Ignore my last post. I was editing but unknowinlgy ran out of time! It took 21 minutes! Anyway, if you already replied to my last post, then, oh well. I wasted a lot of time
Richard,
Your arguments are getting naïve and childish. My point is in the context I meant (not the way YOU want it to mean) it to be and in the totality of Scriptures. I never claimed that Jesus’ flesh was sinful. I was stating that your critique has a logical conclusion that it IS sinful. I am not stating that you believe it nor I. But my argument is still unobjected because your argument in parallels says that Jesus’ flesh is like His Mother’s, that is sinful. I know you do not believe that but that follows from your argument. If you make it a parallel, then Jesus’ flesh is sinful. My argument also says that Mary’s flesh is sinless because “How can something clean [Jesus] come from something unclean [non-Catholic idea of Mary]” (Job)? This is also unobjected.
And do not come back with infinite regress. We will argue eternally. MY meaning of “Jesus’ flesh is in the likeness of His Mother’s” is that He TOOK flesh from her. His body is FROM hers. That is all I meant it to be and I even stated that which I presume you ignored because you want to use YOUR perception of MY statement instead of what I meant it. Use MY meaning to argue against MY point. Not YOUR idea of MY argument. Gasping for breath here?
Funny how Catholics can prove that Mary is sinless but non-Catholics cannot prove that she actually sinned. Just like we can prove God but atheists cannot prove there is no God.
And yes… I did read the verse. Otherwise, I would not have referred to that verse in my rebuttal. Hence, my counter-argument, which still stands. Refer to my previous post again and argue from MY point which is argued from Scripture (your own safe haven). Do not use YOUR own interpretation of MY argument but argue from the standpoint of reason and logic in saying WHY my premise sucks (that is, in the way I meant it). Argue MY post and answer why it is unreasonable instead of giving a chicken-head interpretation because I have noticed that most interpretations are made to fit against Church teaching instead of trying to be as objective as possible. Do you not know how to argue? Look at my arguments. I attack premises. NOT conclusions. My point in my previous post still stands whether or not you like it. ARGUE MY POINT AND NOT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE MY POINT TO BE.
Anyway, over the course of the 2000 years of the Church, do you not think that they came across these verses and said, “Hey, what does this mean if we believe this and it says this”? Here is how our system works:
1.We believe something (Tradition with a T as opposed to tradition with a t).
- We find that it is not contradicted by Scripture.
- We also find that Scripture actually backs it up, whether implicitly or explicitly.
- Then, it is officially proclaim doctrine.
(Catholics, if this is wrong, then call me idiot and tell me the actual order.)
Seems like you are missing steps 1-2. You just assume number 3 from a private interpretation (an action which goes against number 2 anyway). Surely, now you believe us. And why did you skip my post on the nessecity of doctrine in salvation and the part about the deuterocanonical texts in Scripture?
Again, how do you know Scriptures are infallible?
Peace 
just my powers of observation Richard. im technically a police officer, remember? im not that loveable either. my job, entales pointing machine guns at people…dirty buisness, but someones gotta do it. 
maybe thats why we get along so well though. to hard cases, trying to make a case. 
Peace to you and yours.