Did Mary make an offering for sin?

[Jerry-Jet]

Protestants who believe that man is totaly depraved after the fall of course how problems with God working THROUGH anything.

For them grace is what God does TO man.

They can not conceive of God doing anything REDEMPTIVE through man.

For that reason in Colossians 1:24 when Paul says he “makes up in his afflictions for what is Lacking in Christ’s sacrifice for His body the church”–that has no meaning to them.

To them only God can redeem or give grace TO men.

God is incapable according to them of WORKING grace through men!

Jesus used more than just Paul in his redemptive work–He also used Mary!

And as far as that goes He uses each of us when we spread the gospel.

So God doesn’t just ZAP people with grace! Does He do that sometimes? Of course!

Is that the only way He acts? No!

An Immaculate Conception of Jesus apart from Mary’s humanity would be a good way to ZAP things to perfection.

It wouldn’t be a good way to work grace THROUGH humanity!

And that’s not to say that God has to have humanity to achieve his will.

It is to say that God CHOOSES to work through humanity in giving grace and redeming mankind!

In Mary’s Immaculate Conception sanctifying grace was restored.

In Jesus’ incarnation more than just grace had to be restored.

Jesus had to BECOME more than just a human being with a soul and with a physical body absent original sin.

The Divine had to become one with the TOTALITY of the human person.

And how would the total human person be different from Adam and Eve even if it didn’t have the problem of original sin?

Not only would that person not be inclined to sin–that person would have to rely on created things and not God alone.

Adam and Eve didn’t have to rely on anything but God before the fall.

After the fall they would have to work for a living.

If God were to create Jesus anew in the incarnation with a humanity like pre-fall Adam and Eve he would have had to create Jesus witrh a humanity that didn’t rely on anything but God.

That type of humanity would not be our humanity.

If God were to create Jesus with a humanity like ours after the Fall He would by definition not be creating that which is good but that which is flawed. If He did that Jesus would be an imperfect sacrifice.

If however Jesus came FROM Mary and not by God directly it would not be a case of God creating Jesus directly with a less than perfect humanity–it would be God choosing to take on everything about humanity after the fall OTHER than Inclination to sin and suffering it as a choice.

That is vey different from God creating such an imperfect humanity for Jesus absent inclination towards sin.

God does not create that imperfect humanity for Jesus!

God does not join with imperfection when it includes sin.

God does not even create imperfection that is absent of sin.

God can choose to take on imperfection that is absent from sin.

And that is the very thing that Jesus did in taking his humanity FRMO Mary and not God directly.

And that’s why Mary had to be free from original sin or inclination towards sin!

So to have your cake and eat it too–to have humanity without inclination towards sin–to take on humanity absent from sin but still not perfect–and to do that without sin

The only way was the Immaculate cCnception of Mary and the Virgin birth of Jesus!

There is no other way to achieve that any other way because Jesus taking on what is imperfect about humanity but still absent of sin–cannot be accomplished DIRECTLY from God because God cannot create that wqhich is Imperfect without sin!

God can choose to take on Imperfection that is whithout sin!

And that’s what Jesus did–the Immaculate Conception of Mary took care of the abscence of sin part–the unitng with Mary’s humanity FROM Mary took care of the uniting with imperfection yet keeping God from creating imperfection part!

 

[East_and_West]

Hi
Mary did sin, Romans 3:23 says that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus would not be included in ALL because he is God.

And Mary would have not been included in ALL because she is the Mother of God.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Prove that everytime “ALL” is used in the scriptures that in every single case it means “each and everyone” without any exceptions and that is when I’ll believe the ALL argument.

That’s not the casse in every instance of scripture that “ALL” is used–so please–let’s get rid of the "ALL’ argument once and for all!

 

[PC_Master]

I apologize for the delay as I was at the hospital all day unexpectedly – and am a bit flustered.

It’s no problem. I know how things can crop up like that.

