CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

"Not" makes a big difference in this type of sentence. It brings determination to the conjunction.

If I say "I am not going to watch the Colts play until they get a good O-line", that means I will watch them following the completion of a future event.

If I say "I will play euchre until the sun comes up", then there usually is an implied termination at a certain future event. But that statement rarely might be a rhetorical device that implies the opposite: it is indeterminate. Context has to be our guide in this case.

If I say "I will follow Christ until He returns" that places no determination on my service. It simply means I will be faithful until Faith is no longer relevant.

But "not" is always a sign of determination.

What version are you reading? I am looking for the word not.

 

[Woobie]

What version are you reading? I am looking for the word not.

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

The point is the definite "not, never, always" isn't used to qualify the until (unto in KJV) in Matthew 28:20. In fact, the "even unto the end of the world" is a rhetorical device signifying commitment. It builds upon the previous sentence. The word "even" is included in the KJV to denote this.

 

[foszoe]

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

KJV

Oh I was in the tail end of Matthew.

I will attempt a quick reset to see exactly where we are deviating.

I am saying that according to Scripture alone, both of us could be right.

I understand you to be saying that by Scripture alone your position is the only correct one.

Would that be correct?

If not correct me.

If that is right, then all I ask is a scripture that clearly states Mary physically had Children.

 

[Woobie]

Oh I was in the tail end of Matthew.

I will attempt a quick reset to see exactly where we are deviating.

I am saying that according to Scripture alone, both of us could be right.

I understand you to be saying that by Scripture alone your position is the only correct one.

Would that be correct?

If not correct me.

If that is right, then all I ask is a scripture that clearly states Mary physically had Children.

I don't claim Mary physically had children, other than Christ of course. It could have been a blended family. But the commandment of God, the Biblical doctrine of marriage, the fact Mary and Joseph were still together 12 years later, and the particular way in which "till" is used in Matt 1:25 leaves little room for anything other than that Mary did not remain a virgin. I can then infer that the brothers mentioned later were born of Mary, but I don't think that is fully supported in scripture. I think it is probably the case, but I won't die on that hill.

I went back and edited my last response to reflect the confusion I introduced in that post. My apologies.

 

[Woobie]

By the way, something occurs to me. I have been a bit disracted this morning, and hadn't noticed my tone. I tend to be very direct in print, and it can easily be read in a less-than-cordial tone. Please accept my apology, as it is not meant in this way. I just like to get to the point. I mean nothing but respect.

 

[historian]

If I may interject here.

I think you two tend to be talking over each other here (and we all agree T.Lex is out in left field on this one ).

Foszoe is basically arguing that she was a virgin following Christ's birth due to the record being silent.
Woobie is basically arguing that she was not a virgin following Christ's birth due to the record being silent

Both of you have admitted that it probably isn't a hill to die on and, in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn't matter that much. Is that a good summary?

 

[Woobie]

If I may interject here.

I think you two tend to be talking over each other here (and we all agree T.Lex is out in left field on this one ).

Foszoe is basically arguing that she was a virgin following Christ's birth due to the record being silent.
Woobie is basically arguing that she was not a virgin following Christ's birth due to the record being silent

Both of you have admitted that it probably isn't a hill to die on and, in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn't matter that much. Is that a good summary?

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.

 

[T.Lex]

If I may interject here.

I think you two tend to be talking over each other here (and we all agree T.Lex is out in left field on this one ).

Foszoe is basically arguing that she was a virgin following Christ's birth due to the record being silent.
Woobie is basically arguing that she was not a virgin following Christ's birth due to the record being silent

Both of you have admitted that it probably isn't a hill to die on and, in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn't matter that much. Is that a good summary?

TL;DR.

Hey.... wait....

 

[historian]

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.

If I may...change it due to implications in the text, but nothing concrete.

That being said, I'm on Woobie's side for this one.

 

[JettaKnight]

We don't know the answer. We don't need to know the answer.

Wait, isn't it officially Catholic Dogma?

You can't say that the answer may be unknown, then officially declare a dogma that is the foundation of other dogmas.

 

[T.Lex]

Wait, isn't it officially Catholic Dogma?

You can't say that the answer may be unknown, then officially declare a dogma that is the foundation of other dogmas.

So let's abstractify a bit for INGO purposes.

Upthread (relatively recently) the question was: what is a Christian. Then (more recently), the discussion of that which divides us.

Let's strip away the labels for a moment. And, for that matter, expectations. What is a "Christian"?

I think the simplest formulation of a "Christian" is someone that honors God and loves his neighbor as himself. That's what Jesus described as the most important commandment (in 2 parts). The less any of us adhere to that expectation, the more sinful we are... the less Christian we are.

Can there be any real objection to that formulation?

 

[foszoe]

Work is sidelining me today and Lent starts Monday so I may not respond much until Pascha or at least as fast as usual. God bless and forgive me a sinner for any offense to those here whether active participants or behind the scenes lurkers!

 

[historian]

Work is sidelining me today and Lent starts Monday so I may not respond much until Pascha or at least as fast as usual. God bless and forgive me a sinner for any offense to those here whether active participants or behind the scenes lurkers!

.
As usual, we will miss your lengthy posts and you during your time away. Last time you left a thread for lent, it pretty much died, may this thread be still alive when you return!

 

[T.Lex]

.
As usual, we will miss your lengthy posts and you during your time away. Last time you left a thread for lent, it pretty much died, may this thread be still alive when you return!

Wait.

So is this thread, itself, a re-enactment of the Passion?

Now that's meta.

 

[Woobie]

Work is sidelining me today and Lent starts Monday so I may not respond much until Pascha or at least as fast as usual. God bless and forgive me a sinner for any offense to those here whether active participants or behind the scenes lurkers!

Good talking to you, brother. Take care

 

[2A_Tom]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps these differences are merely nuances, or distinctions.

Jesus' own words state what it means to follow Him... to be a Christian.

1. Honor God completely. (Mark 12:29-30)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31; John 13:34-35)

The rest is secondary, no?

I think the Pope's recent statement is a re-statement of those principles. They could apply to anyone who is not upholding one or both of those commandments. They could apply to any Christian, not just Catholics.

Actually the rest is contained in them, Jesus said

Matthew 22:40 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It's a good question. My knee jerk response to it is, if that is what makes one a Christian how does one avoid a works based salvation which most Protestants reject?

You are asking a RC to explain non works based salvation?

That would be like asking you the same question.
.
A serious question, What is the purpose of the Law?

 

[2A_Tom]

Gentlemen,
does it matter?

Does the term Maryolitry matter.

 

[T.Lex]

A serious question, What is the purpose of the Law?

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.

Does the term Maryolitry matter.

The term? No.

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

 

[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.

Do you have a verse reference for that?

 

[T.Lex]

Do you have a verse reference for that?

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.