Please Explain This Contrasting View

[Richard_Kastner]

Well, I’m going to try this one more time. I answered this post twice yesterday, but my computer chewed them up and spit them way out into cyber space.

Hi Richard.
Thanks for providing the quotes. We agree on what is written in Rom 5:12. God indeed did save Mary from sin. It is why in Luke 1:47 she says, “…My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.” What is proposed for Catholics as worthy of belief is that, as a singular privilege, God saved/preserved Mary - His Mother from the stain of all sin at and from the moment of her conception. Luther believed this same thing … from the link provided in post # 25:

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

B]"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…"3

I’m not too concerned with what Luther beleives. I have the greatest respect for Luther and how he stood up to the church took much courage, but as far as my theology is concerned, if it doesn’t coinside with the bible. I don’t subscribe.

was never my intention to enter into debate on differences with other Christians, especially in a forum on non-catholic religions, but the OP - a catholic had asked for some clarification. This is what I was attempting to address and I apologize if I’ve strayed from that objective. Additionally, you’d probably discover that I couldn’t keep up with you for too long if we we’re to continue debating solely sola scriptura.

No need to apologize. I think you have stayed right on the OP (by the way what does OP stand for) I really didn’t think that we were having a debate. I thought it was merely a discussion

I don’t have a problem with Romans 8:3 . Your interpretation of it isn’t totally clear to me. I’d like to provide you with a reply, but the reply would be more pertinent if I knew how or what you perceive *sinful flesh *to imply.

I’ll be working today well into the evening (all for the Lord mind you) and so wouldn’t be able to get back in front of the pc until late this evening, but if you could leave me a little more background on your particular perception, I could try and give you my particular take on that passage from Romans 8:3.

Happy Easter to you and those dear to you.

**He is risen as He said…Alleluia **!!

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Rom 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1 Cor 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1 Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Here are some bible passages from Gal5, Rom8, and 1Cor3 Clearly “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner or carnal. I took this from a very interesting article biblelight.net/antichrist_and_jesus.htm

Hope you had a very happy and blessed Easter

 

[ChadS]

I just wanted to point out that in the OP the GotQuestions answer listed James McCarthy’s, The Gospel According to Rome as a resource. This book has been thoroughly debunked and discredited by several Catholic reviewers and I would think that any site that is linking that as a resource either hasn’t done their homework on what is actually in the book or is propagating a purposeful anti-catholic bias.

ChadS

 

[guanophore]

Since when is having children within marriage unchaste and unholy!!! That offends me a little. It really does.

Why are you making it up and pandering it, then? I find it offensive too. I certainly never said any such thing. The offense lives in your own heart.

Also, the apostles taught nothing of the sort.  The perpetual virginity of Mary was not even official dogma in the church until 1854.  It wasn't even taught as doctrine until 1476.

Sorry, but this is not the case. Nothing can be proclaimed as dogma that contradicts anything taught by the Apostles. We have from the Apostles that she was a perptual virgin. This is WHY it was proclaimed. that is like saying that the Apostles did not teach that Jesus is God, or that there is a trinity, because it was not proclaimed as dogma until later.

 

[guanophore]

Im not too concerned with what Luther beleives. I have the greatest respect for Luther and how he stood up to the church took much courage, but as far as my theology is concerned, if it doesn't coinside with the bible. I don't subscribe.

You are in a fix, then, because your Bible came from the same source. If you can’t trust the source, what are you left with?

I think you have stayed right on the OP (by the way what does OP stand for) I really didn't think that we were having a debate. I thought it was merely a discussion

OP means “original post”. It is the topic of the thread.

Here are some bible passages from Gal5, Rom8, and 1Cor3 Clearly “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner or carnal. I took this from a very interesting article biblelight.net/antichrist_and_jesus.htm

Richard,you are re-working old heresies. I suggest you go back and study Nestorianism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Monothelism and a few others that were defeated by the early church.

If “flesh” is synonomous with being a sinner and carnal, then that would have to apply to Christ as well. It would also mean that Genesis is written in error, and that Adam and Eve were not really created without sin.

