Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; count-your-change
While it may be consistent, the problem I see with that analogy is that Jesus could not claim the status of the firstborn

When did He claim it, and are you sure the legalisms of the Old Testament, -- not that we care either way -- exclude cases of virgin birth?

5,267 posted on 12/13/2010 5:33:20 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4986 | View Replies ]


To: annalex; count-your-change
When did He claim it, and are you sure the legalisms of the Old Testament, -- not that we care either way -- exclude cases of virgin birth?

It is legalism because Christ's Jewishness is based on it, and his Jewishness is absolutely required by the OT for him top be the "Anointed One" (the "Meshiyah," aka "Messiah," aka "Christos").

But in order for him to be the firstborn of redemption (i.e. the firstborn of the matrilinear line) he would have had to be the first to "open the womb" and not just "jump" out, so to say, as if walking through closed doors.

Now, being the firstborn of the Father simply means that he inherits twice as much as the rest. Yet that is a problem as well, since Christ inherited all, since there is no "rest"! So, basically, Jewish legalism were retained where they were needed and discarded or modified where they were a stumbling block. :)

5,279 posted on 12/13/2010 6:05:21 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5267 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson