Good Morning paladinan, hope all is well with you and yours.
‘1) “Needing a Saviour” does not translate into “having fallen into sin”; I can be saved (for example) from a muddy pit by being pulled out and cleaned off, or I can be saved from a muddy pit by having my Saviour prevent me from falling into the pit in the first place. We fall into the second category; the Blessed Virgin falls into the first. She was not free from sin by any merit of her own, apart from God; rather, she was kept sinless by God, Himself’
I suupose that one could opine that that could be the case. BUT, isn’t it true that Jesus Himself is the only human not to have sinned, who lived a ‘sinless’ life, and therefore was the perfect sacrificial ‘Lamb’? If mary was kept sinless, then SHE could have been that sacrifice, n’est pas?
“Noah was righteous per scripture, and Job was described as Perfect, per King James.
All right; then how do you square this with Romans 3:10? Either “there is none righteous, no, not one”, or there is one (or more) righteous; one cannot have it both ways. There are only three clear possibilities: (a) the Scriptural descriptions of Noah and Job were erroneous; (b) the statement of St. Paul in Romans 3:10 is erroneous; or (c) there is more to these statements than the merest and most flatly “English-face-value-without-context” approch might suggest. I assert to you that (c) is, in fact, the case.’
I will also go with ‘c’. Unfortunately for us, English can be a poor language when compared to others, lacking nuances that can be Very Important to meaning. (Agape vs Phileo vs Eros, yet all translate as ‘love’ into English. Just for an example). So, Job being ‘perfect’ does not necessarily mean ‘sinless’. But rather that he pursued God, folowed His word, which would include repenting of sin as it occurred. The same could be said of Noah.
The Apocrypha are included in the Catholic Bible, not in the King James, except as a reference. There are contradictions in them that rendered them not included. You may consider them scripture, I do not. No offense meant.
Having said that, the most important common ground is Jesus.
‘I agree... but what of the unborn children who (for example) die by abortion, well before they have any capacity to lie, act proudly, covet, or disobey their parents? Have they committed actual (personal) sin?’
They have not, yet they will, all are sinful. The first lie will come. Prior to that? It is my belief they are welcomed by Jesus, still unstained by sin. Being unstained it would follow they would welcome and see Jesus as who He is, their Savior.
‘Of course... and no faithful and well-informed Catholic would argue otherwise. But Mary (by a singular privilege) received Christ’s salvation “by prevention”, rather than salvation “by forgiveness and redemption”.’
It seems there is desire to elevate Mary, or grant her special characteristics to explain the apparent conflict in the idea that something ‘pure’ could come from something’sinful’.
Bear with me, as I try to get this all out intelligently.
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, all in the same package. Another way to see it is that Jesus left His throne and came to wrap himself in the flesh of His creation.
Mary bore a baby son, an earthly son, a human and flesh son. That son was Human. And, also Divine, as Jesus lived in him. That flesh was not divine at all. As the man, Jesus was tempted in the flesh, as we are. He felt the desires we do. He felt pain as we do, wept, laughed, was anguished. He even prayed for another way to accomplish His work, though surrendering to the will of His Father. Through it all, He escaped surrender to sin.
He escaped sin here, by virtue of Himself, not by being birthed from a ‘sinless’ woman. In the final analysis, it is ALL Jesus, nothing else.
Good morning, good sir! All is well, thus far, thank you! :) You wrote:
BUT, isn’t it true that Jesus Himself is the only human not to have sinned, who lived a ‘sinless’ life, and therefore was the perfect sacrificial ‘Lamb’?
Jesus was certainly sinless, and He is certainly the perfect Sacrificial Lamb; but He was not the only human Who lived a sinless life. More on that, below.
If mary was kept sinless, then SHE could have been that sacrifice, n’est pas?
No... because, while sinlessness was a
necessary attribute of the Lamb of Sacrifice, it was not
sufficient; much more was needed. To put it in a nut-shell: the gravity of an offense is related not only to the extent that the offender was free, fully aware of the evil, motivated by malice, etc., but it is also related to the dignity of the one offended. It would, for example, be a far greater evil for me to slap my mother than for me to slap a sun-flower... since my mother has much greater dignity (i.e. created in the Image and Likeness of God, in addition to being necessary for my existence at all!). As such: any offense against the infinite God is infinite in gravity... and no finite creature (as Mary certainly was) can possibly pay that debt. Only the infinite God could pay the debt... and Jesus was the infinite God. Thus, the Lamb of Sacrifice needed not only to be sinless (i.e. "without blemish"), but divine.
Unfortunately for us, English can be a poor language when compared to others, lacking nuances that can be Very Important to meaning. (Agape vs Phileo vs Eros, yet all translate as ‘love’ into English. Just for an example).
Absolutely true.
So, Job being ‘perfect’ does not necessarily mean ‘sinless’. But rather that he pursued God, folowed His word, which would include repenting of sin as it occurred. The same could be said of Noah.
I agree there, as well... but I'd add that the same difficulty shows itself when trying to interpret Romans 3:10! As an extra example, the Greek of Romans 3:10 says "Kathos gegraptai hoti ouk estin DIKAIOS oude heis"--literally, "as it has [already] been written: that not is JUST, not yet one". But compare that with the description of St. Joseph, the husband of the Blessed Virgin, in Matthew 1:19: "Ioseph de ho aner autes DIKAIOS on"--literally, "Joseph, yet the [husband] of her [being] JUST"... it's the exact word used by St. Paul to say "no one is 'dikaios' (just)"! Since we know that Scripture contains no errors, I assert that the prohibition declared by St. Paul cannot possibly be a literal, absolute prohibition... but was, rather, a general state of affairs, decorated with emphatic language (i.e. hyperbole) in order to illustrate a true and generally universal point (i.e. we are a fallen race). This does not prohibit God from going above and beyond that general truth, just as nothing prohibits God from going above and beyond the normal "universal rule" that water does not flow uphill (cf. the Red Sea, the Jordan, etc.).
The Apocrypha are included in the Catholic Bible, not in the King James, except as a reference.
That's mostly correct (though they're included in the Greek Orthodox Bibles, as well, and revered as Sacred Scripture by them), but it begs a question: which canon of Scripture (the 66-book canon, or the 73-book canon) is correct? The mere fact that the KJV is the KJV doesn't settle the matter, any more than the fact that "the Douay-Rheims translation is the Douay-Rheims translation" settles the matter in the other direction!
There are contradictions in them that rendered them not included.
(?) Such as...?
You may consider them scripture, I do not. No offense meant.
Oh, no worries on that account: I'm not offended in the least! (You've been the model of civility, and I hardly take differences in view as a personal affront!) But again, the question is begged: how does one settle one's mind on the matter? The two canons cannot both, at the same time, be the correct and complete canon of Scripture; at least one must be wrong.
Having said that, the most important common ground is Jesus.
I heartily agree! However, since Jesus inspired the OT as well as the NT, and since the contents of those Scriptures are critical to our eternal salvation, the contents of the canon of Scripture are a matter of great importance.
It is my belief they are welcomed by Jesus, still unstained by sin. Being unstained it would follow they would welcome and see Jesus as who He is, their Savior.
I (and the Catholic Church) also agree with that, actually! (Cf.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 1261) I mentioned the point only to show that Romans 3:10 isn't likely to be speaking of actual, personal sin... either in the case of children who die before birth, or in the case of the Blessed Virgin. That is: Romans 3:10 is no secure basis for saying that the Blessed Virgin ever had sin on her soul.
It seems there is desire to elevate Mary, or grant her special characteristics to explain the apparent conflict in the idea that something ‘pure’ could come from something ’sinful’. Well... to people who suggest that, I'd offer a slight correction: it is certainly more FITTING that the Blessed Virgin be utterly sinless, in order to become the Mother of Our Saviour... but I agree with you: that's hardly an air-tight proof, nor was it strictly necessary (and certainly it wasn't a prerequisite for the sinlessness of Christ, as you astutely point out). The full reasons for maintaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception involve the facts that: (a) the Church has always maintained the sinlessness of Mary; (b) Mary's sinlessness satisfies a whole HOST of biblical "types" (i.e. foreshadowings, or "situational prophecies") is fulfilled in Mary, the new Ark of the New Covenant (references available on request); (c) nothing in Scripture gainsays it in the least; and (d) Christ's church has declared it to be true dogma, beyond all shadow of a doubt. (I fully understand that (d) will not seem very convincing to you, at this point. :) ) On that point, I'd add: the doctrine is not true "because" the Church teaches it; rather, the Church teaches it because it is true!