Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you saying that we would be able to live forever here on earth in our earthly bodies?
I said that babies have sin when they are born and that is why they die. As for our earthly bodies, God gives to each of us the bodies He desires. Therefore, I don't know the eternal state of our bodies. I know that we shall all eventually have eternal life.
No we are NOT, trettep. We are born PRONE to sin, period. That is a huge difference!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trettep
No Mystic, we are born as members of Adam's body. The same body that received the condemnation of death. If you still don't believe Mystic, then tell me where the Bible says that death can come by any other means than sin?
A baby only can die because it has sin at birth. If they didn't have sin at birth it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to die.
This is so misguided and counter to all logic and reason I must withdraw, brother. Peace in Christ's love.
If you believe in original sin, then to be consistent you must also believe that children dying before confessing Christ must die in sin and be confined to hell. Nowhere in scripture is there a "pass" for youths who are not of an age of accountability.
In Catholicism one does not confess Christ in the way that Protestants would interpret the phrase. One avoids sin, performs charity and goes to Confession and Mass and takes Communion, and follows the myriad rules and obligations of the Church. Most of that applies only when the age of seven has been reached.
However there is still the matter of Original Sin (Catholics always capitalize it. ) Baptism removes the "stain of Original Sin" from the soul. This is why Catholics practice infant Baptism. A Catholic Baptism, the sacrament performed by a Catholic priest, makes one a Catholic forever thereby requiring following all those rules.
But what about someone who dies before Baptism? First, the Catholic Church recognizes three kinds of baptism. Baptism of Water is putting water on the head and using the right words. Anyone can do it to anyone if the intent to do it is there. No need for either to be Catholic. Baptism of Blood is martyrdom. This was originally for those who were studying to be Catholic but were martyred first. Could still happen. The last is Baptism of Desire. If one consistently wants and tries to be a moral and charitable person, that counts even if the person never even heard of Jesus. (This is what the Pope was talking with his 'atheist' remarks.) Theoretically this could apply to young children with some understanding of good and bad.
But what about infants, the very young who know nothing about morals, who die without being baptized? Since they still have Original Sin hanging over them, conventional wisdom says Heaven is not on the menu. Augustine said that the unbaptized necessarily went to hell, although unbaptized infants got only mild punishment. Church teaching tradition (but NOT dogma) has it that there is a Limbo for such as these, a place of earthly happiness but lacking the vision of God that obtains in Heaven.
Most recently Pope Benedict XVI allowed theological speculation to be published that allowed the possibility that unbaptized infants might go to Heaven by special grace of God. That is, God effectively baptizes them. This is still not any kind of dogma, but it was found not to be categorically ruled out by either scripture or tradition. The Catholic viewpoint is that not everything God has in his mind will be revealed on earth.
Last edited by Alt Thinker; 11-21-2014 at 06:00 PM..
I've read most of the posts on this thread, and there is one thing that only one of you, (Son of Zadok), has tried to explain.
First of all, I would like to say, that if Jesus were born of anyone but a virgin and the Father, we may as well begin to party, because then belief in Jesus as our Savior is a waste of time, because He would not qualify to be Savior.
Mike 555 came close, in that he referred to Romans 5:12. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" This is King James Version, but only one version that I know of has correctly translated the end of that verse, and that is the Concordant Version, which reads, "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -"
The correct application comes when we realize that Adam sinned, bringing in death to the human race. God cursed Adam with this consequence when he sinned, and since it was the initiation of sin on the human race, it means that humans were originally intended to be immortal. The death that Adam brought to humanity is the First Death, and that death is defined as mortality. It didn't happen instantly, so we know that the vehicle of death was mortality. It was a breakdown of the original intent of perfection. There is a different death that comes from the consequence of our personal sins, and it is mentioned in Revelation as the Second Death. The translators of KJV and others have failed to account for the difference in these two different deaths. This has led to all kinds of theories relating to us receiving original sin from Adam, which is simply not true. We have received mortality from Adam, and through mortality, we have the propensity to sin, which Paul's verse above says when correctly translated...death passed to all mankind, on which all sinned (from then on). (If you notice, Paul didn't complete the thought of that verse.)
