Immaculate conceptions in the Bible, ...Mary?

[ConstantineTG]

With you it cause’s confusion.

Ancestral Sin its no different. Back to square one. This misunderstanding exists in your mind, not in reality. What “really” is ancestral sin and you will have your answer.

No, there is a clear distinction between Ancestral Sin and Original Sin. A great many theologians have pondered on this issue and they are smarter than myself on the matter. There are certain issues on it and whether you admit it or not, there is evidence on a difrference of understanding about Original Sin from before Trent to how it is understood today. While I do agree that the Church reiterates today that there is no personal guilt on Original Sin, there is still a stain involved that was passed on. This is why the Catholic Church came up with Immaculate Concepcion, it was unacceptable that Mary has a stain on her soul and I agree. But in the theory of Ancestral Sin, there is no stain involved. Thus there is no need to immaculately concieve anyone to to be free from any stain. Everyone is concieved without stain, there is no stain passed on. There is nothing to cleanse from Mary, nor you and I.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Immaculate Conception can be looked at as “almost” Mary being baptised in the womb in the first instant. When we are baptised we become immaculate as well except we are not immaculate in the first instant of life. The only difference is that Mary’s redemption by her son was applied to her in the first moment of her life.

Just some thoughts.

That is the best analogy that I have come up so far as well. Funny I got into a long arugment with someone in another thread about it, accusing me of misleading information by saying that Mary wasn’t baptized in the womb. I never said she was, I said effectively she was, the effects of baptism is what she received, not actual baptism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But, since Christ did experience pain of Calvary, experienced all things like us, yet w/o sin …how do we explain the words of Christ at Calvary.
It does seem that the Person of the Father briefly turn away when ALL our sins came to bear upon Christ .

The Son is not the Father …but, became man (God-man) …a separate Person from the Father …by choice !! One Person can turn away from another …by choice, if circumstances demand.

Christ was praying Psalm 22 when he said “My God, my God…” If you read the entire Psalm it is not about God abandoning anyone, but that even in moments of desperation God is there and He delivers us.

And no, the Trinity is in perfect unity. They cannot turn away from one another. Believing that Christ was abandonned even for an instant introduces so many heresies about God. First, it is against our belief that God is everywhere and fills all things. Second, the undivided Trinity (we actually pray this in Divine Liturgy when we say “The Trinity one in essence and undivided”. It is Dogma.). And third, the hypostatic union of Chirst as both God and Man.

Even if it was a symbolic turning away, it would still be against the unity of the Trinity.

 

[fred_conty]

That is the best analogy that I have come up so far as well. Funny I got into a long arugment with someone in another thread about it, accusing me of misleading information by saying that Mary wasn’t baptized in the womb. I never said she was, I said effectively she was, the effects of baptism is what she received, not actual baptism.

Yes, I could see how that could get twisted now that you mention it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Man fell and mans nature changed, where does your Church teach otherwise?

What? What did He redeem. what you claim doesn’t exist???

Christ came to redeem man. He came to redeem everything about man. Salvation isn’t just about forgiveness of sins because sins are a stain on our soul. If our sins are forgiven then our souls are pure, but what about our bodies? Jesus became man to save everything about us, body and soul. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we all accept the fact that the humanity that Christ put on is the same exact humanity that we possess. Whatever faults and imperfections our humanity has was instantly perfected coming into communion with Christ’s divine nature. There is not a more perfect communion between God and man than in Christ who is God become man. To believe that Christ needed a perfect humanity to put on is gnostic. Gnostics believe that the spirit is pure and the higher existence, higher reality, and the physical aspect is imperfect, dirty, and beyond redemption. That is not true. Christ came to redeem all of mankind, not just all meaning every single human being from the beginning of time, but also all of what a human being is, body and soul.

No one said otherwise but through your own indications above.

I don’t know why you are insisting that I am making contrary claims. You are the one making that claim, I am clarifying it. Everything I have posted so far I did to the best of my abilities to be clear and straight forward. I never said at any time that Christ possessed fallen human nature, but rather he took fallen human nature. In fact you were the one claiming the opposite, saying that Christ cannot take fallen human nature because it means he would have been fallen. So you, by asserting this, do not believe that Christ can purify and perfect fallen human nature by coming into contact with it. And I have been consistent in saying that the fallen human nature is redeemed by Christ in himself and for us.

No one suggested otherwise:shrug:

I was making a point.

Not according to your understanding for he would have acquired Marys fallen state at HIs conception, with Ancestral Sin, you keep dancing around this with a whole bunch of nothing no-one is talking about.

No one inherits Ancestral Sin. So you are absolutely wrong on this aspect.

I’m not dancing around anything except relaying in my own words what the Fathers has taught.

No heres the “key” again you keep dancing around…“SIN, He had NONE”!!! Neither did Mary.

No one is conceived with sin. What is your point?

Very good, but he inherited NO SIN from Mary being our constant point here. The fact one would argue Mary became stain free in Christ womb is lacking. We already been through the Annunciation…“Perfectly Graced” before Christ conception.

Again, no one inherits sin. Unless you are backtracking and admitting that Original Sin is in fact personal guilt for every newborn. If not, then yes, Christ and Mary and everyone else inherits no sin. Isn’t that what the Catholic Church teaches? We do not inherit any guilt from Adam. So what are you contending here?

Perfectly graced does not mean they posses a different human nature.

St. Athanasius the Great taught in his great writing, On the Incarnation of the Word:
Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection.

If? God imposed the law! God becomes man to correct mans fall [which he imposed] and once again offer man communion with Him in Love for us. And in doing so an invaluable lesson is told in the life of Christ the living God.

Sounds very Protestant. Christ’s life isn’t merely a lesson for us. God did not become man just so he can teach us a lesson. God has handed lessons through the Prophets, there is nothing more that Christ himself can teach us that He can’t write on stone tablets. And pointed out above, the promise of the resurrection can only be fulfilled if God shared in our human nature. He didn’t become man just so he can “hang out” with us. God became man so that men may become gods. God needed to lower himself to our state so that He may lift us up to His state.

Contrary to the point. God could have fell off an apple tree. He didn’t He was born of a fully human woman in a fully human birth. And at the moment of biological conception He would have acquired Marys fallen condition which somehow you believe He did without contracting Ancestral Sin.

Again, the teaching of Ancestral Sin is that no one contracts Ancestral Sin. Stop misrepresenting teaching you do not understand.

Jesus Christ did not contract anything. How many times do I need to repeat this? Christ took our fallen humanity and INSTANTLY perfected it by contact with His divinity. At no point in the existence of Christ’s humanity was his humanity ever less than perfect. But this is not because he took perfected humanity, but rather the humanity he took on is perfected because He is God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

He did at Marys birth, why is this more complicated? Its called “most fitting” by the CC and Duns Scotus

But that doesn’t answer the question. Why go through all the pain if all God needs is to just immaculately conceive everyone and it’s heaven for everyone. Why does He have to suffer and die when he can just immaculately conceive to save someone from the Fall? It does not add up, it does not make sense.

God and His Son are one they do not think “different”.

I never said he did

God humbled himself, corrected mans error, opens heaven thus salvation, and shows man the his own path in human nature…and your answer is LOVE.

So you believe there is a physical pearly gate that was locked and needed Christ to become man and die to open it from the other side?

I’m glad you acknowledge we needed to be free of “Adams Sin.” That’s the same sin Christ would have biologically acquired had he been conceived by Mary who you claim remained in this state. [this is the point we are on]

At this point it is obvious that you are not even reading my posts. I have said so many times that Christ has perfected human nature. He was never in the fallen state, but he took on the fallen state to perfect it. This happened instantly. Remember, the candle in the dark room? Did you even read that? Let me repeat and hopefully you read this now. Human nature is like a dark room, and Christ’s divinity is a burning candle. As soon as the candle enters the room, the room is lit. At no point is the candle inside the room and the room was still dark. The very instant the candle enters the room, the room is lit, it is brightened. To say that Christ needed a perfect humanity to take on is to say the room was already bright and the candle came in, that even without the candle the room was bright. Then what is the purpose of the candle? And how does this help us who are still a bunch of dark rooms? Both does not make sense. So Christ needed a dark room, but that very room was NEVER, not at any point, dark. As soon as the candle entered, it was bright.

Mary found favor and was perfectly Graced “before” the Holy Spirit overshadowed Her. All the “could-have been” God imaginative situations, still brings us back to the Biblical reality.

There is no could have beens. The Fathers have taught that Christ took on the very same human nature we have. They taught it consistently. To claim otherwise is to go against the faith of the early Christians, and thus believe in a Jesus other than the ones Sts. Peter and Paul have taught and handed down through written and oral tradition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

CTG your issue remains in your misunderstanding of Original Sin and Ancestral Sin. Which has been discussed 100’s times on CAF. Quoted from the CCC and still you would like to suggest Original Sin is something it is not. The conversation becomes circular as a result and distracting for those who seek the Truth,

Its “easy” for me to claim the EAST changed the entire concept if Grace also in 1300 with Gregory of Palamas. The point is as stated by the Patriarch above. All this is simply talking past each other in polemics. as the Patriarch states. There is “NO” difference in Ancestral Sin or Orignal SIn or you’ll have to “prove” how by “todays” CCC which is whats being taught.

Consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, there is a clear distinction between Ancestral Sin and Original Sin…

That’s because there is no distinction.

What’s clear is they both called SIN. What’s also clear is you certainly still refuse after 1000’s of conversation’s to accept the simple typed words of the CCC, yet provide no doctrine for Ancestral “sin”. So we can compare this glaring difference you suggest exists which I “fail” to see as has just about “all” who have had this same conversation with you.

I contend this is your misunderstanding.

A great many theologians have pondered on this issue and they are smarter than myself on the matter…

Many have said many things, and many were also “wrong” a point you refuse to accept. We go with the preponderance of evidence not a pick and choose an early church father who happens to fit the debate. Since this is the Scripture area than all we need do is read the Apostle Paul should we believe him?

There are certain issues on it and whether you admit it or not, there is evidence on a difrference of understanding about Original Sin from before Trent to how it is understood today…

Old news we addressed 1000 times between Augustine and Aquinas. And the East went into heresy so what is the point of this? If you intention is to say the West was wrong at “some” point in history, point the finger also at the East.

While I do agree that the Church reiterates today that there is no personal guilt on Original Sin, there is still a stain involved that was passed on. This is why the Catholic Church came up with Immaculate Concepcion, it was unacceptable that Mary has a stain on her soul and I agree. But in the theory of Ancestral Sin, there is no stain involved. Thus there is no need to immaculately concieve anyone to to be free from any stain. Everyone is concieved without stain, there is no stain passed on. There is nothing to cleanse from Mary, nor you and I.

Where does the CCC state this? Again you have reverted to comments “by” the Early Church Father which are posted throughout this thread. Their understanding of Spot or Stain is applied to Mary why? Because as “you” suggest they had an incorrect understanding of sin? Then you are left to explain each and every one in exactly how they applied the term.

Why was Immaculate=No-Spot or Stain used? This comment dates to 60-AD and is continued, which somehow you seem to ignore and constantly revert to a worn out, tired, incorrect polemical agreement. A circular stawman

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why go through all the pain if all God needs is to just immaculately conceive everyone and it’s heaven for everyone. Why does He have to suffer and die when he can just immaculately conceive to save someone from the Fall? It does not add up, it does not make sense…

Because it didn’t work with Adam and Eve. Why He suffered and died comes back to Adam and Eve.

Mary and the IC is the topic, your issue with pre/post Adam and Eve needs to be clearly understood. Then you can proceed forward to…

I suggest you start a topic on this and work out this dilemma

I have said so many times that Christ has perfected human nature. …

This only comes back around in this circular debate to Adam/Eve pre/post and Christs redemption. Unless you know something we all missed?

He was never in the fallen state, but he took on the fallen state to perfect it. This happened instantly. Remember, the candle in the dark room? Did you even read that? Let me repeat and hopefully you read this now. Human nature is like a dark room, and Christ’s divinity is a burning candle. As soon as the candle enters the room, the room is lit. At no point is the candle inside the room and the room was still dark. The very instant the candle enters the room, the room is lit, it is brightened. To say that Christ needed a perfect humanity to take on is to say the room was already bright and the candle came in, that even without the candle the room was bright. Then what is the purpose of the candle? And how does this help us who are still a bunch of dark rooms? Both does not make sense. So Christ needed a dark room, but that very room was NEVER, not at any point, dark. As soon as the candle entered, it was bright…

Terminology and more circular reasoning you say perfect I say correct. You’ll notice we “are not” in the Garden.

.

The Fathers have taught that Christ took on the very same human nature we have. They taught it consistently. To claim otherwise is to go against the faith of the early Christians, and thus believe in a Jesus other than the ones Sts. Peter and Paul have taught and handed down through written and oral tradition.

Jesus Christ was in every respect a real man. He became so voluntarily, to redeem man.

The CCC is above, it is you who is making a contrary claim to the Church. Paul is used always.

