Please Explain This Contrasting View

[Richard_Kastner]

NeedImprovement:
“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.”

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” .

I’m getting confused. I’ve included the original quote from Michael. I would ask that you point out “nature”, “essence”, and “being” that you say Mr Scheifler doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

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”

I’m sure you mean Gen3:1-6 I never said that we become God, but we are created in His image and likeness. I beleive that you gave a perfectly viable definition of likeness. It’s just as to what “likeness” is refering to that we’re getting turned around. In Rom8:3 likeness is not refering to Jesus but to Mary, that Jesus flesh resembled the sinful flesh of Mary but was not identical to it because Jesus did not sin and was the ONLY human that did not.

Here are some verses that may help explain were I’m coming from

Gal3:27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Rom13:14But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

When we are baptized we put on Christ. To me this is the partaking of the nature of Christ in our daily lives. It does not mean that we become Christ, but that we take on His nature and live as He lived.

Rom6:3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When we are baptized (by the way, only adults can be baptized. Infants are not capable of making the decisions necesary to be baptized) we die to sin and through Christ (the putting on of His nature) we walk in newness of life.

Matt5:48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Eph4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Rom10:15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

We must become perfect just as the Father in heaven is perfect (We must put on the nature of Christ) How do we do that through the hearing of the word of God

John17:9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John17:20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jesus in John 17 prays for the apostles and for us that we become one with Him and the Father (not become them, but be in them, take on the nature of Christ)

 

[NeedImprovement]

“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.
…

Actually, I was the first one to use the word “mingle” a few posts back. I didn’t mean a direct mixing of the mother’s and the foetus’ blood, but rather an exchange of all the elements and nutrients in the blood which the filtering function of the placenta allows to pass ,both from the mother to the foetus and from the foetus to the mother … I believe “building blocks” says it nicely.

What an amazing organ the placenta is…even serves to protect the developing foetus from an attack from the mother’s immune system

From the following link answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/placenta

“…After implantation, the placental giant cell “invades” the walls of several uterine arteries and veins, causing the mother’s blood to flow through channels within the cell . When the baby develops its own blood and blood vessels, the mother’s blood and the blood of the developing baby come into close association, but they never mix or come into direct contact. The syncytial trophoblast forms a thin, seamless, and selective barrier between maternal blood and fetal blood. All the critically important nutrients, gases, hormones, electrolytes, and antibodies that pass from mother’s blood to the baby’s blood must travel across this seamless and selective filter. Waste products in the baby’s blood must, in turn, pass across this filter to the mother’s blood.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
When we are baptized we put on Christ. To me this is the partaking of the nature of Christ in our daily lives. It does not mean that we become Christ, but that we take on His nature and live as He lived.
…

I agree.

I’m getting confused. I’ve included the original quote from Michael. I would ask that you point out “nature”, “essence”, and “being” that you say Mr Scheifler doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It isn’t something which is open to any easy explanation. Maybe I could begin by granting a concession. In one sense, according to your interpretation of it, what Mr. Scheifler says is congruent with Catholic belief … to say, we share in the divine nature in one sense.

I know you prefer scripture, but if you could, please bear with me while I concede this point to you…from the catechism of the Catholic Church:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the union of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).
1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,[5] the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.”[6] From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”[7]
1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”[8]
1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.”[9] Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

We fell from grace. the human nature Adam and Eve enjoyed before the fall was…what’s the word here?..“flawless?”

But nowhere or at no time is this more true that we human beings share or will share the divine image than in Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The state we will enjoy in Heaven is elevated far beyond the state our original parents enjoyed before the fall ; also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature."2
52
God, who “dwells in unapproachable light,” wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.3 By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him, and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

(These find their roots in scripture, I’m sure you recognize that).

That’s where we agree I think.

The Nature of God, and the nature of man, as explained in metaphysics, is (very loosely speaking), what makes God God and what makes man man; so there is a difference.

I suspect half of what we find trouble agreeing with is more due to a lack of common terminology rather than opposing principles. There is a type of precis on the Nature of God by St. Thomas Aquinas at this link. It’s simplified but not simple. Don’t worry if you don’t understand it (I get worried if I don’t see smoke coming out of my ears when I read it). It would illustrate , at least, along which gyst I was thinking when I said nature, essence and being.

It is found here :… ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/NatureOfGod.html

Thanks so much for sharing your viewpoints Richard. I’m going to be bowing out of this thread now. It’s taking a little too much time and energy. I prefer to leave the thread on a good note (… seen too many of 'em turn sour before). Your views have helped me to see things from several different vantage points. Thanks again.

God bless you.

 …

…Jesus in John 17 prays for the apostles and for us ***that we become one with Him and the Father ***(not become them, but be in them, take on the nature of Christ)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I agree.
It isn’t something which is open to any easy explanation. Maybe I could begin by granting a concession. In one sense, according to your interpretation of it, what Mr. Scheifler says is congruent with Catholic belief … to say, we share in the divine nature in one sense.

I know you prefer scripture, but if you could, please bear with me while I concede this point to you…from the catechism of the Catholic Church:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the union of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).
1703 Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul,[5] the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.”[6] From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.
1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”[7]
1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”[8]
1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.”[9] Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

We fell from grace. the human nature Adam and Eve enjoyed before the fall was…what’s the word here?..“flawless?”

