Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
|
"Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." |
|
| 202 50% |
"On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." |
|---|---|
| 203 50% |
"Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother." |
| 204 50% |
"And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame." |
| 205 50% |
"Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother." |
| 206 50% |
"If you love me, keep my commandments." |
| 207 50% |
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." |
| 208 50% |
"Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up." |
| 209 50% |
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God." |
| 210 50% |
"If any seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord." |
| 211 50% |
"Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees; that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace;" |
| 212 50% |
"Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin german of Barnabus, touching whom you have received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him:" |
| 213 50% |
"Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, who turn themselves away from the truth." |
| 214 50% |
"And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments." |
| 215 50% |
"He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." |
| 216 50% |
"And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight." |
| 217 50% |
"And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." |
| 218 50% |
"In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments." |
| 219 50% |
"And this is charity, that we walk according to his commandments. For this is the commandment, that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in the same:" |
| 220 50% |
"And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." |
Nope. Never said, I was.
But, my Church instructs me to imitate Jesus Christ as best I can.
I'm sorry yours doesn't.
You’ve proven your point and the matter is now settled once and for all on Free Republic Religion Forum (and I believe you are correct):
The word “commandments” is in the Bible many times.
It’s to my eternal benefit that Jesus of Nazareth kept them all perfectly.
If Mary had been able to keep the Word of God sinlessly, there would have been no need for Jesus. Imagine that: Mary, the co-redemptrix, the perpetual sacrifice on your crucifix.
Ridiculous, isn’t it?
Omniscient means to know everything, not *almost everything*. Posts 984 and 985, citing the same verse, document Jesus’ statement that, in His Incarnate form, He did not know everything. There is at least one fact that was known by God the Father but not by God the Son during the Incarnation. Therefore, Jesus was not omniscient at that time.
What is it, Ebb Tide, that causes you to claim Jesus, during the Incarnation, was omniscient when it is He Himself who reveals that He was not? What causes you to set aside the simple, straightforward statement that Jesus made, and which is recorded in Matthew 24:36?
‘adelphos,’ vs, ‘anepsios. i looked them up and it seems to be as you say.
But as you say they can have other meanings for instance i believe anepsios can mean nephew and ‘adelphos can mean brother of more than one kind
As i mentioned before, Navajo`s calls cousins brothers even though we have the exact names for each one.
They do not pay much attention to strong`s concordance.
But to be fair to you, you seem to be right on concerning the definitions which i can see i know very little about.
Your comment reminds me of one of the reasons I like the New American Standard Bible so much.
Why would you think it makes sense in light of this?
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons.
Also his step brothers, James, Joseph , Judas and Simon did not believe in him until after his death.
And she gave birth to her firstborn son.
You can not know if it is a first born until the second one is born so any first child would be first born.
I’m glad you posted again. I’ve been thinking about words that were used ~2,000 years ago, and how their meanings are determined.
I’m sure you know that the New Testament is not the only Koine Greek writing available from the time of Christ. There are other works from the same time-frame.
Scholars study all the contemporary works of the earlier centuries in order to learn more about how various words were used. That is where the definitions found in Strong’s Concordance come from: actual writing in the relevant centuries. (Usage determines the meaning of words; dictionaries merely document such usage.)
Ravenwolf, I will put it to you straightforwardly. ‘Adelphos,’ was a very common, much-used word. If there were any incidences of it being used to mean, ‘cousin,’ we’d have heard about it. You know yourself who would have told us about it: Catholic scholars.
For example. We have Plutarch, Josephus and Chrysostom. If one of those had used, ‘adelphos,’ to mean, ‘cousin,’ there would be thousands of mentions of this fact. Anyone who believed Jesus had brothers would be (rhetorically) bludgeoned with it; we both know that’s true.
The reason there is no recorded usage of, ‘adelphos,’ to mean, ‘cousin,’ is because Greek writers would have used, ‘anepsios,’ instead. That is, after all, the word for, ‘cousin.’
One additional thing. The NT writers, guided by the Holy Spirit, knew how to record supposed—as opposed to real—relationships. Recall Luke 3:23, where it’s recorded that Jesus was the son, ***as was supposed,*** of Joseph. Luke is letting us know that people believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph. They were mistaken, but that was their belief.
Nowhere do the NT writers tell us that there were ‘supposed,’ brothers of Jesus. They are simply referred to as, ‘brothers.’ If they were anything else, we’d have been told, just as we were told that Joseph was not Jesus’ father.
Agree with you that, ‘anepsios,’ can mean, ‘nephew,’ as well as, ‘cousin.’ That is entirely true. I belueve, however, that the two relationships are connected? For examole, if a person has a nephew, would not his/her children be cousins of that nephew?
‘Adelphos,’ is, as you mentioned, also used to describe spiritual brothers—i.e.: brothers in Christ. It is also used, in the form of, ‘adelphoi,’ to denote, ‘brethren.’
Not even going to correct all the typos. I have no idea how so many got into one post. It’s a blight.
Looks all correct to me. Would you please give an examole of one of the blight of errors?
Lol.
Guacamole.
Courtesy of Jeb.
But seriously, it’s frustrating. I try to proofread but something obviously went wrong. The after effects of the eclipse, maybe?
Two points.
First off, the Gospels were written AFTER Jesus had dies and rose again. People knew by then whether or not there were any more.
Second, the Holy Spirit is the Author of Scripture and I daresay HE already knew whether or not there would be more before the fact.
So if the Holy Spirit says “ firstborn” and not “only” the Jesus was the FIRSTborn. There were more that followed.
Then it's no WONDER you are still such a rabid Catholic!
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Thanks for admitting it WAS a 'fact'.
Yeah...
...to DRINK some more WINE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.