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

Jesus Christ did not have a depravation of holiness and justice, in this He was not lacking Grace. It is Christs Grace which restores this. Mary was perfectly Graced as you state instantly at Her Conception, like a light in a dark room. All Children are born “innocent” nor can they sin till the age of reason. Mary being preserved anywhere but at Her conception is backward after the thought thinking I highly doubt occurred with God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Christ came to redeem man. He came to redeem everything about man. Salvation isn’t just about forgiveness of sins because sins are a stain on our soul. If our sins are forgiven then our souls are pure, but what about our bodies? Jesus became man to save everything about us, body and soul. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we all accept the fact that the humanity that Christ put on is the same exact humanity that we possess. Whatever faults and imperfections our humanity has was instantly perfected coming into communion with Christ’s divine nature. There is not a more perfect communion between God and man than in Christ who is God become man. To believe that Christ needed a perfect humanity to put on is gnostic. Gnostics believe that the spirit is pure and the higher existence, higher reality, and the physical aspect is imperfect, dirty, and beyond redemption. That is not true. Christ came to redeem all of mankind, not just all meaning every single human being from the beginning of time, but also all of what a human being is, body and soul…

“SIGH” what is your point?

I don’t know why you are insisting that I am making contrary claim.

Do you even know what you are saying here? You said; “I have said so many times that Christ has perfected human nature.”

And we all agree he was FULLY HUMAN and FULLY DIVINE. Than its for YOU to explain HOW. I use the CCC and the Early Church Fathers and Bible throughout this thread. What have you linked but your own misunderstanding and opinion?

No one inherits Ancestral Sin. So you are absolutely wrong on this aspect…

The CCC is above if you take issue with wording.

I’m not dancing around anything except relaying in my own words what the Fathers has taught…

Your words lack, where, where did you relay anything of the Early Church Fathers?

No one is conceived with sin. What is your point?..

Than why is Baptism a Sacrament?

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),[4] and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”

Again, no one inherits sin. Unless you are backtracking and admitting that Original Sin is in fact personal guilt for every newborn. If not, then yes, Christ and Mary and everyone else inherits no sin. Isn’t that what the Catholic Church teaches? We do not inherit any guilt from Adam. So what are you contending here?..

I’m sighting the CCC which you already state you agree with, but disagree with pre-Trent right above.

Perfectly graced does not mean they posses a different human nature

We are concerned with what it does mean. How about you elaborate on that.

St. Athanasius the Great taught in his great writing, On the Incarnation of the Word:
Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection.

Doesn’t work, provide the link, I have “no” faith in what you think is said at this point. Your confused on this topic.

Sounds very Protestant. Christ’s life isn’t merely a lesson for us. God did not become man just so he can teach us a lesson. God has handed lessons through the Prophets, there is nothing more that Christ himself can teach us that He can’t write on stone tablets. And pointed out above, the promise of the resurrection can only be fulfilled if God shared in our human nature. He didn’t become man just so he can “hang out” with us. God became man so that men may become gods. God needed to lower himself to our state so that He may lift us up to His state.

But you continue to miss the all important point which I addressed “several” times including today.

I have no issue with Protestants, what your stating sounds anti-Christian here. You do understand this right? I was raised Catholic I couldn’t tell you what Protestants teach, you were raised Orthodox? Since we seem to be getting personal here?

Again, the teaching of Ancestral Sin is that no one contracts Ancestral Sin. Stop misrepresenting teaching you do not understand…

I suggest it is you who doesn’t understand. And when you link this mysterious teaching we can discuss it.

Jesus Christ did not contract anything. How many times do I need to repeat this? Christ took our fallen humanity and INSTANTLY perfected it by contact with His divinity. At no point in the existence of Christ’s humanity was his humanity ever less than perfect. But this is not because he took perfected humanity, but rather the humanity he took on is perfected because He is God.

Amen and that’s why and how Mary was preserved.

Your words…“The Fathers have taught that Christ took on the very same human nature we have. They taught it consistently.”

Then perfected it as YOU STATE by contact with his divinity…very good.

And this is exactly what occurred with Mary at Her conception.

Had Mary not been preserved, Jesus would have contracted what he came to correct. You use “contact” in you own post and find fault with words used to express a point?

 

[GaryTaylor]

We need to reach a basic understanding to proceed with this confusing conversation.

Death is a consequence of the discontinuation of communion with the life and love of God, and thereby a captivity of mankind and creation by the devil and this is nailed to the Cross as St Paul states.