But nowhere or at no time is this more true that we human beings share or will share the divine image than in Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The state we will enjoy in Heaven is elevated far beyond the state our original parents enjoyed before the fall ; also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature."2
52
God, who “dwells in unapproachable light,” wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.3 By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him, and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

(These find their roots in scripture, I’m sure you recognize that).

That’s where we agree I think.

The Nature of God, and the nature of man, as explained in metaphysics, is (very loosely speaking), what makes God God and what makes man man; so there is a difference.

I suspect half of what we find trouble agreeing with is more due to a lack of common terminology rather than opposing principles. There is a type of precis on the Nature of God by St. Thomas Aquinas at this link. It’s simplified but not simple. Don’t worry if you don’t understand it (I get worried if I don’t see smoke coming out of my ears when I read it). It would illustrate , at least, along which gyst I was thinking when I said nature, essence and being.

It is found here :… ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/NatureOfGod.html

Thanks so much for sharing your viewpoints Richard. I’m going to be bowing out of this thread now. It’s taking a little too much time and energy. I prefer to leave the thread on a good note (… seen too many of 'em turn sour before). Your views have helped me to see things from several different vantage points. Thanks again.

God bless you.

Hope that I wasn’t getting impolite or sour as you put it. I too have learned from our little discussion. ( I think it was still a discussion and not a debate) Just the act of reseach and delving into the word of God is so rewarding, especially when you are looking at a specific topic. I would ask a favor of you. Keep seeking, asking, knocking. Put your trust and faith in the crucified and risen Christ and perhaps one day we will meet at the banquet of the righteous when we will drink of the cup of the fruit of the vine with our beloved Savior. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

Michael Scheifler:

"Clearly, “flesh” can be interpreted as synonymous with being a sinner, or “carnal”, which is defined as lacking the Holy Spirit.

Sure. One can fabricate pretty much any interpretation of what one reads as one’s imagination can muster!

Being carnal, fleshly, or a sinner is not “defined as lacking the Holy Spirit”. Such a definition you have pulled out of somewhere that the light does not shine.
Michael Scheifler:

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.

No, Richard. This is not tha Apostolic Teaching. Mankind did not “lose” the spiritual nature by which he emulates the image and likeness of God.
Michael Scheifler:

Ever since the fall, the children of Adam and Eve and their descendents are born carnal, lacking the spiritual nature forfeited in the garden.

This is the gospel according to Scheifler? Is his religion called the Scheiflerians?

I learn something new every day.
Michael Scheifler:

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."

According to Scheiflerianism this is correct. That is how we know it is wrong!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Sure. One can fabricate pretty much any interpretation of what one reads as one’s imagination can muster!

Being carnal, fleshly, or a sinner is not “defined as lacking the Holy Spirit”. Such a definition you have pulled out of somewhere that the light does not shine.

No, Richard. This is not tha Apostolic Teaching. Mankind did not “lose” the spiritual nature by which he emulates the image and likeness of God.

This is the gospel according to Scheifler? Is his religion called the Scheiflerians?
I learn something new every day.

According to Scheiflerianism this is correct. That is how we know it is wrong!

In every one of your answers here all you do is disagree without giving an alternative. You sound like a 5 year old saying no it isn’t. Well don’t expect me to say yes it is. If you have something to contribute let’s hear it. If not why bother?

 

[guanophore]

In every one of your answers here all you do is disagree without giving an alternative. You sound like a 5 year old saying no it isn’t. Well don’t expect me to say yes it is. If you have something to contribute let’s hear it. If not why bother?

Richard, it seems that you are bent upon receiving and believing another gospel, that is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. I doubt that there is anything I can say that is going to make a difference. I agree, why bother?

This site is a place where people can come to receive Catholic Answers. If you don’t want them, there is not a whole lot we can do for you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you do a search the OP question has been discussed in depth on this forum.

Most of us of Catholic Faith has expalined this so many times that its seriously redundant. Theres another 50-page thread going on right now about this specific question and Marys perpetual Virginity. Please Read it.

Also you could check out “The Thinking Catholic Stategic Center” the perpetual virginity of Mary is dicussed at length there as well as the scripture verse in question from Matthew.

Mary is and always was the Perpetual Virgin, not only was Mary but so was St Joseph. You must understand early Jewsish/Hebrew life and first understand consecration and lifelong chasity to God was not uncommon with women nor men. So why would Mary then be is question, when is fact she is the only one in the entire Bible whos claimed FULL OF GRACE. Of cousere this aside from Christ/GOD, but no other individual managed to find this Grace ever. Not even Mose’s.

All Christian doctrines from the 3rd century confirm this, which includes the written words of St Jerome who was the greatest interpreter of scripture known to man. He also concluded even Joseph remained virgin and concecrated to God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Richard, it seems that you are bent upon receiving and believing another gospel, that is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. I doubt that there is anything I can say that is going to make a difference. I agree, why bother?

This site is a place where people can come to receive Catholic Answers. If you don’t want them, there is not a whole lot we can do for you.

Is that other thread we were just talking about this on locked bro? Wow, this just goes on and on, over and over. Once its fully explained and exhasted, it starts again and repeats.
We just finised this conversation, when yesterday??? lol

God Bless You my Brother, you have much patience, its a Blessing for sure.