J
jmgi1957
Guest
I do see what you’re saying.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
jmgi1957
Guest
So tell me then, did ALL of the “first born” who were struck down in Egypt have other siblings?He is called the “first born” son for a reason.
S
stpurl
Guest
You are perhaps not aware of the genesis (so to speak) of the term “first born son”. Actually, you need to go to the book of Exodus. God required of His chosen people that they redeem the first born male, i.e., the one who opened the womb.
Now let’s take a comparison of four average Jewish women.
Woman one gives birth to four children; two daughters and then two sons. None of her sons is a ‘first born son’. Her first daughter is not a ‘first born son’ either but is the ‘first child born’.
Woman two gives birth to three children, a son, a daughter, and a son. The first child is ‘a first born son’. The third child is a son, but not a ‘first born’ son.
Woman three gives birth to one child, a son. This child, by the Jewish law as set forth in Exodus, is the first born son who opens the womb, and is called so. . .even though the woman does not have any further children.
Woman four gives birth to one child, a daughter. While this child ‘opens the womb’, as a female she is not the ‘first born male’ of the law.
So the Virgin Mary was and is in the same position as woman three, above. She had ONE child, Jesus, who as a male child who opened the womb as per Jewish law was entitled the first born son.
And just try, please, to tell me that woman #3’s situation did not exist and that her one and only male child was not called the ‘firstborn son’.
Now let’s take a comparison of four average Jewish women.
Woman one gives birth to four children; two daughters and then two sons. None of her sons is a ‘first born son’. Her first daughter is not a ‘first born son’ either but is the ‘first child born’.
Woman two gives birth to three children, a son, a daughter, and a son. The first child is ‘a first born son’. The third child is a son, but not a ‘first born’ son.
Woman three gives birth to one child, a son. This child, by the Jewish law as set forth in Exodus, is the first born son who opens the womb, and is called so. . .even though the woman does not have any further children.
Woman four gives birth to one child, a daughter. While this child ‘opens the womb’, as a female she is not the ‘first born male’ of the law.
So the Virgin Mary was and is in the same position as woman three, above. She had ONE child, Jesus, who as a male child who opened the womb as per Jewish law was entitled the first born son.
And just try, please, to tell me that woman #3’s situation did not exist and that her one and only male child was not called the ‘firstborn son’.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well then, you’re back to trying to establish a theological position based on the silence of scripture. At best tradition is placed into the hands of a fallible Church from one generation to the next. It’s subjective voice was never intended to speak authoritatively. Why not? because of it’s inability to carry the truth of doctrinal intent into each new generation. Keep in mind that in Jesus Day, the Pharisees argued their theological points of doctrine from the standpoint of what they saw was a flawless tradition. But of course Jesus turned over their tables of hypocrisy by exposing this delusion.
There is no New Testament witness who said, "All tradition is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine! To the contrary. “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.” These checks and balances cannot be effective by employing the elusiveness of oral decree and subjective traditions.
One more thing: The idea that the Church is infallible, when it comes to doctrine or anything else, flies right in the face of New Testament teaching itself. Catholicray why would you think otherwise?
There is no New Testament witness who said, "All tradition is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine! To the contrary. “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.” These checks and balances cannot be effective by employing the elusiveness of oral decree and subjective traditions.
One more thing: The idea that the Church is infallible, when it comes to doctrine or anything else, flies right in the face of New Testament teaching itself. Catholicray why would you think otherwise?
S
stpurl
Guest
Didn’t St. Paul say to us, “Hold fast to the traditions you have been taught by me, either in writing or by word of mouth?”
T
tgGodsway
Guest
If you mean did those who were born first have brothers and sisters, I’m sure of it based on the fact that the bible calls them first born. But the scriptures seem to be silent about any special case of “only” child, male, to die at Pharaoh’s hand. Why do you ask this?
C
catholicray
Guest
Hogwash! Your understanding of Jesus rejection of Jewish tradition does not reach the depths of Scripture. There is so much going on here. In the first place Jesus does not even to this day teach that the Jews are not His people. If I remember correctly the New Testament teaches about the restoration of Israel rather than the outright rejection of it. Certainly he rejected false traditions I agree with you on that.
As to your quoted verse, that verse in no way suggests that Scripture “alone” teaches doctrine. Of course Scripture is sufficient in the way it says because Scripture is always teaching us to go and be doers of the Word. You seem as if you don’t realize that the process involved in “completing a man” involves community i.e. Scripture doesn’t give you some directions and then say “remember to read me tomorrow for more instructions”.
You also have to consider how to harmonize that one passage with the rest of Scripture. Acts Chapter 15 clearly shows a hierarchy of authority in the Church and it clearly shows that the Council at Jerusalem settled doctrine “when” debate arose. When did the Church lose that particular authority?
The idea that the Church in communion with the Holy Spirit is able to infallibly declare doctrine in no way contradicts Scripture. Care to elaborate your position?
As to your quoted verse, that verse in no way suggests that Scripture “alone” teaches doctrine. Of course Scripture is sufficient in the way it says because Scripture is always teaching us to go and be doers of the Word. You seem as if you don’t realize that the process involved in “completing a man” involves community i.e. Scripture doesn’t give you some directions and then say “remember to read me tomorrow for more instructions”.
You also have to consider how to harmonize that one passage with the rest of Scripture. Acts Chapter 15 clearly shows a hierarchy of authority in the Church and it clearly shows that the Council at Jerusalem settled doctrine “when” debate arose. When did the Church lose that particular authority?
The idea that the Church in communion with the Holy Spirit is able to infallibly declare doctrine in no way contradicts Scripture. Care to elaborate your position?
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
yes but give me time here. You’ve said a lot that I disagree with. let be start at the top.
C
catholicray
Guest
Roger that I’ve been debating this particular topic for a long time so perhaps I will be able to share some insight. Look forward to your critique.
C
catholicray
Guest
Also I suggest checking out a thread I have going right now that will give you some foundation of where I think the heart of the matter on this lies >> The Sola Scriptura Contradiction
J
jmgi1957
Guest
What do you call the first male to open the womb? Is it not a first born son? Or do you wait for the second child to be born before you call the first one the “first born”?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I never said, nor do I believe the Jews are NOT God’s people. that is all your words.Hogwash! Your understanding of Jesus rejection of Jewish tradition does not reach the depths of Scripture. There is so much going on here. In the first place Jesus does not even to this day teach that the Jews are not His people
I never said, nor do I believe the Church lost any authority. The Apostolic authority is what I believe in. They are the witnesses to the resurrection and the founders of Christianity. But their teaching was preserved by the Holy Spirit to endure in each generation without error. This is my only point. Please remember Rome’s insistence to govern all Churches from the 6th. Century on, by force if necessary, was their down-fall to any purity of doctrine.You also have to consider how to harmonize that one passage with the rest of Scripture. Acts Chapter 15 clearly shows a hierarchy of authority in the Church and it clearly shows that the Council at Jerusalem settled doctrine “when” debate arose. When did the Church lose that particular authority?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
If there is no other child born, then you call him/her the only child. hello. Jesus was called the first born from Matthew’s perspective written well beyond His birth but also the life of his siblings.
Last edited:
C
catholicray
Guest
I’ll need further elaboration. Could you share with me your particular faith that I may be able to clarify things further from my own position. I really do not want to spend a lot of time talking past you.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Sure, I am a Christian.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I would agree with your point here with one exception. as long as that “declared doctrine” does not fly in the face of inspired scripture. And this is a huge problem isn’t it?The idea that the Church in communion with the Holy Spirit is able to infallibly declare doctrine in no way contradicts Scripture. Care to elaborate your position?
J
jmgi1957
Guest
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and animal; it is Mine’" ([Exodus 13:1-2]
J
jmgi1957
Guest
And it shall be, when the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and your fathers, and gives it to you, that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstling that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord’s. But every firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. (Exodus 13, verses 11-13)
The word redeem means “buy back.” If a family’s firstborn donkey was critical to their livelihood, they could buy it back from God by offering a lamb in its place. Of course, God did not demand that His people offer their firstborn children as literal human sacrifices. They, too, were to be bought back by means of a lamb sacrifice.
The word redeem means “buy back.” If a family’s firstborn donkey was critical to their livelihood, they could buy it back from God by offering a lamb in its place. Of course, God did not demand that His people offer their firstborn children as literal human sacrifices. They, too, were to be bought back by means of a lamb sacrifice.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Okay, so what. The way I read this is: the Lord said sanctify all the firstborn children or any child who opens the womb. In other words, sanctify all the children whether they have siblings or not. A firstborn implies there is also a second born, or a third born, But whatever opens the womb, makes no implication that a second born or third will be born. You seem to be using this verse as some kind of proof text but arguing from silence is not very persuasive in my view.
Last edited:
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Okay sorry but you’re losing me here. What are you trying to say?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.