In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[RnMomof7]

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ

[boatbums]

Yes, the "firstborn" points to the fact that Jesus is to be dedicated to God. Which of course, He is. So? That Jesus was not a result of natural conception and birth has meaning for the future narrative of the Gospel beyond the time mark of Matthew 1:25. That Jesus was dedicated to God by the mere virtue of being firstborn has some significance beyond that mark as well. But how Mary disposed of her life does nto have a similar significance, so St. Matthew does not make any allusions to it.

So, by your own recognition of this custom of dedicating the firstborn to the Lord, how do you square the thought of Joseph having other sons BEFORE Jesus was born? Would not the firstborn son of a "previous" wife have counted for the dedication of the first child? In that case, Jesus would not have been the firstborn to Joseph. Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother's place but only the father's.

[Belteshazzar]

boatbums wrote:
“Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother’s place but only the father’s.”

No. Read Exodus 13:2.

[OLD REGGIE]

But the perpetural physical virginity of Mary is kept as a historical fact, so I believe it. “Fear not, only believe” (Mark 5:36).

Interesting that you should choose the words of Jesus as a valid reason to accept the unverified word of mortal men. The two do not relate.

However, I believe the following sums it up.

DON'T THINK,

DRINK!

[OLD REGGIE]

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not an assumption. It is a fact passed on through tradition but not recorded in the Gospel. You choose not to believe it and I choose to believe it. But it is not an assumption that someone makes without knowledge. Someone had the knowledge and passed it on.

There are things about my family that have never been recorded. (in fact most things about my family have not been recorded, but that it beside the point). For example, my grandfather volunteered for the General Kolchak army, and since that would have earned him a firing squad under the Bolsheviks, he destroyed any evidence he had of it. But he told me that. It is a fact that has no documentary corroboration. It is still a fact. I tell it to you as a fact. Now, you may decide not to believe me. That makes it fact in which you don’t believe. But it is a fact nevertheless. You can tell me, — Annalex, I don’t believe you. Very well. But you cannot tell me —Annalex, you are making an assumption about your grandfather. I did not make an assumption based on some circumstantial evdidence. I have direct evidence. Same with Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.

Please understand, in no way do I wish to demean the word of your grandfather but your logic is faulty in that you are basing your belief on hearsay. No scholar, judge, any professional, would accept it as fact.

You have no direct evidence concerning your grandfather nor is there any direct evidence concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

In both instances you base your belief on the unverified word of men.

[boatbums]

boatbums wrote: “Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother’s place but only the father’s.”
No. Read Exodus 13:2.

Where I got it from is with the story of Jacob with Leah and Rachel. Jacob had twelve sons between four different women. Leah was his first wife and Rachel was his second. They had sons by Jacob and their maids, Bilhah and Zelphah, also had sons by Jacob. In Genesis 35:23-26, the sons of Jacob are listed and only Reuben, born of Leah, is listed as Jacob's firstborn. He had sons by the other three as well, but only Reuben was called the "firstborn". See Gen. 35:23.

[stfassisi]

“”You (collectively) speak of the LEGEND of the LXX as if it were fact.””

Not really,I know enough that we can’t claim anything as fact regarding practically ANYTHING about ORIGINAL Scripture. The best source we have is the Catholic Church for most History on NT and for Christian history as a whole,like it or not.

I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Church says it is . It’s a matter of faith,OR

[Belteshazzar]

Boatbums, that is a good example of one possible meaning of “firstborn.” It has to do with inheritance, and would have been a view shared with the general Mesopotamian/Syro-Canaanitic culture of that day. There was, in other words, nothing particularly distinctive to Israel about it.

However, the term “firstborn” comes to have a very distinctive meaning to Israel in particular following the exodus from Egypt wherein the firstborn of Israel was spared by God and not that of Egypt. Each of the firstborn of Israel, defined as one who “opens the womb,” that is, based on the child’s relationship not to the father but to the mother, was claimed by God as His own, because He spared Israel’s firstborn. In Luke 2:23 this is cited as precisely the reason for the infant Jesus being brought to the temple and redeemed for the price of (for poorer parents) “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” For this see Leviticus 12:8. “Firstborn” in this sense has nothing particular to do with inheritance, and everything to do with the God who chose and saved Israel. In other words, there are Messianic implications to this custom.

[boatbums]

Thank you for the response regarding the significance of the firstborn being dedicated to God. The reason I brought this up is the Roman Catholic contention that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in Scripture were either “cousins” or children of Joseph from an earlier marriage where the first wife had died. They contend Joseph was an old man who was a “guardian” of the very young virginal Mary.

My bringing the issue up of the firstborn dedication of Jesus was that if Joseph had children from another wife, he had already dedicated his firstborn and Jesus, then, would not have also been called the firstborn. He was the firstborn of Mary certainly, but by the usage of the word and the dedication in the Temple, he was also the firstborn of Joseph as well.

The passage in Genesis concerning the firstborn of Jacob only being Reuben by his wife Leah, even though there were other “firstborn” sons by Rachel and the two maids, shows me that the firstborn designation was for the first child born to the man and not the woman.

[Belteshazzar]

Yes, I understood both your reason for saying what you did and the reasoning behind it.

Two things should, perhaps, be said.

First, the temple dedication spoken of in Luke 2:22 and following, has nothing to do with inheritance or the intentions of father or mother. It had everything to do with the command of God spoken in Exodus 13:2, expanded on later in the same chapter, and then formalized in Leviticus 12. Again, Luke quotes Leviticus 12:8 as being precisely the reason for why Mary and Joseph did what they did. That settles it. They were too poor to give the required first year lamb and pigeon, so they gave the prescribe two pigeons. God Himself would furnish the Lamb in this case, and - indeed! - already had. Scripture interprets Scripture ... which is the practical application of the doctrinal assertion, “Sola Scriptura.” It is important that those who hold to “Sola Scriptura” practice what they assert.

Second, one’s opposition to any particular errant or presumed-to-be errant doctrinal position of another should not be the impetus or motivation for the interpretation of any part of the Holy Scriptures. This often leads to automatic, reflexive rejection of the other’s position rather than careful consideration of the meaning of the scripture text itself. This is a phenomenon often seen in FR religion threads. By this I am not saying that Scripture cannot be or is not to be used to refute error. That would be false. Of course it is to be used that way, both by its own specific statements and its given examples. But too often people get so wrapped up in disputational argumentation that they loose sight of the source of authority and truth.

I hope you will not take this as being so much critical of you as critical of us all, and as being vital to confessing the truth of God’s Word. We are flawed. God’s Word is not.

[annalex]

how can WE do any good works?

By deciding to do them. No one said that Christ won't help.

my yoke is sweet and my burden light (Matthew 11:30)

[kosta50]

Seven oldest Septuagint books are dated between 2nd and 1st century BC. What I don't understand is that you call LXX a 4th century myth but believe the NT is "genuine."

There are enough 2nd century NT manuscripts quoting from the Old Testament that differ significantly from the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. Whether these quotes represent Christian corruption of the Old Testament or a canon of an alternate version of the Jewish scripture is debatable.

The existence of Essene's Qumran documents indicate that the Palestinian (Pharisaical) version of the Old Testament was not the only one, so the existence of alternative versions is not without foundation.

On the other hand, New Testament books such as the Book of Hebrews (for example chapter 8 comes to mind) shows that Christian authors did not shrink from adding their own text to Old Testament verses in order to "harmonize" them with the emerging new theology.

[annalex]

It's reasonable that she appropriately fulfilled her role to Joseph as his wife

She gave him his Savior. Not enough? Where is it in the Bible that St. Joseph wanted a carnal union after the Holy Ghost entered her womb?

His environment did not need to be sinless for Him to inhabit it

You are probably right that He did not really need any particular adoration. However, the Tabernacle was not to be prophaned by common touch. (Ex 28:41f)

[annalex]

Believing the Bible isn't an option for Catholics, then, eh?

How do you figure? I believe the Church; therefore I believe the Bible. Show me one thing that is in the Bible that the Catholics don't believe.

[kosta50]

You are aware the Septuagint, magically composed by 70 scholars, is a fable. Others are not. That is the point

Daniel is written in two different languages (Hebrew and Aramaic). Do you know for a fact that Daniel existed? Isiah was written by at least three different people. Even Mosaic books could not have been written by Moses for historical and archaeological and chronological reasons. The authors of the New Testament Gospels remain anonymous. The lives of all the 12 Apostles (including Judas) remain part of the anonymous writings, a legend. The events they describe are about as close to a fable as it gets.

[annalex]

God's Word clearly states that she had other children

The Word of God does not state that at all. It states that Jesus grew up in a large family. Collectively, his mates were called "brothers". Doesn't say anything about the Virgin Mother of God. Have you been following the discussion here or do you want me to explain it to you all over again? I don't mind if I do.

[annalex]

we are believers in God's Word.

No, you are not. If you were, you would not hold doctrines such as salvation once and for all times by faith alone. Further, that little of the Bible that you believe you got from the Church. Te difference is that I believe the entire witness of the Church and you pick and choose. That is a defective incomplete faith, on its way to complete extinction.

[annalex]

I am being corrected: Mary, the mother of JESUS.

Is Jesus God?

[smvoice]

Show me one thing that is in the Bible that the Catholics don't believe.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Rom. 2:16.

[annalex]

What you propose is that Mary each month defiles the "tabernacle" under the penalty of death

She IS the tabernacle. She defiles herself?

[annalex]

Luke 11:27 tells us that all the saints should be venerated, not just Mary, and not for her physical nurturing of Christ alone. Anything I missed here?