The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

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

Previous Thread

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

How about if he gives you $.50 for every dollar you get for him above $350,000?

Shut up Reggie. :)

BigMack

[malakhi]

IF the lurker wants an answer, let him post it himself!

According to his e-mail,

I am a long time lurker on the thread (almost since the beginning) and have seen many "discussions" repeat themselves. I usually peak on breaks at work so I don't post. The current discussion about the sinless nature of Mary reminded me of something I read recently that I have never seen discussed on this issue...

So I assume my mystery correspondent is someone who is able to lurk, but not post.

Is it this "lurkers" position (or yours) that childbirth is a sin which requires atonement? OR is it simply a ritual cleansing?

Perhaps our lurker friend can e-mail me his reply, and I can post it. From the Jewish perspective, sin offerings are for "unintentional" sins (call it "venial" vs. "mortal" sin). As you note, the passage does include the element of ritual cleansing.

[malakhi]

This space available - Refer all requests to 1-888-TAG-LINE - Managed by Malakhi advertising Inc.

LOL!

Don't worry, you'll get your usual cut. ;o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You don't know much about village life in any age/place do you? In the town of Ramstein in Germany,a town of about 6,000, I guess, the phone book had large numbers of people with the same family names. Their ancesteries could easily betraced back back at least five hundred years. I bet half the town was related by blood. Furthermore, a German from another village who married into a family was often still treated like a stranger thirty years later. Roots.

Great. No need for you to keep attempting other explanations then.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

$415?

BigMack

[malakhi]

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?

As I read it, he was comparing it to confessing sin in advance of it being committed: "father, forgive me today fo the sin I'm gonna do tomorrow".

[malakhi]

Answer the question, Mack. What sin does a newborn have?

Hmmm...

If they have no sin, why do they need baptism?

[SoothingDave]

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.

Thus sayeth Havoc. You're a laugh riot. Let's let God decide what He can do, OK? LOL

Listen up, God did not violate Mary's Free Will. She could have chosen not to cooperate with God, that is why we praise her for her fiat. If she was a slave, then we would not consider her any more than that.

Do try to stay consistent. LOL

If he does it for one, he must do it for all else he is unjust.

LOL. So the clay says to the potter. You should go talk to the Calvinists. Learn them a thing or two about how God plays fair. LOL

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.

No, dear friend, like I said, at Mary's conception she was saved. She never sinned at all. Please try to learn a thing or two about the Catholic faith sometime before you die. You might be surprised. Put down the comic books.

As for "the sacrifice not being complete" you again, as I jsut told you, constrain God in the time He created. Try to imagine a God bigger than time, who is time's master and not time's servant. Such a little god you have. Has to sit around and wait.

Do you intend to tell us Mary was sin free and therefore offered a turtle dove for her sins?

She offered a turtle dove in obedience ot the Law. Duh. What is the "sin" you think she had resulting from childbirth?

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?

Who said He couldn't? Talk about tying God's hands. LOL

God chooses to save Mary in this special way. God has not chosen to save you in that manner. Deal with it.

SD

[Havoc]

Rebaptizing is required if the first was invalid. It's a matter of if you lay that ball against the backboard once and it don't go in, you haven't scored until it does. Likewise if the message you recieved was in error, then your salvation may or may not be valid. And it was particularly abhorent that he should tell them they were in gross sin for offering to Roman Gods. Who cares? The word of God is grossly offensive to people who are sure they know better than God. I don't find rebaptising particularly interesting - it's actually quite valid. Especially in those cases where people think they are saved by being dunked in water. That is neither salvation nor Christ's baptism. As such, it isn't so much a matter of
Rebaptism as being saved and properly baptised in Christ's baptism. Of course, I'm sure that's beyond your comprehension and probably lost on you; but, then, we have your other comments to judge the thought process from whence it comes.

[malakhi]

The Donatist practice of rebaptizing was particularly abhorrent to the orthodox.

That's the line I found most interesting.

