Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?
As long as the Gospels harmonize with the OT and Revelation, I am happy.Double standard because what goes for you does not go for the EOC, RCC and the OO for that matter.
You trust the gospels who's authors are unknown. Does that seem logical??
We trust that the Scriptures to say that Mary is Ever-Virgin and that trust is based on Tradition.
Yes, this is all I was stating.Sun is right on...Back up to verse 4 and learn about my favorite topic "TO GOD BE THE GLORY" ;Either the Lord was sad about their lack of faith or He isn't the Lord God and He made a false prophesy...I think you know the answer. He said
4:"This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified by it"
Hey there lion!Being God does not make Him any less human.
Being troubled and weeping and the death of a friend is a human response to death
Peace
Thank you for the rep message Philothei LOLthis topic is too much for you guys you can come into this later....
Hey Sunny. I was studying on that "Other Disciple" mentioned at the trial of Jesus and at the Tomb after the Crucifixion and I could start a whole folder just on the Awsome event of Jesus raising the Lazarus.No, I know that Jesus cares very much for our pain
and lives to interceed on our behalf.
I was just looking at the Lazerus story, and in that
particular example, it appears Jesus is disappointed
that they ignored what He'd already said.
God always has the provision ready before
Your point was that some of the references in the NT to the OT are not so obvious. But, what you seem to have entirely missed is that IT'S IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, thus GOD is saying that is what GOD was referrring to. That's an entirely, completely different issue than someone or something stating that some OT is a "type" of something to which no other Scripture refers.
I don't understand what you are saying here. All Good examples of Godly men and women for sure. But still none are equal with Christ.I think Abraham was special -- God saved Lot because of the earnest prayer of his uncle. I think Moses was special -- he sojourned with God, but when he returned, seeing just the light on his face (dimmer than the light that Moses saw, I would think) he was asked to cover it. I think John the Baptist was special; so earnestly did he dedicate himself to God's call that he ate only locusts and wild honey. I think Paul was special - as Saul, he breathed hatred for the Christians. Yet so earnestly did he love Christ, that he pointed out that one should not be like those who sought circumcision to avoid the persecution given to those being identified as Christian (and himself suffered martyrdom). I'm nowhere that capable. And Mary was the mother of Jesus -- I am no way a perfect mother, but to have such a child - I cannot imagine.
No they wouldn't becuase they were Jews, and Jews called their near relatives "brothers." Why would a Jew start speaking like a Greek just because he's writing in Greek? If I wrote a letter in French, I'd still talk like an American.
Yes actually they were in the Spirit. For when one comes to Christ we are all one with Him spiritually. Paul knew this so therefore calls them in truth brethren.what has anonimity got to do with language? The ones written in Greek especially Luke and the Acts are in impecable Greek... and for sure attributed to Luke so what it has to do with what Katholikos is saying?
Futhrer more in Greek it is the same... Paul called the Brethren "adelfoi": so that means the congregation were his actual brothers??? A lot of times in Greek those terms were used that way. The mistake or the new idea of the interpretation of brother as adelfos was introduced in the late 6th century and the information was never proved valid based on gnostic writings...
Also if Mary had brothers according to jewish custom Christ should have put his brothers in change of Mary's care so that again testifies that he had no brothers but put John in charge...Expalin this you all.....
Since He knew He was going to be crucified don't you think He would have planned ahead??
Giving His mother to St. John instead of His older brothers would have dishonored her.
Peace
Awe still sticking to the tradtions of man I see. Jesus gave John the responsibility to care for Mary as He was in emense pain and dying and one has to argue why John? This shows the very selflessness of Christ even in the time of His gross death. We do not recoginze anyone according to the flesh. This is what Jesus meant when He told us that it is not according to the flesh that anyone is my brother mother or sisters but only those who do the will of the Father that are my true mother brother and sisters. Context of the whole written word is important..
Yes, this is all I was stating.
Jesus was clear that He'd already addressed the issue
and yet they ran crying rather than trusting Him, Him
who they were so very close to.
Hey there lion!
No, I know that Jesus cares very much for our pain
and lives to interceed on our behalf.
