Original Sin

[thistle]

I didn’t say some composer, I was attempting to say ‘neither a theological scholar’. This is why a turn toward the original church fathers and their more meek yet intelligent ‘overall admission of their ignorance of the mysteries of what is actually is’, take a look at St. Augustine’s Confessions if you still lack understanding? (Particularly Book I)

We seem to be going round in circles and quite possibly you are right that its due to lack of understanding on my part. Help me understand.
Are you saying that Samuel Beckett understands original sin better than the Church and the best theologians over the past 2000 years?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Original sin is the privation of Sanctifying grace.

Adam and Eve had sanctifying grace before they first sinned.

After they sinned sanctifying grace was taken from them.

When sanctifying grace is present one has the Inclination to do God’s will.

An example of that is Adam and Eve both being naked and neither one of them being ashamed.

They had no tendency towards lust because they had Sanctifying grace.

After they sinned they made garments for themselves.

Why? Because with sin comes Concupiscence.

Concupiscence is the Inclination towards doing evil.

It’s not a sinned in and of itself–it is an inclination or tendency towards committing sin.

People are not Stained by original sin–they suffer from a lack of Sanctifying grace and from the presence of concupiscence.

Mary was Immaculately conceived and always had sanctifying grace–just like Eve did before she sinned–but of course since Mary was “Full of Grace” she had all the grace possible that she could posses.

Jesus was born of Mary and united His perfect humanity with Mary’s perfect humanity. He could never unite with anything Stained or Depraved as the Protestants teach about original sin.

All of us until we die will suffer from Concupiscence and Inclination or Tendency towards sin.

Such Inclination or tendency towards sin is not sin in and of itself and can be overcome with grace that we receive in the sacraments.

The reason Jesus could be fully God and fully man could only happen if Mary wass sinless.

I look at Mary as the Eve who not only didn’t mess up and sin–but an even greater Eve who God gave Full grace to because of the worth of His only beggoten Son so we could all be saved.

See Satan figured he could beat God and take all of our souls because of original sin–he figured if we already had a tendency towards sin that polishing us off would be no problem.

God is smarter than Satan and was able to Reverse what the Original Adam and Eve did with the Immaculate Conception of Mary–her fiat because of being Full of Grace to do His Will and as a result the Incarnation of the Word Jesus as a man who came to save us with a Perfect Unblemished sacrifice.

That wouldn’t happen with an original sin stained Mary or with Jesus being stained by her original sin.

So anytime you hear the term Original Sin don’t think stain or infection think concupiscence–tendency–inclination towards sin and don’t think Depravity–think Lack of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[inchrist101]

I’ve already read the entire Bible 3 times and it didn’t take me 3 years. My daughter reads her Bible every day and attends Sunday school. As far as being protestant you can call me a protestant if you want. I don’t reject anything the Bible says I just reject some of the Catholic church doctrines that are not consistent with the Bible. Tell where in the Bible that it states Mary stayed a virgin her entire life and was free from all sin. Also show me where it states that John the Baptist was free from sin. You simply won’t find it. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. Here is 1-4.

2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom **we all once lived **in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body [1] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. It doesn’t say except for Mary and John the Baptist.

I believe that church doctrine is superceded by the Bible. The church does not supercede anything. The bible guides the church not the other way around. So to say that I don’t have the fullness of the truth is ridiculous. The Bible is the truth and I have it. As far as oral traditions. You really need to get educated on this. Oral traditions were passed down and then written into the Bible. Any doctrines that are not in the Bible are not there for a reason. God doesn’t want them there. Church doctrines also exist because it was the church’s attempt to interpret the Bible so people could understand what they were supposed to do. So really church doctrine is taken from the Bible which as I said overrides everything. Now we can talk about whether or not it was interpreted correctly or not. Just because the Catholic church says they are right on interpretations doesn’t mean they are. The early churches made plenty of mistakes and it took people like Paul to correct it. Look at the church in Corinth and how badly they were practicing the Lord’s supper.

If the Bible is not our overriding and guiding vehicle, then why does Jesus himself tell us that scripture must be fulfilled. Do I consider myself an expert on interpreting the Bible. Absolutely not. But we have excellent study Bibles out there like NLT that help us. I also attend church services where I have access to the world’s foremost expert on New Testament criticism. Dr. Magness from Milligan college in Tennessee in addition to other Pastor’s who have gone to theology school and Bible school. They are just as qualified as any Catholic resource you have access to.

Now please tell me what oral traditions you are talking about. Point out the versus so I may look them up. Where do you think the oral traditions came from? They came from the Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits [4] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

What is Paul referring to above? The Bible. Not interpretations of the Bible by the church. What they taught is what is written in the Bible.

One more clarification. I didn’t leave the church because I rejected doctrine. I don’t know any Catholic who agrees with all church doctrine. The church I attend now is non-denominational. Not Protestant. We don’t align with any denominations. 80% of the church is Catholic. 8 out of every 10 new members is Catholic. Why? Because they disagree with how the church changes doctrine all the time. That’s the number 1 reason. Most also stated that they never read the Bible and when they did they found it to be inconsistent with Catholic church doctrine. Things like Mary and the Pope. This is a church that has over 3500 members and is growing like crazy.

One last thing. Forgive me if I sound bitter. I don’t actually mean to be. Sometimes these forums make it tough to gauge a person’s demeanor.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Tell me in the Old Testament that Jesus will be a Nazarene.

It’s not there!

That’s an Oral Tradition attested to by the Bible!

Just as authoratative and true as scripture!

Tell me anywhere in the Bible that the only things that are true and authoratative are in the Bible!

What’s more important–worshiping Jesus who is the Word of God or worshipping scripture?

And tell me where we are instructed that “All” always means each and every one? Jesus is never part of the “All” in regards to sin in the scripture–if it doesn’t mean “All” then why should it mean “All” anytime a Protestanrt wants it to?

Enoch and Elijah never died–there’s biblical proof that “All” aren’t subject to death!

Who are you going to believe–those who believe in the Protestant doctrine of original sin or the bible?

The Church doesn’t “Supercede” the Bible but the church did write the bible–decided what went into the bible and interpeted the Bible because Jesus–not the Catholic Church said to the apostles that they–not everyone would be led into All truth!

When Paul says to “hold fast to the traditions that he has given” he wasn’t talking about the bible because there wasn’t one at that time.

There was the Old Testament of course–but it certainly wasn’t the Old Testament embraced by so called non-denominationalist Protestats who care more about what non believing in Christ Jews thought about what should be in the Bible in 90AD.

Tell me oh non-denominationalists–who should decide that question–non believing Jews or the Catholic Church who had used the deuterocannonical books up to 90 AD?

The apostle John was still alive at that time.

What makes more sense–ask him about it–ask the successors to Peter about it–or ask the Jews?

So No! The Bible doesn’t form the church–the church forms the bilbe.

And yes Catholics do believe in the inerrant Word of God–they just trust who Jesus put in authority and who Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth to interpret it.

The thought of the Bible being able to interpret itself is ludicrous! It’s as ludicrous as thinking that the 10 commandments could interpret itself–so there was no need for elder or judges or Moses to settle disputes!

And when Jesus speaks of “Moses seat” and that people should “Do what they say” “but not what they do”–Jesus Himself was Commanding people to honor Sacred Tradition!

And one last thing–if you really want to know about “Tradition” get yourself a Douay Rheims Bible–look in the concordance for “Tradition” and read all the verses about it.

You won’t get it from Protestant translations such as the NIV who Change the Inerrant word of God’s translation of the word “Tradition” to “teaching” everytime tradition is in a positive light because they can’t stomach that Paul tells them to honor it!

And tell me this–before any of the New Testament was written how do you think they decided How to conduct a worship service?

They didn’t use the Old Testament!

They didn’t have a New Testasment!

They asked the Apostles and the apostles Orally told them what to do–whast Jesus had taught them–and that wasn’t in scripture!

And you know what–there wasn’t a bunch of Sola Scripturaists telling them–I don’t care what you say Peter, James, and John–if it’s not in scripture then I don’t believe it!

It’s a good thing people back then weren’t that dumb–if they had been they wouldn’t have believed that Jesus rose from the dead–the disciples preached that fact for many years before the scriptures were written!

And yes what they preached was true, authoratative–and constituted Oral Tradition!

I just wish that Sola Scripturaists would be honest enough to just come out and say–

“The real reason we say scripture alone is because that gives us the authority to inbterpret what the scripture says to our liking. We reject what the Catholic Church teaches because we simply reject the authority that Jesus vested in it!”

Oh and by the way–there are plenty of Catholics who believe in every single doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches!

And Catholics and the Catholic Church read the bible for 1500 years and never believed in Protestant doctrine. Where were Protestant non-denominational churches in the 1st century?

Why is it you never find them?

Which side would you rather bet your soul on?

 

[Clovis]

We seem to be going round in circles and quite possibly you are right that its due to lack of understanding on my part. Help me understand.
Are you saying that Samuel Beckett understands original sin better than the Church and the best theologians over the past 2000 years?

I’m not trying to insult Catholic scholastic tradition. But one must go all the way back to Isaiah to understand what I’m talking about. Soon after Isaiah’s meeting of The Lord, He offers Isaiah two son’s, the first ‘Immanuel’, obviously represents Christ. But about the second son, it says much less about, mostly that he should be written of by ‘a man’s pen’.

Also in Revelations there is an angels with ‘a rainbow over his head’ who comes down from heaven, the rainbow might symbolize he’s an artist.

Modern day prophecy should obviously only be viewed with a liberal mind this day and age. I know it all sounds unusual, and I wouldn’t believe it myself unless certain things hadn’t forced my hand in it unfortunately.

 

[inchrist101]

Tell me in the Old Testament that Jesus will be a Nazarene.

It’s not there!​

Correct it isn’t there but it is in the new testament in Matthew. Matthew let’s us know that’s what the prophets spoke. Since his Gospel is in the Bible I accept it.​

That’s an Oral Tradition attested to by the Bible!

Just as authoratative and true as scripture!

Tell me anywhere in the Bible that the only things that are true and authoratative are in the Bible!

If it’s not scriptural then I don’t accept it. Or if scripture refutes it then I refute it.

What’s more important–worshiping Jesus who is the Word of God or worshipping scripture?

I worship Jesus because scripture tells me to. Without scripture we wouldn’t know about Jesus. Jesus tells us himself that scripture has to be fulfilled. John tells us the purpose of his scripture is so that we can get to know the things that Jesus did. If someone from a church told me about Jesus with no scripture to back it up I wouldn’t believe it. None of us would unless that person was an eyewitness or knew an eyewitness. This is why people started to write about Jesus So it could be passed along accurately.

And tell me where we are instructed that “All” always means each and every one? Jesus is never part of the “All” in regards to sin in the scripture–if it doesn’t mean “All” then why should it mean “All” anytime a Protestanrt wants it to?

Enoch and Elijah never died–there’s biblical proof that “All” aren’t subject to death!

*Tell me where in the Bible it states that all are subject to death. Jesus was always the exception in the Bible and Paul tells us that. So when all is used we know Jesus was the exception. That claim is never given to anyone else.

So if a law was passed that said all under the age of 21 cannot drive you would immediately assume there are exceptions? If upon reading the law you saw that there weren’t exceptions noted but a policeman said oh yea if you wear glasses you can drive, you would believe him?? That’s crude but you get my point./I*

 

[inchrist101]

Had to split my post into 3.

Who are you going to believe–those who believe in the Protestant doctrine of original sin or the bible?

As always I believe in the Bible. I’m not Protestant.

The Church doesn’t “Supercede” the Bible but the church did write the bible–decided what went into the bible and interpeted the Bible because Jesus–not the Catholic Church said to the apostles that they–not everyone would be led into All truth!

Well said my friend!!!

When Paul says to “hold fast to the traditions that he has given” he wasn’t talking about the bible because there wasn’t one at that time.

There was the Old Testament of course–but it certainly wasn’t the Old Testament embraced by so called non-denominationalist Protestats who care more about what non believing in Christ Jews thought about what should be in the Bible in 90AD.

What Paul taught eventually was put into his letters. That’s what I meant. He wrote letters because false teachers were invading the churches. Look at Galatia.

Tell me oh non-denominationalists–who should decide that question–non believing Jews or the Catholic Church who had used the deuterocannonical books up to 90 AD?

You completely lost me on that one. Sorry

The apostle John was still alive at that time.

What makes more sense–ask him about it–ask the successors to Peter about it–or ask the Jews?

So No! The Bible doesn’t form the church–the church forms the bilbe.

Of course the church existed before the Bible. But we don’t have access to Peter and James and John etc. to learn the teachings. We do have the Bible which has the teachings they wrote. The church in Corinth didn’t have the Bible. Look how bad they were behaving. Paul wrote a letter to them giving them instructions. That same letter is now in the Bible. Without the Bible the church I believe would fade away. Only a few people from the church created the bible. Or let’s say the NT. What are there about 7-8 writers for the NT. Very very small piece of the church.

