Thoughts on Mary: sinless

[pismopal]

Olde Thom

You may have already noticed that there are a lot of former " Baptists" in the Church…one of them being me. God bless your journey.

 

[emeraldisle]

The posts regarding the sinlessness of Mary have been wonderful

What posts, I don’t see any post here that presents evidence from God written word that Mary was sinless. On the other hand I have presented clear biblical evidence that says Mary is part of sinful humanity.

and I hesistate to even mention this thought of my own but here it is anyway. If I was God and could do anything I wanted…wouldn’t I WANT my Mother to remain sinless and be assumed into heaven?
If someone thinks that the answer could be no…I would like to hear the evidence for that.

Yes Jesus is God and He came into this world to save sinners like you, me and Mary. Now if the idea of a “special grace” is correct as suggested re Mary then why didn’t God give this “special grace” to all people? Remember John 3:16, for God so loved the world (all people) that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

.

 

[OldeThom]

What posts, I don’t see any post here that presents evidence from God written word that Mary was sinless. On the other hand I have presented clear biblical evidence that says Mary is part of sinful humanity.

Yes Jesus is God and He came into this world to save sinners like you, me and Mary. Now if the idea of a “special grace” is correct as suggested re Mary then why didn’t God give this “special grace” to all people? Remember John 3:16, for God so loved the world (all people) that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
.

Gracious! I have been a lurker in my own post … how weird is that . I’ve sat back and watched how this conversation has gone and I am not surprised. In my own studies, prayers and meditation I am seeking God’s love and patience as His Spirit leads me to understand, appreciate and accept His Word. At times I wish I were 2 years old again so that I could begin to learn free of my prejudices and layers of learning … but alas I can not, and that is truly frustrating. So, OK here goes …

As I see it there are a couple of foundational issues here that cannot be ignored. One, I have based my entire Christian experience and belief upon one source, the Bible (and a whole tonne of interpretations from other sources.) Second, I never thought of Mary as anything other than the mother of Jesus.

OK, first, please bear with me here, unlike most protestant churches today, the Church does not believe revelation started or stopped with the Bible, and that the written Word was as a result of Tradition, i.e., oral transmission as handed down via the Apostolic Tradition which Christ began. I was surprised to learn that many post-reformation writers did not disagree with this. Jesus’ disciples and later apostles (like Paul) wrote letters, true, but the primary tool was traveling and preaching. The Church sees this as one Word, both Tradition (the living expression of the Gospel) and the Scriptures (the written expression of the Gospel). Also, and most importantly, Tradition and the Scriptures are both inspired by the Holy Spirit and that neither stand alone or over shadow the other. Truth does not contradict Truth.

This is a difficult concept to accept and I naturally rebel against it because quite simply it has never been part of my teaching, reading or upbringing, always using Jn 20:31 and 2 Tim 3:16–17 as a basis for my thinking. A good reference I used (am using) is catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp I encourage anyone to check it out. For all that, to me at least, Tradition, as I am coming to find, makes sense in both a logical, historical way as well as in a spiritual way. In 2 Ths 2:15 Paul states that we must adhere to all the traditions he had given them, written and oral. That in the time of the apostles, immediately after Christ for at least a couple of hundred years, the Christian “scriptures” were in fact a blend of oral and written teachings along with the Hebrew Christians who most likely still access to or had the Hebrew Scriptures.

On a side note, can you imagine if God had not moved the pagan emperor Constantine to call the Council of Nicene together to once and for all determine what was divine Christian scripture and what was not? How many more years would it have taken? I shutter to think.

Second, Mary, ah Mary, Mother of God … I am struggling with the Church’s view of her being sinless as well. For me, it has always been a silent comfort to think Mary was just like me: a sinner, imperfect and needing Salvation. But I am also beginning to think the opposite: what a comfort it would be to know Mary attained a sinless nature. There is not a direct reference to Mary being sinless all her life, nor that she wasn’t, in the Scriptures (being “full of Grace” may certainly imply that however), but it is held in Tradition as Truth. Therefore, why I brought up the first issue above.

( I truly do wish one of the writers of the NT had said, “except Mary”, but they didn’t.)

Again, as I stated earlier, with regards to Tradition, many post-reformation writers accept the Immaculate Conception and her perpetual virginity, I might add. Even though there is not direct Scriptural reference to that. It just seems logical. Many protestant Churches today do as well, including the last one I attended for a number of years. (Most reformation writers do however draw the line at her being sinless for the rest of her life and her assumption.)

Of course the wider implication here is that anyone can attain a sinless life if they can acquire a state “full of Grace”. And that threw up red flags everywhere in my heart and brain, with numerous verses from Scriptures that seem to state otherwise. I am willing and able to accept Mary as a unique and special case, but anyone??! …

For me, this is all a work in progress. I like to think of it as reverse engineering my faith. I must go back to my original premise: you must believe the whole package, not pick and chose what you want and disregard (or not believe) the rest. In the matter Truth, it simply just not work that way.

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[OldeThom]

Shoot! I forgot a key point in all this: the Reformation for all intents and purposes was a rebellion against the authority of the Church and therefore rejection or the modification of Sacred Tradition was needed and inevitable. Just reading the works of Luther to Calvin to Zwingli and finally to Wesley will demonstrate how the rejection of Sacred Tradition over the course of a couple of hundred took place and it’s importance in establishing churches outside the Church’s authority.

Seems to me (and this may be obvious to some) that it is easier for a Catholic to become a Protestant than a Protestant to become a Catholic. (Just saying that seems weird in a Non Sequitur way.)

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[Della]

That why God tells us the following in His written word;

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

Sorry, you can’t side step your own interpretation of Romans 3:23 that way. Either Paul meant all (in the way you’re interpreting it), including Mary and Jesus, or he didn’t. Now, which is it?

Regarding the IC idea well the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading, Proof from Scripture, states, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

.

That’s right, but not the way you are thinking. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is a proof-text. Therefore, not finding “proof” in the Bible means nothing. Catholics understand the Scriptures to be a witness to the truths taught by Christ and his Apostles. It was the Apostles who took the word of God to others, not the NT, which wasn’t put into a formal canon for nearly 400 years.

A great little book, found online, on this topic is: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

 

[allhers]

Thom, here is some more for you.

Mary conceived her son by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). The Archangel first told her that her Son was to be the Son of the Most High. However, any devout Jew could be called a son of God. But there was more: the angel told her He would reign over the house of Jacob forever: right then she would know He was to be the Messiah, for Jews then commonly believed the Messiah would reign forever. Finally, the angel said He would be conceived when the Holy Spirit would “overshadow” her. That word, she would know, was the one use to describe the Divine Presence filling the ancient Tabernacle in the desert (Exodus 40:35). Her Son was to be called Son of God “for this reason”. So that He was the Son of God in a unique sense. From this alone she likely knew of His divinity, especially when she would add the words of Isaiah 9:5-6 that the Messiah would be “God the Mighty”. Even though the Jews found that text hard, she, full of grace, would readily grasp it.

Ever Virgin
So this was a virginal conception, that is, without the intervention of a man. Both Matthew and Luke make this clear. If we believe the Gospels, we will understand that readily. The teaching of the Church, already in the oldest creeds, which call her “ever-virgin,” tells us she remained a virgin during and after His birth. Some have tried to say the teaching on her virginity was not physical, but just a way of expressing her holiness. But it is more than that: Vatican II (Lumen Gentium # 57) wrote that His birth “did not diminish, but consecrated her virginal integrity.” That word “integrity” refers to physical condition…

Immaculate Conception
As a result of this Divine Motherhood, because it was fitting for Her Son, she obtained the great grace of the Immaculate Conception, defined by Pius IX in 1854. This means that from the first instant of conception her soul had sanctifying grace, a share in God’s own life, given in anticipation of the future merits of her Son.

more here: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya1.htm

 

[emeraldisle]

As I see it there are a couple of foundational issues here that cannot be ignored. One, I have based my entire Christian experience and belief upon one source, the Bible (and a whole tonne of interpretations from other sources.)

There’s nothing wrong with basing the Christian life on what God has told us in His written word. The danger is in basing the Christian life on peoples ideas, also it’s important that Christians test what people say with what God has told us in His written word.

Second, I never thought of Mary as anything other than the mother of Jesus.

and how do we know that Mary was the mother of the Blessed Lord Jesus, well God tells us this in His written word.

OK, first, please bear with me here, unlike most protestant churches today, the Church does not believe revelation started or stopped with the Bible, and that the written Word was as a result of Tradition, i.e., oral transmission as handed down via the Apostolic Tradition which Christ began. I was surprised to learn that many post-reformation writers did not disagree with this. Jesus’ disciples and later apostles (like Paul) wrote letters, true, but the primary tool was traveling and preaching. The Church sees this as one Word, both Tradition (the living expression of the Gospel) and the Scriptures (the written expression of the Gospel). Also, and most importantly, Tradition and the Scriptures are both inspired by the Holy Spirit and that neither stand alone or over shadow the other. **Truth does not contradict Truth. **

What was Christ reading in the synagogue? see Luke 4: 14 - 21. Of course He was reading the written word of God.

Yes Gods Truth does not contradict itself, so when God tells us in His written word that all of humanity is sinful and Mary was part of sinful humanity, then the Truth is she was sinner.

This is a difficult concept to accept and I naturally rebel against it because quite simply it has never been part of my teaching, reading or upbringing, always using Jn 20:31 and 2 Tim 3:16–17 as a basis for my thinking.

No I don’t find it difficult to believe what God says in His written word. However I am careful about testing what people say, best to compare what they say with what God has told us in His written word.

For all that, to me at least, Tradition, as I am coming to find, makes sense in both a logical, historical way as well as in a spiritual way. In 2 Ths 2:15 Paul states that we must adhere to all the traditions he had given them, written and oral. That in the time of the apostles, immediately after Christ for at least a couple of hundred years, the Christian “scriptures” were in fact a blend of oral and written teachings along with the Hebrew Christians who most likely still access to or had the Hebrew Scriptures.

Tradition that is in agreement with what God says in His written word is correct. We know Truth and true traditions by what God has told us in His written word.

On a side note, can you imagine if God had not moved the pagan emperor Constantine to call the Council of Nicene together to once and for all determine what was divine Christian scripture and what was not? How many more years would it have taken? I shutter to think

Remember God used a donkey to speak to Balaam, so was God limited in His ability to give us His Truth in His written word?

Second, Mary, ah Mary, Mother of God … I am struggling with the Church’s view of her being sinless as well. For me, it has always been a silent comfort to think Mary was just like me: a sinner, imperfect and needing Salvation. But I am also beginning to think the opposite: what a comfort it would be to know Mary attained a sinless nature. There is not a direct reference to Mary being sinless all her life, nor that she wasn’t,

There is a direct reference in the Bible for all of humanity being sinners and of course we know that Mary was part of humanity so she was a sinner like us all.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— Rom 5:12

in the Scriptures (being “full of Grace” may certainly imply that however), but it is held in Tradition as Truth. Therefore, why I brought up the first issue above.

"Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation ‘full of grace,’ opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises ‘endowed with grace; dearly loved.’ The MNT task force translates it as ‘graciously favored by God,’ while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, ‘full of grace,’ is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, ‘O highly favored daughter’; JB, ‘So highly favored’) [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129].

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2490

( I truly do wish one of the writers of the NT had said, “except Mary”, but they didn’t.)

Yes they didn’t and they were inspired by God to write the Truth.

Again, as I stated earlier, with regards to Tradition, many post-reformation writers accept the Immaculate Conception and her perpetual virginity, I might add. Even though there is not direct Scriptural reference to that. It just seems logical. Many protestant Churches today do as well, including the last one I attended for a number of years. (Most reformation writers do however draw the line at her being sinless for the rest of her life and her assumption.)

Gods revealed Truth is in His written word.

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Sorry, you can’t side step your own interpretation of Romans 3:23 that way. Either Paul meant all (in the way you’re interpreting it), including Mary and Jesus, or he didn’t. Now, which is it?

It’s so simple, God tells us in His written word that all of humanity except the Lord Jesus is sinful.

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: Rom 5:12

For even hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Peter 2:21-22

That’s right, but not the way you are thinking. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is a proof-text. Therefore, not finding “proof” in the Bible means nothing.

The Bible is Gods revealed Truth. Many people claim to have “truths” that aren’t in the Bible so God has told us His Truth in His written word so that we would know His Truth.

.

 

[VociMike]

It’s so simple, God tells us in His written word that all of humanity except the Lord Jesus is sinful.

You’re right about one thing - it is so simple. God’s revelation is not found solely in his written word. And he has also revealed to his Church that Mary was without sin. As you say, it’s so simple.

The Bible is Gods revealed Truth. Many people claim to have “truths” that aren’t in the Bible so God has told us His Truth in His written word so that we would know His Truth.

Your logic is faulty. Many religions claim to have sacred books inspired by God. Does that somehow refute that the bible is truly inspired by God?

The bible is God’s revealed truth. But it is not the entirety of God’s revealed truth. To repeat your very accurate phrase, it’s so simple.

 

[allhers]

One other thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that the Catholic (universal Christian) Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written down, so, the people that walked with our Lord and His Mother knew that she was his Mother without a Bible telling them anything.

That seems to be especially important since Jesus gave her to all of us, and us to her from the Cross as He was dying.(that happened before the New Testament was written too.)

Afterall, the Catholic Church still hands on faithfully all of Jesus’ teachings, and we still pray with her, just as the early Church did. (I am sure that she was one of the people who contributed to the writings of the Bible, after all, where else would the Gospel writers have heard the details of the Angel appearing to her to announce that she would be the Mother of our Lord.) Wouldn’t you have talked to her and asked her about all that too if you were right there with her? I know I would. (As a matter of fact, I still talk with her and pray with her.)

 

[OldeThom]

OK - my understanding to date:

Either you believe that Sacred Tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation or you don’t.

Either you believe that Sacred Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation or you don’t.

Maybe this is a pretty simplistic view, but in my mind this is what it all boils down to. Most protestant churches believe only in the later. The Catholic Church believes in both. And what it comes down to is authority, with the belief in and living under that authority as being Divinely inspired by God.

Millions of men and women have been asking questions and debating dogma and doctrine centered around these two issues for centuries. As to what I believe at this very moment, honestly, and literally I am on the fence - I ought to send in a picture . One thing is for certain: I thank God I live in a time and place where I am able to exercise this freedom.

I will keep you informed as I am able.

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[allhers]

This is one other thing, among others, but I don’t want to overwhelm anyone, who said this?

… “emperor Constantine to call the Council of Nicene together to once and for all determine what was divine Christian scripture and what was not…”??

Because, the Canon of Scripture was received as “Divinely Inspired”, since 382 at a council at Rome under Pope Damasus. They were officially bound in 1546, (Council of Trent), under Pope Paul IV.

Emeraldisle, when you speak of the Scriptures that Jesus was reading, that was the Scrolls of the Old Testament, not the Bible, as the Bible didn’t exist yet.

 

[OldeThom]

Oh shoot! I must be tired, I forgot my premise and what this thread was all about …

Belief in Mary the way the Catholic Church sees her, must be in the same way, either you believe it is true or not. For me this will largely be based on whether I accept Sacred Tradition or not. Again, an over simplification perhaps.

One thing, though, all this discussion, my reading and prayers have led me to respect and appreciate Mary more than I ever did before.

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[OldeThom]

This is one other thing, among others, but I don’t want to overwhelm anyone, who said this?

… “emperor Constantine to call the Council of Nicene together to once and for all determine what was divine Christian scripture and what was not…”??

“allhers”, I actually got that out of a link here in the archives which I cannot seem to find atm, but the actual quote is from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. The council met in 325AD. There was one very pressing issue that Constantine also wanted resolved, namely whether or not Jesus was both man and God, same as God, or whether He was “something else” l.e., a spirit god (greatly over simplified.) The council spent a great deal of time on this issue before they cast their votes to approve the former and reject the later. In the time they had left the council also produced a number of other things, like a calendar of events, and set the foundation for the Church’s creeds and canon. The actual canon was not agreed upon until, as you pointed out, much later.

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[VociMike]

OK - my understanding to date:

Either you believe that Sacred Tradition is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation or you don’t.

Either you believe that Sacred Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation or you don’t.

Maybe this is a pretty simplistic view, but in my mind this is what it all boils down to. Most protestant churches believe only in the later. The Catholic Church believes in both. And what it comes down to is authority, with the belief in and living under that authority as being Divinely inspired by God.

You may want to consider this line of thought a bit. When God spoke to his people through the prophets and apostles, he was using fallible men to infallibly communicate his revelation. If God used men in this capacity for thousands of years, why would he suddenly stop and leave all Christians for the rest of time without the same guidance by fallible men guided infallibly?

In using those men, God was providing a visible teaching authority, capable of dealing with the application of his revelation to each age and each people. The council in Jerusalem is the example we have from scripture, and all the following councils are the examples we have from history. Thus God’s guiding hand did not leave his visible Church with the deaths of the apostles, but continues now and will continue to the end of time. God did not cease guiding fallible men in AD 90 or 100, but he continues to guide them.

Look at the way God communicated to his chosen leaders in the Old Testament, and look at the way he did so in the New Testament, and ask yourself why did this communication stop suddenly? In the Protestant view it did stop, abruptly, but in the Catholic view God continues to communicate with and guide his chosen leaders, who in turn communicate with and guide his chosen people. Ask yourself which makes more sense, and which seems to fit better with the way God acted in the past.

 

[OldeThom]

Yes, Mike, that line of thought has always been on my mind since almost day one of my journey. Thank you for the reminder.

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[Randy_Carson]

My question is this:

Why is it so important to believe that she did not sin anymore, especially since she still had free will and subject to concupiscence?

Why? Because the Church has declared this doctrine infallibly.

However, if you are really asking why was it important for Mary to be sinless throughout her life, this is a tougher question for us to fathom.

Apparently, God wanted it so. Most answers regarding “why” will find up moving toward the idea that it was fitting for her, etc.

 

[marymol]

2nd letter of St.Peter - 2 :15 - in reference to St.Paul’s writings - ’ there are some things in them that the ignorant and the unstable distort to their own destruction , just as they do the other scriptures .

Therefore , beloved , since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and from your own stability '.( does he not mean The Church on The Rock !)

Fearful and prophetic words !

Losing trust and reverence for the Mother and her special and righteous role to intercede , to be a model , to help us to do whatever He asks us to do , many losing faith in the lifegiving sacraments and in The True Church !

The Church as pillar and foundation of truth - to reveal a Father’s Love , through one pure creature who has a most unique role - to magnify both the divinity and humanity of our Lord and for us to ponder on same with a pure heart in ourselves …

As to the verses being contested ’ through one man death enterd the world and death has passed upon all men ’ - we already know of Enoch and Elijah whom death did spare ; St.Paul also most likely had a special role to protect our bl.Mother from getting too much attention - in a Church that was increasingly under persecution ; he might have also omitted refernece to her , out of utmost honor , in accordance with the old culture .

Even in Ephesus , he does not mention bl.Mother but most likely was with her - listening at her feet and praying with her !

Yet , The Holy Spirt knew that The Church , under the office of St.Peter , would be fed and led into all truth !

May The Spirit open our hearts and minds through the intercession of The Immaculate Heart of Mary !

 

[allhers]

“allhers”, I actually got that out of a link here in the archives which I cannot seem to find atm, but the actual quote is from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. The council met in 325AD. There was one very pressing issue that Constantine also wanted resolved, namely whether or not Jesus was both man and God, same as God, or whether He was “something else” l.e., a spirit god (greatly over simplified.) The council spent a great deal of time on this issue before they cast their votes to approve the former and reject the later. In the time they had left the council also produced a number of other things, like a calendar of events, and set the foundation for the Church’s creeds and canon. The actual canon was not agreed upon until, as you pointed out, much later.

Respectfully,
Thom

Here it is:
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612ec.asp
…An ominous precedent
The Roman Emperor Constantine had no sooner won his victory at the Milvian Bridge in 312, bearing the “sign” of Jesus Christ, and decreed the freedom of the Church in the following year, than he became embroiled in a raging Church controversy. He intervened as emperor to help restore the rightful bishop to the see of Carthage in North Africa. Ominously for the future, this was the first instance in which the secular arm of the state employed the use of force to back up a Church decision.

In the course of Constantine’s intervention, he became involved in the already established Church practice of calling together bishops in synods or councils to decide important Church questions. The idea of calling a Church council thus served him in good stead when serious trouble broke out in the East around the year 323. Constantine became the patron of the first gathering of all the Catholic bishops of the world, which he scheduled for May, 325. He designated as the site of the council one of his summer palaces in Nicaea, some twenty-five miles away from his then imperial capital, Nicomedia (and about forty miles away from the site of the new imperial capital he would soon establish on the Bosphorus at Byzantium, Constantinople).

More than 300 bishops responded to the emperor’s invitation and attended the Council of Nicaea, the first of the Church’s ecumenical councils; the bishops came from the “whole world,” Greek oikoumene, from which our adjective “ecumenical” comes…

What trouble in the Church had called forth such an extraordinary response on the part of the Roman emperor? The threat was a novel teaching about Christ, one that, although superficially plausible, was fundamentally erroneous, and, indeed, destructive of any belief in Christ as Savior.

(So actually it wasn’t that Constantine wanted to know the books of the Canon, as was previously stated in your post # 43 but instead he wanted to know if Jesus was God and man.)

 

[Mintaka]

Christ is the New Adam – the Adam who chose to be obedient to God, even unto death, instead of being fooled by the serpent.

But based on Genesis (in the Proto-Evangelion), it’s easy to see that a New Eve is also prophesied. Again and again, the early Church sings the praises of Mary as the New Eve. (And they have a lot of fun with “virgin clay” and the New Adam’s body being made out of the New Eve, instead of the other way around. It goes on and on and on.)

So here’s the New Eve, who walked with God (all the time, in the yard and the house, in the noonday sun as well as the cool of the evening), and who was saved by Christ’s death and resurrection at the very moment of her conception as the first fruits of God’s plan to remake humanity. She could not save or remake humanity. She was not God. But she could act as God had always meant humanity to act – sinlessly – because God gave her the power to do so, by making her without original sin. The difference between her and Eve is that the New Eve chose to obey. She listened to the good angel and not the evil serpent, as St. Augustine and other early Christians liked to point out.

If she had chosen to sin during her life in even the smallest way, she would have been listening and cozying up to the serpent, not having it strike at her heel as she (and more importantly, her son) stepped on its head.

Now, of course God could save the human race without Mary being sinless. But then, God could have saved the human race without sending us His Son and making Him suffer. God could have just avoided the whole thing by never giving humans free will, or just not creating them. But God wants us to cooperate with Him. He respects our dignity, because He gave it to us. He made us in the image and likeness of Himself.

So why wouldn’t God give humanity a second chance to pass the Eden test? And if He did, why wouldn’t He set that test both to male and female? Male and female He created them, and it wasn’t only Adam or only Eve who was commanded not to eat that one fruit in the Garden.