I was just looking at the Lazerus story, and in that
particular example, it appears Jesus is disappointed
that they ignored what He'd already said.
God always has the provision ready before we
need it. He'd already worked it out, and so was
in no hurry to get there. They were probably ticked
at Him, (it's been days! he's probably stinking by now!)
I added the exclamation, feel free to disregard my
theory.
love,
sunlover
Thank you for the rep message Philothei LOL
The pastors do agree with you.
It's alright, and I dont mind if I'm wrong.
Thank you for the love.
And right back atcha!
I don't propose to know what Christ would have done on his way to the Cross.Since He knew He was going to be crucified don't you think He would have planned ahead??
ah yes.. the "Jesus did every single thing like the Jews would expect him to" argument.Giving His mother to St. John instead of His older brothers would have dishonored her.
Peace
right. And last I checked, I didn't have a teaching, or a dogma that indicated one or the other MUST be true. I just go with what makes sense, instead of following a tradition supported by nothing but it's own tradition.The problem with the hermeneutic is first off ... that it is in a foreign language to you and YOU would not trust a foreigner to explain it to you...There is not 100% right translation on the word brother... as it can mean a number of things.. thus it can be either way. Your math points to that brother can equal many things b, c, or d.. thus no conclusive thus all are approximate and non for sure... How does this proves any point...Again it seems there is no consensus in this term... thus a moot point.
remember that it isn't me that says it MUST be any of those terms. (BTW, it's mute, not moot. just helping, not mocking!Second you think that this logic of yours is right....agian according to it.. then the bible is again moot on the issue as we still do not know 100% it means brother but we "speculate" playing with percentanges.. here.... We are not sure it means brother and that is the point.
yes, it sounds logical, specifically since 1) almost all the believers of Christ ran away. Very few showed up. and 2) scripture states that his brothers thought he was nuts. It does NOT show when and if all of them changed their minds about that.That is right so their brother got crucified and the brothers are not ....there.. does this sound logical to you? But the Evangelist does not mention them... instead he "appoints" John to do the job.. .Why? the logical explanation is that (being a jew) would have assigned them to take care of his mother but instead he appoints John, his beloved disciple... That is quite a task..and responsibility to assign to a boy if there were other siblings.. .Also it looks like he was estarnged by his siblings since no one showed up for the crucifix...that ought to be pretty odd... me thinks...
Because Jesus trusted John. there need be no more reason than this.Problem: why they were not there??? Ommission of the evangelist? then why assign John?
actually, there is MUCH said in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ. It is not silent, it is DEBATABLE.too bad you find it silly I find it extremely interesting and valid point... that directs us to see that bottom line again there is silence in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ...
I don't understand what you are saying here. All Good examples of Godly men and women for sure. But still none are equal with Christ.
He has a conscience about rumors & he has enough respect & admiration for Mary that he wants to convince the mongers to cease.
...That wasn't obvious?
right. And last I checked, I didn't have a teaching, or a dogma that indicated one or the other MUST be true. I just go with what makes sense, instead of following a tradition supported by nothing but it's own tradition.
yes, it sounds logical, specifically since 1) almost all the believers of Christ ran away. Very few showed up. and 2) scripture states that his brothers thought he was nuts. It does NOT show when and if all of them changed their minds about that.
Because Jesus trusted John. there need be no more reason than this.
actually, there is MUCH said in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ. It is not silent, it is DEBATABLE.
which, of course, doesn't indicate any more strongly for it being cousins, or kin, than brothers. It could be either. And with someone pointing out that greek was used for the NT... it seems more likely that brother, means... brother.and a knowledge of the contemporary culture and language from which the terminology arose ... (and is still in use)
sure he would. And that is irrelevant.you mean, Christ didn't know that they would become Christians after the Resurrection
I suggested no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.wow - He didn't trust the future first bishop of Jerusalem - the apostles seriously messed up in respecting and appointing James the Just !
is that a fact.yeah, like one of them is named Joses/Joseph, and children were not given the same name as the parent
He is saying any (not just "your") 'teaching' on a supposed, not fact-based perpetual virginity, is "hearsay" (rumor).then why would he persistently engage in misrepresentation of our teachings ? Isn't that 'spreading rumors'
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?