User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:14:10 PM EDT
[#1]
Jesus never truly 'became sin'. From Augustine:
By his miracles he, being God, produced faith in God, and by his passion, in the human nature he had assumed, he furthered respect for human nature. Speaking to the multitudes as God he refused to recognize his mother when her coming was announced, and yet, as the Gospel says, he was obedient to his parents (Matt 12:48, Luke 2:51). In his doctrine the God appeared, and the Man in the various stages of his life. When, as God, he was about to turn water into wine, he said: “Woman, depart from me; what do have to do with thee? My hour is not yet come” (John 2:4). But when his hour had come when, as a man, he should die, he recognized his mother from the Cross and commended her to the disciple whom he loved more than the others (John 19: 26-27). The peoples to their own destruction sought riches that minister to pleasures: He determined to be poor. They panted for honors and empires; He refused to be made a king. They thought it a great boon to have sons after the flesh: He scorned marriage and offspring. In their great pride, they dreaded insults: He bore with insults of every kind. They thought injuries were not to be endured: What greater injury can there be than that a just and innocent man should be condemned. They execrated bodily pain: He was beaten and tortured. They feared to die: He was condemned to death. They thought a cross the most shameful form of death: He was crucified. All of the things which men unrighteously desired to possess, he did without and so made them of no account. All the things men sought to avoid and so deviated from the search for truth, he endured and so robbed them of their power over us. There is no sin that men can commit which is not either a seeking of what he avoided, or an avoiding of what he bore.
Of True Religion, xvi, 30-32 If he had 'become sin' (i.e. if sin had truly touched his nature) then he wouldn't have been a perfect (read: innocent) sin offering and, by extension, his sacrifice would have lost its expiatory power. We are saved by Christ's sacrifice precisely because he WASN'T touched by Original Sin. This is an odd thing to debate, frankly speaking. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:16:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I already know this will be howled at by the usual suspects, but here goes. According to Aquinas, sin rests in the defective will and not the flesh. Article 3. Whether the sin of the first parent is transmitted, by the way of origin, to all men? From Augustine: If the flesh was truly 'worth nothing' then how could Christ have taken the substance (not form, mind you, but substance  ) of a human individual? 
And, more than that, how could the death (real death, mind you) of Christ have served as a expiatory offering for human sinfulness? After all, 'flesh counts as nothing'...
As Pope Francis so ably put it: How can someone be be 'a real person' if 'the flesh counts as nothing'?
But again, I already know that the usual suspects will take issue with this explanation. I only offer it so that the faithful (or potentially faithful) will be able to see error properly refuted. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I already know this will be howled at by the usual suspects, but here goes. According to Aquinas, sin rests in the defective will and not the flesh. Article 3. Whether the sin of the first parent is transmitted, by the way of origin, to all men? But if anyone were to be formed by God out of human flesh, it is evident that the active power would not be derived from Adam. Consequently he would not contract original sin: even as a hand would have no part in a human sin, if it were moved, not by the man's will, but by some external power...
Adam was not in the place of exile until after his sin. Consequently it is not on account of the place of exile, but on account of the sin, that original sin is transmitted to those to whom his active generation extends...The flesh does not corrupt the soul, except in so far as it is the active principle in generation, as we have stated...If a man were to be formed from human flesh, he would have been in Adam, "by way of bodily substance" [The expression is St. Augustine's (Gen. ad lit. x). Cf. Summa Theologica TP, 31, 6, Reply to Objection 1, but not according to seminal virtue, as stated above. Therefore he would not contract original sin. From Augustine: But in no way did he show greater loving-kindness in his dealings with the human race for its good, than when the Wisdom of God, his only Son, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, deigned to assume human nature; when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. For thus he showed to carnal people, given over to bodily sense and unable with the mind to behold the truth, how lofty a place among creatures belonged to human nature, in that he appeared to men not merely visibly – for he could have done that with some ethereal body adapted to our weak powers of vision – but as a true man. The assuming of our nature was to be also its liberation. And that no one should perchance suppose that the creator of sex should despise sex, he became a man born of a woman. ..
His resurrection from the dead showed that nothing of human nature can perish, for all is safe with God. It showed also how all things serve the Creator for either the punishment of sin or the liberation of man, and how the body can serve the soul when the soul is subject to God. When the body perfectly obeys the soul and if the soul perfectly serves God, not only can there be no evil substance, for that there can never be, but, better still, substance cannot be affected by evil, for it can be so affected only by sin or its punishment. This natural discipline is worthy of the complete faith of less intelligent Christians, and for intelligent Christians, it is free from all error. Of True Religion, xvi, 30-32 If the flesh was truly 'worth nothing' then how could Christ have taken the substance (not form, mind you, but substance ) of a human individual?
And, more than that, how could the death (real death, mind you) of Christ have served as a expiatory offering for human sinfulness? After all, 'flesh counts as nothing'...
As Pope Francis so ably put it: Christianity isn't a philosophy or guide to survival, good behavior and peace, it's a relationship with a real person who died on the cross for our sins, Pope Francis said. How can someone be be 'a real person' if 'the flesh counts as nothing'?
But again, I already know that the usual suspects will take issue with this explanation. I only offer it so that the faithful (or potentially faithful) will be able to see error properly refuted.
If this is taken literal, then it means that Jesus is just a person. Is that what you're really trying to say? No one has denied that Jesus was fully human. It's also funny that Jefferson Bethke made that same claim but you insulted him for it |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:20:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus never truly 'became sin'. From Augustine: If he had 'become sin' (i.e. if sin had truly touched his nature) then he wouldn't have been a perfect (read: innocent) sin offering and, by extension, his sacrifice would have lost its expiatory power. We are saved by Christ's sacrifice precisely because he WASN'T touched by Original Sin. This is an odd thing to debate, frankly speaking. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jesus never truly 'became sin'. From Augustine: By his miracles he, being God, produced faith in God, and by his passion, in the human nature he had assumed, he furthered respect for human nature. Speaking to the multitudes as God he refused to recognize his mother when her coming was announced, and yet, as the Gospel says, he was obedient to his parents (Matt 12:48, Luke 2:51). In his doctrine the God appeared, and the Man in the various stages of his life. When, as God, he was about to turn water into wine, he said: “Woman, depart from me; what do have to do with thee? My hour is not yet come” (John 2:4). But when his hour had come when, as a man, he should die, he recognized his mother from the Cross and commended her to the disciple whom he loved more than the others (John 19: 26-27). The peoples to their own destruction sought riches that minister to pleasures: He determined to be poor. They panted for honors and empires; He refused to be made a king. They thought it a great boon to have sons after the flesh: He scorned marriage and offspring. In their great pride, they dreaded insults: He bore with insults of every kind. They thought injuries were not to be endured: What greater injury can there be than that a just and innocent man should be condemned. They execrated bodily pain: He was beaten and tortured. They feared to die: He was condemned to death. They thought a cross the most shameful form of death: He was crucified. All of the things which men unrighteously desired to possess, he did without and so made them of no account. All the things men sought to avoid and so deviated from the search for truth, he endured and so robbed them of their power over us. There is no sin that men can commit which is not either a seeking of what he avoided, or an avoiding of what he bore.
Of True Religion, xvi, 30-32 If he had 'become sin' (i.e. if sin had truly touched his nature) then he wouldn't have been a perfect (read: innocent) sin offering and, by extension, his sacrifice would have lost its expiatory power. We are saved by Christ's sacrifice precisely because he WASN'T touched by Original Sin. This is an odd thing to debate, frankly speaking. What did Jesus mean in Matthew 27:46 when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"? He then took some wine vinegar from a sponge and said "It is finished". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:21:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Sorry, but I'm not willing to accept a Jefferson Bethke acolyte's word as final authority on the Pope's theological commentary.
By all means, believe what you like, just don't try to dictate your interpretation of Catholic doctrine to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:29:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but I'm not willing to accept a Jefferson Bethke acolyte's word as final authority on the Pope's theological commentary. By all means, believe what you like, just don't try to dictate your interpretation of Catholic doctrine to me. Soooooo, does that mean the pope is right when he says it's a relationship and Jeff is wrong when he calls it a relationship?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:39:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Sorry, but I don't buy into the 'Jefferson Bethke's You Tube videos = the accumulated wisdom of the Papacy as an institution' premise.
I sincerely apologize, but I just can't accept the premise. Please feel free to ignore my posts in the future if it will reduce your distress. Again, I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:50:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, but I don't buy into the 'Jefferson Bethke's You Tube videos = the accumulated wisdom of the Papacy as an institution' premise. I sincerely apologize, but I just can't accept the premise. Please feel free to ignore my posts in the future if it will reduce your distress. Again, I'm sorry. That's funny too because all I asked for was an opinion on his message and you turn the question into 'is his message the accumulated wisdom of the papacy as an institution'. You did this because the pope comes out saying exactly what Jeff did and you disagreed with Jeff, so that means you disagreed with the pope. But you're not suppose to disagree with the pope because he is infallible, right? I can see why you would want to change the original question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:55:05 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:57:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Paris, I was wondering if you were going to answer any of my question about the flesh subject. And what Jesus meant when he asked God why He foresakened him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 6:58:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip Are you going to troll everything I post into a rehash of your Jefferson Bethke thread?
Because frankly I don't think some silly You Tube hipster is worth the time or effort... Again, if you're predetermined as to what kind of replies you want in a thread, just post a disclaimer. Not to say I would post in one of your threads again - it's clear that you have no (positive) interest in my opinion so, as a polite person, I have no interest in offering it to you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 7:02:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you going to troll everything I post into a rehash of your Jefferson Bethke thread?
Because frankly I don't think some silly You Tube hipster is worth the time or effort... Again, if you're predetermined as to what kind of replies you want in a thread, just post a disclaimer. Not to say I would post in one of your threads again - it's clear that you have no (positive) interest in my opinion so, as a polite person, I have no interest in offering it to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip Are you going to troll everything I post into a rehash of your Jefferson Bethke thread?
Because frankly I don't think some silly You Tube hipster is worth the time or effort... Again, if you're predetermined as to what kind of replies you want in a thread, just post a disclaimer. Not to say I would post in one of your threads again - it's clear that you have no (positive) interest in my opinion so, as a polite person, I have no interest in offering it to you. It's not about Jeff. It's about how a protestant can say something and it be wrong, but if a catholic says it then it's right. It's the automatic condemnation of whatever a protestant says, no matter what it seems to be. I guess you have no answers for my questions about the flesh either? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 7:08:42 PM EDT
[#12]
Glad to hear your opinion of that.
Are we done with (the apparently hallowed) Jefferson Bethke?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 7:12:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glad to hear your opinion of that. Are we done with (the apparently hallowed) Jefferson Bethke? Sure, we can be done with the "hallowed" Jefferson Bethke. Did you want to answer any of my questions on the flesh that I posted earlier? If not, that's fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 7:20:10 PM EDT
[#14]
I think we're far enough off track that this one can be locked before someone ends up with a warning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2014 7:20:20 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