God does not have a discontinuation of Grace from himself, nor did He when He was alive. Jesus the Living God takes on a completely human nature, fully human as the hypostatic union states. The discontinuation of Communion thus Grace does not apply to the Human condition of Jesus Christ or he would not be God, This is the why Mary is perfectly Graced by Greek language.

We can only be debating “when” in my estimation. The Catholic Church states from my estimation that it is Most Fitting in the IC. I’m sorry I agree.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We need to reach a basic understanding to proceed with this confusing conversation.

Death is a consequence of the discontinuation of communion with the life and love of God, and thereby a captivity of mankind and creation by the devil and this is nailed to the Cross as St Paul states.

God does not have a discontinuation of Grace from himself, nor did He when He was alive. Jesus the Living God takes on a completely human nature, fully human as the hypostatic union states. The discontinuation of Communion thus Grace does not apply to the Human condition of Jesus Christ or he would not be God, This is the why Mary is perfectly Graced by Greek language.

We can only be debating “when” in my estimation. The Catholic Church states from my estimation that it is Most Fitting in the IC. I’m sorry I agree.

Grace is God himself. The Jewish usage of “grace” connotes that it is God giving himself to us. When we receive grace, we receive God. Thus there is no possibility of discontinuation of grace within the humanity of Christ. That is how he has restored the communion of God and man, by being the communion of God and man within himself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This conversation is like talking to a brick wall. You keep bringing up the same argument and issues over and over again after I have thoroughly explained everything. Obviously you are missing something because brb3 understands what I am saying. Perhaps you are just stubborn with your own point-of-view that is why you can’t grasp what I am saying. With this I am bowing out of this conversation. If you want to claim “victory” in this debate, go right ahead. Those who seek victories are those who are not interested with the truth. People can read my posts and judge for themselves. St. Athanasius’ work is 1700 years old and is freely available on the web, just Google “On the Incarnation of the Word” if you want to read it. May it enlighten you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Christ took the form of a body by a “stainless virgin” who was not corrupted by man with intercourse. to paraphrase St Athanasius. As I’ve explained; No-Spot, No Stain is “defined” as Immaculate.

To Mary, Mother of Grace

It becomes you to be mindful of us,
as you stand near him who granted you all graces,
[did he say ALL GRACE] [Stand where?]

for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. [Do you call her Queen of Heaven?]

Help us for the sake of the King, [How, by intercession, which bought Communion]
the Lord God and Master who was born of you.
For this reason, you are called full of grace.
Remember us, most holy Virgin,
and bestow on us gifts from the riches of your graces,[and how?]
Virgin full of graces. [Amen]

-Saint Athanasius

Did he mention Grace often enough? Does Mary intercede, did She intercede from the start before the incarnation? How did She find favor with God? Is she Queen of Heaven?

Does someone know “another” truth about this Saint? I’m pretty confident if you break this prayer down, the “truth” about what the Saint thought about Mary is self evident.

voices.yahoo.com/condensed-summary-athanasius-incarnation-2977747.html

campus.udayton.edu/mary/prayers/SaintsPrayers.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Grace is God himself. The Jewish usage of “grace” connotes that it is God giving himself to us. When we receive grace, we receive God. Thus there is no possibility of discontinuation of grace within the humanity of Christ. That is how he has restored the communion of God and man, by being the communion of God and man within himself.

No idea why you posted this. Does this mean you agree with the point I made? Or are you suggesting something wasn’t right? And I said…

“God does not have a discontinuation of Grace from himself, nor did He when He was alive. Jesus the Living God takes on a completely human nature, fully human as the hypostatic union states. The discontinuation of Communion thus Grace does not apply to the Human condition of Jesus Christ or he would not be God, This is the why Mary is perfectly Graced by Greek language.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

This conversation is like talking to a brick wall. You keep bringing up the same argument and issues over and over again after I have thoroughly explained everything. Obviously you are missing something because brb3 understands what I am saying. Perhaps you are just stubborn with your own point-of-view that is why you can’t grasp what I am saying. With this I am bowing out of this conversation. If you want to claim “victory” in this debate, go right ahead. Those who seek victories are those who are not interested with the truth. People can read my posts and judge for themselves. St. Athanasius’ work is 1700 years old and is freely available on the web, just Google “On the Incarnation of the Word” if you want to read it. May it enlighten you.

There is only one argument and its posted above. If you don’t have a answer or don’t want to discuss it its fine. But your post here is a perfect example of your on-going which frankly makes no sense to me in the context of this topic. But its a very good indication of aberrative thinking. And in your one paragraph here you connected St Athanasius with your thinking to somehow validate that post?