J
justasking4
Guest
Are you aware that some church fathers thought Mary had sinned? This would mean there is a counter tradition to the tradition you mention.
- Status
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
If you believe that this verse is an absolute, then which view do you hold - that Jesus sinned or that Jesus wasn’t fully man?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
No single Church Father is infallible in everything they taught. But the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers is that Mary is sinless.
J
justasking4
Guest
This is the problem; you can’t get this doctrine off the ground if scripture does not teach she was sinless and it is a violation of Romans 3:10. Secondly, even some fathers believed she had sinned.
Do any writers of the NT, who were closes to her ever mention her being some type of the ark?
Who is Justin Martyr but a mere man who has unbilical ideas. He is half right in saying she was virgin but not undefiled by sin. He has no way to support such a concept with scripture.
So we agree that neither scripture nor tradition for the first 4 centuries is silent about this?
What period are you speaking of here? I thought i remebered reading somewhere that some fathers beleived she did have children. The scriptures certainly teach she did after Jesus was born.
This implicit method that catholics use to defend these kinds of things is in reality speculations since there is no evidence in the least from scripture and in regards to the assumption its not mentioned for centuries.
J
justasking4
Guest
Here is what unanimous means:agreed on by everyone: shared as a view by all of the people concerned, with nobody disagreeing. This is the standard definition. Now if a father did not believe this all others did then you would not have a unaminous consent. Better to say most or the majority than to say unaminous.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
This is wrong. If you read the article from the link you’ll find out why.
J
justasking4
Guest
No. Jesus is unique in this regards:
1- The father of Jesus was not human
2- He has 2 natures. One divine, one fully human.
This identifies Him with us and God. Jesus did not inherit the sin nature from Adam because of these factors.
J
justasking4
Guest
Why don’t you briefly summarize what you think it means then?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
But, my point is that if you take that verse as an absolute - all have sinned - then either Jesus sinned or He wasn’t truly man. I am asking which erroneous view do you subscribe to - because you can’t have both.
I agree that Jesus did not inherit original sin nor did He personally sin.
But, my point is that if you take that verse as an absolute - all have sinned - then either Jesus sinned or He wasn’t truly man. I am asking which erroneous view do you subscribe to - because you can’t have both.
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
justasking4,
I will open a new thread discussing Mary as the Ark.
We are never going to get anywhere as long as you believe there is not authority over tradition in the Church. As I have pointed out before, not everything Christ did and said is in Scripture (John 20). We do not, for example, have every letter that Paul ever wrote to his communities and he even speaks of spiritual wisdom that he is not writing down.
For these reasons we know that the gospel was also spread orally, the oral containing more by nature than the written. There is nothing in scripture that says it is the sole rule of faith, but there is plenty of evidence showing early Christians regarded the teachings of the Church as authoratative and that the Apostles passed down their authority and teachings.
The idea of Mary as a the Second Eve is a very early Christian tradition. Just because the Bible does not say it does not mean it is not part of the Deposit of Faith.
I will open a new thread discussing Mary as the Ark.
We are never going to get anywhere as long as you believe there is not authority over tradition in the Church. As I have pointed out before, not everything Christ did and said is in Scripture (John 20). We do not, for example, have every letter that Paul ever wrote to his communities and he even speaks of spiritual wisdom that he is not writing down.
For these reasons we know that the gospel was also spread orally, the oral containing more by nature than the written. There is nothing in scripture that says it is the sole rule of faith, but there is plenty of evidence showing early Christians regarded the teachings of the Church as authoratative and that the Apostles passed down their authority and teachings.
The idea of Mary as a the Second Eve is a very early Christian tradition. Just because the Bible does not say it does not mean it is not part of the Deposit of Faith.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
):
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: unus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
This from the article summarizes pretty well (since you’re not in the mood to read
):The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: unus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
J
justasking4
Guest
I’m not having both but showing you how Christ is unique from all men. It is still true that all men who are born of a man and a woman inherit the sin nature from Adam. Jesus was not born of a human father. That is one of the differences between Him and the rest.
J
justasking4
Guest
Is this quote above the entire defintion without any commentary?Hello,
This from the article summarizes pretty well (since you’re not in the mood to read
The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: unus, one + animus, mind. “Consent”, as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
No - you’ll have to actually read the article for all the action-packed details.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
No, you’re trying to break rules of basic logic - in addition to having a misunderstanding of a number of doctrines.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Yes, but Original sin is not actual sin:
**405 **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.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm
What does that have to do with this discussion?
No but it does record some sins which important people committed. Like Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Canaan, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. etc. And, as farr as I’m aware, no sins are mentioned for these two. But it does mention that Enoch and Elijah went straight to heaven without dying and it does mention that death is the punishment for sin. So, what should we conclude?
Apparently you believe that we inherit a nature which is totally depraved. But Catholic Teaching does not believe that. Adam and Eve are numbered amongst our Saints. They were not totally depraved. Their children from the line of Seth were called the sons of God.
405 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:…
For the same reason Jesus was baptized. To fulfill all justice and to number them amongst the family of God and also to remove Original Sin.
No they don’t. That is what we are discussing right now. And I believe I’ve proved that children have not sinned before the age of reason and that it is very possible that Enoch and Elijah did not sin. And St. Paul said that some had not sinned “in the similitude” of Adam.
So, although St. Paul said, “All men have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God”, it is obvious that he did not mean “all” comprehensively because if he did, then the Scriptures would not be inerrant. Because many “men” have died in the womb.
Ok.
- Is that what St. Paul said? First he said, “none are righteous, not one, because they don’t seek after God”. Then he said, “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” I don’t see here that he said, “All have inherited a sin nature.”
- So lets go back to your first premise. are you saying that Mary sinned or that Mary inherited a sin nature? Or both?
Right now, I’m waiting to see what we are discussing, do you believe that Mary was born under Original Sin and that she actually sinned? Or just that she was born under Original Sin.
The Church can’t err in the interpretation of God’s Word.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Y
YADA
Guest
YES< AND SOME FATHERS DID NOT HOLD TO JESUS BEING FUULY GOD AND FULLY HUMAN OR OTHER CHRISTIAN BELIEFS…
YES< THEY DO…that is what Luke is doing in the visitation…it parallels David goingout to meet the Ark in the hill country…That is what Revelations 11 and 12 is…‘And I saw the Ark…A Woman, clothed with the sun…’ There was no chapter and verse breaks in the original text…The Gospel of John makes clear that Jesus is the Word…
AGAIN, THAT IS WHAT “FULL OF GRACE” MEANS, “HIGHLY FAVORED”, “BLESSED AMONGST ALL WOMEN” AND "ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED"
NO, WE DO NOT AGREE
NO, SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CERTANLY TEACH THAT MARY HAD CHILDREN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN
I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE JUST AS SPECULATIVE, DISREGARDING THOSE PASSAGES THAT DO NOT SUPPORT YOU POSITION AND READING PASSAGES WITH A 20th CENTURY & RATHER ANTI-CATHOLIC PRE-DISPOSITION
G
guanophore
Guest
We are in agreement on this point. where I am confused is, how come you can accept the Authority of the Church that Jesus appointed to define the canon, centuries after it was written, but not the other doctrine?
The Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ.
A
andzy
Guest
Exactly! JA4, you’re trying to hold on so strictly to your logic, that “all men have sinned” necessary includes the Virgin Mary, but you’re breaking it yourself.
Jesus Christ was fully man, so, according to your logic, He must have sinned, too (unless you say that He wasn’t “really” or “fully” a man). You can say that He was unique from anybody else and therefore it doesn’t apply to Him, but then you’re breaking your own logic. Also note, that the Bible doesn’t say “all who are born from a human man and woman”, so you cannot use the argument that He didn’t have both human parents.
Besides, if you’re so strict with interpreting these verses, then you have to admit, that they don’t apply to Mary (or any other woman), because she’s not a man (unless, of course, YOU interpret the Bible and say what “men” means or doesn’t mean here).
The thing is that you have repeatedly used your own interpretation of the Scripture (which is what a good Sola Scriptura follower would do) in order to interpret the Bible so that it fits your theology. You have also done the same with the Early Church Fathers and Sacred tradition by selectively picking what suits you, and rejecting what doesn’t (I mean if you’re so keen to use the Early Fathers in your arguments, then be true to yourself and accept what they taught about the Holy Eucharist, authority of the Church, virginity of Mary, etc., etc.). Then you turn around and accuse the Catholic Church in selective picking of Scripture interpretations and quotes of the Fathers. But this is exactly what you are doing!
As indicated before, this is a double standard. :tsktsk:
What’s hard for me to understand is why you seem to believe that you can interpret the Scripture, but when Catholics do it, you try to deny them these “rights”.
B
BrewMax
Guest
Catholics can’t interpret Scripture for themselves. JA4 is challenging the church’s interpretation as do I. Taking ALL of Scripture, it plainly shows that Jesus was the only human ever born that is both human and divinity. Jesus was the only one without sin becasue of this. Scripture supports this as does the early church fathers. Scripture says ALL have fallen short of God’s grace. Jesus came to be our Savior and even Mary said, “I rejoice in God my Savior”.Exactly! JA4, you’re trying to hold on so strictly to your logic, that “all men have sinned” necessary includes the Virgin Mary, but you’re breaking it yourself.
Jesus Christ was fully man, so, according to your logic, He must have sinned, too (unless you say that He wasn’t “really” or “fully” a man). You can say that He was unique from anybody else and therefore it doesn’t apply to Him, but then you’re breaking your own logic. Also note, that the Bible doesn’t say “all who are born from a human man and woman”, so you cannot use the argument that He didn’t have both human parents.
Besides, if you’re so strict with interpreting these verses, then you have to admit, that they don’t apply to Mary (or any other woman), because she’s not a man (unless, of course, YOU interpret the Bible and say what “men” means or doesn’t mean here).
The thing is that you have repeatedly used your own interpretation of the Scripture (which is what a good Sola Scriptura follower would do) in order to interpret the Bible so that it fits your theology. You have also done the same with the Early Church Fathers and Sacred tradition by selectively picking what suits you, and rejecting what doesn’t (I mean if you’re so keen to use the Early Fathers in your arguments, then be true to yourself and accept what they taught about the Holy Eucharist, authority of the Church, virginity of Mary, etc., etc.). Then you turn around and accuse the Catholic Church in selective picking of Scripture interpretations and quotes of the Fathers. But this is exactly what you are doing!
As indicated before, this is a double standard. :tsktsk:
What’s hard for me to understand is why you seem to believe that you can interpret the Scripture, but when Catholics do it, you try to deny them these “rights”.
- Status