Now, there is no logic binding God to redeem mankind in this way.
If he could save one person, he can save all persons.
So, If he could have saved the flesh of Jesus directly – it follows that God could have saved the sinful flesh of Cain, Seth, and all others from the first generation directly also – so that there would be no sin to begin with in any human generation.

In short, you seem to be saying that God could have done things in many other ways – he was not required to save us as he did, but rather this was his choice. This I readily agree to.

However, the first creation was insufficient to withstand the temptation of the devil – and in some way this weakness is to be found in the flesh of man.

Right.

(Genesis records Eve as being bone and flesh – but not spirit of Adam, so that the traditional interpretation is that the spirit is a separate entity created by God directly for each human being but the flesh/bone is inherited.)

Agreed – my question is, what exactly does this spirit do in relation to sinful nature or original sin? If the spirit is created by God, surely it’s not tainted, right?

Scripturally, the form of the body is known as the soul – ψυχη. Eg: Ezeki 18:20 – and presumably contains all ideas related to genetics and epigentics, for this is what “forms” the body as a living organism. (Crudely speaking).

A spirit, which is superior to a mere soul, and often used synonymously of the soul, is an immortal version of the soul created by God – which means man is composed of distinct parts (composite) body-soul and an immaterial spirit. The exact relation of these is a philosophical question and beyond what I can discuss in detail today.

Okay. I’m not sure I 100% agree with you – I’ll have to think more about this. But at least I understand your view on it, so we may go onward.

Since God did not choose to save Adam and Eve immediately, their offspring inherited their flesh and bones in a damaged condition. The body which is formed by the soul is damaged. The spirit, then, is joined to a body and soul which affect it – and damage it as well – eg: the damage is contagious.

So, a damaged soul passes on to its descendants a sinful nature, damaging the spirit that becomes attached to this soul as well? Again, not sure that I agree, but I understand.

Now, historically, God entered into dialog with fallen man rather than the immediate fix. In this dialog, God – in his mercy and justice – made promises to Adam and Eve about their eventual salvation. He then proceeded to enter into Oaths with certain members of the human family, which restricted the way in which he chose to save us.
That is the history of the Torah, the Law of Moses, and of sacrifice.

Yup. God’s choice puzzles me at times, but it was his will to do it this way.

From here on out, it is a discussion of how these elements interact which logically demonstrate the immaculate conception – and why God chose to save a mother over just Jesus himself. I’m sure at this time you have questions and objections, – and I would rather have you respond – than guess at them so our conversation is more productive.

I think the first question I’d like you to answer is why you believe that believing in Jesus’ sacrifice is necessary for salvation. Clearly, God could have chosen to redeem us all, in spite of our own will, but didn’t do that.

Moreover, the most important point here seems to be how (whether by body, soul, or spirit) original sin supposedly passes from one generation to the next. What part of Mary’s humanity did God supposedly interfere with in an…abnormal fashion to protect her? Why could this interference not have been done on Jesus himself?

And Mary would have not been included in ALL because she is the Mother of God.

I don’t recall the passage saying “all (except the mother of God) have sinned”.

Prove that everytime “ALL” is used in the scriptures that in every single case it means “each and everyone” without any exceptions and that is when I’ll believe the ALL argument.

That’s not the casse in every instance of scripture that “ALL” is used–so please–let’s get rid of the "ALL’ argument once and for all!

So, you’re saying you won’t believe that “all” means “everyone” until it can be proved that it never means anything else? That’s rather narrow. By that methodology, no words would have any meaning for you, because there’s always somewhere that the word means something else.

On the other hand, let’s just have a look at where “all” does not actually mean “all”. Since you’re claiming this is the case, why don’t you get us started?

 

[johnnydigit]

joehar, *where *do you get this stuff? Ya gotta stop getting your theology from Jack Chick.

Who is “all?” Has an infant sinned? Do the mentally defective, who have no use of moral judgment, sin?

Get a grip!

Protestant Pope Jack Chick lol

sorry it was funny. anywho, i just wondered if Mary neither committed mortal sin as well as venial sin? if she was all human, then she would have tendencies, say like an impure urge from her hormones, but be able to immediately overcome it? Jesus would too?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Agreed – my question is, what exactly does this spirit do in relation to sinful nature or original sin? If the spirit is created by God, surely it’s not tainted, right?

