[OneVike]

Personally, I reject the notion that a merciful God can be accepted alongside the simultaneous notion that babies are born with a sinful stain, from which it follows logically that if they die before “accepting Christ” they go to hell. Do you (accept that notion, that is)? That would be an awfully cruel state of nature in which to live.

You are wrong in your assumption of what is Catholic dogma and what is Biblical. Paul wrote to the Romans in Romans 3:23,

for all have sinned and thus fall short of the glory of God,

the key word being ALL.

Then in the Psalms we read that David wrote,

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.Psalm 51:5

Then one last Scripture for your consideration would the the one related to the incident of King Jeroboam of the Northern kingdom. Jeroboam sent his wife undercover to Shiloh to ask of the prophet Ahijah if his ill son Abijah would live. This is what God told the prophet as to the son,

The dogs shall eat whoever belongs to Jeroboam and dies in the city, and the birds of the air shall eat whoever dies in the field; for the LORD has spoken!"' Arise therefore, go to your own house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.(1Kings 14:11-13).

By reading the text it clearly states that God found something in him that was good. It does not say because he is a child, but because of something good. Only God knows the heart and like I pointed out we are all bad. All mens hearts are continually evil.

That is why Christ was born of a virgin woman. There is no stain on the child from Adam. Genesis 3:15 clearly states that the woman's seed shall crush satan. We all know that men carry the seed, but there is a seed in women that God planted so that when the fullness of times had come, the Holy Spirit would overcome a virgin and she will conceive. She will conceive a child from God not from Adam. Jesus had to be born without the sin nature or he could not be the perfect lamb to take away our sins. So Adam was not in the genes as to say of the picture.

However this does not mean that Mary was born without sin as the Catholic doctrine states. Even she admits her sin when told of the child she will bear. Nor is the Catholics correct in saying she was a perpetual virgin. She clearly had sex with Joseph because the Scriptures states that he did not know her until after the child was born.

I must now prepare my message for my afternoon sermon at a retirement center. So if you want to continue this I will answer you tonight when I get a chance.

If you need to know for references, I used the NKJV Bible for all my Scripture references

[Yudan]

My friend, you’re not going to talk me out of my position (which is that I can accept some answers have not been revealed by God), nor do I expect to talk you out of yours. And my own sins are far too great for me to stand in judgement of anyone. I hope and pray your ministry is a resounding success, and that you lead many souls to Christ.

However, let me remind you, brother, that the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. This is one of the many problems that I have developed with my Protestant upbringing. Many, many Protestants in my experience feel the need to have an answer for everything. If everything is known, the answer to every question, there is no room for God. If everything is cut, dried, and certain, ultimately we quit having faith. This, among many other things, has led me to Orthodoxy - that we have to accept some things on faith.

The concept of sola scriptura didn’t exist until the mid-16th century. So I would be careful citing Romans 3:23 - or any other individual verse - by itself to justify a position...let alone individual words within a particular verse. Because the next thing you know you’re handling rattlesnakes and drinking strychnine from mason jars...or stoning people to death for wearing cotton and wool at the same time. The key to Romans 3:23 was to whom Paul was talking and about what...that to live under the Law was not sufficient...obedience without faith is not sufficient.

My primary source of Scripture is the Orthodox Study Bible, which uses the NKJV for the New Testament (and the Septuagint for the Old Testament, as an aside), so to an extent we’re talking off the same page. There is an argument between varying schools of Christian thought about the proper translation of Matthew 1:25, and whether the use of the word “till” (or “to” as it is sometimes translated) implies that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. The Greek phrase “eos ou” DOES NOT imply he necessarily did. So your assertion that he “obviously did” falls flat, brother. Unless you witnessed the act yourself.

The Church for over a thousand years accepted the verse not only to mean Joseph had not had relations with Mary - but also that state of nature continued on after Christ’s birth. The Orthodox Church still does embrace that.

Before there were Protestants, before the Schism, there was just The Church. And it was the Fathers of The Church who settled upon the Canon of Scripture so many seem to embrace as the only source of truth.

I’m not here to argue. I’ve said all I’m going to.