To: armydoc
Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of All?
Paul didn’t think it necessary to point out the exception of Jesus in this Romans passage. Probably had something to do with the multiplicity of other passages that explicitly claimed Jesus’ sinlessness. It would be redundant. However, if Mary was indeed sinless, it would have been very logical to claim her as an exception here, as there are no explicit (or even valid implicit) claims to her sinlessness elsewhere in scripture.”
So then my only question is for someone to say scripture only then imply a unwritten meaning is that not doublespeak and what they accuse Catholics of?
108 posted on
12/05/2010 7:12:55 PM PST by
jafojeffsurf
( Return to the Constitution.)
To: jafojeffsurf
So then my only question is for someone to say scripture only then imply a unwritten meaning is that not doublespeak and what they accuse Catholics of?
Interpreting a passage in the context of the whole of scripture, using the norms of language is not "doublespeak". BTW, the principle errors of Catholicism are not "doublespeak"; they are the invention of doctrine that lack scriptural support. The Catholic Church herself admits that much of Mariology lacks scriptural support. Fine. As one of the great reformers stated (paraphrased); once you claim authority for doctrine apart from scripture, the argument is over. The Catholic Church could proclaim that Joseph was sinless. Heck, it makes about as much sense.
146 posted on
12/05/2010 7:32:49 PM PST by
armydoc
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson