Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site faust.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!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: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:52:29 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