Replies

Jesus came, not to change, but to fulfill the laws of the OT.

Mat. 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Until the Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven, the state for those just departed souls was known as "Hell" or "the Limbo of the Just." This Limbo was for those who, antecedent to the coming of Our Lord, believed He was coming, and believed He was to be the Saviour and the Redeemer of the world. Well, we no longer believe He is coming, we believe He came and established His Kingdom here on earth, i.e. His Church, of which we must all belong to if we wish to get into His kingdom in heaven.

The reason the saints of the OT were there in hell, i.e., Limbo, and not in heaven, is original sin, which they had contracted from Adam, and from which, as members of the human race, they could not be delivered except by Christ.

Also, note that the only reason we even needed a Redeemer at all is strictly on account of the sin of Adam, i.e. Original Sin. Were it not for Original Sin, there would be no Limbo or middle place, only Heaven (for us) and Hell (only for the fallen angels).

Many folks seem to think that Baptism has always been - but thats simply not so. It is a Sacrament of the New Law - one of the Seven Sacraments established by God before He ascended into Heaven.

Baptism is so necessary that thats why the Precursor, the one who readied the world for Christ was, St. John the Baptist. All St. John the Baptist did was preach the importance of and perform Baptisms. Also interesting to note is that unlike most other martyrs, although he was beheaded, he is not known as St. John the Martyr.

Jesus came, not to change, but to fulfill the laws of the OT.

Mat. 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

So, do we have to keep Kosher any more, or not? Saying that the law has not been changed, but has only been fulfilled sounds like a lawyer's answer...kind of like what the meaning of "is" is.

The laws were changed. End of story.

Until the Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven, the state for those just departed souls was known as "Hell" or "the Limbo of the Just." This Limbo was for those who, antecedent to the coming of Our Lord, believed He was coming, and believed He was to be the Saviour and the Redeemer of the world.

Did Adam and Eve believe the Lord was coming? Are they in this "Limbo of the Just"? Is Limbo mentioned in the Bible at all? Is this just a concept once again made up by lawyers to rationalize beliefs? If this hell, this limbo of the just, is where those who believed god was coming went to after they died, where did those who did not believe in the coming of the lord, perhaps those who were on the other side of the planet, go?

The reason the saints of the OT were there in hell, i.e., Limbo, and not in heaven, is original sin, which they had contracted from Adam, and from which, as members of the human race, they could not be delivered except by Christ.

A contract typically requires the agreement between at least two parties. How did the saints of the OT, or anyone for that matter, agree to be burdened by the sins of Adam? How did Adam contract with God that any sin of his would be passed down to future generations? Using the language of contract is not appropriate here. It is, in actuality, a "curse" that is passed on from one generation to the next, just like in those old witch stories.

Many folks seem to think that Baptism has always been - but thats simply not so. It is a Sacrament of the New Law - one of the Seven Sacraments established by God before He ascended into Heaven.

There you go. You said it. There is a new law, different from the old. The law changed.

"Also, note that the only reason we even needed a Redeemer at all is strictly on account of the sin of Adam, i.e. Original Sin."

This is becoming a very interesting discussion. I have observed over the past many years that the Roman Church seems, to an outsider, to place much more emphasis on the Passion and Crucifixion as an atonement for the sins of mankind than the Orthodox East has (this not to say that we don't hold similar views), a sort of quid pro quo, so to speak. Given that the Roman doctrine of Original Sin seems to focus on a sort of inherited guilt rather than inherited consequences this would stand to reason. On the other hand, if what we inherit is a propensity to sin quite on our own, then what the Icon of the Resurrection shows us is that Christ freed the OT saints from the consequences of their own sins, not that of Adam, and that the New Law gives us, through the Faith and the Church a way to overcome, through God's grace, our own nature and our own sins. And if this is true, what does it say about unbaptized babies who die?

Do you suppose that differing views on the nature and consequences of the sin of Adam has anything to do with this?