Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
SoothingDave 1:
1 All, except Mary, are stained with "Original Sin".
SD
SD
Of course, ours can too unless you think that unbaptized newborn babies go to Hell when they die. Not something I'm particulary interested in defending.
I don't think I'm the right person of whom to ask that question. ;o)
Also, isn't the Septuagint that version of what Christians call the Old Testament which has all those books in it which Catholics added to the Bible?
I don't think there is a definitive answer to this. It really isn't accurate to speak of "the Septuagint" as one, bound, definitive text.
Well, then. Seeing as how you can not explain how every single person, including the freshly born "has sinned" and that all you can do is plead the exhaustion of human reasoning, isn't it possible that the puzzle can be solved by recognizing that the statement you are making an idol of is, in fact, a general statement and not an absolute statement?
How do you know when to take Scripture as deadly literal as you are this passage and not some other passages?
SD
Until they know that they know.
What is your definition of "sin"
The fallen condition of man.
and what does one have to do to be "guilty" of it?
Be born.
Why can't you answer?
I did.
I think the difference here, going on what little you gave me, is that you think small children "sin" but are not held accountable for it.
You got it.
BigMack
This is precisely the point our lurker friend was trying to make. Based upon my reading of the passage from Leviticus, I don't think it even applies to the infant. It says "one burnt offering and one sin offering ... for her" -- meaning the mother.
We have no revelation of the salvation of such children, only the enduring hope in God's mercy.
But we recognize that their peril lies in their unregenrated, damaged humanity and not in any personal sin they may have committed.
SD
SD
What is the sin?
SD
Indeed. However, doesn't the Septuagint roughly parallel what scholars call 'the Alexandrian canon?' Also, would it be fair to state that if one accepts as canonical the Palestinian canon upon which the Protestant Bible is based then one is forced to admit Matthew's emphasis on the Virgin-Birth of Jesus lacks support from Isaiah? Put simply, wouldn't there be a discrepency between the way Matthew qoutes the verse and the way the verse itself appears in Isaiah?
Oh, no. I understand alright. I understand you are running away from something that you have run into a paradox with at high speed. When you regain your composure, you just let us know. There is no such thing as pre-emptive salvation. God cannot circumvent my free will or yours in making our own choices. It is not allowed - not now and not then. He operates within the same rules he applies to us.
Mary is an exceptional case. God is not bound by time. It is funny that you are so limited by your human thoughts, which you claim to be the mind of God.
Crapola. Mary is not an exceptional case. "God is no respector of persons". Ring a bell? It should. It means no man is better or worse than any other in the eyes of God. If he does it for one, he must do it for all else he is unjust. The problem is to do for one is not possible. I've not claimed to be the mind of God. I know scripture. One wonders why you know so little of it that it keeps biting you on the aft quarters yet you sit and proclaim paradoxes and wish to pretend you're so intelligent that no one can understand but you.
I seriously question your sanity. Why do you continue to make these thigns up? What is the supposed comparison between someone, by the grace of Christ, being prevented from sinning and someone who lies in confession with the intention of sinnning in the future?
Well lets see, what is the comparison indeed. Hmm. Could it be that the Apostles actually back me up while you have to make your's up out of whole cloth and then make statements like you did with regard to all these other scriptures in which you've contested the apostles and want to say that All actually means something else because you know better than them. Pride goeth before the fall.
If you can't tell the difference between past, present, and future and between being forgiven and having nothing to be forgiven for, then I can't help you.
When exactly is it that you presume she got forgiven and never sinned again? Hmm? After Christ died? Until he passed and rose again, the sacrifice was not complete. Do you intend to tell us Mary was sin free and therefore offered a turtle dove for her sins? Care to tell us why God can somehow make Mary Sin free from birth to death and can't just do it for all of us by caveat? This should be good. Ignore the rest and just deal with this. Hint, every direction you can possibly turn with this will turn back on you as a paradox.
Mary could not be forgiven of sin before there was a sacrifice for it. This is not possible. And God is bound to time where we are concerned because we are bound to it. He cannot act on things we have yet to do. If he says believe and confess and we've done neither, then he cannot follow through until we move. Your wish to change the laws of the universe to make your philosophy work shows the level of desperation. Incredible. Who do you think believes you now? Do you honestly think people are this dumb?
No.
BigMack
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.