:

In the baptism I have shown a photo of --eg: by the pedophile priest; Christ acted upon my son – not the individual pedophile priest’s baptism; but Christ’s.
Therefore it is NOT on the merits of Fr. Joe, there, that my son was baptized. Nor will my son need to be re-baptized.

I am so much at a loss for words. sigh, Lord Open my mouth!

What is the difference, between a fig tree that produces bad fruit and a fig tree that produces no fruit, for the purpose of the person who wants good fruit? Either tree provides no good fruit, and either tree is equally useless to the person who is looking for good fruit.

If, then, God can choose to curse a tree which bears no fruit – should a child do nothing at all – good or bad – then it has no fruit either.

I am forced to concede your argument that an “infant” is in sin – though it does not transgress. What an awful thing!

I don’t believe there is such a person who does no works, either good or evil… every action we do is either good or evil, and therefore in order not to do either good or evil works, it is necessary that we do not then have any actions, and therefore we must not exist for that to be true.

I’ll qualify my agreement.
An infant, sucking its thumb in the womb, is a good.
It is a good in that the body’s muscles need to be exercised in order to grow, and the stimulation; etc. The good body is cared for; as is the struggling infant dying under a knife.

Now, what ought I say – that these phenomena shared in common with mere animals – earn damnation or salvation?

Again, scripture says:

Roman 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Paul is not kind enough to tell us which works he refers to.
The Law of Moses had not yet been given; but it is not thereby excluded. Esau is a nation, as is Adam, and Abraham – he is also an individual.

This is the OT passage about the mercy of God in contrast to earnings; and this is surely a scripture Mary would have known.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,
I think the argument I gave about the hebrew does affect your argument, because while the NT was written in Greek, the OT which contains the Mosaic laws we are scrutinizing was written in Hebrew.

I’m going to reference what St Augustine wrote about the authority of septuagint vrs. the masoretic:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XV.13.html

The quote about Augustine is actually a catastrophe to the Hebrew superiority argument – Notice Augustine does NOT say in His day that it was “THE Hebrew text” (singular) but rather, that many VARIANT copies of the Hebrew text could not ALL be controlled to conspire in a malicious error. For a conspiracy to happen, one requires the ability to control a single text. His reasonable theory – if accepted – can NOT be DIRECTLY used in TODAY’S environment.

Those other Hebrew variants mentioned — where are they today? and more to the point, the (non-catholic??) commentator on the site you quote leaves a foot note eschewing the (um, PROBLEM) fact that the text (singular) “we have today” (HEBREW??) disagrees even with the Hebrew text(s (PLURAL)) of Augustine’s day.

Which shows that something HAS been tampered with since Augustine’s day.

Consider:
Today there are many variant copies of the LXX; fragments from Egypt, the dead sea scrolls, parts from the Patristic fathers, eg: some of “Origin’s” (hexapila), etc. from a Fractured Christian community – which can’t be controlled – but somehow the Hebrew always refers to ONE SINGLE VERSION (eg: the MASORETIC) text – which has been in non Catholic hands after the year 400 (Augustine’s day); and which if Augustine is to be believed – is a bit different than the Hebrew of his day?

On the other hand:
Setting that aside – the changes Augustine is noting in the LXX are to support (drum roll) a convention understood in EGYPT. This isn’t malicious deception, but a CLUE as to how Genesis and Exodus are to be understood.

Consider the context of Egypt:

Those books (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers) actually record a time when the Israelites were leaving Egypt – eg: They had picked up Egyptian idioms, eg:figures of speech, from living there – Israelites even took Egyptians WITH them to the promised land – so, it ought to be no surprise that Egyptian idioms show up in all versions of the manuscripts since both Egyptians and Hebrews needed to understand them.

The number 10 is a classic Egyptian idiom; and I would bet that even the Hebrew today says “10” showing the earlier Egyptian influences.

Think about it; We do as much in English when we make an American translation or even when we agree to international laws (not that I had anything to do with these personally).

When a translator/ambassador DOES understand a convention which is DIFFERENT in their country – they modify the translation either by footnote, or (MORE COMMONLY) by changing the wording to mean (as nearly as possible) the same thing by different words.

We know what the changes were in the LXX – but we do not know for certain what changes happened in the Hebrew.

And since these “changes” Augustine reasonably hypothesizes are because the translators were targeting Alexandrian conquered Egypt – Who is to say that they did not un-change the later Babylonian influenced Hebrew in FAVOR of a MORE ANCIENT & CORRECT Egyptian interpretation of those texts?

Hebrew, Latin, and Greek – ought all be considered.
Augustine chose based on Hypothetical probability…
He is an example of HOW to proceed based on the evidence available.

(Even where the Antipodes are considered… HYPOTHETICALLY)

Now; on to the sin offering…

 

[jfhh]

i think this is silly its like “Did Jesus know he was divine?”
I personally think Our Blessed Mother did know.

She must have known and shared it with Jesus and the apostles otherwise we wouldn’t know about it today.

The Jesus question isn’t silly. Mark Shea in NCR:

ncregister.com/site/article/15097

But, that said, I can tell you that if someone suddenly demanded, “When did Jesus know he was God?” my immediate answer would be “Beats me.”

So I can well understand how someone might get a variety of answers to that question from a variety of Catholics, including priests.

Jesus has, as we recall, a divine and human nature. We know from divine revelation that he “increased in wisdom and in stature” (Luke 2:52).

In short, he learned things like all humans do.

In his deity, he is omniscient. In his humanity, he asks questions because he doesn’t know things.

He freely confesses, “Of that day and that hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36).

So I don’t know that it’s a slam dunk to say with absolute confidence that Jesus knew he was God from the moment of his incarnation in Mary’s womb.

rest in link

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The sin offering is not an option after an ‘or’ in the text I am reading:

Leviticus 12:6 "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 turtledove for a sin offering,

the choice is not between offering a burnt offering or offering a sin offering, but rather the choice is between which type of bird to offer for the mandatory sin offering. The mandatory nature of the sin offering is seen in what follows:

Leviticus 128 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.

The choice is between what type of bird to use, not over whether or not to perform a sin offering, for one bird must be used for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.

I addressed this clearly in post 71, 72

Huiou_Theou:
The Holocost and bird are both NEW (young) before the OR, BUT after the OR it is a different (non young) bird – for a sin offering.

Now, in the part YOU cite – there are FOUR BIRDS. TWO of one kind (the kind offered WITH the lamb previously and not for sin) followed by a SECOND option of TWO birds – which were offered for sin previously.

Do you have an example where a woman gives a SIN offering of two MIXED types of birds? if not, I am unconvinced they are equivalent and for the SAME purpose. You have suggestive evidence, but not proof.

As I have said, in the Talmuds, I HAVE found a reference specifically to Leviticus 12 which says that the JEWISH PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE A WOMAN WHO HAD NO BLOOD IN THE VAGINAL CAVITY AT BIRTH WERE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THAT SIN-LAW. They gave a NON-MIRACULOUS example of how this could happen. You have YET to explain the reasoning behind the TYPE of bird being offered. They do not appear equivalent from what I have yet seen, but you are getting closer…

Now; in PSALM 22 – I think there is SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE that the birth of the messiah was UNUSUAL. So I NEED SOMETHING MORE ASSURED TO ACCEPT YOUR INTERPRETATION OUT OF FEAR FOR JUDGING RASHLY.

Baptism is a marvellous gift which wipes away not only our sins, but also all of the penalties attached to those sins. The sacrament of reconciliation does not do what baptism …

Confession is called a “Labourous form of baptism” by the church in her councils (no less) – for even though pain is still associated with reconciliation/penance (sometimes) a person dead in mortal sin may fully re-enter friendship, Justification, and Sanctification of Christ Jesus. I think you are trying to make a distinction along the lines of “punishment” and penalty after the sacrament?

If So, as a Catholic, I simply note: A plenary indulgence with a confession is not required to be punishing; one indulges God by prayer, acts of charity, mercy, and especially LOVE OF GOD in one’s neighbor. These can be joyous and free participation in the work of Christ.

But I STILL find concupiscence “punishing” (PERIOD).
It is a weakness, like recovering from the flu, where one is miserable and must exercise to regain strength.
I see no difference here with the child baptized. They (at least) must receive the Eucharist when possible to avoid “starvation” in their weakness.

Also —
Crucifixion IS baptims, as is martyrdom.
Do not tell me that baptism is always painless or non-punitive – I will simply reply at most, God is not the direct inflicter of such punishment.

Hence, death, concupiscence, and all those things which humanity was punished with by the fall which we were conceived into… we become freed from those punishments after we have been baptized. Those things may still affect us, but they are no longer punishments at that point.

Why then am I wrong in calling it a punishing experience, since I experience it AS punishing?

A long run is said to be “punishing”. It means that the body is struggling remedially with the the consequences of testing – which leads to endurance – which WINS THE RACE.

Paul’s concupiscence has nothing to do with him being deceived, for he acknowledges that his body is doing something evil. …

Sorry, I must have confused you somehow. I never said concupiscence caused Paul’s deception. I was simply noting, that Paul who speaks – speaks as one who was deceived SOMEHOW. In the context of the tribe of Benjamin, and Rachel, and original sin, we ought to be careful how we build on what he says – then. Especially since the crucifixion of Jesus did him no good in recognizing the futility of the Law UNTIL AFTER GOD had KNOCKED HIM OFF HIS HIGH HORSE. As I said, I am exploring POSSIBLE ways, respecting Dogma, that these things can be.

God is not angry with those who do not do wrong, if He was, then He is punishing the righteous with the wicked, but the Sodom narrative shows otherwise.

He can STILL be angry at a situation, if not the person, and ALLOW punishing things to happen. (eg: as a remedy to FUTURE ills perhaps…)

When you say “ANGRY AT” those who do no wrong – you are putting words into my mouth that I did not say. Please, ask some questions – I know I have lost your understanding of me, but I am not sure where I did it to you.

I also see I overlooked some big posts on the last page, so I am going to have to review them to figure out where this all went.

May the lord Bless you, as I have no power to bless that is my own – only that which the Lord grants me. May you, then, bless me as well.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

(I had a very frustrating experience last thursday… I typed out my whole reply, and then I clicked on the link in your last post and my browser then went to a new page, thus deleting everything I wrote… and I didn’t have time to write a new one until today)

Some men do not experience uncontrollable sexual lusts, that is true, however, many men do, and there are biological reasons why they do so… in order for them not to have done so, it would be necessary for their biology to be radically different than what it is… furthermore, even if you didn’t accept this example, consider even biological death itself, an organism decays and the cells slow or stop their reproduction to the extent that the human being being will die, and if biological death would not have happened to Adam and Eve then it is necessary to consider that the flesh we have must really possess some radical differences than what they did.

Congratulations on your new child!

May the Lord look after her/him and help your wife through her pregnancy, I ask this, if it is His will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

I think I understand the log truck now… what you are saying is that the truck has very long poles extending from its rear and when the truck moves off the highway the poles move off with it, but when it begins turning in the lane that moves off the highway, the end of the long poles then briefly sweeps over the main highway again, thus providing a rather dangerous hazard for drivers in proximity… is that it?

If so, that does sound very dangerous… I wonder if the trucker claimed he could have avoided it simply on the basis that as a trucker he would have understood that hazard in a way that normal drivers wouldn’t?

Lord, look after this situation, and correct it if is your will. Provide comfort to those who have already been harmed, and heal their injuries if it is your will. We ask this, if it is you will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

On a similar note, a few weeks ago I had to write a report on an old railway in 19th century Ontario… talk about accidents! Young brakemen taking a small mistep, falling down and being crushed under the wheels… workers having their fingers instantly severed when their reflexes were too slow reaching the joints between the cars… engines falling over when turned too quickly… trains running out of track and flying off a bridge… an engine overpressured by steam that exploded on the tracks, killing several people, and sending a ten ton boiler 100 yards flying through the air and collided with standing structures that it damaged…an inquest into the company found that the company’s managment was guilty of not following the safety regulations… the president of the company never had to face a court though to answer such charges, as he was himself killed in an accident on his railway…

I’m still not convinced that pain is necessary in order to resist the devil’s temptations… could not have simply the recognition that pain existed, or that following his temptations would cause pain, even if neither of them had ever experienced pain, would have been sufficient for them to understand why this should not be followed?.. I think the devil’s speech could have cause them no pain, but they could have still understood why to disobey his suggestion…

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

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

If Eve is speaking in the plural in Gen 3:3, that if both of them eat that both of them will die, I don’t see why it is then necessary to conclude that if only one of them ate that they would not have died… I would think that that would have been implied, just as when Moses forbade men having sex with men and made no mention of lesbianism in the text, that this didn’t mean that women in a homosexual relationship were not likewise sinning…

The conjugal union unites people, does it not actually take away their separate free wills and make them into one free will to the extent that if one of them sins that both of them are then guilty… in a similar fashion, we are all part of the body of Christ and united to Him in the same one body, but if we sin that doesn’t mean that He Himself is united to us to the extent that He is also a sinner.

Eve became a transgressor, I think, when she believed the lies the serpent told her about God hiding something from them and lying to them about the tree. That is: she became a transgressor at the moment she was deceived.

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

 

[D_M]

There is an important and good figurative meaning to what Paul wrote to Timothy as you wisely stated in your explanation of how it relates to Christ and the church, although at the same time, I also think Paul literally really didn’t permit women to teach or have authority in the church… and the church still follows something of this teaching today in that we do not allow women to receive holy orders.

As I explained before, I do think that an infant in original sin has transgressed and that the original sin is a type of personal sin even though it is in Adam. On that account, I don’t think it is so horrible that an infant is counted as being in sin… I’ve given my arguments for why I think so.

I disagree that an infant sucking the thumb is necessarily doing a good. Simply flexing the muscles does not necessitate a good intention even if it is biologically healthy, just as eating food does not necessitate a good intnetion even if it is biologicall healthy. Anything not done in faith is in.

Consider what Paul wrote:

Romans 14:23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Now, the passage from Paul that you quoted would indicate that neither Esau nor Jacob had done anything that could cause God to elect one over another, as they were twin brothers in the same womb and they were not doing anything different from each other. God chose one over the other, however, not on the basis of what they had earned by their own merits on their own, but only through the righteousness that God’s grace offered to them.

I really don’t know enough about the history of the Masoretic text to answer the questions on other versions or such… I know that the jews were scattered in the old world from Ethiopia to Shanghai to England, and that it is difficult to imagine how all of those different congregations and their scriptures would have ever become subject to a uniform standard other than what was handed down or through local resources available.

The quote on the page of Augustine’s book, however, does not point to a discrepancy in the modern hebrew version and the version that existed at the time of St Augustine though, but rather I think St Augustine is making either a typo or a mistake (its not the only place he does so in this book), since he claims that the difference was 20 years between what the hebrew text said and the septuagint said, and unless the septuagint has also changed (since the difference between the modern septuagint and modern hebrew is also 20 years, 187 years vrs. 167 years), then we then note that Augustine has made a mistake, and that their hebrew text also must have been 187 years.

Genesis 5:25 When Methusaleh had lived a hundred and eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech

← this is in my bible, which is an approved bible, and the vatican website’s bible also uses this (maybe check yours too)… it would seem that the traditional canon has in fact accepted the authority of the hebrew bible over the septuagint on this verse (perhaps even due to Augustine’s argument).

I find it difficult to believe that the changes are a result of cultural or literary conventions… for one thing the text has clearly been altered to the extent that the person altering it has actually consciously attempted to make the figures add up. How would the Egyptians have understood 167 years to mean 187 years or for 105 years to mean 205 years?

I don’t see why an example of an offering of mixed types of birds would be necessary for proof… I have a feeling this is another question that would be answered better if either of us understood the hebrew equivalent of syntax or sentence structure, although from simply looking at the order given in the English, we can see that in the first type of sacrifice offered with the lamb that one of the birds does not have a purpose following directly following it after the lamb has been given for a burnt offering but rather the choice is between ‘a young pigeon or a turledove for a sin offering’ (ie. it says nothing about the young pigeon being used for any type of holocaust or otherwise offering, but only mentions a sin offering after the turtledove)

Also consider the order of the birds. In the lamb example the word 'sin offerin’g follows from the turledove, but in the example with two birds the sin offering is respectively in the second place just as the two pigeons are in the second place…

Also consider that in the example with the two birds, that the choice is stated between two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and there is no choice between a burnt offering or a sin offering but it says a burnt offering and a sin offering.

Could you give me the reference to the part of the Talmud that says what you are quoting?.. specifically I’m wondering if this is perhaps part of the Talmud that was written after Mary’s time or even after the temple was finally destroyed in 70 AD. If the hebrew bible is a corrupted text because it was not in church hands, then how much more so must the talmud be when it was not only outside church hands but much of it was written long after the religion of Moses ceased to be practiced and unlike the original Hebrew scriptures, it was not an inspired text?

 

[D_M]

On that note, however, after having discredited the Talmud as a source, I just looked into the part of the Talmud that deals with what we are discussing and this is what it says:

Mishnah 2

edit
This is the scheme for [offering] bird-pairs:
The [bird-pair offering which is] obligatory – one is a sin-offering, and one is an elevation-offering.
For [birds which are] vowed sacrifices and donations – they are all elevation-offerings.

According to this (and I don’t necessarily trust it), the obligatory offering we are talking about (as Lev 12 would be oligatory) has one bird for a sin offering and another for a burnt offering just as I interpreted, and a woman could offer both for elevation offerings if they were not obligatory but were by vows or donations.

I think that Mary was doing what Lev 12 required on the basis that it makes sense with what Luke says… what did the law require from Mary in these circumstances other than what Lev 12 talks about with regard to new mothers?

I’m not trying to make any distinction between punishment and penalty after the sacrament of baptism. I would think those two things were the same, and that neither occurs to a person after they have been baptized for earlier sins (although they may sin again in the future, and this will incur penalties).

You may find concupiscence punishing, but that doesn’t mean that God is punishing you with it, and you already quoted Trent which specifically said that it was not a punishment for the baptized. It is, however, a punishment for those who are not baptized and God punishes them with it.

I think Paul was deceived before he was knocked off his horse and while he remained in original sin, as he was sinning very greatly against the Lord, but he did not recognize it… rather he was convinced he was doing what he should be doing even though he really wasn’t… hence, he was deceived.

It doesn’t mean that Paul writing in Romans as Christ’s apostle was still deceived though, when he wrote that he had been deceived (how can a man who is deceived, know that he is deceived?). He had gone through some important changes by that point.

I don’t think I’m putting words in your mouth, but if I am, may the Lord correct me if it is His will, Amen.

You have claimed that God is angry and will bring harm against people on account of that anger even when they did nothing to deserve it, and I very much disagree with this as that would imply that God is treating the righteous as the wicked.

Proverbs 17:26 To impose a fine on a righteous man is not good; to flog noble men is wrong.

Genesis 18:25 Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

You have requested that I ask questions, so I will do so:

Consider this Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Now how is it then possible for Joshua to have killed that man’s whole family on account of the father’s sin, if they had not also sinned themselves, since Moses specifically forbade such warped justice?

Did Joshua transgress what God commanded when he did that?

(anyone can say this herself if she chooses)

Lord, help us with understanding these things we are discussing and especially show us if Mary knew that she was sinless. We ask this, if it is your will, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

Thank you for blessing me, that’s very kind of you… I will try to emulate as requested:

May the Lord bless you and keep you, as well as your wife, children and unborn child.