Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site faust.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!yale!faust!jlp
From: jlp@faust.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Re: Footnote to Samet's PS (SUE!!)
Message-ID: <14300001@faust.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 13:58:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: faust.14300001
Posted: Tue Jul  9 13:58:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 09:19:47 EDT
References: <330@ucdavis.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:ucdavis:-33000:faust:14300001:000:904
Nf-From: faust!jlp    Jul  9 13:58:00 1985


{}	
>............  [Personally, I think the whole thing was a frameup
>by some second century Romans, and even the New Testament says that
>children are born Holy, i.e. without sin or responsibility for
>the actions of others.  (Luke 2:23) The whole "original sin" trip
>isn't in the New Testament.]

Actually, I think it is better to review this scripture in the context of
the passage. It is not "children" who are considered Holy, but rather
first-born sons ( "As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.) Further, the passage is
such the the child is being brought to the Temple for sanctification, that
is, being set aside to the ministry of the Lord. Although I agree with your
conclusion about the accountability of children, I don't believe that this
is the passage which substantiates it.



Jerryl Payne
...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlp