I asked you to provide a specific reference that I knew you could not produce. Therefore, we have to look at words for what the mean in the usage they are used. The usage in Mat 1:25 does not use "firstborn" in a "spiritual connotation. It is descriptive.
I didn't need to provide a specific reference since you were demanding me to give a Scripture where the word "Firstborn" was used
literally but did not mean "subsequent children follows". Does that make sense to you RND? Also, the fact that Matthew 1:25 is descriptive say nothing. If we read Ex 4:22 and Jer 31:9, the word "firstborn" means "first in position", "heir" or "supreme" even though the passages are descriptive. Just like In Ps 89:27, we see that the phrase is used in David's Rulership not that he was the "firstborn" son.
It always means subject to "subsequent" children
Not if you use it figuratively, which numerous passages in both Old Testament and New Testament shows (i.e, Isaiah 14:30, Job 18:13, Ps. 89:27, ). Bible dictionaries agreed that it has metaphorical applications. Greek scholars agree that "prototokos" can mean “first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir". Also, the word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy which Scripture supports. To say it is always used to mean "subsequent children" is misleading. Apparently, you have not study the passages where "firstborn"
does not mean "subsequent children follows", which
is a literal interpretation of the word. They are different uses for firstborn in the Bible. And like I said before, the English "firstborn" usually (not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. Apparently, you have no idea how the Jews used the word "firstborn". Prototokos can be used to describe one's having privileges of the birthright, but it does not always imply other children. In Genesis 25:31, Esau sells his birthright to Jacob; the idea here is that Jacob becomes the heir carrying the firstborn rights.
Compare Jeremiah 31:9 with Genesis 41:51 and 48:14. How can they be two firstborn? A scribal error? No. A contradiction in the Bible? No. But by examining the meaning of firstborn used in Jeremiah 31:9, it appears that Manasseh was simply removed from his first place position because of sin, losing all of his firstborn privileges his birth right gave (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:1-10 and 2 Kings 21:16). Ephraim was not the first son born by birth, and yet he is called the firstborn because after his brother Manasseh lost his firstborn privileges, Ephraim moved up to his brother’s first place position,
becoming figuratively firstborn with all of the same privileges. This idea is carry on throughout Scriptures. The word "firstborn" does
not always mean that a particular person is "first" to be born.
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My son, My firstborn.' " (Exodus 4:22).
Here God calls Israel His firstborn son. But he also calls Ephraim His firstborn, and in Colossians 1:15, Jesus Christ is also called firstborn. Now we are left with a serious dilemma. If there are three firstborns, then how many firstborns does God have? Is this a contradiction? God-forbid! It becomes very evident, however, that the firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9, Exodus 4:22, and Colossians 1:15 are not dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family. They deal with becoming the pre-eminent one ("first in rank", "heir"). This confirms what I have always been saying, and what the Greek Scholars agreed, that firstborn can mean first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir, and eldest child.
In case with Christ, to which I made remark about the Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Vine's Expository Dictionary says:
prototokos ^4416^, "firstborn" (from protos, "first," and tikto, "to beget"), is used of
Christ[...]in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence
over, creation, not in the sense of being the "first" to be born. In Col. 1:15, where His
eternal relationship with the Father is in view, the clause means both that He was
figuratively the "Firstborn" before all creation and that He Himself produced creation
(the genitive case being objective, as <v. 16> makes clear). Christ was figuratively the
firstborn and He is unique in His relation to the Father in that, being an eternal Being,
He was not literally created or birthed of God. He is figuratively the firstborn and is
given the benefits and the responsibilities of the Firstborn of Almighty God.
Yes RND, the word "firstborn" can and have been used in a way that you don't want it to be used. Also,
your statement go agaisnt your other statements. You can't have both ways RND. Either the word "firstborn" can be used literally or in a figuratively sense (which is what all Bible Dictionaries states and the Scriptures writers used the word in different ways) or it doesn't. Make your mind up RND.
Of course not because, again, with your exegesis you are comfortable changing the plain meaning of words and taking them out of context to meet your needs.
Are you once again denying the fact that certain phrases and words are used in different manners in Scriptures (
not subject to it's plain meaning)? Why can't you grasp the fact that certain phrases and words can be used in different manners, and not always in the literal sense (there is a "spiritual" sense to certain words, i.e., "fire", etc)? Do you pluck your eyes or cut your hands when you sin, since this is commanded by Jesus in Matthew 5:28-30? If we follow your exegesis, we have do this since we can't go agaisnt the plain meaning of the words. The proper exegesis is to see how words or phrase are used throughout Scriptures or how certain words or phrase can be used. Words or phrase can be used in different senses, based upon the writer's discretion.
But RND you forgot a crucial fact. You are also comfortable following a interpretation which suite your SDA church tradition. Of course you can't interpret Matthew 1:25 any other way because that will mean that you are going agaisnt your SDA theology. If you interpret Matthew 1:25 as the Eastern Orthodox Church interprets it, how can you still be a SDA? You must use your SDA theology as a guiding point when interpreting Scriptures. Let's remember Jesus saying:
"[...]Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (Matthew 7: 3-5).
Nope. Your exegesis is based on the need to prop up the flawed teachings of the Catholic church.
Don't be ignorant. Apparently you miss the memo that said that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only one which believe the Virgin Mary was Ever-Virgin. The Eastern Orthodox Church and some (if not most, depending on how one count the Lutheran and Anglican Churches which believe the same) Protestant Churches believe the Holy Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, is Ever-Virgin. This is was the teaching of the Early Church, when both the West and East was still united. And it was the teaching of your forefathers, the Protestant Reformers.
In the case of Mat 1:25 the phrase "firstborn" is definitely used as "literal."
Only because you said so. You interpret the text to mean literally only because it
has to agree with your SDA Theology. We all in the same boat, but your interpretation of Matthew 1:25 is only about 200 or so years old. It certainty wasn't the interpretation of the Early Church. I follow the interpretation of the text based upon what the Eastern Orthodox Church taught for the past 2,000 years.
Is this the same church you're talking about that hid Bibles from people and tortured the one's that disagreed with them?
Don't be ignorant. I am not a Roman Catholic Christian (hint: Look under my user name, and tell me, what does it say?). I am Eastern Orthodox Christian. Also, the Roman Catholic wasn't alone when it came to torturing "heretics". When Protestants had there chance, they torture the Catholics. In fact, today it still happening, just not as intense. We have people hating others because they believe "X" or whatever. Oh RND, this isn't a Catholic problem. It is the world we live in. And if you think your SDA brothers and sisters are "holy holy", think again.....
The problem you have here Ramon is that you have to decide how the word is used in Mat 1:25.
Exactly RND. I agree. You use the word "firstborn" in a literal sense, while the majority of Christians today do not use the word in a literal sense when it comes to Matthew 1:25. Of course you have to interpret the text literally because it can't go agaisnt your SDA church tradition, which doesn't believe Mary was Ever-Virgin.
Oh, it certainly can be used in a figurative sense. Just not in Mat. 1:25.
Again, according to you RND. In the end, you will interpret the passage in a way that will agree with your SDA theology, and I will interpret it based upon what the Eastern Orthodox Church has taught in the past 2,000 years.
The fact is this: Matthew 1:25 can be interpreted in two ways, based upon how the word "firstborn" (etc) is used in other passages. Like I said before, the best way to know what is the true interpretation of the text is to see how the Early Christians interpreted it, to which by the way agree with the interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and some (if not most) Protestant Churches (i.e, that it doesn't contradict with the teaching of the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos; it is used it a metaphorical sense to attest to Christ "first in position" or "heir" status). Even your forefathers, the Protestant Reformers, knew this and never applied the text to attack "Rome" teaching of Mary's Ever-Virginity. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians all agreed that Mary was a virgin, not just at the time of Jesus’ birth, but for her entire life. For the first 1600 years of Church History, all churches in both the West and East did not interpret Matthew 1:25 the way you and other Protestants interpret it.
To be honest, this conversation will not go any where. The bottom line is this: To say Matthew 1:25 is a clear indication that Mary had other children is to ignore the clear truth that the phrase "firstborn" is used differently in the Bible (not always dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family). It
shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. It has metaphorical applications. "Until she brought forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25) is a meaningless phrase that does not necessary mean that Mary had other children, even the bible dictionary I stated above admit that
Your whole argument is based upon a flaw idea that the words "until" and "firstborn" has one definition, contrary to Greek scholars and all the evidences contained in the Bible. Your whole argument is based upon a flaw idea that the word "firstborn" always means subject to "subsequent" children, contrary to Greek scholars and all the evidences contained in the Bible. Oh RND, there is too many loopholes in your SDA exegesis of the Bible. I will suggest you pray and carefully study all I have said. You will realize that they are true. I am not here to decieve anyone.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