 

[inchrist101]

Last one.

And yes Catholics do believe in the inerrant Word of God–they just trust who Jesus put in authority and who Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth to interpret it.

The thought of the Bible being able to interpret itself is ludicrous! It’s as ludicrous as thinking that the 10 commandments could interpret itself–so there was no need for elder or judges or Moses to settle disputes!

Agree 100%. Never said the Bible interprets itself. But we are fallible people. The Bible is infallible. So I believe it’s impossible for anyone to interpret the Bible correctly 100% of the time. The best scholars and theologians give several potential meanings for many many verses in the Bible.

And when Jesus speaks of “Moses seat” and that people should “Do what they say” “but not what they do”–Jesus Himself was Commanding people to honor Sacred Tradition!

And one last thing–if you really want to know about “Tradition” get yourself a Douay Rheims Bible–look in the concordance for “Tradition” and read all the verses about it.

Major problem with Douay Rheims. It was translated to english from the Latin vulgate by Jerome. This means we went from Hebrew to Latin to English for OT and Greek to Latin to English for NT. So the original words were not preserved?

You won’t get it from Protestant translations such as the NIV who Change the Inerrant word of God’s translation of the word “Tradition” to “teaching” everytime tradition is in a positive light because they can’t stomach that Paul tells them to honor it!

And tell me this–before any of the New Testament was written how do you think they decided How to conduct a worship service?

They didn’t use the Old Testament!

They didn’t have a New Testasment!

They asked the Apostles and the apostles Orally told them what to do–whast Jesus had taught them–and that wasn’t in scripture!

Acts tells us what they did. They committed themselves to their traditions of prayers and breaking bread. We also know that
baptism was part of their practice. Do you really think Jesus told Peter to make sure they had 2 readings and then a reading from the gospel? As you said the Bible didn’t exist yet. Do you think he told them they had to consecrate the bread and wine? No. He told them that as often as they drank from the cup and ate the bread to remember him. There is no such thing as right or wrong worship when it comes to worshiping God and praising Jesus.

And you know what–there wasn’t a bunch of Sola Scripturaists telling them–I don’t care what you say Peter, James, and John–if it’s not in scripture then I don’t believe it!

It’s a good thing people back then weren’t that dumb–if they had been they wouldn’t have believed that Jesus rose from the dead–the disciples preached that fact for many years before the scriptures were written!

Wrong Jesus told them that scripture was true and had to be fulfilled. The NT wasn’t published yet obviously so the idea of Sola Scripture didn’t exist. But what they preached eventually was written down and guess what, we have it today in the Bible.

And yes what they preached was true, authoratative–and constituted Oral Tradition!

I just wish that Sola Scripturaists would be honest enough to just come out and say–

“The real reason we say scripture alone is because that gives us the authority to inbterpret what the scripture says to our liking. We reject what the Catholic Church teaches because we simply reject the authority that Jesus vested in it!”

Jesus didn’t vest authority in the Catholic church. He vested authority in the Christian chruch which I’m a part of. Sola scripture doesn’t mean interpreting it to your liking. It just means that the Bible is your final authority.

Oh and by the way–there are plenty of Catholics who believe in every single doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches!

Good for them. I can introduce you to about 3000 who don’t and I know there’s plenty more. It has nothing to do with salvation.

And Catholics and the Catholic Church read the bible for 1500 years and never believed in Protestant doctrine. Where were Protestant non-denominational churches in the 1st century?

There never was protestant/non-denominational/Catholic. There was only Christian. Jesus wanted the Christian church to be universal (hence the term catholic lower case “c”) so that everyone could be a part of it. Protestant/non-denominational/Orthodox/Catholic (capital “C”) came after the 2 major splits the church endured. Your own Pope explained this a few weeks ago on TV.

Why is it you never find them?

Which side would you rather bet your soul on?

I don’t choose either side. I choose Jesus as my savior which makes me a part of his church. I’ve been baptized and I’m a believer which means I’m going to Heaven just like you.

 

[inchrist101]

Actually, the term “original sin” is not scriptural. It was formulated by the Catholic Church. By your lights, it should be rejected as a product of the early Church Fathers (Augustine) and therefore, “false doctrine.” Ditto the Trinity. Maybe you should go with Oneness Pentecostal?

