FK, what does Job 1:1 say? It says that Job was a perfect man, or words implying the same. The Scripture does not say Job was perfect, but that Job was a perfect man, within constraints of humanity. We don't say God is a perfect God; His perfection is His essence -- He is Perfection. no one is comparing Job's perfection or BEV Mary's perfection with God's!
Now, why does the Scripture then say, later on, that Job was not such a perfect man after all, that I leave to those who can rationalize everything in the Bible.
Likewise, +Paul clearly states that none is perfect, not one (human), and Job 1:1 says that Job was a perfect (hu)man. I leave that discrepancy to you rationalizers as well. If you don't mind, that is.
The reason why it is a rationalization is because it is an answer that is made up to bring apparently contradicting stories in the Bible into a "meaningful agreement," but is not something self-evident or set in stone any more than Aristotle's "explanation" of gravity was.
As for the rest of your post: I never said Theotokos received special grace at the age of 3. I would never, ever, delve into such a speculation! I also never said that +John the Baptist was a perfect man. Blessed, yes, perfect no. But I don't recall mentioning +John The Baptist at all.
"As for the rest of your post: I never said Theotokos received special grace at the age of 3. I would never, ever, delve into such a speculation! I also never said that +John the Baptist was a perfect man. Blessed, yes, perfect no. But I don't recall mentioning +John The Baptist at all."
I remember that discussion way back on this thread. The age three business with Panagia came up from a reading of the Protoevangelium of James. I don't for the life of me remember who raised it. I thought it was you, FK, in the form of a question but clearly my memory is faulty. I must say I have never heard sinlessness attributed to +John the Forerunner. Other than Christ, the only sinless person I remember the Fathers speak of is Panagia and even with her +John Chrysostomos speculated that she may have sinned at the Wedding Feast at Canna, but that is not part of the consensus patrum.
Yes, no one is comparing any human to the perfection of God. But that doesn't answer my question about whether you say that human perfection equals sinlessness. Regardless of whether either of us knows it, there is a true answer to this.
Now, why does the Scripture then say, later on, that Job was not such a perfect man after all, that I leave to those who can rationalize everything in the Bible.
You say that as if it was a bad thing. :) I don't believe the Bible has anything to be afraid of concerning passages that, at first glance, appear to be contradictory. There is a true explanation because the Bible is inerrant.
My little attempt would be that Job was blameless from the POV of any other human. No one could observe Job from afar, examine his actions in the (then) present, and find fault with him. Of course, no such observer could know what was in Job's heart or mind at any given time. We also have Job's own admissions of his sinfulness, especially in his youth. I don't say that is the only possibility, but it seems plausible to all that is said in the passage, without throwing in a ton of unnecessary assumptions.
Likewise, +Paul clearly states that none is perfect, not one (human), and Job 1:1 says that Job was a perfect (hu)man. I leave that discrepancy to you rationalizers as well. If you don't mind, that is.
I don't mind at all. :) From Job we have that no man could visibly detect fault in him, but by his own admission he was a sinner. Therefore, Paul must mean that no one is perfect in the eyes of God. If so, then no one except Jesus could have been sinless (perfect in God's eyes). I don't think I am doing a tremendous amount of stretching and straining against the plain meaning of the actual words of scripture here. Rather, it is the Church which must go through mental gymnastics to explain scripture in such a way as to leave Mary sinless.
[I'll continue answering in my response to Kolo's 4842]