The spirit as created by God is not ‘tainted’ in the sense that God only produces Good. BUT Good is not a single variable quantity.

Only God is Good – but all of creation is good in lesser senses. eg: the ultimate in perfection is God – all lesser perfection is not God, and not infinite.
So, when we speak of a person being “perfect” that could only TRULY be if they were God.

Okay. I’m not sure I 100% agree with you – I’ll have to think more about this. But at least I understand your view on it, so we may go onward.

I am not totally limited to a rigid view if you have scriptural concerns.

So, a damaged soul passes on to its descendants a sinful nature, damaging the spirit that becomes attached to this soul as well? Again, not sure that I agree, but I understand.

A soul forms the body, and is the life principle of it.
So, when the body is damaged – so is the soul.
Plants have souls too – just mortal ones.

I think the first question I’d like you to answer is why you believe that believing in Jesus’ sacrifice is necessary for salvation. Clearly, God could have chosen to redeem us all, in spite of our own will, but didn’t do that.

I’m not sure I quite understand the question. I think believing in God is necessary for salvation, the sacrifice is only part of the expression of that salvation.
(Albeit it’s the high point wherein the seed of the human body dies, such that it can become glorified in analogy to plant seed becoming a plant.)

God created a free will in us, and to “spite” the will would be to fix the symptom and not the cause of transgression in us – we would still stray from him again, as the devil would tempt us again. Should God override the will by force – he ends up isolating the will and making a puppet of the body. God wants a free creation to cooperate with him.

Moreover, the most important point here seems to be how (whether by body, soul, or spirit) original sin supposedly passes from one generation to the next. What part of Mary’s humanity did God supposedly interfere with in an…abnormal fashion to protect her? Why could this interference not have been done on Jesus himself?

Our vocabulary is quite limited yet, so I need to describe my view of evil.

Evil is a privation, eg: a lack because nothing can truly create except God – therefore the only source of evil is a lack of something intended. God created all things good – although lesser. At a certain point, everything has to refer back to God who is alone good since anything less than God has what it lacks made up through continuous gifts from God – either directly or indirectly. Our first parents appear to have had this link in some unspecified way, but it was sufficient for man to know what was required of him in this world and to do it. That is called the state of original holiness and justice. Holiness being a state, and Justice being a relationship/action.

Since the spirit contemplates the world and learns through the body, and controls the body – having a defective body naturally produces a distorted stimulus to the will / soul. Concupisence.
Hence, what is lacking in the body is “interefered with” by a more direct communion with God – eg: God himself entered into communion with Mary through Grace. So, no Mary ought not have had urges toward men against reason – reason was supreme in Mary.

With respect to Jesus, he does have the same graces and more besides. He Just received it in a different manner and for a different reason.

I don’t recall the passage saying “all (except the mother of God) have sinned”.
…
On the other hand, let’s just have a look at where “all” does not actually mean “all”. Since you’re claiming this is the case, why don’t you get us started?

Equivocation is a problem and limit of language.

Matth 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan

EG:
All Judaea came out to be baptized by John – does not mean every single person came – which can be proved in this case as is clearly shown a few verses down where only SOME of the pharisees were present.

“all” means at least a representative group.

 

[PC_Master]

While I’m not saying you intentionally avoided my question, you didn’t seem to answer it (at least not as straightforward as I’d like it to have been). Let me try asking this in a more simple fashion.

Based on what you’ve posted, I see that you would view the following as true:

Adam and Eve had children after “the fall”. Because of their sin, they passed on a damaged soul and genetic makeup to their children. In turn, these children’s bodies and spirits were damaged because of connection with that soul.

This same thing proceeds on through the generations, until we come to Mary’s parents. Each of them received, from their parents, the same damaged soul, and thus, a damaged spirit resulted.

Then Mary was conceived (apparently by natural means). Under normal circumstances, the damaged soul would be passed on, but with Mary, this was not so.

