Enthymeme proving Aristotle is correct on this.
nostr:nevent1qqsxs2f3k5dz3qppjz8xyp4xpctxhvrseg5dka8m3gj050drphflehspramhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjsygxavex4usqkgvage45lqpdwzjqgqs630zd4nhj67p38dhn9vv7nrypsgqqqqqqsxjfnwh 

 It doesn't align completely because the existence of Christ acting on our behalf changes some acts of expected nobility to those of meekness and obedience, for instance "To take vengeance on one's enemies is nobler than to come to terms with them; for to retaliate is just, and that which is just is noble; and further, a courageous man ought not to allow himself to be beaten."

This is still 100% true, but not in the way Aristotle said it. We can still judge other people against the law and defend ourselves, but we are not to take vengeance because the Lord has explicitly reserved that for Himself, we sometimes called to allow ourselves to be martyred, and Final Justice is determined by the Father alone. 

 2)
Likewise, humans will usually admire the rich man, in your example, more than the poor man, because the rich man is giving a larger concrete benefit to others, but Jesus doesn't view humans the way humans tend to view humans. He has said that the poor man is the nobler, in this case, as his sacrifice is greater.

The Beatitudes were His declaration that some human virtues will be turned on their head, in the Heavenly Order.
Aristotle never heard the Beatitudes, but he can give us deep insight into the Natural Order. 

 I also just like to compare and contrast the two orders and see where they align and conflict. The Heavenly Order contains the fullness of Grace, so it can be amazingly different.

I think this is why Christian women admire men for doing things that other women would consider low behavior. We understand the amount of Grace required to rise above the temptation to aim for the highest earthly nobility, by putting the urge for heavenly nobility first. 

 I guess that is an aspect of "heroic virtue".

#catholic 

 But either Jesus is wrong, or virtue simply does not work the way Aristotle describes it to work, does it? Aside from the fact that for Aristotle, an action is virtuous not depending on what you do but on the results. Virtue cannot be something outside your total control for it to be truly virtue (see the Stoic conception of virtue). 

 To clarify, he is teaching persuasion (rhetoric).
He is saying that things that resemble virtues can be declared virtues in an argument. You can, essentially, assume virtue for the sake of making a point. You can declare a shy and introverted person to be meek and modest, for instance, so long as that is superficially plausible. 

 Jesus added information. Aristotle was on the right path, but it wasn't until Jesus taught, died, and rose again that we had final clarity.

Still interesting to read what Aristotle wrote because it makes it more clear how momentous the Christian moral shift was and it gives us knowledge of what to expect from people who do not know Christ. 

 But if Jesus clarified (and corrected, as he contradicts Aristotle) how can you turn around and use Aristotle to claim that Jesus, based on him being male, is more virtuous than Mary? 

 Logic is logic. Aristotle's logic is sound. And I actually made the argument the other way around. I can use the Christian definition of virtue to prove that men are more noble than women.

Aristotle's argument remains undefeated, even in the A.D. That's worth pointing out. 

 Is thus the rich man more virtuous than the poor man, in Christian terms? 

 Don't be obtuse. 

 I'm not being obtuse.

If man is more virtuous because of his greater ability to embody virtue, meaning to enact good effect on others than woman because of biological characteristics, a rich man should be considered more virtuous because of his greater ability to embody virtue than a poor man, because of his economic characteristics.

Where is the flaw in this reasoning? 

 There is no flaw.

A particular rich man is not necessarily more virtuous than a poor man, but the most-virtuous rich man will be more virtuous than the most-virtuous poor man because he has more capacity to be so.
He can give the entirety of his money away and that is more money in absolute terms, even if it is the same amount in relative terms (100%). 

 You're watering down virtue to be just a fancy form of consequentialism, when it isn't. The virtue of an action resides on the motivation and goal of an action, not in its results.

A man who attempts to jump in front of a bullet to save an innocent life but fails is much more virtuous than someone who happens to trip and fall in the path of said bullet, even though the former fails to save a life and the latter succeeds, wouldn't you agree? 

 Yes, but Aristotle also agrees that courage (i.e. honorable self-sacrifice) is the highest of virtues.

Further, he says,

"But since the signs of virtue and such things as are the works and sufferings of a good man are noble, it necessarily follows that all the works and signs of courage and all courageous acts are also noble... Those things of which the reward is honor are noble; also those which are done for honor rather than money. Also, those desirable things which a man does not do for his own sake; things which are absolutely good, which a man has done for the sake of his country, while neglecting his own interests; things which are naturally good; and not such as are good for the individual,
since such things are inspired by selfish motives" 

 How does this support the argument that impact is the measure of virtue? 

 The relationship between nobility and virtue is a bit indirect. 

 We're discussing the next chapter, now. 

 3) I also find it interesting that he says "all attendant circumstances, such as noble birth and education, merely conduce to persuasion; for it is probable that virtuous parents will have virtuous offspring and that a man will turn out as he has been brought up."
because the Bible seems to take this expectation into account and spends quite a bit of time emphasizing that Jesus is descended from the most legendary of kings and the most noble of mothers, and is then raised by the most virtuous patron and protector possible (St. Joseph).