I never said the term original sin was scriptural. But the original sin is scriptural and we’ve all come to know what original sin is. Have you ever read the Catholic catechism on original sin? I suggest you do. The catechism states that we all have the stain of original sin which is the intent to commit sin. Original sin is intent. Actual sin is sin itself. We don’t have to sin but as the Bible tells us we are wicked at heart. Was a Catholic for 35 years so I do know a little. Maybe you should try Christianity for dummies. Or maybe real dummies.

 

[mercygate]

I never said the term original sin was scriptural. But the original sin is scriptural and we’ve all come to know what original sin is. Have you ever read the Catholic catechism on original sin? I suggest you do. The catechism states that we all have the stain of original sin which is the intent to commit sin. Original sin is intent. Actual sin is sin itself. We don’t have to sin but as the Bible tells us we are wicked at heart. Was a Catholic for 35 years so I do know a little. Maybe you should try Christianity for dummies. Or maybe real dummies.

I hesitate to respond because I do not wish to engage in a personal tit-for-tat. But just for the record, I was a "Bible Christian who became an Episcopalian, was trained for the Priesthood in the Episcopal Church, and thus have a comfortable relationship with the Greek New Testament, and can struggle my way through the Hebrew Scriptures as well. I crossed the Tiber because of the ultimately compelling case that the Catholic Church holds in relation to Scripture, history, and continuity of developed doctrine. (My appearance on*The Journey Home *is archived on the EWTN web site.)

As for reading the Catechism, I have read it from cover to cover straight through twice, and I constantly consult it when clarifying points of teaching for my students. It is a seraphic document. I am glad you are familiar with it. Even my Protestant friends find it impressive – as well they should.

I apologize to you if I have been disagreeably assertive, but I can state with perfect confidence that despite your 35 years in the Catholic Church, what you learned about Catholic teaching was woefully inadequate: likely not your fault. The past 40 years have been tragic in terms of catechesis.

*Catholicism for Dummies? *I recommend it highly for people who are not up to the Catechism since it frames matters simply and forthrightly for those who are uncomfortable with Greek theological terminology.

I still say: You’re only one good confession away from home. Door’s open. Light’s on. We’re prayin’ for ya.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So let me get this straight–the Old Testament prophets said that Jesus would be a Nazarene–it wasn’t attested to by scripture when they said it but it was authoratative and true.

inchrist101: If you had been one of the Jews who originally heard the prophets give this teaching before Matthew had ever been written would you have believed them when they spoke the word of God or would you have said “I don’t believe them because I don’t see it anywhere in scripture!”

See it does make a difference! Matthew is Proof positive that Old Testament Prophets Orally gave true and authoratative prophecy that was not in scripture!

If they had the same attitude as you they would Not have believed that true prophecy of the prophets that came from God!

Do you think that God wanted them to have that attitude towards the oral prophecy they preached that came from Him?!

inchrist101: Who authoratatively told you to reject anything that was not in scripture?

When did the scriptures fall out of the sky inchrist101?

When did the deuterocannonical books of the bible that were in the Septuagint cease to be the bible?

When did the Masoretic text of the Old Testament become the right one?

Why is it that when it was written no christians used it?

And when did people know exactly what books were in the scriptures inchrist101?

None of these questions are answered in scripture. If you’re really a Sola scripturist then you cant answer these questions because they are not in the Bible.

Where does the authority for the answers lie inchrist101?

At exactly what point in history did God give the answers to these questions and how would christians at that time Know that He had given the answers–and then respected the judgement of people who said they knew His answers–all of which weren’t In scripture?!

See it’s not a matter of the bible interpreting itself–it’s a matter of Who has the authority to say what is the bible and what isn’t.

When Jesus gave to Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven–it’s an obvious reference to the Prime Minister’s possesion of the keys to the Kingdom of Israel while the King of Israel was away that is mentioned in the Old Testament.

When Jesus told Peter “Whatever you Bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you Loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven”–was that authority enough to bind or loose You if you had been one of the early christians in those days?

when Jesus breathed on the disicples and gave them the authority to forgive and retain sins–would that have been authority enough to forgive or retain your sins if you had been a christian in those days?

Why did Jesus give that authority to mere men After Calvary?

Do you respect that authority that He gave to the disicples?

If you could confess your sins straight to God why did He give that Authority?

Was Jesus dumb for doing it? Was He wrong for doing it?

