So Mary is the fulfillment of God’s intention that Jesus become human—from where are you getting this?
You misunderstood what I said. I said that Christ shared in our humanity so that Humans can share in His divinity. Mary shares in Christ’s divinity, because of her faith in Him. This is the teaching of the Apostles.
John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth;
Phil 2:6-8
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Jesus was born in the likeness of men, so that men can be born into the likeness of God.
That is neither the consistent teaching of scripture, nor of the historical church.
The church teaches that we are to be “made” holy, not just pronounced holy. Covering the sin is a protestant invention.
Code:
Your church rejects that as well guanophore; witness your sacrament of confession and penance, and the training of priests to administer said sacrament, and the church’s creation of purgatory—the place of purgation, and of your final payment for your sins; where is your common sense, guanophore? :)
I never said that Catholics are perfect, or that they fulfill God’s intention that we avoid sin. God is merciful, and helps us in our weakness. The church did not 'create purgatory". Furthermore, purgatory is not a place. It is a state, where any stains of this world are removed so we can be in the presence of God. Neither is purgatory “payment for sins” as Jesus paid the price in full on the cross. However, all that belongs in another thread.
Paul says that by Adam’s sin, death spread to all men; and the reason Paul gives for that spreading of death by Adam’s sin?—***because ***ALL SINNED (v12). That occurred “in Adam,” as a representative; thus the comparison of Adam with Christ as representative of those who believe in Him being righteous, “in Him;” this is seen in the “so also,” or “so then,” statements of vv 12a, 18a, 19a.
Sin, and the tendency toward sin (concupiscence) are the consequences of original sin. All men have not sinned. How do we know this? Scripture speaks of the righteous, and Elijah, Enoch, and Moses are all taken up into heaven, where sin cannot dwell.
So Catholic baptism washes away death—the consequence of Adam’s sin—and not the stain of the sin itself?
We are not guilty of Adam’s sin.
The law was not given so that men could avoid sin; it was given so that men, by their
inability to keep the law, should gain the knowledge that they are sinners (Rom 3:20; cf 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7).
And so they would know what is required to live righteously before God. Under the law, the just lived by faith.
That is not what Paul is saying, guanophore.
You cannot possibly accept an alternative interpretation, because it would decimate your entire soteriology.
Paul is guarding his teaching in v 12 about the universality of death from the possible objection that people could not be held responsible for their sins if they did not ‘transgress’ the law of Moses (cf 3:20 and 4:15). Paul responds simply by asserting the reality of universal death throughout the time before the giving of the law through Moses.
One thing has nothign to do with the other. The consequence of original sin is not the same as personal sin.
Prior to the law of Moses, men were guilty of personal sin; however, Paul says, God did not impute the personal guilt to them; nevertheless, the guilt of their sin in Adam was imputed to them, as evidenced by the reign of death—”from Adam until Moses.”
Death is the consequence of sin, not the sin itself. The guilt of Adam’s sin is not imputed to his descendents. What has befallen us is the falling out of his sin.
