Mary is the most important figure in Christianity

[Windwalker]

If you define "sin" as "being apart from God," is it theologically (not physically) possible for human beings to be singular with God, as opposed to particular from God? IOW, is it possible for humans to be Divine? And what implications does that have for Jesus as both fully human and fully Divine?

Not only is it possible, they already are. What sin is is a self-contraction that blinds oneself to this nature that is already fully and always there. People "wake up" to this in a flash of brilliance, as it were upon occasions. It nothing attained, as it is instantaneous awareness of ones own being. And what is exposed is that "sin" is the illusion of the mind of separation from that nature. We "live in sin" when we are contracted thusly.

Now as far as will goes, I agree with the OP that we can "overcome the world", in this same way as Jesus did. That is to be fully awakened at all times to that Divine Nature. Not just a momentary flash of brilliance, and then we fall back into the habits of 'sin', but a permanent awakened awareness in every lived moment. Our will is simply the intention to align oneself on this path to permanent awakening. It is "not I", not the ego desiring for selfish gain, but "Christ in me" that we awaken to.

How is it Christians claim to have the Holy Spirit within then, and yet deny it theologically and practically?

 

[Sleeppy]

There are, I think, two reasons for the Marian tradition. First (at least as far as Luke is concerned), the whole "virgin birth thing" is a blatant attempt at setting Jesus up as "the New Augustus." This is corroborated by the many ancient, bas-relief sculptures still extant of scenes of Jesus' life, that mirror (almost identically, mind you) some extant bas-relief sculptures of that of Augustus. There was a big push in the early church to supplant Augustus with Jesus, as the Faith was imperialized.

Second, I think "virgin" is overplayed theologically. The text merely has it as "young woman" in the Greek -- not "virgin." In other words, Mary was an "unwed, Galilean teenager." In today's terms, she would be "an unwed teenager from East St. Louis." She had three strikes against her, in terms of purity: 1) she was "the wrong color" (Galilean); 2) she was a teenage girl (women embodied shame in that culture, and girls had less social status than women); 3) she was unwed (that is, impure, by virtue of not having a legal husband to bring honor to her). This makes the character of Mary fit very nicely with the overarching theme of the biblical story (that is, that God uses the outcast, the impure, the oppressed to accomplish God's purposes). In other words, Jesus, being born of an unwed, Galilean teenager, in a stable, without a father gives a whole lot of credence to this theological stance that early Xy took with regard to the championing of the poor and outcast.

So, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Mary's historic-theological importance.

Without a father?

 

[Windwalker]

Do we have any scriptural support for these arguments, or is everyone just asserting whatever they believe?

Scriptural support is dependent upon which set of eyes we are reading it with.

 

[sojourner]

If Christ's sacrifice had been necessary, Caiaphas should have been worshiped as a Saint, given that it's thanks to him that this sacrifice took place.
but it was not necessary, that's why I say he's a murderer

Nope. Murder is (once again) a legal term, reserved for the illegal killing of a fellow human being. Crucifixion was an official Roman method of execution. Jesus was executed according to the law. It wasn't murder.

 

[Quiddity]

Jesus was executed according to the law.

Which law is that?

 

[Sleeppy]

If Christ's sacrifice had been necessary, Caiaphas should have been worshiped as a Saint, given that it's thanks to him that this sacrifice took place.
but it was not necessary, that's why I say he's a murderer

Not really. Jesus commanded Judas to do according to the writings.. He still referred to him as a son of the destruction.

 

[sojourner]

Not only is it possible, they already are. What sin is is a self-contraction that blinds oneself to this nature that is already fully and always there. People "wake up" to this in a flash of brilliance, as it were upon occasions. It nothing attained, as it is instantaneous awareness of ones own being. And what is exposed is that "sin" is the illusion of the mind of separation from that nature. We "live in sin" when we are contracted thusly.

Now as far as will goes, I agree with the OP that we can "overcome the world", in this same way as Jesus did. That is to be fully awakened at all times to that Divine Nature. Not just a momentary flash of brilliance, and then we fall back into the habits of 'sin', but a permanent awakened awareness in every lived moment. Our will is simply the intention to align oneself on this path to permanent awakening. It is "not I", not the ego desiring for selfish gain, but "Christ in me" that we awaken to.

How is it Christians claim to have the Holy Spirit within then, and yet deny it theologically and practically?

But yet, we are also particular individuals, yes? Therefore, there is a fundamental separation that constitutes our particularity. We simply cannot "will ourselves" to be singular.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nope. Murder is (once again) a legal term, reserved for the illegal killing of a fellow human being. Crucifixion was an official Roman method of execution. Jesus was executed according to the law. It wasn't murder.

all right, but we decontextualize the Bible and we don't care any more about that historical context. We care about our context.
And according to our context, and according to the International Law, crucifixion is a crime against humanity.
It is a murder, because death penalty is lawful only in extreme cases and when there is not torture

For more information, go read the UNO declarations

 

[sojourner]

all right, but we decontextualize the Bible and we don't care any more about that historical context. We care about our context.
And according to our context, and according to the International Law, crucifixion is a crime against humanity.
It is a murder, because death penalty is lawful only in extreme cases and when there is not torture

For more information, go read the UNO declarations

No, we don't decontextualize the texts. We care deeply about the historical context, because that's how we arrive at accurate interpretations. And according to the historical context, it wasn't murder. That's the context that must inform our interpretation of the events, otherwise our thinking gets muddled. Our theological framework is grounded in that historical context, and derives relevancy through a translation of that context into a contemporary context. It's a process that must begin with the historic context and make its way through the exegetical exercise of critique. Otherwise there are gaps that are too easily filled in with material that simply is not cogent to the intended message.

 

[Windwalker]

But yet, we are also particular individuals, yes? Therefore, there is a fundamental separation that constitutes our particularity. We simply cannot "will ourselves" to be singular.

Was Jesus fully human and fully divine? When you are able to explain and understand that, the same applies to this. Nonduality is singularity and duality held without contradiction. It is an embrace of the paradoxical as Truth. It is an awakened understanding beyond the dualistic mind of separations as the true condition.

 

[Shiranui117]

It was not an offering for 'uncleaness'

Yes it was. Look at the bit from Leviticus 12 that you posted.

6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

Priest offers sin offering, woman is made clean from effects of childbirth.

So again, do you consider childbirth a sin that needs atonement for? Leviticus states that involuntary uncleanness is something to atone for, alongside sin.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, we don't decontextualize the texts. We care deeply about the historical context, because that's how we arrive at accurate interpretations. And according to the historical context, it wasn't murder. That's the context that must inform our interpretation of the events, otherwise our thinking gets muddled. Our theological framework is grounded in that historical context, and derives relevancy through a translation of that context into a contemporary context. It's a process that must begin with the historic context and make its way through the exegetical exercise of critique. Otherwise there are gaps that are too easily filled in with material that simply is not cogent to the intended message.

It's like you wanted to say: in ancient ages death penalty was not a sin. Now it is

 

[sojourner]

Was Jesus fully human and fully divine? When you are able to explain and understand that, the same applies to this. Nonduality is singularity and duality held without contradiction. It is an embrace of the paradoxical as Truth. It is an awakened understanding beyond the dualistic mind of separations as the true condition.

The paradox, though, assumes that there is the possibility of "otherness," or the paradox, itself doesn't exist. Therefore, I think that particularity is a necessary factor in the amelioration of sin. IOW, we need, at some point, to hold God in front of us for objectivity, otherwise, it all becomes completely subjective and egocentric.

 

[sojourner]

It's like you wanted to say: in ancient ages death penalty was not a sin. Now it is

Right, but you can't superimpose what we understand and overshadow what the writers of the texts understood. What we understand has to be understood in light of their particular understanding and held up as a comparison. That's the only way continuity can be maintained.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes it was. Look at the bit from Leviticus 12 that you posted.

6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

Priest offers sin offering, woman is made clean from effects of childbirth.

So again, do you consider childbirth a sin that needs atonement for? Leviticus states that involuntary uncleanness is something to atone for, alongside sin.

That is interesting that it's called a sin offering.. Judaism DIR?

 

[Shiranui117]

Of course; however, I've been informed in the past by other EO's (not OO's) that the Immaculate Conception is a problem for the East because [and I'm paraphrasing here as it was a while back] Christ assumes His humanity from Mary. And If the nature of Mary's humanity is different, then so also is the nature of Christ's humanity. Any change to Mary affects Christ. Much of this might be the divergent views of East vs. West. Unfortunately, I never got the opportunity to get further clarification.

There are two main opinions in Byzantine Christianity on this (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox alike), and they both stem from a rejection of Augustine's idea of original sin, which is dogma in much of Western Christianity.

The first opinion holds that Augustine's idea of original sin is completely wrong, as humanity merely inherits mortality, suffering, disease and a tendency to sin from Adam and Eve, and does not inherit the guilt of Adam's and Eve's sin. Mortality, suffering, disease and a tendency to sin are what we Orthodox consider to be "original sin", but we prefer to call it "ancestral sin" so as to avoid confusion with the Catholic doctrine. Mary could not have been born differently from any other human--she was never born "guilty" of Adam's sin. So to say that Mary was born free from original sin is to say, in the Orthodox view, that Mary never experienced temptation, never experienced sickness, never experienced death... And if Christ was born of Mary, then Christ likewise could have never experienced any of these things, since, as you said, His humanity would be different from ours, because He wouldn't have had the same human experience as us, not ever being tempted to sin or succumbing to death. This is the view held by most Orthodox who are less in favor of ecumenism with Rome, as well as some Byzantine Catholics who are a bit more stalwart in their Eastern traditions.

The second opinion is about the same as the first, but differs in nuance. The same doctrinal and logical foundations still hold true, but it gets taken in another direction. Since Mary was never guilty of original sin, then saying that she was born free from this guilt (as the Immaculate Conception doctrine teaches) is a no-brainer, since so is every other person on the planet. Mary still has all the effects of ancestral sin, since Augustine didn't believe that mortality, suffering, sickness, or a tendency to sin were at all part of original sin. So even if Mary was immaculately conceived according to the Roman definition, her humanity wouldn't be any different, since what she was supposedly born free of (the guilt of Adam's and Eve's sin) is something that everyone is born free of anyway. This is the position held by more ecumenical Orthodox (and even by some Orthodox who accept the Immaculate Conception idea) as well as by less controversial Byzantine Catholics.

 

[Windwalker]

The paradox, though, assumes that there is the possibility of "otherness," or the paradox, itself doesn't exist. Therefore, I think that particularity is a necessary factor in the amelioration of sin. IOW, we need, at some point, to hold God in front of us for objectivity, otherwise, it all becomes completely subjective and egocentric.

I'll agree with parts of this. What I don't agree with is that pure subjectivity is inherently egocentric. I would argue that it is beyond ego. The ego is itself actually an object. The pure Subject is God. To put a saying to this that might help to shed light upon that, I heard an enlightened Christian once say, "God is not the object of our faith, but the Subject of our Love". In other words, it's not the love from our small egoic, separated self, but from our true Self, which is God. It is God's love, not the ego self's love which is relative and conditional.

What the role God is, in seen as 2nd person with an I-Thou relationship, is that it leaves no place for the ego to hide in a path of transformation where the identify shifts from the small separate self, the ego self, to Christ consciousness itself. "I live, and yet not I but Christ in me". But yet "I" is still there, but as "Christ in you", "Let this consciousness be in you which was in Christ Jesus." In other words, be the incarnation of God in your flesh.

It's like this, you have the relative and the absolute, but the absolute does not embrace the relative. Only the incarnation of the absolute into the relative does. That is the nondual. While we are on the path of ascension to God from ego, yes God is seen as 'other'. But not after the eyes have been open and the conscious mind awakened.

 

[ChristineES]

I'd like to state, here and now, that I believe that Jesus is the most important figure in Christianity. That's true, even for Catholics, I would assume, since without Jesus, Mary would not have been noticed as the "Mother of God".

And a little side note: Christianity was started by Paul, not by Jesus or the Apostles.

 

[Estro Felino]

Right, but you can't superimpose what we understand and overshadow what the writers of the texts understood. What we understand has to be understood in light of their particular understanding and held up as a comparison. That's the only way continuity can be maintained.

Ignorance doesn't excuse.
Caiaphas didn't certainly go to Heaven. He is in Hell now.
Because he probably sentenced to death lots of innocent people.
Caiaphas thought that he was doing God's will.
Even Mafiosi think that they do God's will when they kill people.
But that doesn't save them from hell

 

[sojourner]

I'll agree with parts of this. What I don't agree with is that pure subjectivity is inherently egocentric. I would argue that it is beyond ego. The ego is itself actually an object. The pure Subject is God. To put a saying to this that might help to shed light upon that, I heard an enlightened Christian once say, "God is not the object of our faith, but the Subject of our Love". In other words, it's not the love from our small egoic, separated self, but from our true Self, which is God. It is God's love, not the ego self's love which is relative and conditional.

I don't think this has anything to do with condition, for "conditional love" is an oxymoron. Love is a relationship. in order for relationship to exist, there have to be particularities, because it's impossible to have a relationship with self. I really think we're talking about the same thing here, I just want to make sure that particularity isn't lost in your zeal for singularity. Remember that the Trinity -- even though it represents a single God, is still comprised of Persons who retain particularity.

What the role God is, in seen as 2nd person with an I-Thou relationship, is that it leaves no place for the ego to hide in a path of transformation where the identify shifts from the small separate self, the ego self, to Christ consciousness itself. "I live, and yet not I but Christ in me". But yet "I" is still there, but as "Christ in you", "Let this consciousness be in you which was in Christ Jesus." In other words, be the incarnation of God in your flesh. I'll add here too, that the ego is itself an object of our mind. So it itself is truly not subjective.

Now you're talking my language, sir!

It's like this, you have the relative and the absolute, but the absolute does not embrace the relative. Only the incarnation of the absolute into the relative does. That is the nondual. While we are on the path of ascension to God from ego, yes God is seen as 'other'. But not after the eyes have been open and the conscious mind awakened.

I want to be careful here, because you'r making this sound very humanistic -- that is, that our enlightenment, or salvation if you will, is all about our work of "learning to see." But that's not what Xy teaches. Xy teaches that salvation is the work of God. I think we need to be very careful that the process of enlightenment is that of God Within (characterized by the avatar of Jesus) and not of our own ego. You alluded to that in your second paragraph, but I just want to be sure that it doesn't get lost in the mix.

edit: All of this to push the point that it is NOT Mary who brings salvation, because Mary doesn't personify salvation (by bridging humanity/Divinity). That's Jesus' job.