Now, as I understand your point of view, the soul and body (that is, whatever is passed on by the parents) comes through birth, and the spirit is crafted and “placed into us” (so to speak) by God. When it comes in contact with the fallen flesh/soul, it becomes corrupted (whatever the reason).

But here’s the confusion – Mary’s flesh/soul came about naturally. Thus, it would stand to reason that when God crafted Mary’s spirit and placed it into her flesh/soul, it would have also become corrupted. Yet you say it did not. Howso?

Did God interfere with the “physical” Mary (her natural conception by her parents, which would usually have resulted in a person with a sinful nature) to prevent it from corrupting her spirit?

I’d like a yes or no answer to that last question if you can – explain in detail if you like, but give me a clear yes/no first. Thanks.

 

[PC_Master]

Oh, also, in regards to whether all have sinned or not – Romans 3:23 is preceded earlier in the chapter by verse 10…

Romans 3:10 KJVA
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Just for clarification, this verse expressly states that there is not even one (person) who is righteous. I think we can accept Romans 3:23 as being written in the same frame of mind.

 

[jcrichton]

AMEN!! That is absolutely what Romans 3:23 says!!
btw…I like your online name!

***Hi, Bible Believer!

…you’ve just trumped God!

What does He know, right?.. after all He must abide by the Holy Scriptures, right?

What is your understanding of full of grace?

If you’ve read the complete Bible, how many times has a messenger of the Lord Yahweh has announced that a person is full of grace?

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[Huiou_Theou]

While I’m not saying you intentionally avoided my question, you didn’t seem to answer it (at least not as straightforward as I’d like it to have been). Let me try asking this in a more simple fashion.

Indeed, since I didn’t understand the question which has many facets – I couldn’t answer clearly to the last round – this time I can.

Based on what you’ve posted, I see that you would view the following as true:

Adam and Eve had children after “the fall”. Because of their sin, they passed on a damaged soul and genetic makeup to their children. In turn, these children’s bodies and spirits were damaged because of connection with that soul.

Yes. Although ‘soul’ refers to (at least) all the physical processes of life, and specifically to that which forms them. Corruption of the body means that the soul is decaying also. Scripturally DNA wasn’t discovered so the term is more general than DNA alone. I am purposely being general so as not to get stuck on scientific details which are perhaps going to modify in the future through further research.

This same thing proceeds on through the generations, until we come to Mary’s parents. Each of them received, from their parents, the same damaged soul, and thus, a damaged spirit resulted.

Almost correct. When a parent generates a child (procreates) the soul is not the “same” just as the physical appearance of a child is not the “same” as the parents. Soul = form ( hylemorphic principle ).
But it is true statistically that the defect of the parents are passed down to the child.

Then Mary was conceived (apparently by natural means). Under normal circumstances, the damaged soul would be passed on, but with Mary, this was not so.

Yes, under normal circumstances the spirit would be immediately fed with stimulus from the body/soul which would corrupt it – eg: at some time in the first moments of its existence probably. But as the spirit has to react and internalize the stimulus – it is not necessary that the corruption would be instantaneous.
I do not know exactly how the corruption proceeds, but statistically it is inevitable eventually.

Now, as I understand your point of view, the soul and body (that is, whatever is passed on by the parents) comes through birth, and the spirit is crafted and “placed into us” (so to speak) by God. When it comes in contact with the fallen flesh/soul, it becomes corrupted (whatever the reason).

Yes. That is my understanding.

But here’s the confusion – Mary’s flesh/soul came about naturally. Thus, it would stand to reason that when God crafted Mary’s spirit and placed it into her flesh/soul, it would have also become corrupted. Yet you say it did not. Howso?

Because the body which was formed in the ‘random’ mutation as it were, although statistically impossible, reversed the damage done by Adam and Eve in the physical realm – secondly, Mary would have still eventually fallen – except that God restored the union which Adam and Eve had, although probably in a more perfect way – such that Mary could judge the stimulus of the Body and reject that which would corrupt her spirit. In other words, God gave to her as she needed it – every Grace to receive stimulus which could not hurt the Spirit. He supplied what her body lacked, would be my best simple description.

Did God interfere with the “physical” Mary (her natural conception by her parents, which would usually have resulted in a person with a sinful nature) to prevent it from corrupting her spirit?

I am not sure, the likely answer is yes – but it could be on a statistical plane that her body became fit
randomly" whatever that really means. Every human is different and formed in the womb by God when the father and mother’s flesh blend into one. The precise details are not scripturally defined – just the notions of flesh, bone, sinews, soul, and spirit.

I’d like a yes or no answer to that last question if you can – explain in detail if you like, but give me a clear yes/no first. Thanks.

Yes. as already explained.

I will be leaving Tuesday for Minnesota, so I hope to be able to answer most of your questions before then.
If not, there may be a couple of days of delay before I can respond.

God bless you.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Oh, also, in regards to whether all have sinned or not – Romans 3:23 is preceded earlier in the chapter by verse 10…

Romans 3:10 KJVA
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Just for clarification, this verse expressly states that there is not even one (person) who is righteous. I think we can accept Romans 3:23 as being written in the same frame of mind.

Yes, it does – and for the group of individuals specified – there certainly isn’t a just person. Even Catholics agree to that!

How does this affect your thinking though?

 

[jcrichton]

I agree that the doctrine was developed because of the theology of the incarnation. However, one could also postulate that the flesh Jesus took from Mary was cleansed as He took it on.

***Hi, guanophore!

…how do you consider Gabriel’s words to Mary: “Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with you…”

Noticed that the angel did not tell Mary: Mary, soon to be filled by/with Grace, the Lord will be with you…?"

Remember how Moses met the I Am? Was he not warned to remove the sandals from his feet because the ground he would be treading was holy?

Was there any particular reason why God would cleanse and separate a parcel of land and place it above all others?

Can you not see Mary being this very parcel of land, where the Full Divinity of God will reside for nine plus months, being separated by God for the very specific function of being the vessel through which the Word Incarnate would enter the world?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

But notice: the salvage taboo does not apply to the parent of the sacrifice:
For a very concrete example consider the sheep that Jacob took from Lablan – only the speckled, spotted, DEFECTIVE sheep – and these sheep are the ancestors of those whom would be used in sacrifice many years later without spot, speckle, or defect. In other words, it is clearly acceptable for one of the parental (or grand-parental) sheep to have been saved or ransomed in some way.

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

I think that your analogy has two flaws:

1. Jesus, though He carried the title of Lamb of God, was always God–it is true that He did not always hold to His Divine Authority in order to fulfill the Scriptures and take our sins onto Him; but this fact does not negate that He is and has always been God. Thus, the vessel onto which He would be Incarnated cannot simply have been a run-of-the-mill, come-as-you-will vessel.
2. The issue of the speckled/defective sheeps was due to Labans treachery as he broke yet another contract with Jacob in order to further exploit Jacob’s abilities for his selfish gains. It was Yahweh Himself that gave Jacob his abilities and Jacob was able to right the circumventions that Laban had perpetrated.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Huiou_Theou]

jcrichton

My “analogy” has nothing to do with God/Not God – nor Jacob’s trickery. It is based on the requirements of the law – and the source of the sheep.

I do think the point is defensible regardless – take the analogy further.

The sheep were in a defective state – that is why Jacob Gets them --Not to place blame, but isn’t it obvious that the Devil used subtlety too, in order to gain dominion over Adam and Eve?

Corrupted sheep are not to be sacrificed.
Corrupted humanity is not acceptable to God.

Jacob didn’t do anything against the contract he signed. ( I admit his method is repulsive )
So, he is subtle too – just like the serpent.
But in his favor, Laban was cheating him of his rightful payment of his daughter Rachel – and instead gave him Leah whom he did not want. So, Laban doubled Jacob’s need to support a family at his own expense.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but none the less the sheep were corrupted in the transaction. As were Adam and Eve. Once sheep become deformed, how is it possible for them to become un-deformed? If the change were not permanent, why is it impermanent?

If only God is sinless, then no one is saved except God – which is kind of pointless.

Elucidate your concerns a little more.

 

[jcrichton]

Can I ask – anyone else reading all this – is it just me, or is Jerry being difficult to understand? I realize most of you agree with his conclusions because you’re all Roman Catholics, but do you comprehend his reasoning? If so, can you please try to explain it to me?

***Hi, PC Master!

…I try to be as clear and as simple as possible…

I think that too many times tangents overtake the original argument as we attempt to cover too many congruent points.

I’ve noticed too that, at times, the original thought gets lost as contributors respond to offshoots instead of post #1.

I personally suffer from seeing something very clear in my mind while not realizing that others may not be in tuned with my thoughts.

Perhaps, when we come to such crossroads the first person that is cognizant of this divergence should make it known and offer the original point in as clear and as concise as he/she can (too many tangents could only serve to spoil the experience) in order to regain the original argument.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Moreover, the most important point here seems to be how (whether by body, soul, or spirit) original sin supposedly passes from one generation to the next. What part of Mary’s humanity did God supposedly interfere with in an…abnormal fashion to protect her? Why could this interference not have been done on Jesus himself?

***Hi, PC Master!

…I take it that you did not mean “abnormal” as a genetic flaw… but rather as extraordinary…

Jesus is God so cleansing Him of the original sin is obviously superfluous… do you recall the story of the lost Ark of the Covenant? The people that had it were cursed and they asked that the Israelites retake possession of it… the Ark was placed on a cart pulled by some cows/bulls and at one point it seemed that it was going to drop from the cart and a well-meaning person/s rushed to prevent it from falling… what happened next seems unfair and very very questionable: the person/s died. Only a priest from the house of Levi who had been cleansed for the purpose of transporting the Ark could come in contact with the Ark without being subjected to the penalty of death.

The Ark was not God; still, those who were not exonerated by Yahweh would die if they touched the Sacred object–even when they were attempting to keep it from harm.

On the other hand, let’s just have a look at where “all” does not actually mean “all”.

---

The term is applied by God onto humanity. But we must understand that this does not mean that God is limited by the margins He sets for us.

Much was written in the Old Testament and the perspective of the Old Testament was that these were Yahweh’s prophets whom He had sent among His people; some were commanded to perform certain deeds, others to preach/warn, still others to keep records of Sacred Writings as well as preaching and so on… In the New Testament we learn that it was the Holy Spirit who made of these men frieds of God.

Though “all” are sinners, these men were separated, sometimes from birth or even the womb for the service of God–in essence, Yahweh removed them from sin and made them holy. The Holy Scriptures tell us that at Jesus’ death holy men of God were resurrected and came into the city after Christ’s resurrection and were seen by many–clearly God is not limited by Scripture!

Mary, as the vessel of the Word Incarnate, was granted this Grace. This is attested to by Gabriel as he addresses Mary as full of Grace and being protected by God (the Lord is with you). She as no other woman before or after was separated for the enviable task of becoming the vessel of God’s Divine Second Person.

Does the Bible state that Mary was holy? No. But the Bible states that she is the vessel of God because she was not only in God’s Grace but she was full of Grace and the Holy Spirit inspired others to recognize this–attested to by Elizabeth’s greeting (How can it be that the Mother of my Lord visits me? The moment I heard your voice the six-month old child in my womb jumpped with joy!–paraphrased). Elizabeth, filled by the Holy Spirit, recognizes that Mary has been separated from all women as the vessel of the Lord!

Could Yahweh God, make holy men who will proclaim the Word, or symbolic vessels as the Ark, and parcels of land, but would not prepare a special vessel where the Living Word were to lay?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Oh, also, in regards to whether all have sinned or not – Romans 3:23 is preceded earlier in the chapter by verse 10…

Romans 3:10 KJVA
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Just for clarification, this verse expressly states that there is not even one (person) who is righteous. I think we can accept Romans 3:23 as being written in the same frame of mind.

