CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[ChristianPatriot]

For which? The observation that laws regulate actions or for my personal answer as to what the Law means to me?

Your question kinda doesn't make any sense.

The Law/actions get us to heaven.

 

[2A_Tom]

You didn't answer the basic question - do you agree with what Jesus said?

Why, yes. I agree with everything Christ says. (even when I don't like it)

However I do not agree with your thinking that Christ was laying out the way to Heaven.

He was asked a pointed question and he answered it. He was not asked how to attain to Eternal Life. He did not tell this pharasie how to get to heaven.

 

[T.Lex]

The Law/actions get us to heaven.

Why, yes. I agree with everything Christ says. (even when I don't like it)

However I do not agree with your thinking that Christ was laying out the way to Heaven.

He was asked a pointed question and he answered it. He was not asked how to attain to Eternal Life. He did not tell this pharasie how to get to heaven.

So these 2 answers are at odds, right?

 

[2A_Tom]

The ironic thing is, if actions didn't matter, we wouldn't need the Law.

As a personal answer, the purpose is to help us reach heaven. The more we can habituate actions - which is where the Law helps - the more likely we are to think and act according to God's will.

.
Please allow me to clarify my question. I was not asking for an opinion or even a tradidition.

Why does God say the law was given.

 

[2A_Tom]

The Law/actions get us to heaven.

So these 2 answers are at odds, right?

Since you took CP TOTALLY out of context, not at all. I think If you track back through the quotes (as I did you wil realize he was asking for a scripture reference for your assertion that The Law/actions get us to heaven.

I knew CP would not make that statement.

 

[T.Lex]

.
Please allow me to clarify my question. I was not asking for an opinion or even a tradidition.

Why does God say the law was given.

Ok. You're now asking a different question.

I'd start with Galations 3, then perhaps bring in some Romans 2. Of course, your understanding of Jesus' response is suspect.

The Law had become complicated. Well, had been complicated for a VERY long time. Following ALL of the laws would be like trying to decipher the ATF regulations surrounding the NFA. Or worse.

The scribe* was asking a trick question. He was asking which of the laws/commandments were REALLY important. Well, they all are. But Jesus Himself boiled it down to the fundamental 2-part formulation.

That's why we can eat bacon.


*[Edit explanation: had put Pharisee when that's not who asked. Re-looked. The Saducees were arguing, amongst themselves and with Jesus. He interjected his own question.]

 

[T.Lex]

Since you took CP TOTALLY out of context, not at all.

That's a very odd thing to say. I quoted the entirety of his post - as I did of yours.

I think If you track back through the quotes (as I did you wil realize he was asking for a scripture reference for your assertion that The Law/actions get us to heaven.

I did not say that.

I knew CP would not make that statement.

And yet, he did.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The ironic thing is, if actions didn't matter, we wouldn't need the Law.

As a personal answer, the purpose is to help us reach heaven.

 

[T.Lex]

What is confusing?

Laws - all laws, earthly and otherwise - regulate actions.

Is this really a foreign concept?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

What is confusing?

Laws - all laws, earthly and otherwise - regulate actions.

Is this really a foreign concept?

No. It's just not how we get redeemed.

 

[T.Lex]

No. It's just not how we get redeemed.

This dance feels familiar.

Was Jesus explaining how to become redeemed with his 2 part formulation?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

This dance feels familiar.

Was Jesus explaining how to become redeemed with his 2 part formulation?

Absolutely not.

 

[2A_Tom]

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

 

[2A_Tom]

Ok. You're now asking a different question.

Same exact question. I accept nothing but scripture, let God be true but every man a liar.

My opinion:

Throughout the centuries men have come to Christ and received his gift of Eternal life. In their extacy they tried to become Christlike winning others to Christ and seeing converts who didn't have the same desire to be converted, they became legalistic (Christian Judeaizers) and salvation by works was born.

Paul wrote: "O foolish Galatians"

You say the reason for the law is explained in Galatians 3, But continue to argue that works get you to Heaven.

You don't see the contradiction?

 

[2A_Tom]

"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." KJV

.
You know, I watched this discussion for several pages and wondered how God could have made such a blaring mistake.

Why didn't He just say her only begotten son instead of her firstborn since we all know that Mary had no other children. Even though some would say that the other egregious mistake of calling his cousins brothers is not a mistake at all.

Why couldn't god just say what you believe.

 

[neraph]

.
You know, I watched this discussion for several pages and wondered how God could have made such a blaring mistake.

Why didn't He just say her only begotten son instead of her firstborn since we all know that Mary had no other children. Even though some would say that the other egregious mistake of calling his cousins brothers is not a mistake at all.

Why couldn't god just say what you believe.

1. Calling Christ "firstborn" had important legal meaning. It means that Christ is the heir to the Davidic lineage and thus the fulfillment of prophecy. "Only-begotten" does not imply this.

2. The bible was not composed in English. The more accurate English translation would be "brethren" or "kinsmen", but that's archaic, so translators choose "brothers". We see this in Genesis 14:14. We know Lot is Abraham's nephew, not brother, but the KJV translators use "brother". Other bible translators note the problem here and use "kinsman" or "relative".

 

[ChristianPatriot]

1. Calling Christ "firstborn" had important legal meaning. It means that Christ is the heir to the Davidic lineage and thus the fulfillment of prophecy. "Only-begotten" does not imply this.

2. The bible was not composed in English. The more accurate English translation would be "brethren" or "kinsmen", but that's archaic, so translators choose "brothers". We see this in Genesis 14:14. We know Lot is Abraham's nephew, not brother, but the KJV translators use "brother". Other bible translators note the problem here and use "kinsman" or "relative".

“And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.”
**Genesis‬ *14:12‬ *KJV‬‬

 

[ChristianPatriot]

1. Calling Christ "firstborn" had important legal meaning. It means that Christ is the heir to the Davidic lineage and thus the fulfillment of prophecy. "Only-begotten" does not imply this.

2. The bible was not composed in English. The more accurate English translation would be "brethren" or "kinsmen", but that's archaic, so translators choose "brothers". We see this in Genesis 14:14. We know Lot is Abraham's nephew, not brother, but the KJV translators use "brother". Other bible translators note the problem here and use "kinsman" or "relative".

Are there other examples in Scripture of firstborn referring to an only child?

 

[foszoe]

Mostly. Though I really think my argument as being predicated on a bit more than silence. There is a bit of scripture there.

Other than that, this is more of an intellectual discussion for me.

<br>Ok, got home finally and did a quick bit of research.&nbsp;<br><br>Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. <br><br>I think your point is that it is the not modifying the until that pushes towards your understanding.<br><br>From what I have gathered going back to the BDAG citation I put in a few pages back is that the ouk (not in the KJV however translated differently in other versions) modifies the verb not the ews &nbsp;(until or till in other versions). The lectionaries I have available, which are Protestant and the BDAGs being one of the standards in the field all seem to agree on this. That evidence plus the commentaries I have available, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox agree that the emphasis of Matthew 1:25 is to stress that no sexual union took place before the Birth of Christ to preserve the Virgin Birth narrative and the fulfillment of the Prophecy from Isaiah that is also cited in the chapter, not to emphasize that a sexual union took place after the Birth of Christ<br><br>The specific construction used in Matthew 1:25 occurs only 4 times in the NT. 2 are // texts where the woman hides the leaven until it leavens the whole lump. In these two cases the leaven is still hidden even though the whole lump is leavened.<br><br>The 4th passage is where Paul is offering the sacrifices of purification for the men.<br><br>The objection based on not fulfilling the marriage, I would still cite the singular exceptionalism of this betrothal as satisfactory evidence for me that Joseph and Mary not moving to act two is satisfactory enough for me. Although I do know that isn't for you.<br><br>

 

[foszoe]

Are there other examples in Scripture of firstborn referring to an only child?

Did all the Eqyptians have more than one child?