Seems like every time that came up in the first few centuries... all of the Christians knocked it down.

Interesting, also, because the Essenes, and the groups which followed them, practiced daily "rebaptizing". This continues even today in the Mandaean/Sabeaen sects.

[SoothingDave]

From the Jewish perspective, sin offerings are for "unintentional" sins (call it "venial" vs. "mortal" sin).

But there is no particular sin that is being expiated in this particular offering following a childbirth? No particular sin that a woman who gives birth must be "guilty" of, by definition?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

That's the line I found most interesting.

This is what I found most interesting (aside from the fact there was really no "orthodox" church at the time. "orthodox" is a matter of definition.):

By 350 they outnumbered the orthodox Christians in Africa, and each city had its opposing orthodox and Donatist bishops. It was the teaching of St. Augustine, as presented in his writings and at the debate between orthodox and Donatist bishops at Carthage (411), that turned the tide against Donatism. Strong state suppression and ascetic excesses among some of their own members further reduced their number. The remnants of the schismatic movement had vanished along with African Christianity before the advent of the Islamic invaders.

Vanished! Hmmmmmmmmm.

[malakhi]

There are some that believe 3 of the 4 gospels were originally written in Hebrew. Not because of the existence of manuscripts but because there are idioms that don't make sense when translated to Greek but make perfect sense should they have been translated from Hebrew.

Or, it could be that Greek wasn't their first language, and they wrote it in the idiom with which they were accustomed.

[SoothingDave]

What sin does a newborn have?

Hmmm... If they have no sin, why do they need baptism?

You should understand the difference I was drawing between inherited "sin" and personal sin. Wonk and Havoc and the boys want to take literally "all men have sinned" which to me speaks of personal sin.

So I ask, to no convincing answer, what sin a newborn has committed.

They want to make absolute this statement from Scripture but then can not even begin to explain the obvious exceptions.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Or, it could be that Greek wasn't their first language, and they wrote it in the idiom with which they were accustomed.

Like calling close kin "brothers?"

SD

[Havoc]

Well, I think there may be a difference between 'believing Christ' and believing your interpretation of what He said. For example, Christ also said "You must eat my body and drink my blood," yet, as we all know, you don't take this quite as literally as you do the passages about John the Baptist being Elijah.

It's not an interpretation of what he said. It's unambiguous. Period.

But you dodged my question: Was John the Baptist the son of Elizabeth and Zechariah?

No, I didn't dodge the question. I said however it was accomplished, christ has answered it. Elizabeht and Zechariah could well have given birth to a new body for Elias - or they may have found and adopted him. Who knows and who cares. His physical body could not enter heaven, we know this from Paul. So one can play any number of games with this, it changes nothing Christ said - and without any ambiguity, he stated that John and Elias are one in the same.

[malakhi]

What makes Jesus different from these other examples, especially when the general story lines are so similar?

His appearance to 500 people. The testimonies of some of these that survive to this day and are powerful. The astonishing number of hearts that become completely changed by the power of His ultimate atoning sacrifice thru the Ruach Ha Kodesh. (including mine).

So in general, would you agree with C.S. Lewis that it is "the myth that happens also to be true" (my paraphrase)?

[newgeezer]

How do you know when to take Scripture as deadly literal as you are this passage and not some other passages?

That's easy.

1. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
2. Don't add to it.
3. Don't subtract from it.
4. Don't look at any of it apart from the whole of it.

[biblewonk]

Jim, another thought. Remember Isaiah has a vision and has his lips seared with a coal to purify them. Because nothing impure can stand in God's presence. How do we expect the Holy Spirit to come upon Mary without destroying her unless she is first made clean, a worthy receptacle for God to reside in?

I'll admit that an immaculate conception would be preferable to hot coals...

Why do you think Jesus is more holy before He is born than after He is born? Why do you think is more Holy before He was born than after He was born? And what scripture supports this idea?

[malakhi]

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. On the contrary I do not think that sin exists at all until one can be held to account for it.

Interesting. I can see the distinction.