How many other children did Mary have?

[Thekla]

Why do you always go outside of Scripture to support your pet doctrines?

How is my statement related by you to what is "outside Scripture" ?

In fact, the list of definitions provided by StandingUp excludes know uses of the term "adelphos" in the LXX (the OT that predated the Masoretic).

 

[jackmt]

How is my statement related by you to what is "outside Scripture" ?

In fact, the list of definitions provided by StandingUp excludes know uses of the term "adelphos" in the LXX (the OT that predated the Masoretic).

You habitually go beyond Scripture and read into Scripture what is not there to support prayers to and for the dead and to the "saints." I see it in your posts in other threads. I'm sure you do it as well for your icons, which violate Scripture.

Shortly after my conversion to Christ I was talking with a RC about why I left the church. She got upset, cried and said "I think it is a beautiful religion." Truth did not come into the question for her; only what she liked, what she wanted from her religion. God seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. Not those who wish to feel okay in their faith and pursue their own paths of righteousness.

 

[Standing Up]

By popular demand to keep the mary-go-round running. Here's another explanation of adelphos (brother in greek) from NAB translators.

The translation of the Greek word adelphos, particularly in the plural form adelphoi, poses an especially delicate problem. While the term literally means brothers or other male blood relatives, even in profane Greek the plural can designate two persons, one of either sex, who were born of the same parents. It was adopted by the early Christians to designate, in a figurative sense, the members of the Christian community, who were conscious of a new familial relationship to one another by reason of their adoption as children of God. They are consequently addressed as adelphoi. This has traditionally been rendered into English by brothers or, more archaically, brethren. There has never been any doubt that this designation includes all the members of the Christian community, both male and female.
USCCB - Preface the Revised Edition of the New Testament

Greek Adelphos (not hebrew ach)
blood brother (same parents, or same one parent)
spiritual brother (born-again, adopted into the family of God)

Folks want more?

 

[Thekla]

You habitually go beyond Scripture and read into Scripture what is not there to support prayers to and for the dead and to the "saints." I see it in your posts in other threads. I'm sure you do it as well for your icons, which violate Scripture.

Shortly after my conversion to Christ I was talking with a RC about why I left the church. She got upset, cried and said "I think it is a beautiful religion." Truth did not come into the question for her; only what she liked, what she wanted from her religion. God seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. Not those who wish to feel okay in their faith and pursue their own paths of righteousness.

I am not RC; the only "beyond Scripture" that is true is God.

To worship in spirit and truth is the desire of every Christian; it is my desire.

I do not agree with your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[jackmt]

I am not RC; the only "beyond Scripture" that is true is God.

To worship in spirit and truth is the desire of every Christian; it is my desire.

I do not agree with your interpretation of Scripture.

Nor do you restrict yourself to it in matters of faith.

"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" Mt.22:29
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Tim. 3:16

I anticipate that you will say something to the effect "It doesn't say I can't look elsewhere."

Outside materials may aid in our understanding of Scriptural doctrine, but they are never to be taken as grounds for Christian doctrine.

I see that you are EO. I am not familiar with EO as I am with RCC, except that in many ways it is more beautiful than RCC. Beauty can be deceiving.

 

[Thekla]

By popular demand to keep the mary-go-round running. Here's another explanation of adelphos (brother in greek) from NAB translators.

The translation of the Greek word adelphos, particularly in the plural form adelphoi, poses an especially delicate problem. While the term literally means brothers or other male blood relatives, even in profane Greek the plural can designate two persons, one of either sex, who were born of the same parents. It was adopted by the early Christians to designate, in a figurative sense, the members of the Christian community, who were conscious of a new familial relationship to one another by reason of their adoption as children of God. They are consequently addressed as adelphoi. This has traditionally been rendered into English by brothers or, more archaically, brethren. There has never been any doubt that this designation includes all the members of the Christian community, both male and female.
USCCB - Preface the Revised Edition of the New Testament

Greek Adelphos (not hebrew ach)
blood brother (same parents, or same one parent)
spiritual brother (born-again, adopted into the family of God)

Folks want more?

The LXX, for one.

 

[Thekla]

Nor do you restrict yourself to it in matters of faith.

"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" Mt.22:29

I do not deny the power of God in fulfilling in reality what is said in Scripture.

That those who believe in Christ will never die.
That to be absent from the body is to present with Christ.
That Christ recapitulates all things, both of Heaven and earth.
That He is head of the body, and His body is not divided.
That the body of Christ is 'connected' and all parts of the body of Christ are needful.
That we are to pray for one another.
That not even death can separate us from the love of God.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Tim. 3:16

Yes, for equipping, says Paul.


I anticipate that you will say something to the effect "It doesn't say I can't look elsewhere."

Outside materials may aid in our understanding of Scriptural doctrine, but they are never to be taken as grounds for Christian doctrine.

See above.
Which of the Scriptural truths I listed are not true ?

I see that you are EO. I am not familiar with EO as I am with RCC, except that in many ways it is more beautiful than RCC. Beauty can be deceiving.

The only true beauty is God.

 

[whitetiger1]

Why do you always go outside of Scripture to support your pet doctrines?

Why does everything have to be in Scripture. Where does it say that everything is in Scripture

 

[Montalban]

You habitually go beyond Scripture and read into Scripture what is not there to support prayers to and for the dead and to the "saints." I see it in your posts in other threads. I'm sure you do it as well for your icons, which violate Scripture.

Where does Scripture say "Only use scripture"? It can't. Even when you 'only use scripture you're still applying an interpretation to it.

Shortly after my conversion to Christ I was talking with a RC about why I left the church. She got upset, cried and said "I think it is a beautiful religion." Truth did not come into the question for her; only what she liked, what she wanted from her religion. God seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. Not those who wish to feel okay in their faith and pursue their own paths of righteousness.

Can I just say I find the first sentence of the second paragraph perplexing. You seem to be suggesting that you weren't converted to Christ whilst in the RCC.

 

[Montalban]

Why does everything have to be in Scripture. Where does it say that everything is in Scripture

Everyone has to bring an interpretation to this. Protestants argue against themselves all the time. If scripture itself is so 'apparent' then the 1000's of Biblical commentaries would be pointless.

 

[Montalban]

Outside materials may aid in our understanding of Scriptural doctrine, but they are never to be taken as grounds for Christian doctrine.

Then the bible must have organised itself.

 

[whitetiger1]

. God seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. Not those who wish to feel okay in their faith and pursue their own paths of righteousness.

So why did you?

 

[whitetiger1]

Then the bible must have organised itself.

Don't you know it fell out of the sky all put together with gold edges.

 

[jackmt]

Where does Scripture say "Only use scripture"? It can't. Even when you 'only use scripture you're still applying an interpretation to it.


Can I just say I find the first sentence of the second paragraph perplexing. You seem to be suggesting that you weren't converted to Christ whilst in the RCC.

No one is born a Christian. Infant baptism did not make me a Christian. I was born anew and called out of the RCC by the Holy Spirit.

 

[jackmt]

Then the bible must have organised itself.

Yup. That's what I reckon. If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me.

 

[Montalban]

No one is born a Christian. Infant baptism did not make me a Christian. I was born anew and called out of the RCC by the Holy Spirit.

Why did the Holy Spirit call you out of a church that's founded by the Apostles?

 

[Montalban]

Yup. That's what I reckon. If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me.

If Paul had used the KJV you'd have a point.

 

[Montalban]

I thought that Paul had the Septuagint, which Protestants reject

 

[jackmt]

If Paul had used the KJV you'd have a point.

BTW, are you French or Irish? If both, it is no wonder you are so confused!

 

[Montalban]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. I'll just assume you're not and you can tell me if I missed your joke.

The KJV is a particular translation/version of the bible that came about when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. He called for a standard English version of the bible.

Paul lived some 1,600 years earlier.

The 'bible' that Paul had was the OT. He couldn't have had the NT because he was writing some of its books.

These books that he wrote didn't authorise themselves. Paul authorised his own writing.