So the cause of the eventual breakdown and death of our human bodies is inherited from Adam through mortality, and mortality gives us the propensity to sin. It only makes sense, because which happens first when a baby is born; mortality, or sin? Of course, mortality is far and away before sin, because a baby has no ability to sin until much later! Paul also proved this when he says that death was not imputed from Adam to Moses because there was no Law at that time. If sin was not imputed for those thousands of years, how could people's bodies die from their own sin? The answer is, that the First Death comes from the mortality we received in our bodies from Adam, whereas the Second Death comes from our personal sin.
Now, as for Jesus, He HAD to be born without this propensity to sin, so that He could be a sinless sacrifice, and the only way that this could come about is if He was born of God himself, rather than man, yet He also had to be born of man so that He could qualify to be the Redeemer of the Human race.
Am I correct that Jesus is of the house of David through Joseph his father's family line?
But, hold the horses, if Joseph did not have sex with Mary then there is no blood line to the son?!
Anyway, did Joseph at a later time did have sex with Mary? Were there other kids after Jesus? Did Joseph have kids prior to Mary as he was older?
I've read most of the posts on this thread, and there is one thing that only one of you, (Son of Zadok), has tried to explain.
First of all, I would like to say, that if Jesus were born of anyone but a virgin and the Father, we may as well begin to party, because then belief in Jesus as our Savior is a waste of time, because He would not qualify to be Savior.
Mike 555 came close, in that he referred to Romans 5:12. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" This is King James Version, but only one version that I know of has correctly translated the end of that verse, and that is the Concordant Version, which reads, "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned -"
The correct application comes when we realize that Adam sinned, bringing in death to the human race. God cursed Adam with this consequence when he sinned, and since it was the initiation of sin on the human race, it means that humans were originally intended to be immortal. The death that Adam brought to humanity is the First Death, and that death is defined as mortality. It didn't happen instantly, so we know that the vehicle of death was mortality. It was a breakdown of the original intent of perfection. There is a different death that comes from the consequence of our personal sins, and it is mentioned in Revelation as the Second Death. The translators of KJV and others have failed to account for the difference in these two different deaths. This has led to all kinds of theories relating to us receiving original sin from Adam, which is simply not true. We have received mortality from Adam, and through mortality, we have the propensity to sin, which Paul's verse above says when correctly translated...death passed to all mankind, on which all sinned (from then on). (If you notice, Paul didn't complete the thought of that verse.)
So the cause of the eventual breakdown and death of our human bodies is inherited from Adam through mortality, and mortality gives us the propensity to sin. It only makes sense, because which happens first when a baby is born; mortality, or sin? Of course, mortality is far and away before sin, because a baby has no ability to sin until much later! Paul also proved this when he says that death was not imputed from Adam to Moses because there was no Law at that time. If sin was not imputed for those thousands of years, how could people's bodies die from their own sin? The answer is, that the First Death comes from the mortality we received in our bodies from Adam, whereas the Second Death comes from our personal sin.
Now, as for Jesus, He HAD to be born without this propensity to sin, so that He could be a sinless sacrifice, and the only way that this could come about is if He was born of God himself, rather than man, yet He also had to be born of man so that He could qualify to be the Redeemer of the Human race.
I understand everything you said and it makes much sense. But it raises two questions:
What exactly did the sacrifice of Jesus accomplish?
As an example of what I mean, in Catholicism the sacrifice of Jesus opened the gates of Heaven, making it now possible to enter. A specific practical effect. What specific practical effect did it provide in your view?
Why is baptism necessary?
Again an example - in Catholicism baptism removes Original Sin making it possible for individuals to enter the now open gates of Heaven. Again a specific practical effect. What specific practical effect does it provide in your view?
Of course, to actually enter Heaven it is necessary to pass judgment for your deeds, as you say.
The entire original sin idea is a gnostic heresy promoted by Augustine who no doubt was a Pauline follower. What passes for most Christianity today should be called Paulinity, not Christianity. Jesus was a Jew. He never mentioned original sin because Jews don't believe in it.
Augustine was able to assuage his own guilt of fornication because he developed a doctrine of "I just couldn't help it," or "The devil made me do it." But now as a "hearer" of Manichaean philosophy. It should be noted that Augustine was himself a Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before converting to Catholicism.
From Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good, by Kam-lun E. Lee (a dissertation):
“The Manichaean explanation for the cause of personal evil is relatively straightforward. One cannot escape from moral evil because there is a metaphysical evil principle at work behind the soul. In other words, one sins involuntarily. Considered cosmologically, the human soul is thrown into the predicament of constant struggle with evil not by its own choice but by the determination of an external factor.
The Manichaeans represent the Persian branch of Gnosticism, and they taught both determinism and total depravity. However, their determinism was based upon dualistic mythology (p.128, 209), and also maintained a carnal outlook on bodily pleasure.
Lee writes: “It is evident that the preceding discourse reflects Augustine’s conscious effort to seek analternative explanation of the phenomenon of what the Manichees believe to be caused by a metaphysical evil principle (xxiii.44), and only in De uera religione has he embarked on developing a full theory.” (p.117)
The determistic Manichaeans had a dualistic view of the origin of sin, while Augustinian determinism had a monistic view of the origin of sin. Therefore, determinism is the common root between Gnosticism and Augustinianism.
“[Augustine] draws on the Manichees for insights of experience of personal evil, borrowing from them the double notion of ‘wickedness’ and ‘mortality,’ although he has substantially transformed these simplistic ideas into an elaborate theory that eventually does away with dualism.” (p.169)
“As Augustine focuses more on the Pauline writings, the shift of attention from consuetudo to concupiscentia hinted at in De sermone domine in monte I becomes more apparent in his first systematic commentary on the Book of Romans.” (p.177)
“[The] concept of the inevitability of personal evil is fundamental to the development of his doctrine of predestination. Therefore, from this consideration, we may say that Manichaeism has contributed to the doctrine by drawing Augustine to wrestle with the issue of the evil principle in the context of the Manichaean concept of the Good as the Beautiful.” (p.139)
-----------------------------------------------------
Original sin had to be developed in order to put forth Augustine's view of predestination. This, too, was original with Augustine. Who among the early Church theologians, prior to Augustine, taught Augustinian predestination? It appears to be a theology that was born out of Augustine’s research of Gnosticism, and Gnosticism gave birth to the idea of an inherently depraved nature.
It set the state for the continuing battle between adherents of Calvinism or Arminianism.
Sadly, there are a great number of evangelicals that literally "mix" the two doctrines--accepting some and rejecting some of both. It shows no great thinking on the part of any.
Lee's dissertation was written with regard to predestination, but naturally had to ground itself in the "original sin" debate which had to be resolved in order to reach a position of "the elect only" are saved.
Both Matthew's and Luke's gospels tell of the virgin birth of Jesus. However, on everything else they are very contradictory. Mark (written first) and Paul's epistles written before Mark say nothing of a virgin birth, and in fact Paul implys a natural birth for Jesus.
Which view is correct, and where did this view come from?
Personally, I do. I believe that miracles are very possible. My very liberal Protestant denomination believes this, since we ascribe to the Creeds.
However, the Gospels are contradictory and this belief is a judgement call.
Many Christians do not.
I know that the Presbyterian Church - the mainline one - has one restriction in terms of membership - a belief in the divinity of Christ.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Baptism removes the "stain of Original Sin" from the soul. This is why Catholics practice infant Baptism. A Catholic Baptism, the sacrament performed by a Catholic priest, makes one a Catholic forever thereby requiring following all those rules. 
Church teaching tradition (but NOT dogma) has it that there is a Limbo for such as these, a place of earthly happiness but lacking the vision of God that obtains in Heaven.