 

[YADA]

You obviously did not read what i wrote. Satan hates man he is at war with man i do know what enmity means in fact i double checked myself just to be sure. Your logic here is faulty at best, scripture is God breathed as stated by Paul do not assume that Moses added his own view of women to the Bible. Jesus is as much Adam’s son as he is Eve’s so God saying that Eve’s offspring would defeat Satan is completely supported. While yes you are right that Adam and Eve both sinned and were not “Christlike” however Satan still hates them and is still in strife with them and all of mankind(Eve’s offspring) my last post said as much that we being made in the likeness of God are a sore sight to Lucifer and we remind him daily of God’s greatness and his impending doom. Also what is so “Christlike” of Mary? “Well shes Gods mother therefore perfect,” but this has NO scriptural backing the pope didn’t claim this heresy until 1854. there is no scriptural backing and the pope DOES NOT have the power to introduce new doctrine based on what he feels God left out of the scriptures

I agree that Moses did not add his own - apart from god breathed- view on the scriptures … too bad you do not follow in Moses example … your interpretation is just that … built upon your own pre-concieved notions … you have made yourself the arbitor of wht scripture means … you are right - we are wrong … now who has claimed total and absolute knowlegde here

Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate, to be honored by “all generations” … She indeed has a Savior in Christ [How is it that the Mother of my Lord comes to me?] … Mary always points to Christ …“Do whatever He tells you” … Mary heard the Word of God and responded … “I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word” … Mary is the new Eve, whose yes to God brought Salvation into the world undoing what Eve’s yes to Satan did - bringng sin and death into the world …

Scripture is full of Prototypes … and not just for Jesus … for Mary, the apostles, the Church … and even the people of God - us - we are found there in faithfullness and in sin …

 

[Des]

While yes you are right that Adam and Eve both sinned and were not “Christlike” however Satan still hates them and is still in strife with them and all of mankind(Eve’s offspring) my last post said as much that we being made in the likeness of God are a sore sight to Lucifer and we remind him daily of God’s greatness and his impending doom.

The Seed of the woman definitely cannot mean mankind cause if you take that verse even further we notice it says: "He will crush your head while you will strike at his heel”
As far as I know, no Christian actually believes mankind is the one to defeat Satan but Christ only. Are you so proud as to think you can crush the head of satan?

“I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head while you will strike at his heel” (Gen 3:15)

We also notice the verse says: " I will put enmity ‘between’…". As in both will have this mutual opposition towards one another just like it continues to say ‘between’ your offspring (those who consciously and voluntarily propagate sin along with the other fallen angels) and Hers (Jesus).

You, myself, Adam and Eve have sinned and continue(d) to sin. If we have such enmity towards satan, sin would never have touched us nor continue to touch us. The word enmity was used to describe Her (Mary), the mother of the Seed (Jesus) of which enmity would likewise be placed between.

In context using the second part of that verse, being the same enmity which is a constant, irrevocable and never ending opposition between Jesus and Satan’s seed, the first part using enmity means the same thing where the Woman must be constantly in opposition to Satan. Eve was never in constant battle with Satan. She failed in God’s eyes. The woman in the verse definitely cannot mean Eve but only Mary, the Mother of God.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Well, I’m going to try this one more time. I answered this post twice yesterday, but my computer chewed them up and spit them way out into cyber space.

It’s happened to me a few times…a little more consistently since the changes were made in the forums a while back…seems when I try to post, somehow I’m randomly asked to log in again when I’m already logged in. Several times after losing an hour or so of work in that manner, I found myself christening my tools with some exceedingly un-Christian names D) .

I’m not too concerned with what Luther beleives. I have the greatest respect for Luther and how he stood up to the church took much courage, but as far as my theology is concerned, if it doesn’t coinside with the bible. I don’t subscribe.

Usually not my MO, but I’ll see if I can give a generous helping of bible references to support commentary.

No need to apologize. I think you have stayed right on the OP (by the way what does OP stand for) I really didn’t think that we were having a debate. I thought it was merely a discussion

Thanks - that’s good to know. It’s a fairly easy task to inadvertently start attcking some fellow-member’s faith in the forums. At that point it can kind of foster counter-productivity and we can end up depriving ourselves of things we might learn from each other. I hope I don’t end up in that predicament too often. I think OP stands for Original Poster (but I’ve been wrong many times before [see my username]).

Here are some bible passages from Gal5, Rom8, and 1Cor3 Clearly “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner or carnal. I took this from a very interesting article biblelight.net/antichrist_and_jesus.htm

Hope you had a very happy and blessed Easter

Maybe I could begin with a definition of sin. I believe sin to be a separation from God or an act which separates us from God; considering both the "state"of sin and the “act” of sin (sinning). I’ve also read it expressed as a denial of God. Bishop Fulton Sheen called sin the abandonment of God by man ; the creature forsaking the Creator.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sin in its theological sense as:

a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience

I found the article interesting as well but not for the identical reasons you did Richard. To be fair, Michael Scheifler , while I won’t call it a vendetta, does expend a significant amount of energy condemning the Catholic Church. I’ve read some of his other articles. He isn’t too fond of EWTN either. So I wasn’t totally surprised when half way through that linked article a certain bent emerged which attempted to paint the catholic church with the colors of the Antichrist.

Please don’t get me wrong here. There are certain non-Catholic evangelists that I’ll listen to anytime any day… people like Dr. Michael Youssef, Dr. Charles R. Swindoll- both of them excellent preachers, and if you love a sense of humour to boot it’s hard to go wrong with Joyce Meyer.

In my limited opinion, trying to say “I believe” by condemning the beliefs of others is sort of like believing through the process of elimination.

In the excerpt from your linked article which follows directly below, I thought Mr. Scheifler’s definition of original sin, or, the fallen human state was quite good. What I couldn’t agree with is the part that says “Christ was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature” and the part that says, “Clearly, “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner.”

Here it is with a little context:
“Clearly, “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner, or “carnal”, which is defined as lacking the Holy Spirit. Adam and Eve when they were created were in perfect harmony with God, and had a spiritual nature. When they sinned, they lost this spiritual nature, and became carnal sinners. Ever since the fall, the children of Adam and Eve and their descendents are born carnal, lacking the spiritual nature forfeited in the garden. So when John says that Christ is “come in the flesh”, he is actually saying that Christ was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature.”

…Michael Scheifler

I’ll have to post this in 2 parts , otherwise it could exceed the limit of characters permitted for a post …

 

[steve_b]

I was just reading an article from the website, GotQuestions.org, and have become quite confused. I will attach it to this posting. The title is: “What does the Bible say about the Virgin Mary?” I must say that I checked Matt.1:25 and they seem to be right. I’m a practising Catholic but at the moment am not quite sure what I should believe.

Question: “What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?”

Answer: Mary the mother of Jesus was described by God as “highly favored” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “highly favored” comes from a single Greek word, which essentially means “much grace.” Mary received God’s grace.

Grace is “unmerited favor,” meaning that something we receive despite the fact that we do not deserve it. Mary needed grace from God just as the rest of us do. Mary herself understood this fact, as she declared in Luke 1:47, “. . . and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. . .”

Mary recognized that she needed the Savior. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way. Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favored (graced) by God (Luke 1:27-28). At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 John 1:8).

Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Luke 1:34-38), but the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical. Matthew 1:25, speaking of Joseph, declares, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.”

The word “until” clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual union after Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had half-sisters, although they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). God blessed and graced Mary by giving her several children, which in that culture was the clearest indication of God’s blessing on a woman.

One time when Jesus was speaking, a woman in the crowd proclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” (Luke 11:27). There was never a better opportunity for Jesus to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. What was Jesus’ response? “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (Luke 11:28). To Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, or anyone else, direct any praise, glory, or adoration towards Mary. Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, praised Mary in Luke 1:42-44, but her praise is based on the blessing of giving birth to the Messiah. It was not based on any inherent glory in Mary.

Mary was present at the cross when Jesus died (John 19:25). Mary was also with the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). However, Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1. The apostles did not give Mary a prominent role. Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (See Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

This page is also available in: Español, Português, Deutsch, Nederlands, Italiano, Polski, Hrvatski, Français

Related Topics:

Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?

Is the perpetual virginity of Mary Biblical?

What is the Assumption of Mary?

What is the immaculate conception?

Are apparitions of Mary, such as Lady Fatima, true messages from God?

Where did this poster go? Was this a drive by? If it’s not,there’s a mountain of good rebuttals she’ll need to wade throiugh.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…

What I couldn’t agree with is the part that says “Christ was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature” and the part that says, “Clearly, “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner.”

My reasons: All quotes are from the KJV Bible:

“Flesh”, in the bible can mean many things:

Flesh can also mean any and all living creatures, as in Genesis 6:19 ; 7:15-16
Gen 6:19

19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

Gen 7:15-16

15 And they went into the ark to Noah, two by two, of all flesh in which is the breath of life. 16 So those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.

It can equally mean kinsman or relative as in Genesis 29:13-14 ; Genesis 37:27

Genesis 29: 13-14

13 Then it came to pass, when Laban heard the report about Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. So he told Laban all these things. 14 And Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And he stayed with him for a month

Genesis 37:27

27 Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh.” And his brothers listened.

Flesh can mean human skin, as in Genesis 17:14, 23, 24, 25 .

Flesh can mean the flesh or meat of an animal, as in Numbers 18:18 ; 19:5 .

Flesh is mentioned many more times throughout the Old and New Testament, but where the notion that “ ‘flesh’ can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner” really loses it’s shine is when it is verified against the words of the Gospel, and often the words our Blessed Lord Jesus spoke Himself ; Try to imagine substituting the word sin, sinner, sinfulness, or sinning for the word flesh in some of these scriptural quotes:

Matthew 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:53-56
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

---

Sin is something which is absolutely foreign to God. God cannot be linked to or implicated in or by sin in any way…it just isn’t possible.

Was Jesus really God ? John 1:1 and Phillipians 2:6-11 say He was/is. Jesus even says He is on numerous occasions in the Gospels when he refers to the Father … “the Father and I are one” [John 10:30]

Probably the example from the bible which carries the most weight against the notion that “Clearly, ‘flesh’ can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner” is John 1:14 :

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It would be tantamount to saying, " And God was made into sin…or God became a sinner." Outrageous as it sounds, and it truly is absurd, it can’t happen. Sin is the separation, the abandonment from, the denial of God.
…If one is somehow able to remain still uncertain about this certainty, 2 Timothy 2:13 confirms it saying, Christ cannot deny Himself.

Another incongruency I noticed in the linked article was in this following statement by Mr. Scheifler:
“Though born of the flesh (of a sinner), scripture tells us that Jesus Christ had, before the incarnation, and from His conception, the spiritual nature that Adam and Eve had lost!”

It’s saying that before His incarnation, the Son of God had a human nature. Jesus Christ is God and man - body, blood, soul, divinity. Before His incarnation the Son of God did not have a human soul , body , or blood as part of His nature… there was no human nature at that point [Philippians 2:5-7]. The conception of Jesus Christ begins His incarnation.

American Heritage Dictionary derfinition of incarnation:

Incarnation Christianity
The doctrine that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of Mary and that Jesus is true God and true man.

This fallen human condition, this state of “original sin” is contracted from the parents by the child at the moment of its conception - at the moment co-creation begins.

Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

To say that Mary was a sinner is to say that Jesus contracted original sin at the moment of his conception in her womb.
To say that Mary was a sinner is also to say that God the Holy Spirit co-created with sin, with a sinner.

I don’t know if it can be said any more plainly than that.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Where did this poster go? Was this a drive by? If it’s not,there’s a mountain of good rebuttals she’ll need to wade throiugh.

LOL…

Maybe swim through at this point.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Maybe I could begin with a definition of sin. I believe sin to be a separation from God or an act which separates us from God; considering both the "state"of sin and the “act” of sin (sinning). I’ve also read it expressed as a denial of God. Bishop Fulton Sheen called sin the abandonment of God by man ; the creature forsaking the Creator.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sin in its theological sense as:

a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience

I like Isaiah 59:1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

I found the article interesting as well but not for the identical reasons you did Richard. In the excerpt from your linked article which follows directly below, I thought Mr. Scheifler’s definition of original sin, or, the fallen human state was quite good. What I couldn’t agree with is the part that says “Christ was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature” and the part that says, “Clearly, “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner.”

Here it is with a little context:
“Clearly, “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner, or “carnal”, which is defined as lacking the Holy Spirit. Adam and Eve when they were created were in perfect harmony with God, and had a spiritual nature. When they sinned, they lost this spiritual nature, and became carnal sinners. Ever since the fall, the children of Adam and Eve and their descendents are born carnal, lacking the spiritual nature forfeited in the garden. So when John says that Christ is “come in the flesh”, he is actually saying that Christ was born by a sinner that had a carnal nature.”

…Michael Scheifler.

Here are those scriptures again. I would ask that you read them again

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Rom 8:12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1 Cor 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1 Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Are you seriously saying that these scriptures are not saying that being in the flesh is synonymous with being a sinner. As far as Christ being born of a sinner. I must go back to my original question. Here is Rom 8:3b God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. If as it states here that God sent His son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Whose flesh was that. It wasn’t Joseph because altho he was a sinner he wasn’t related to Jesus. It wasn’t the Father because he is a spirit and is without sin. The only one that leaves is Mary. Then there are these

1 Ki 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) …
2 Chr 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) …
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Eccl 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

It seems to me, if the word of God conflicts with the word of man (ie. the Catholic Church) you don’t throw out the word of God. You change the word of man.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I like Isaiah 59:1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
.

I like it too. Thanks for sharing it.

Are you seriously saying that these scriptures are not saying that being in the flesh is synonymous with being a sinner. As far as Christ being born of a sinner. I must go back to my original question. Here is Rom 8:3b God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. If as it states here that God sent His son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Whose flesh was that. It wasn’t Joseph because altho he was a sinner he wasn’t related to Jesus. It wasn’t the Father because he is a spirit and is without sin. The only one that leaves is Mary. Then there are these
…

It seems to me, if the word of God conflicts with the word of man (ie. the Catholic Church) you don’t throw out the word of God. You change the word of man.

No, that isn’t what I said. Here’s what I said in a nutshell, without all the references:

…

“Flesh”, in the bible can mean many things:

…

To say that Mary was a sinner is to say that Jesus contracted original sin at the moment of his conception in her womb.

To say that Mary was a sinner is also to say that God the Holy Spirit co-created with sin, with a sinner.

I don’t know if it can be said any more plainly than that.

When one says, “Clearly, ‘flesh’ can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner, or ‘carnal’, which is defined as lacking the Holy Spirit” , …synonomous, implies similar or equivalent in connotation. I’m looking at the bigger picture.

Surely we can agree that the word "sinner" cannot be substituted for the word "flesh" in the examples provided thus the two are not exclusively interchangeable:

*Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:53-56
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.*

…And even more importantly in this passage , John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I’m back at your original question too.I’m sorry Richard, I know we’re both Christians , even though we both come from different “camps”, so to speak, but as related a few posts ago, it still is unclear to me as to what you’re saying.

When you say, *“If as it states here that God sent His son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Whose flesh was that. It wasn’t Joseph because altho he was a sinner he wasn’t related to Jesus. It wasn’t the Father because he is a spirit and is without sin. The only one that leaves is Mary.” , * do you mean that Jesus Christ was a sinner ? … I’m confused here on whether you’re talking about the flesh of Christ or the flesh of Mary , his tender Mother.

 

[guanophore]

Are you seriously saying that these scriptures are not saying that being in the flesh is synonymous with being a sinner.

Being “in the flesh”, yes, walking according to the flesh, but it is not because the flesh is innately sinful. God created the flesh of humanity and declared it “good”. That flesh was wounded in the fall, and now the flesh suffers from concupiscence (the tendency towrard sin). It is this wound that causes those who walk according to the flesh to walk in sin, not the flesh itself.

God redeemed human flesh in Christ,a nd has now glorified His human flesh in heaven (where no sin can dwell). He intends to do this for all of us, beginning in this lifetime.

As far as Christ being born of a sinner. I must go back to my original question. Here is Rom 8:3b God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. If as it states here that God sent His son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Whose flesh was that. It wasn’t Joseph because altho he was a sinner he wasn’t related to Jesus. It wasn’t the Father because he is a spirit and is without sin. The only one that leaves is Mary.

Yes, Jesus took His human flesh only from Mary. But it was not sinful flesh. It was in the “likeness” of sinful flesh.

Then there are these

It seems to me, if the word of God conflicts with the word of man (ie. the Catholic Church) you don’t throw out the word of God. You change the word of man.

I can understand how it would seem that way, since you are separated from the Apostolic teachings. However, there are exceptions to all these verses. “All” does not necessarily mean all. Christ being the primary one, since we all agree He was fully human, yet without sin.

There is no need to throw out either, as they come from the same Source.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, that isn’t what I said. Here’s what I said in a nutshell, without all the references:

When one says, “Clearly, ‘flesh’ can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner, or ‘carnal’, which is defined as lacking the Holy Spirit” , …synonomous, implies similar or equivalent in connotation. I’m looking at the bigger picture.

Surely we can agree that the word "sinner" cannot be substituted for the word "flesh" in the examples provided thus the two are not exclusively interchangeable:

No, they are not exclusively interchangeable, but I beleive that in the scriptures I posted they are.

Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

And so on…

…And even more importantly in this passage , John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

These scriptures are very interesting but they are irrelavant to the question at hand I agree that there are several definitions for the word “flesh” but what I am concerned with on this thread is how it is used in the scriptures I posted.

I’m back at your original question too.I’m sorry Richard, I know we’re both Christians , even though we both come from different “camps”, so to speak, but as related a few posts ago, it still is unclear to me as to what you’re saying.

When you say, *“If as it states here that God sent His son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Whose flesh was that. It wasn’t Joseph because altho he was a sinner he wasn’t related to Jesus. It wasn’t the Father because he is a spirit and is without sin. The only one that leaves is Mary.” , *

do you mean that Jesus Christ was a sinner ? … I’m confused here on whether you’re talking about the flesh of Christ or the flesh of Mary , his tender Mother.


16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Here is Galations 5:16-21 As you can see this says that the flesh is at odds with the Spirit, and then it goes on to enumerate seventeen things that it says are the works of the flesh. Now what is an encompassing term for these works? Would it not be sin. Here is Rom 8:3 again Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Now this certainly is not saying that Jesus is a sinner. It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. The only one that could be is Mary.

There are also these
1 Ki 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) …
2 Chr 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) …
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Eccl 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Then this on another post

Another incongruency I noticed in the linked article was in this following statement by Mr. Scheifler:
“Though born of the flesh (of a sinner), scripture tells us that Jesus Christ had, before the incarnation, and from His conception, the spiritual nature that Adam and Eve had lost!”

It’s saying that before His incarnation, the Son of God had a human nature.

If you read the statement a little closer you will see that he is not saying that the Son of God had a human nature , but that Adam and Eve had the nature of Christ. In other words they were created in His image and likeness.

American Heritage Dictionary derfinition of incarnation:

Incarnation Christianity
The doctrine that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of Mary and that Jesus is true God and true man.

This fallen human condition, this state of “original sin” is contracted from the parents by the child at the moment of its conception - at the moment co-creation begins.

Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

To say that Mary was a sinner is to say that Jesus contracted original sin at the moment of his conception in her womb.
To say that Mary was a sinner is also to say that God the Holy Spirit co-created with sin, with a sinner.

I don’t know if it can be said any more plainly than that.

About the only thing I agree with in this statement Is your quote from psalm 51. Sin is not inherited. It is committed.
Ezekial18:20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
There is no such thing as an inherited original sin. The original sin was committed by Lucifer in heaven.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Being “in the flesh”, yes, walking according to the flesh, but it is not because the flesh is innately sinful. God created the flesh of humanity and declared it “good”. That flesh was wounded in the fall, and now the flesh suffers from concupiscence (the tendency towrard sin). It is this wound that causes those who walk according to the flesh to walk in sin, not the flesh itself.

You are playing a semantics game here
Man sinned in the fall and as a result he had to die. Rom6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. I hope you are not saying that God called man good after the fall, because then He would be calling death and sin good.

Also Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

God redeemed human flesh in Christ,a nd has now glorified His human flesh in heaven (where no sin can dwell). He intends to do this for all of us, beginning in this lifetime.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that He is going to glorify our human flesh in heaven in this lifetime. I certainly know that He is not going to glorify all of us. Matt7:13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. In fact Matt7:13-14 pretty much says that most people aren’t going to make it.

Yes, Jesus took His human flesh only from Mary. But it was not sinful flesh. It was in the “likeness” of sinful flesh.

Couldn’t agree more. The flesh He came in the likeness of was that of Mary.

I can understand how it would seem that way, since you are separated from the Apostolic teachings. However, there are exceptions to all these verses. “All” does not necessarily mean all. Christ being the primary one, since we all agree He was fully human, yet without sin.
There is no need to throw out either, as they come from the same Source.

What specifically would those teachings be? Yes, Jesus is the only exception. So, you are saying the word of man is from God? Hmmm, don’t know about that.

 

[NeedImprovement]

My comments in blue:

Thanks for clarifying Richard. It helps me to see how you see things and the entire exchange of ideas gets me thinking about things more - I’d call that a positive effect.

No, they are not exclusively interchangeable, but I beleive that in the scriptures I posted they are.

Relative to the scriptures you quoted, I could agree with this statement overall.

These scriptures are very interesting but they are irrelavant to the question at hand I agree that there are several definitions for the word “flesh” but what I am concerned with on this thread is how it is used in the scriptures I posted.

All scripture can be relevant if seen in the proper light (in my limited opinion). A more panoramic perspective of things helps us dispense with the double standard as we move towards the definitive. I’m not saying you have applied a double standard here.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Here is Galations 5:16-21 As you can see this says that the flesh is at odds with the Spirit, and then it goes on to enumerate seventeen things that it says are the works of the flesh. Now what is an encompassing term for these works? Would it not be sin. Here is Rom 8:3 again Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Now this certainly is not saying that Jesus is a sinner. It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. The only one that could be is Mary.

Again, thanks for clarifying that for me. This is still saying that God the Holy Spirit co-created with a sinner and that the Precious saving Blood of Christ was mingled through the placenta and the umbilical cord with the blood of His Mother (whom you are calling a sinner and sinful) in her womb.

An interesting thing in genetics is that it takes the male contribution at conception to give the “Y” chromasome, which the woman doesn’t have. It is this chromasome which determines the sex of the child. There is a lot more, but when we say Mary “conceived” by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are saying when the ovum was mature and Mary consented, the power of the Holy Spirit provided all that would be needed together with her, as mother, for the conception of the human nature of God’s son. So it’s still saying Christ was made up of a sinful nature beginning with the very formation of the ovum required for conception.

There are also these
1 Ki 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) …
2 Chr 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) …
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Eccl 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Then this on another post

If you read the statement a little closer you will see that he is not saying that the Son of God had a human nature , but that Adam and Eve had the nature of Christ. In other words they were created in His image and likeness.

I’ll grant some leeway here for the possibility that Mr. Scheifler doesn’t really know what he’s saying from the perspectives of “nature”, “essence” and “being” . Adam and Eve couldn’t have the nature of Christ because Christ is God. In fact, their original sin of pride was rooted in the fact that they wanted to be God. Remember…Genesis 1:2-6…?

If you really mean to say, not God… but only in His image and likeness,- this is the same interpretation I gave you for the word “likeness” in the phrase “likeness of sinful flesh” several posts ago. As far as I can tell, the word* likeness *in the biblical sense is almost always interpreted as “similar” or “resembling” and not "identical"

About the only thing I agree with in this statement Is your quote from psalm 51. Sin is not inherited. It is committed.

Ezekial18:20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
There is no such thing as an inherited original sin. The original sin was committed by Lucifer in heaven.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoints Richard.

God bless you.

 

[guanophore]

No, they are not exclusively interchangeable, but I beleive that in the scriptures I posted they are.

At least we are in agreement that flesh does not necessarily equal sin.

Here is Galations 5:16-21 As you can see this says that the flesh is at odds with the Spirit, and then it goes on to enumerate seventeen things that it says are the works of the flesh. Now what is an encompassing term for these works? Would it not be sin.

I think the mistake you seem to be making here is that flesh=sin. The Apostles speak of the “works of the flesh”, in contrast to having our flesh under the rule of the Spirit. It is not he flesh itself that is inherintly sinful. If this were the case,then Jesus could not have come in the flesh, for in Him, there is no sin.

Then this on another post

If you read the statement a little closer you will see that he is not saying that the Son of God had a human nature , but that Adam and Eve had the nature of Christ. In other words they were created in His image and likeness.

Are you purporting that Jesus did not take on human nature? Do you realize that the Church defeated this heresy in the second century? Perhaps a little study of your family history would help?

About the only thing I agree with in this statement Is your quote from psalm 51. Sin is not inherited. It is committed.

Technically speaking, original sin is not inherited. It is the consequence (wound) of the sin which is inherited. You are also correct, though, that sin is also committed. There is a difference, though, between personal sin, and original sin.

There is no such thing as an inherited original sin. The original sin was committed by Lucifer in heaven.

Your perceptions are not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

You are playing a semantics game here
Man sinned in the fall and as a result he had to die. Rom6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. I hope you are not saying that God called man good after the fall, because then He would be calling death and sin good.

No, it is not semantics. It is the teaching of the Apostles. We both know from the account in Genesis that God created man, and called it “good”. That means that His creation of flesh is not inherintly evil.

Yes, man sinned, and the wage is death. It does not negate the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God. It means that the image has been wounded - marred. We are no longer able to reflect the glory of God that He intended in our flesh.

Also Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Jesus.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that He is going to glorify our human flesh in heaven in this lifetime.

Some people may have their flesh glorified in this life. He took Enoch and Elijah into heaven, and nothing unclean can enter there, so He must have glorified their flesh. However, for the rest of us, we await His coming, when this cloak will put on the incorruptible.

I certainly know that He is not going to glorify all of us.

Right. But, those whom He has predestined, He will glorify.

Couldn’t agree more. The flesh He came in the likeness of was that of Mary.

Jesus did not put on corrupted flesh.

What specifically would those teachings be? Yes, Jesus is the only exception. So, you are saying the word of man is from God? Hmmm, don’t know about that.

The teachings of the Apostles can be found in the Church, where Jesus instilled them.

No, the word of God was placed into the custody of the Apostles, and they committed it to their successors.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

These scriptures are very interesting but they are irrelavant to the question at hand I agree that there are several definitions for the word “flesh” but what I am concerned with on this thread is how it is used in the scriptures I posted.

All scripture can be relevant if seen in the proper light (in my limited opinion). A more panoramic perspective of things helps us dispense with the double standard as we move towards the definitive. I’m not saying you have applied a double standard here.

I’m not sure why we need a “panoramic perspective” when we are talking of a specific and addmmitedly very limited definition of the word “flesh”. The introduction of all the other definitions, in my opinion, serves to merely confuse the issue. What double standard are you refering to?

Here is Galations 5:16-21 As you can see this says that the flesh is at odds with the Spirit, and then it goes on to enumerate seventeen things that it says are the works of the flesh. Now what is an encompassing term for these works? Would it not be sin. Here is Rom 8:3 again Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Now this certainly is not saying that Jesus is a sinner. It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. The only one that could be is Mary.

Again, thanks for clarifying that for me. This is still saying that God the Holy Spirit co-created with a sinner and that the Precious saving Blood of Christ was mingled through the placenta and the umbilical cord with the blood of His Mother in her womb.

Mary had nothing to do with any act of creation. The only one who is capable of creation is God. Mary merely provided the body for God’s act of creation of the human body of Christ. The blood of Christ was not only mingled, but totally provided by the body of Mary, a sinner.

An interesting thing in genetics is that it takes the male contribution at conception to give the “Y” chromasome, which the woman doesn’t have. It is this chromasome which determines the sex of the child. There is a lot more, but when we say Mary “conceived” by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are saying when the ovum was mature and Mary consented, the power of the Holy Spirit provided all that would be needed for the conception of the human nature of God’s son. So it’s still saying Christ was made up of a sinful nature beginning with the very formation of the ovum required for conception.

The Spirit of God provided the sperm needed for the conception of Christ. Mary provided the egg (is that the ovum) and it is through her that Christ received His sinful human nature. Are you suggesting that the Spirit of the living holy God created Christ’s sinful human nature?

I’ll continue on another post

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure why we need a “panoramic perspective” when we are talking of a specific and addmmitedly very limited definition of the word “flesh”. The introduction of all the other definitions, in my opinion, serves to merely confuse the issue. What double standard are you refering to?

The failure to use a panoramic perspective is one of the reasons that we end up with limited ( and erroneous) understanding so of scriptural language. It is easy to exclude certain passages, and out of a handful of verses, derive a warped understanding.

We are in agreement that walking according to the flesh places us at enmity with God. This does not make flesh inherintly sinful.

Mary had nothing to do with any act of creation. The only one who is capable of creation is God. Mary merely provided the body for God’s act of creation of the human body of Christ.

God has ordained that humanity share in His acts of creation. This is why we are able to conceived children.

When you speak of Mary in this manner, you present her as more like an oven in which the Son was baked. She was not just a container for brooding. She is His mother.

The blood of Christ was not only mingled, but totally provided by the body of Mary, a sinner.

This is false on two counts. Biologically, the blood of the mother does not mix with the blood of the fetus. Their blood is separated by the placenta. Spiritually, Jesus could not take on tainted flesh. This is why He cleansed Mary from all sin in advance, so that He could take from Her body the building blocks of HIs own, immaculate.

The Spirit of God provided the sperm needed for the conception of Christ. Mary provided the egg (is that the ovum) and it is through her that Christ received His sinful human nature. Are you suggesting that the Spirit of the living holy God created Christ’s sinful human nature?

No. Christ had no sinful nature. Human nature is not intended to be sinful. God created human nature without sin. He cleansed Mary from sin, so that He could receive his human nature from her in purity. Didn’t you know? Mary is the first Christian!

I’ll continue on another post

I dunno, Richard, if you should continue at all. I think some basic reading would help. Perhaps the Catechism on the nature of sin, and of flesh?