Would you have confessed any of your sins to the disciples in those days?

Would the authority that Jesus gave the disciples be good enough for you or would you accept or reject whatever you thought best such as only what was in scripture?

Just think inchrist101: for years after Jesus ascended into heaven the disciples had this authority from Jesus–the Gospels hadn’t been written–do you think christians in those times believed the disciples?

Do you think they respected the disciples authority to forgive and retain sins that was given to them by Jesus?

The only proof of Jesus giving them that authority before the scriptures were written was the Oral word of the disciples themselves.

The real question is if you had lived then inchrist101 would you have respected that authority which was not in any scripture anywhere on the authority of the disciples oral word only?

and Lastly if that Oral word had authority then–can you cite any scripture that says that the traditions given by the apostles ceased having any authority once the scriptures were written?

You can’t!

Is your interpretation of the authority of the scriptures from God or from what you choose to believe!

You don’t get to choose!

That’s the main problem with Protestantism–it’s always been that way!

Does it take 1500 years of quotes from people you can’t stand to call Catholic–OK let’s just call them christians–does it take 1500 years of quotes from thousands of them with No record of people having Protestant views for you to acknowledge the truth of the Catholic Faith?

The sola sripturaists don’t have the prophets–they only have what they deem to be the scriptures.

They don’t listen to the church and they don’t respect any authority that Jesus Himself with His own Inerrant words in scripture gives to the apostles.

they don’t believe the Son of God who arose from the dead–if they did they would respect the authority that He gave to the apostles.

They don’t. It really is that simple!

 

[thistle]

I’m not trying to insult Catholic scholastic tradition. But one must go all the way back to Isaiah to understand what I’m talking about. Soon after Isaiah’s meeting of The Lord, He offers Isaiah two son’s, the first ‘Immanuel’, obviously represents Christ. But about the second son, it says much less about, mostly that he should be written of by ‘a man’s pen’.

Also in Revelations there is an angels with ‘a rainbow over his head’ who comes down from heaven, the rainbow might symbolize he’s an artist.

Modern day prophecy should obviously only be viewed with a liberal mind this day and age. I know it all sounds unusual, and I wouldn’t believe it myself unless certain things hadn’t forced my hand in it unfortunately.

You didn’t answer my question.

Are you saying that Samuel Beckett understands original sin better than the Church and the best theologians over the past 2000 years? Yes or No?

 

[Clovis]

I believe Beckett was only fractionally knowledgeable of what he was writing himself. But of the many symbolic usages and unanswered questions in Christianity, I personally believe they will be completely answered through Beckett’s body of literature. For proof that Christ himself had only given us partial instruction, look no further than John.

John:4:21: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
John:4:22: Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
John:4:23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John:16:12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
John:16:25: These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

These texts are proof that there are many things still deeply laid secret in the bosom of Christianity.

 

[thistle]

I believe Beckett was only fractionally knowledgeable of what he was writing himself. But of the many symbolic usages and unanswered questions in Christianity, I personally believe they will be completely answered through Beckett’s body of literature. For proof that Christ himself had only given us partial instruction, look no further than John.

John:4:21: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
John:4:22: Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
John:4:23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John:16:12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
John:16:25: These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

These texts are proof that there are many things still deeply laid secret in the bosom of Christianity.

I think I’ll bow out of this discussion as its hard to get a straight answer to questions.
Can you not give me a YES or NO answer. Is it your view that the Church and the best theologians over the past 2000 years do not know best what original sin is?

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

Oh Man! This thread is confusing!!!

let me see if i’ve got it straight, All men are conceived in original sin, exept Jesus, and Mary?
On the other Hand original sin is removed by baptism?
John the Baptist was conceived in sin, but, received a “spiritual” Baptism in the womb of his mother at the “visitation” of Mary and was therefore born without original sin?

Does that sound right?

If so, what’s Samuel Beckett got to do with it?
And why are people using this thread to argue Protestantism?

Yours confusedly

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Baptism does not wash away concupiscence or the inclination toward sin.

The only people that didn’t suffer from concupiscence are Jesus, Mary, and Adam and Eve Before they first committed sin.

Baptism does wash away All punishment for sin.

When one is baptized–if they die one instant later they go straight to Heaven!

