John the Baptist born without original sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harsalter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hellisreal said:
No, but neither does it mean he did sin either.
Click to expand...
If he was conceived in original sin, I assume he still felt concupiscence since he was only later (though still in utero washed).

I’ve always assumed that John did sin, because I otherwise couldn’t make sense of Jesus’ statement about the least in the Kingdom of Heaven being greater than him. Perhaps we should start a thread about that question: I’ve always wondered about it, since it seems to indicate that John would even surpass Mary (since both were "born of women) which doesn’t seem like it could be true.

Jeremy
 
Please do start one! Good idea. Can you let me know where it will be? Here in Apologetics?
jemfinch said:
If he was conceived in original sin, I assume he still felt concupiscence since he was only later (though still in utero washed).

I’ve always assumed that John did sin, because I otherwise couldn’t make sense of Jesus’ statement about the least in the Kingdom of Heaven being greater than him. Perhaps we should start a thread about that question: I’ve always wondered about it, since it seems to indicate that John would even surpass Mary (since both were "born of women) which doesn’t seem like it could be true.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
 
Hellisreal said:
No, but neither does it mean he did sin either.
Click to expand...
Wow - I totally disagree. I think he must’ve sinned. I think it takes away from Jesus’ sacrifice if he didn’t. I have no idea why I think that - so don’t ask me to explain. I just feel that by saying he never sinned, it somehow takes away from Christ. I’m willing to agree that Mary never sinned despite the verse that says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I’m OK with Mary because the Chruch says so - because she needed to be sinless to bear Jesus - but John didn’t need to be sinless so why would God enable him to never sin? I don’t believe that.
 
Harsalter said:
As a new Catholic, I was looking ahead on the Catholic calendar, and I noticed the 'Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary" to be celebrated this upcoming Thursday. One thing caught my eye as I had never heard or read of this before as I thought the only two humans born without original sin were Christ himself (both divine and human) and His “Blessed Mother”. But according to the Catholic Culture Calendar at catholicculture.org/lit/calendar/day.cfm?date=2007-05-31 John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin in his mother’s womb when the Virgin Mother visited John’s mother, Elizabeth during the visitation. :eek: I quote,

“The feast of the Visitation recalls to us the following great truths and events: The visit of the Blessed Virgin Mary to her cousin Elizabeth shortly after the Annunciation; the cleansing of John the Baptist from original sin in the womb of his mother at the words of Our Lady’s greeting; Elizabeth’s proclaiming of Mary—under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost—as Mother of God and “blessed among women”; Mary’s singing of the sublime hymn, Magnificat (“My soul doth magnify the Lord”) which has become a part of the daily official prayer of the Church…]”

My question is where did this revelation come from? Is this widely accepted? How did our “Blessed Mother” do this or was it Christ in her womb that did it? Please give me some background on this. Also, anyone else born without original sin? 🤷

As a new Catholic, I usually learn something new almost daily. But this would be huge for today’s lesson. 🙂
Click to expand...
Forgive me if this is brought up earlier in the thread, but is the better word for Jesus and Mary “conceived” without sin? My understanding is that John was not conceived without sin like Jesus and Mary, but was sanctified in the womb and then later born without original sin.
 
carol_marie said:
Wow - I totally disagree. I think he must’ve sinned. I think it takes away from Jesus’ sacrifice if he didn’t. I have no idea why I think that - so don’t ask me to explain. I just feel that by saying he never sinned, it somehow takes away from Christ. I’m willing to agree that Mary never sinned because the Church says so - but that’s it.
Click to expand...
Okay. I am willing to speculate its possible he did not. I have no reason to think he did. And, no reason to think its taking anything away from Christ, because it would not anyway. JTB was the forerunner. He did not die on the Cross and raise himself up again in fufilment of the Scriptures.

Lets not get carried away.😉
 
This may be shocking news to a convert. As I read the OP again, I see the actual palpable horror of the “news” of this.

I think the OP may consider posting this in the Eastern Orthodoxy forum and you may find that its old news.😉
 
jemfinch said:
The Law did not mandate all the good that a person should do. They could keep the law blamelessly and yet not “go the extra mile” and therefore sin.

At least, that’s how I understand it. Is there any Catholic dogma that John the Baptizer’s parents were sinless?

Jeremy
Click to expand...
No…not at all.
 
I know many non-Catholic Christians that believe that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin while in his mother’s womb. The odd thing is that none of them believes that Mary was conceived without original sin. Both were saved by Jesus but in a different order and priority. Likewise, many of us are fortunate to be baptized as infants while others are baptized later in life. All of this is primarily a time line issue, with God as the source.
 
To my knowledge, only Mary and Jesus himself are the only humans preserved from original sin. I think it is reasonable to assume John was assumed to the beatific vision upon death because of his special role in the economy of salvation in Jesus (as a prophet of his coming and his baptiser).
 
carol_marie said:
Wow - I totally disagree. I think he must’ve sinned. I think it takes away from Jesus’ sacrifice if he didn’t. I have no idea why I think that - so don’t ask me to explain. I just feel that by saying he never sinned, it somehow takes away from Christ. I’m willing to agree that Mary never sinned despite the verse that says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I’m OK with Mary because the Chruch says so - because she needed to be sinless to bear Jesus - but John didn’t need to be sinless so why would God enable him to never sin? I don’t believe that.
Click to expand...
As we always point of when speaking of Mary, the “all” have sinned needs to be kept in context, it doesn’t mean every individual. The fact that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin doesn’t “take away” from Jesus’ sacrifice, why would it take a way from His sacrifice if John was cleansed, not preserved from, but cleansed, prior to his birth. It doesn’t imply that he didn’t need a savior, as Mary, he certainly did. John knew he needed a savior, as did Mary. He knew who this savior was, as did Mary. I do not know if John ever sinned, to me it’s not an issue.
 
Tom, I agree! And, it is not an issue. And as you say, it can do nothing to take anything away from Christ to think he never did.

Literalists can take the “all have sinned” to mean well, literally.

I dont know how they miss all the arguments against taking that verse literally.

How do those get over the “Until” with Mary’s perpetual virginity for instance?

That too, NOT literal.

Geeze. This is not new stuff here.
 
Hellisreal said:
Literalists can take the “all have sinned” to mean well, literally.
Click to expand...
They also fail to recognize the underlying Greek word that is used. PAS

PAS vs HAPAS vs HOLOS. all three of these are translated as ALL. But each one has it’s own definition.

Hapas of the three is the only one that actually means "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION’
 
JoeyWarren said:
They also fail to recognize the underlying Greek word that is used. PAS

PAS vs HAPAS vs HOLOS. all three of these are translated as ALL. But each one has it’s own definition.

Hapas of the three is the only one that actually means "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION’
Click to expand...
Joey, do you have more information on this?
 
paV,a {pas}
  1. individually 1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively 2a) some of all types
**G3956 **πᾶς pas pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
Click to expand...
oloV,a {hol’-os}
  1. all, whole, completely
**G3650 **ὅλος holos hol’-os

A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.
Click to expand...
olwV,d {hol’-oce}
  1. all, whole, completely 1) wholly, altogether
**G3654 **ὅλως holōs hol’-oce
Adverb from G3650; completely, that is, altogether; (by analogy) everywhere; (negative) not by any means: - at all, commonly, utterly
Click to expand...
.
apaV,a {hap’-as}
  1. quite, all, the whole, all together, all
****G537 ****ἅπας hapas hap’-as
From G1 (as a particle of union) and G3956; absolutely all or (singular) every one: - all (things), every (one), whole.
Click to expand...
The Greek stem Ha on the root pas gives the all and “Absolute” or “Without Exception” nature.

This all word is troubling to say the least, when you look at the 4(3) uses. Looking at several Greek concordances hapas means “absolutely all” or “all without exception” whereas pas is something less then hapas.
 
JoeyWarren said:
?
Click to expand...
Joey, it looks like you have an on-line Greek to English Translation. I certainly hope you didn’t spend all that time changing fonts, so I assumed it was cut-n-paste.

I’d love to have access to that!

Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top