E
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
“did not sin” = “did not sin”. It’s a quote. Job was “blameless and upright” meaning “blameless” not culpable. Then it says he “did not sin.” So yes. In this context, “did not sin” explicates “blameless and upright.”
The text SAYS Job “did not sin.”
E
emeraldisle
Guest
Post the verses so I can see where you are getting this new “mercygate” tradition teaching that Job was completely & always sinless.
.
C
clmowry
Guest
What is up with continually imposing “only” and “alone” onto texts that do not contain the words?
Chuck
M
mercygate
Guest
Job 1:22 and 2:10. Job’s righteousness is the theme of the book.
B
brycelaliberte
Guest
It is apparent you have two issues.
- How do you know your interpretation is the correct one? See 2 Peter 1:19-21
- What do you know about the Ark of the Old Covenant?
E
emeraldisle
Guest
In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong. Job 1:22
He replied, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said. Job 2:10
In all “this” Job did not sin = Job was completely & always sinless??
.
E
emeraldisle
Guest
E
expectthebest
Guest
If one believes in the infallibility of the Church, then “all” means “most” as has already been discussed,
If one does not believe in the infallibility of the Church, the best one can say is he doesn’t know because the Bible doesn’t clearly state it one way or the other.
I think this sums up the arguments. I don’t think this will come to any resolution because proof of this belief relies first on the belief of infallibility. That is the real argument here.
If one does not believe in the infallibility of the Church, the best one can say is he doesn’t know because the Bible doesn’t clearly state it one way or the other.
I think this sums up the arguments. I don’t think this will come to any resolution because proof of this belief relies first on the belief of infallibility. That is the real argument here.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
It would be more accurate to say that Scripture only explicitly reveals that Jesus was sinless in his human nature - not that he was the only sinless person to have walked the earth. But the Word of God does implicitly reveal that his blessed mother was sinless as well. The Apostolic Catholic Church alone has the divine authority to interpret Scripture and make explicit what is implicit in the written texts. Church dogmas are a clarification of what has been revealed by God in Scripture and consistently taught by the apostolic hierarchy in accord with Tradition. The deposit of faith consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition: not Scripture alone. Indeed, Scripture assures us that this essential deposit of faith has existed since the time of the apostles.
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. {2 Thessalonians 2, 15}
Not everything that was taught by word of mouth was written down in textual form. Paul never wrote about the Virgin Birth, but I’m sure he must have mentioned it during his ministry. Meanwhile he exhorts the faithful to hold to the teachings which have been traditionally passed down to us from the apostles and those who have validly succeeded them.
Ignatius of Antioch (A.D.110) and Justin Martyr (A.D. 155) are the first known Church Fathers to have alluded to Mary’s sinless nature by invoking our Blessed Mother as the New Eve. And this Marian doctrine of Mary’s sinless nature was traditionally held by the Church Fathers who had succeeded them throughout the Patristic period of the Catholic Church to the time of John of Damascus (A.D. 749). Even the early Protestant reformers held to this traditional Christian belief. It is was not until post-modern Protestantism emerged that belief in Mary’s sinlessness was rejected and widely challenged by Protestants who had no connection with the historic Christian faith and who were outside the visible Church.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
C
ChrisWRIT
Guest
I suggest you take a look at what infallibility is & is not, since that seems to be your biggest peeve.
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp
In any case, if one accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God, simple logic is perfectly satisfactory to see that the Bible doesn’t say what EI keeps claiming.
EI has put forth three statements:
A - Jesus is without sin. (1 Peter 2:21-22)
B - Jesus is both fully God & fully man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
C - ALL men have sinned. (Rom 5:12)
Not all three can be true at the same time.
If C is true, then either A or B or both must be false.
If “all men have sinned”, then Jesus either sinned, or He wasn’t really fully God & fully man, or both.
Cheers,
Chris
M
mercygate
Guest
Nowhere in the book is Job accused of sin. The whole thing starts off because he is “blameless and upright and turned away from evil.” He is “blameless.” The “in all this” part is in emphasis that even in great distress, he does not sin.
M
mercygate
Guest
Whether “pas” means “almost everybody” or not is NOT a matter of infallible proclamation. It’s just Greek.
M
mercygate
Guest
Reason and God’s Truth never contradict one another.
A
Axion
Guest
Emeraldisle KNOWS the arguments, has heard them dozens of times and refuses to address them.
ALL in Greek (pas) is NOT an absolute. It is used rhetorically in the NT and admits of exceptions. Therefore ALL HAVE SINNED is no more absolute than ALL JERUSALEM went to see John the Baptist, or ALL THE WORLD was counted by Augustus.
Emeraldisle has no answer for this and is simply spamming.
ALL in Greek (pas) is NOT an absolute. It is used rhetorically in the NT and admits of exceptions. Therefore ALL HAVE SINNED is no more absolute than ALL JERUSALEM went to see John the Baptist, or ALL THE WORLD was counted by Augustus.
Emeraldisle has no answer for this and is simply spamming.
B
brycelaliberte
Guest
You didn’t address my other point, nor about Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. That, and logic and God’s Truth never contradict each other.
Why don’t you talk about the Ark of the New Covenant, and show how Mary didn’t need to be absolutely pure to carry Jesus?
E
expectthebest
Guest
You took what I wrote wrong. I was not in any way peeved about infallibility and I was not challenging it. I was just summing up the two arguments. Both arguments really rest on that principal. Just stating facts.
E
expectthebest
Guest
Yes, but this passage is central to the argument. I did not mean to say the meaning of that particular passage was infallible. It is the principal. In order for the infallible doctrin to be true, that passage must mean most everyone. Boy guys, I’m not attacking infallibility here. I’m just stating that these two arguments can’t be resolved until the issue of infallibility is resolved. One who believes the Church is infallible will see it one way while one who doesn’t believe the Church is infallible will see it another way. That’s all I’m saying.
A
adam_in_ohio
Guest
No, your wrong. Scripture says Jesus was completely sinless and always sinless. But no where does it say he was the only.
A
adam_in_ohio
Guest
Ok, I can dig that.Personal Speculation of Course
- Status