Co- Redemptrix

[bbyrd009]

But again, of what sin would any of us convict her?

again, what sin is irrelevant

 

[bbyrd009]

I do not hold that she was necessarily without sin

bam put her in your pantheon then, until you are sure, i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

Did Mary shed her blood as a covering?

not the point

Did Mary trust in her own righteousness?

not the point

 

[bbyrd009]

The question is, do we believe said "Book"?

ah, now here's a good point. I cannot comment further on the Catholic perspective wadr, i am here for Christians, and while i love Catholics, i do not mix cultures with them

 

[bbyrd009]

Yet, it comes from the very Psalm that "none righteous" came from [cf Ps 14].

So if it is "right then" for that instance, could it not also be "right then" for the other instance.
If one aspect can be taken too literally, can not the same also be said of the other.

Thus, where and how do we draw the line and make that determination. It is not likely we shall be able to come to one accord. At least, not in this life.

not as long as you are positing other completely sinless humans, from birth, in defiance of Scripture, no

 

[Richard_oti]

then Mary should have been decreasing, right, i don't see how she can get a pass from that and keep any semblance of Christ together. If there was a single sinless person before Christ, we don't need Christ. Why isn't Mary decreasing? It's obvious, but you just aren't going to like it

Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

Enoch and Elijah were taken up. By what measure were they deemed worthy?

 

[Richard_oti]

of which sin is not the relevant part imo,

Indeed. It is about righteous vs. unrighteous.

but i would say any other sin that a child might commit in the ego-establishment stage, although again i would not doubt that they were "exceptional" children as well ok. We can even observe "old souls" in little kids today, relatively speaking. John was not sinless either, and Scripture makes this very plain, that no one is without sin

And again, of what "sin" would you ascribe to one filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb?

For it is also written "there are none that seek".

 

[Richard_oti]

again, i am called to overlook and forgive sins, not dredge them up, and 'what sin' is not the point at all, "what polytheism?" likely is. Mary had sex, and liked it, ok. John Baptist was chosen, but so was David lol. this sinless mold is not a good thing, it is not Christian, and will not hold up to Scripture. It is Pagan, wadr.

"There are none that seek". That is the problem with all inclusive statements. If there are none righteous, there are also none that seek. If there are "none righteous", and "all have sinned", you have to exclude Jesus from those all inclusive statements. So you are already willing to "exclude".

 

[Richard_oti]

no, but that is bc of the choice made by the person, so diff subject

So then you are saying that there are those "sinners", those who did not know "God" at all from birth, whom Jesus has called, that seek to live by faith apart from sin. To live as righteous according to His word.

 

[Richard_oti]

bam put her in your pantheon then, until you are sure, i guess.

<chuckle> Let's see, how many "God's" are in my "pantheon"?

YHVH: Yes
Jesus: no
Mary: no
Bbyrd: no
Myself: no

Hmmm, seems I have a "pantheon" of one.

 

[Richard_oti]

ah, now here's a good point. I cannot comment further on the Catholic perspective wadr, i am here for Christians, and while i love Catholics, i do not mix cultures with them

Nor can I since I am not Catholic. However I do not see Catholics and Protestants as all that much different. But are both "Christians". I do not segregate them.

 

[Richard_oti]

of which sin is not the relevant part imo,

Indeed. It is about righteous vs. unrighteous.

but i would say any other sin that a child might commit in the ego-establishment stage, although again i would not doubt that they were "exceptional" children as well ok. We can even observe "old souls" in little kids today, relatively speaking. John was not sinless either, and Scripture makes this very plain, that no one is without sin

And again, of what "sin" would you ascribe to one filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb?

For it is also written "there are none that seek".

 

[Richard_oti]

not as long as you are positing other completely sinless humans, from birth, in defiance of Scripture, no

I have not "posited" a single one. That is your take upon what I have stated. I am just unwilling to ascribe "sin" to those accounted as "righteous". Nor am I willing to ascribe "sin" to anyone of whom I have no such knowledge.

Again, by what measure were Enoch and Elijah accounted worthy enough to be taken up.

Ain't it fun when someone takes the DA position <grin>

 

[tabletalk]

<chuckle> Let's see, how many "God's" are in my "pantheon"?

YHVH: Yes
Jesus: no
Mary: no
Bbyrd: no
Myself: no

Hmmm, seems I have a "pantheon" of one.

So, did people call you a heretic because you are non-trinitarian?

 

[bbyrd009]

Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

Enoch and Elijah were taken up. By what measure were they deemed worthy?

imo that is not the pertinent part there, but rather "were they born sinless?" At least if we adhere to the doctrine that even one sin deserves death

 

[bbyrd009]

And again, of what "sin" would you ascribe to one filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb?

the sin of being human? We are not informed of Mary's sin, but we are informed of her need for Christ. To posit that Mary was sinless is to go against the need for a Savior in the first place; if Mary can be human, and sinless from birth, then Christ is not needed for anyone, see, we can all follow Mary.

 

[bbyrd009]

For it is also written "there are none that seek".

seems like plenty of ppl seeking co-redempters and santa clauses though huh. This is where the Easter Bunny originates, this spirit, i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

"There are none that seek". That is the problem with all inclusive statements. If there are none righteous, there are also none that seek. If there are "none righteous", and "all have sinned", you have to exclude Jesus from those all inclusive statements. So you are already willing to "exclude".

yes, i get that part, but making anyone co-equal with Christ is blasphemy, at least in the Christian model. Put it in the Catholic section, and i'm all good with it.

 

[bbyrd009]

So then you are saying that there are those "sinners", those who did not know "God" at all from birth, whom Jesus has called, that seek to live by faith apart from sin. To live as righteous according to His word.

i'm sure there are one or two out of a million or so believers at any one time, sure; but i guess most ppl are more in the "...that say they seek to live by faith apart from sin" category

 

[bbyrd009]

<chuckle> Let's see, how many "God's" are in my "pantheon"?

YHVH: Yes
Jesus: no
Mary: no
Bbyrd: no
Myself: no

Hmmm, seems I have a "pantheon" of one.

one who commits no sin is defined as "God" i guess