IMO “humaness” is more often thought of as the condition of sin that separates us from G-d, this is a pain the sinless don’t experience. Its common to humanity but not to the sinless.
Peace and blessings i realise your were having more direct discussion with other poster so dont feel obligated to answer.Do you see Mary as part of God’s divinity?I only ask because your profile says that you are Orthodox in agreement with Alexandria, and the Orthodox do not see our mother Mary as part of God’s divinity.
The main reason I say I am in agreement with Alexandria is that this Holy See has maintained since the Apostles time the Miaphysite/Monophysite understanding the nature of Christ. That is one composite nature that is both true God and true man, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.
Hmm…Monophysitism (anti-Nestorianism) - asserted that Jesus Christ had only a sole nature. At first this sole substance concept had been tolerated because it helped to offset the dual Christ teaching of Nestorianism, but eventually, the Alexandrian school found it unacceptable, which makes me wonder why you believe that the church in agreement with Alexandria continued/continues to uphold the beliefs of Monophysitism. Perhaps I am overlooking something?
So you and I ("…as well as all who were born of Them") - cannot sin???
I believe the key below is to distinguish the follower of Christ from the follower of Satan, and this how one knows who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are…
spot on… John Martignoni does an excellent talk on this which can downloaded free here just click on Mary & the Bible; plus Purgatory & the BibleTHIIS IS FROM A 2008 THREAD: Re: Ag_nots Catholic Scriptural Challenge - just ONE proven example wins!! post # 254
Ro 3:23 -for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Earlier in the chapter, Paul says as it is written in other words, he is quoting the Old Testament. Psalm 14 to be precise. Now, look at that scripture:
1 For the leader. Of David. 2 Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right.
2
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the human race, To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God.
3
All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one. 4
Will these evildoers never learn? They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon the LORD.
5
They have good reason, then, to fear; God is with the company of the just.
6
They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge.
Now, here the psalmist, which Paul is quoting says very clearly, as Paul does, ALL. But does all mean all??? How can it when a few lines along we read MY PEOPLE. That is, God’s people. So the all, is not actually all, but those people NOT of God’s people. The Evil Doers. Otherwise, if the all meant all people, that is every single solitary person, then who are the ‘‘company of the just’’, or in the RSV_CE version, the generation of the righteous???
So, now you know that all doesnt always mean actually all, where do we go from here.
The wages of sin is death. If you have sin, you will die. Yes? Are there people in the Bible who we are told did Not die? IF they didnt die, does that mean they did not collect the wages of sin?
My guess is that you got the assertion that “the Alexandrian school found it unacceptable” from here. Do you also agree with it that Chalcedon was a “compromise”? They’re right about that you know! Just like Monothelitism was a compromise by asserting that Jesus has two natures and one will, so to Chalcedon was a compromise by asserting that Jesus has two natures and one person. Both were compromises that hoped to unite everyone. But the result in both cases when truth was compromised was division.Hmm…Monophysitism (anti-Nestorianism) - asserted that Jesus Christ had only a sole nature. At first this sole substance concept had been tolerated because it helped to offset the dual Christ teaching of Nestorianism, but eventually, the Alexandrian school found it unacceptable, which makes me wonder why you believe that the church in agreement with Alexandria continued/continues to uphold the beliefs of Monophysitism. Perhaps I am overlooking something?
Why are you so “So you and I ("…as well as all who were born of Them") - cannot sin???
”? Jesus cannot sin, Mary cannot sin, and I’m sure there has been many saints that progressed to the point that they likewise cannot sin. (It’s called deification! )if our PP says Mary (bbhn) is not divine, not a personality of the trinity, but human who followed G-ds asking, who is right?
if she is divine why has she not passed on both natures.
Yes, I copied and pasted from there. However, the outcome would have been the same wherever I would have gone to retrieve that information. Perhaps we should defer to the council that settled the matter instead of some random site?
Do you embrace the decisions of the council of Chalcedon?
OK…
Does that booklet written by Pope Shenouda agree with Catholic church’s take on the matter?
Why are you so “
John, can we say with certainty that those saints, while still on earth, never sinned once they progressed to said point?
If so then I apologize in advance…BTW, the angels in heaven have not sinned; should they be deified?If they can be interpreted in a miaphysite fashion then yes, but if not then no. If you talk to Brother [user]mardukm[/user] about this he will tell you that the Council of Chalcedon can and should be understood in a miaphysite fashion. But, as for me, that council seems pretty diophysite, and so as I understand it I would have to say that I do disagree with part of it.
The official position of the Catholic Church is diophysite. The booklet by Pope Shenouda uses the term monophysite (but what is meant is miaphysite). There is an agreement of “limited communion” that has been made between the Pope of Rome and Pope Shenouda and within it there was made a conclusion that both views (diophysite & miaphysite) are essentially the same. Personally I cannot explain how this is so, but as I said you could ask Brother [user]mardukm[/user] about this and he could explain it. Brother [user]mardukm[/user] is also miaphysite and he is Catholic.
Deification is also called theosis. We have to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). One Church Father (I can’t remember which one) said to the effect that when a saint gets closer to God his physical body starts to acquire some of the characteristics of what it will be like in the resurrection, and this is why we have incorruptible relics of saints! So it is a progression on the way to the Resurrection of the just.
I do not believe Mary is in the Godhead because She is sinless, that is not the reason. It is the other way around, God cannot sin! I am also not saying that She “progressed” to this via theosis either. And yes, it does appear that I might be alone on this, but I do confess to believe that the Person of the Holy Spirit and the Person of Mary are one and the same person! Is that clear enough?If you believe, because Mary was sinless, Mary should be part of the Godhead, you shouldn’t feel reluctant to say so. Do you believe this friend or have I grossly misunderstood?
First error: the Bible (73 books, catholic) does not contradict itself.
Seeing as Mary is the ONLY flesh that Jesus came in the likeness of, doesn’t Romans 8:3 say that Mary was a sinner?
Sure, the Father sent His Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering, just as Hebrews reminds us, *"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.” *
Speaking as a former protestant, the issue really has nothing to do with Mary, in my humble opinion. It is rather a combination of 2 things: