CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

<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>

Horrible formatting! Apologize. I started logging out of forums on all my devices for Lent and wiping all the cookies so it didn't log me me back in. Well I typed too long and since rmeember me isn't checked it logged me out when i hit post!

If only ATM wouldn't have PM'd me then I wouldn't have had to come back here and logged back in again.

Now to log back out :0

 

[ATM]

Horrible formatting! Apologize. I started logging out of forums on all my devices for Lent and wiping all the cookies so it didn't log me me back in. Well I typed too long and since rmeember me isn't checked it logged me out when i hit post!

If only ATM wouldn't have PM'd me then I wouldn't have had to come back here and logged back in again.

Now to log back out :0

PM sent.

 

[neraph]

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

Right, in verse 12, we get the "brother's son" (I.e. nephew). Two verses later Lot is referred to as "brother". But again, this is a defect of translation.

 

[neraph]

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

I'm not aware of any specifically. At the same time, the responsibilities of a firstborn (for example Exodus 13:2), would undoubtedly be required of an only child. That is, they don't become the firstborn only when there is a second.

 

[2A_Tom]

Good morning,

Neraph, just for reference what is your religious background.

 

[T.Lex]

Absolutely not.

Well, that sounds definitive.

From your authoritative perspective, what is the difference between what Jesus was explaining and what leads to redemption?

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?

The contradiction exists because you've classified me and my beliefs a certain way. You do not actually read what I'm writing, but reading into my writing what you believe that I believe.

You do not care to understand what I'm saying.

BTW, the scribe/lawyer thing is an effort to capture the role the questioner played in that society. Have you studied the various roles of the Pharisees, Saducees, and scribes... even the role of Pilate?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

From your authoritative perspective, what is the difference between what Jesus was explaining and what leads to redemption?

Either scripture is the sole authority of faith and practice, or it isn't. We're talking passed each other in different languages.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, that sounds definitive.

From your authoritative perspective, what is the difference between what Jesus was explaining and what leads to redemption?


The contradiction exists because you've classified me and my beliefs a certain way. You do not actually read what I'm writing, but reading into my writing what you believe that I believe.

You do not care to understand what I'm saying.

BTW, the scribe/lawyer thing is an effort to capture the role the questioner played in that society. Have you studied the various roles of the Pharisees, Saducees, and scribes... even the role of Pilate?

.
Am I mistaken that you identify as a Roman Catholic? If I am not then that carries the implication that you believe in the authority ans sometimes the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. You believe in the efficacy of the Sacraments to impart grace to get you to heaven. You believe in both veniel and mortal sin. You believe in Purgatory and the possibility that your sin can send you to Hell.

In short your authority is Roman Catholic Dogma.

Please tell me the points of Roman Catholic doctrine that you disagree with.

 

[hog slayer]

Let me stand in the middle for a moment and ask all parties: what is the debate?

as I have been trying to keep up, it often seems the issues revolve around historical and literary context. I'm just trying to really understand.

 

[2A_Tom]

It is all about Salvation.

Oh, and rabbit trails.

 

[T.Lex]

Either scripture is the sole authority of faith and practice, or it isn't. We're talking passed each other in different languages.

Does scripture create that dichotomy? If not, then the premise is fundamentally flawed, eh?

Regardless, there is a bit of Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra going on here. Whenever it comes up, I try to get my head around salvation/redemption/justification/whatever.

Thus, my question to you is based on ignorance of how you're using "redeemed." I think I know what it is, but I don't understand how it differs from what Christ said. I'd very much appreciate an explanation of how what Jesus said departs from how you understand "redeemed."

There's no "gotcha" from me on this. I'm just trying to understand.

At a basic level, I have a premise that there are analogs across all of our denominations for certain beliefs/constructs/dogma. They are simply expressed differently. But the truth or falsity of that premise in analogs can only be born out if I have at least a rudimentary understanding of the dialects of our common language(s).

.
Am I mistaken that you identify as a Roman Catholic?

Well, we agree on something. That's a start.

Yes, I am "RC" as you call it.

If I am not then that carries the implication that you believe in the authority ans sometimes the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. You believe in the efficacy of the Sacraments to impart grace to get you to heaven. You believe in both veniel and mortal sin. You believe in Purgatory and the possibility that your sin can send you to Hell.

In short your authority is Roman Catholic Dogma.

Please tell me the points of Roman Catholic doctrine that you disagree with.

So let's back up a step. Catholic dogma is scriptural and, like Orthodoxy, rooted in tradition.

What you've done is misconstrue a couple thousand years of prayerful contemplation, including a couple hundred years of corruption in the middle, into a few sentences so as to start with the greatest part of our divide.

As scary as this may be for you, I'd actually like to start with the most common elements to make sure we're using the same definitions.

Tell you what - I am open to a 2-part conversation on this. In each post, I can address one of the points you mention that are different, as long as in the same post you address what I ask regarding commonality. Fair?

Let me stand in the middle for a moment and ask all parties: what is the debate?

as I have been trying to keep up, it often seems the issues revolve around historical and literary context. I'm just trying to really understand.

It is all about Salvation.

Oh, and rabbit trails.

For me, and I believe I've mentioned this, it is more about understanding the things we have in common so as to better appreciate and understand the differences.

I am also aware of multiple audiences here, so I prefer a certain approach that sometimes (arguably often) differs from those that come from other Christian traditions.

 

[2A_Tom]

T.Lex,

To begin our one on one, I will preface my remarks to you in size 4 font and ask you to do the same.

I will also reference the exact point I am addressing in my answer and ask you do the same.

T.Lex

For me, and I believe I've mentioned this, it is more about understanding the things we have in common so as to better appreciate and understand the differences.

My misgiving in this exchange is that the contrast (difference) will monumentally out weigh the commonality.

Since you challenged, I choose the weapons.

• My assertions will be backed by King James Bible verses posted in full.
• Your assertions need be backed by your choice of Catholic texts (not Vulgate) posted in full.
• The subject, Bible Salvation.
  

Edit: Sorry I hit post instead of go advanced. I was not finished

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex,

To begin our one on one, I will preface my remarks to you in size 4 font and ask you to do the same.

Why? I can try, but I'd rather just quote and respond.

I will also reference the exact point I am addressing in my answer and ask you do the same.

Not a problem, I tend to do that anyway.

My misgiving in this exchange is that the contrast (difference) will monumentally out weigh the commonality.

Since you challenged, I choose the weapons.

So, that's an illustration of my misgivings - I'm not sure you have a genuine interest in discussion. Rather, you see this is a battle, with winners and losers. The written word is poor at communicating nuance, so I'll start from the proposition that you're using a funny device since we're on a gun forum.

• My assertions will be backed by King James Bible verses posted in full.
• Your assertions need be backed by your choice of Catholic texts (not Vulgate) posted in full.

Ok. I usually use the revised Catholic, but I'll do my best to note the version and be consistent.

• The subject, Bible Salvation.
  

Full stop. No.

The subject will be our beliefs. You get one, I get one. "Bible Salvation" will become "who is right" and that's not what I'm interested in.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The subject will be our beliefs. You get one, I get one. "Bible Salvation" will become "who is right" and that's not what I'm interested in.

Yeah....when it comes to salvation, I'd be pretty concerned about being right. Eternity is a long time.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Keep in mind, of course, that if your view of salvation doesn't match the Bible, then the most loving thing that we can do is tell you that you're wrong. We're not being argumentative. We don't get any enjoyment out of being "right" and seeing souls go to hell.

 

[2A_Tom]

T.Lex,

Do you know for sure that if you died right now that you would go to Heaven.

Edit: Add verse.

1 John 5:13 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[rvb]

for those of us following along... what are we defining "Bible Salvation" to mean?
I'm sure we aren't saying the Bible saves us, right? I mean I love the Good Book as much as any body, but it's not the source of salvation. Is that a way to say we will study salvation through the Bible?

I'm concerned to read the differences outweigh our common beliefs. I mean our common beliefs should be pretty huge... That God is the creator who sent his only Son to die for our sins, was crucified dead and buried, rose on the 3rd day, ascended into Heaven, and will return someday, all so that we can live eternal with God.

It is good that we do as the Bible says and use it for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Tim 3:16) but it almost feels like some perspective is needed in this thread.

I apologize if I'm mis-reading the tone of the thread, but it feels very combative and I found that concerning.

-rvb

 

[2A_Tom]

for those of us following along... what are we defining "Bible Salvation" to mean?
I'm sure we aren't saying the Bible saves us, right? I mean I love the Good Book as much as any body, but it's not the source of salvation. Is that a way to say we will study salvation through the Bible?

I'm concerned to read the differences outweigh our common beliefs. I mean our common beliefs should be pretty huge... That God is the creator who sent his only Son to die for our sins, was crucified dead and buried, rose on the 3rd day, ascended into Heaven, and will return someday, all so that we can live eternal with God.

It is good that we do as the Bible says and use it for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Tim 3:16) but it almost feels like some perspective is needed in this thread.

I apologize if I'm mis-reading the tone of the thread, but it feels very combative and I found that concerning.

-rvb

.
My salvation is in Christ and his shed blood.

The contrast is that a saved person can become a Christian, act like a Christian or act like a heathen, but when they die they go to Heaven.

A person who thinks they are saved by their works can act like a Christian or like a heathen, but when they die they go to hell.

The difference lies in why they do what they do.

There are alot of people that are saved who don't realize that they are. There are people who think they are saved and are not. there are folks who strive to be saved that may never be saved because they will not accept that it is free.

When I say Bible Salvation I mean receiving Christ as your Saviour.

This is more difficult for some than others. Some believe that Christ is the savior,but...

It is whatever comes after but that "may" send them to Hell. I say may because as I said before, there are some who trusted Christ in their simplicity and were then taught they must keep the law, which is impossible.

Oh! I forgot about the Celestial Scales. Oh! I forgot,there is no bible support for the Celestial Scales.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

for those of us following along... what are we defining "Bible Salvation" to mean?
I'm sure we aren't saying the Bible saves us, right? I mean I love the Good Book as much as any body, but it's not the source of salvation. Is that a way to say we will study salvation through the Bible?

I'm concerned to read the differences outweigh our common beliefs. I mean our common beliefs should be pretty huge... That God is the creator who sent his only Son to die for our sins, was crucified dead and buried, rose on the 3rd day, ascended into Heaven, and will return someday, all so that we can live eternal with God.

It is good that we do as the Bible says and use it for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Tim 3:16) but it almost feels like some perspective is needed in this thread.

I apologize if I'm mis-reading the tone of the thread, but it feels very combative and I found that concerning.

-rvb

These discussions do lend themselves to being very serious talks. I enjoy hearing different perspectives and different beliefs and I feel that I would call most everybody in here a friend. But I have to be blunt: our common beliefs don't mean jack if we die and go to hell. Would you not agree with that? Our perspective has to be outside of this world. We can all hold hands and get along in a giant ecumenical praise session, but that isn't love. The Bible is very clear that there is only one way to heaven.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
**John‬ *14:6‬ *KJV

If someone's house is on fire and you're trying to get the occupants out before it is too late, your conversation might not be all lovey-dovey.