***Hi, PC Master!

…except that there are moments in Scripture where holy men separated to serve God would be called righteous or where, due to their relationship with Yahweh, they would be called righteous.

Again, the Holy Scriptures are not meant to limit God.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton

My “analogy” has nothing to do with God/Not God – nor Jacob’s trickery. It is based on the requirements of the law – and the source of the sheep.

I do think the point is defensible regardless – take the analogy further.

The sheep were in a defective state – that is why Jacob Gets them --Not to place blame, but isn’t it obvious that the Devil used subtlety too, in order to gain dominion over Adam and Eve?

Corrupted sheep are not to be sacrificed.
Corrupted humanity is not acceptable to God.

Jacob didn’t do anything against the contract he signed. ( I admit his method is repulsive )
So, he is subtle too – just like the serpent.
But in his favor, Laban was cheating him of his rightful payment of his daughter Rachel – and instead gave him Leah whom he did not want. So, Laban doubled Jacob’s need to support a family at his own expense.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but none the less the sheep were corrupted in the transaction. As were Adam and Eve. Once sheep become deformed, how is it possible for them to become un-deformed? If the change were not permanent, why is it impermanent?

If only God is sinless, then no one is saved except God – which is kind of pointless.

Elucidate your concerns a little more.

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

…perhaps I misunderstood your comparison… the point I inteded to make is that Jacob used the knowledge provided by Yahweh to mend the wrong to which he was being subjected by Laban. And that at this particular junction, it was God’s assistence that aided Jacob in fulfilling his contract with Laban (though Laban was clearly exploitative).

Jesus, being God, was without sin and since He had to take on our nature, why would He subject Himself to residing in an imperfect womb when, from antiquity, Yahweh has always separated (made holy) the vessels that He would occupy and people with which He would establish special relationships?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[epostle]

The offering Our Blessed Mom made was required by Mosaic law. She was obedient to it and for her not to offer the sin offering would be a sin. Her offering doesn’t prove she was a sinner, it proves her obedience and humility, and demonstrates her sinlessness, the fact that she obeyed the law.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
After the ceremonial rites had been complied with, holy Simeon took the Child in his arms, and thanked God for the fulfilment of his promises; he drew attention to the universality of the salvation that was to come through Messianic redemption “prepared before the face of all peoples: a light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel” (Luke 2:31 sq.). Mary and Joseph now began to know their Divine Child more fully; they “were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him” (Luke 2:33). As if to prepare Our Blessed Mother for the mystery of the cross, holy Simeon said to her: “Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35). Mary had suffered her first great sorrow at the time when Joseph was hesitating about taking her for his wife; she experienced her second great sorrow when she heard the words of holy Simeon.
Though the incident of the prophetess Anna had a more general bearing, for she “spoke of him (the Child) to all that looked for the redemption of Israel” (Luke 2:38), it must have added greatly to the wonder of Joseph and Mary. The Evangelist’s concluding remark, “after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth” (Luke 2:39),"

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

PC Master:

So, you’re saying you won’t believe that “all” means “everyone” until it can be proved that it never means anything else? That’s rather narrow. By that methodology, no words would have any meaning for you, because there’s always somewhere that the word means something else.

On the other hand, let’s just have a look at where “all” does not actually mean “all”. Since you’re claiming this is the case, why don’t you get us started?

1. In ancient languages but also in the modern language “all” is often a way to reffer to great multitudes while emphasizing the greatness of the majority. “All people are stupid” “Nobody likes goes to church anymore” etc. Don’t you agree?
2. The twist is that the NT in that passage is actually quoting OT. Specifically Psalm 14. There there are actually two groups - “all”, who do not do good and the generation of the rightious.
3. Do you think that an infant has sinned? That an infant has a personal sin?
4. Jesus was obviously an exception to this “rule”. Some protestant will say that that’s because he was God. Sure, but has was also a man. Fully man. So in the end, however look at it, “all” is really not all.
5. Job 1:1: There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.
   Luke 1:5-6: In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
   etc.