 

[guanophore]

I can never understand why Catholics believe anyone lived their life without sin including Mary and/or John the Baptist. As Romans 3 verse 23 states we all have sinned and fall short. That is the importance of believing in Jesus. There is no biblical support for Mary or anyone living a life without sin. Paul tells us that the only person who walked the face of this earth without sinning is Jesus. It doesn’t matter what any Pope states. Mary and John the Baptist both needed Jesus for salvation.

Romans 5 12 also confirms this. Sin came into the world from Adam and therefore sin and death spread to all men. It doesn’t state with the exception of Mary and John the Baptist or any person.

This verse is a bit of hyperbole, usually misunderstood. Not everyone lives in sin. How about the parents of John the Baptist?

Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

How can they be sinners and righteous before God at the same time?

Ever think about those folks who came out of their graves at the resurrection?

Matt 27:51-53
52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of **the saints who had fallen asleep **were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

How about Enoch, who walked with God, and Elijah, who was taken up? We know that sin is not allowed in heaven…

A similar use of hyperbole is used in this passage:

Matt 3:5-6
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

We know that not EVERYONE went out to him, because we read later of those who rejected John’s baptism. It is literary hyperbole.

 

[guanophore]

It’s not a clear teaching of the church. Maybe the Roman Catholic church. But not the Christian church as a whole. It’s not a matter of pondering it. It’s a matter of finding scriptural support. We can only speak where the Bible speaks. Where the Bible is silent we have to be silent and wait for God to clarify. As Pastor Gene Getz who wrote “The Measure of a Good Man” states, “There are some things we will have to wait for God to clarify”. I couldn’t agree more.

Mary sinning has nothing to do with Jesus not sinning. He was born with no sin because he was God’s son and God has no sin. He didn’t need Mary to pass that along to him. Jesus also never committed sin while he walked the earth because he was and is the Christ.

I guess I don’t understand it because it’s not scriptural that Mary didn’t sin and us getting to heaven has nothing to do with her sinning or not. It’s our belief in Jesus.

This was an issue taken up with Nestorian heresy. If Jesus was fullly human,then he drew His humanity from Mary. He could not have drawn a humanity tainted with original sin. All the doctrines of Mary have developed out of doctrines about Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s what I find most interesting about Mary. As great as she was, which I do believe by the way let’s take a look at what Jesus has to say about her. Jesus is given a perfect opportunity in Luke to praise Mary and instead look at what he says:

Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Jesus is saying “even MORE blessed”. Mary was blessed because she was the Ark of the Covenant, but she was even more blessed because she heard the word of God, and kept it.

Why didn’t Jesus praise Mary right then and there to let people know how special she was. In other parts of the Gospels we get the inclination that Mary and Jesus brothers and sisters really didn’t understand what he was there to do.

Jesus didn’t have any uterine brothers or sisters, but it does seem that it took them a while to “get the point”. This is not true of Mary, though, who kept all the prophesies about Him in her heart from the beginning. It was she who inaugurated Him into His public ministry. She is also not present at the tomb, because she was the only one who was confident that he would rise again.

Mark 3:20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

Mark 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers [2] are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Don’t you think He was trying to instill in us a new understanding of family?

Why did he say this? We don’t really know but we could speculate that maybe his family including Mary just didn’t get it yet.

As a former Catholic please don’t elieve something because the church teaches it to you. If you read scripture and come to your own conclusion that she couldn’t have ever sinned then great. You may be right. I believe she did. I also believed she had more children because scripture suggests it.

Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Whenever the Bible mentions a man knowing his wife it’s usually associated with sexual contact.

Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten [1] a man with the help of the Lord.” 2 And again, she bore his brother Abel.

I’ve become a student of the Bible and believe whole-heartedly that it is the Revelation of God. How else do you explain how it has survived? God meant for us to have a book so we could learn about Him and Jesus. The church should reinforce that and not add to it like the Catholic church does. God tells us in the Bible not to add or take away from it.

Peace.

I believe you will find that there are no contradictions between the teaching of the Church and the Bible. THe NT was written by the Catholic Church, so it is entirely consistent with Catholic teaching. I am sorry that you were not taught to read it as a youngster, but I am glad you are reading it now.

 

[guanophore]

Original sin is the intent to commit actual sin. We’re all born with the stain of original sin. I was merely commenting that the Bible never tells us that anyone including Mary or John the Baptist was born free of original sin. It’s not scriptural.

Peace.

Where did you come up with this definition of original sin? I think intention is a whole nuther matter.

I think you will find that there are many truths that are not found in the Bible.