ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
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.
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.
You didn't answer the basic question - do you agree with what Jesus said?
The Law/actions get us to heaven.
So these 2 answers are at odds, right?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.
.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.
The Law/actions get us to heaven.
So these 2 answers are at odds, right?
.
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.
That's a very odd thing to say. I quoted the entirety of his post - as I did of yours.Since you took CP TOTALLY out of context, not at all.
I did not say that.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.
And yet, he did.I knew CP would not make that statement.
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.
What is confusing?
What is confusing?
Laws - all laws, earthly and otherwise - regulate actions.
Is this really a foreign concept?
This dance feels familiar.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?
Ok. You're now asking a different question.
."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.
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".
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".
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.
Are there other examples in Scripture of firstborn referring to an only child?