Results 21 - 31 of 31
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jawz Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47710 | ||
Steve, I apologise. Your response to my description of the grammar in my original post is correct. I was mistaken in my description of it being perfect continous. I have since dug up my sources and repeatedly hit myself over the head with them (figuratively speaking). The greek in Matthew 1:25 is "kai ouk eginwsken autin ews ou etekev uion" ("w" is omega and the "i" in "autin" should be eeta) which is an imperfect tense, continuous or linear action, "he was not knowing" or "he kept on not knowing". It does not imply that this condition stopped when Jesus was born. BTW, I can appreciate your interpratation of those four passages being answered yes, except for the last one which I think is a bit disingenious. If we are with him, it automatically follows that he must be with us. |
||||||
22 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47586 | ||
This James (the Lord's brother) is one of the twelve apostles is he not? In Galatians 1:19 Paul says "I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother". In which case he is either James, the brother of John (the sons of Zebedee) or James, the son of Alphaeus, neither of whom are sons of Joseph. Thus you have given clear evidence from scripture that to be called Jesus' brothers does not necessarily mean they are his siblings. Thank you for making this clear. |
||||||
23 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47585 | ||
quote: "MATTHEW EXPLICITLY CONNECTS THEM WITH MARY" It does not call them Mary's children however. |
||||||
24 | didn't Mary and Jiseph have another chil | Mark 6:3 | jawz | 47501 | ||
They were not however the children of Mary. I go into this in more detail in following up your other question "Was Mary a virgin her whole life?" | ||||||
25 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47499 | ||
Many quote Matthew 1:25 as clearly stating that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born. In fact it states the opposite. The greek word "eos" does not translate simply as "until" in English but is used in a perfect continuous form which makes it an unbound condition, not tied to the event of Jesus birth. As a stark example look at the text of 2 Samuel 6:23 "As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death."(YLT) We clearly understand that Michal's not having children is not tied to the event of her death, she did not suddenly start having children after she died. (I quoted Youngs literal translation because most do not translate "eos" as "till"). The structure of Matthew 1:25 is the same as that of 2 Samuel 6:23 and there are numerous other passages that use the same unbound expression of the greek "eos". If you read them with the same English grammar interpretation "until" in Matthew 1:25 they make no sense. Regarding other passages where Jesus brothers and sisters are referred to, remember that very few people were privvy to the knowledge that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit so all who were acquainted with Mary and Joseph would have considered Jesus as Joseph's son. If Joseph had other children (he may have been a widower) or if Mary and Joseph had nephews and nieces then they would have quite rightly called Jesus their brother they would not have called him anything else. Now if Joseph's other children were by Mary then Jesus would have been the eldest and as such would have had considerable influence over his younger siblings, especially after the death of Joseph. Yet what do we read about Jesus' brothers; John 7:5 "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." It is hard to believe that if they were also the children of Mary that she would not have explained to them the extraordinary circumstances of Jesus' birth, nor that they would not believe that which their oldest brother, the head of their household, told them. Also, as Emmaus pointed out with John 19:26-27, if Mary had other children then there would have been no need for Jesus to place his mother under John's care. The simple fact of the matter is that Mary had no other children Finally, I would ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of Joseph and ask yourselves as God fearing people, would any of you even consider having sexual relations with the woman who bore the Son of God? Would you even dare to presume to put your seed in the same womb which God himself had chosen to bear the Saviour of mankind? Within Mary's womb had grown the most holy Son of God become man. On Mary's breast was sustained the creator and sustainer of all life. Her body became a sacred temple. The very thought of someone having sexual relations with the one who had been so intimately connected to Christ simply fills me with horror. |
||||||
26 | priests back then different now? | Matt 19:12 | jawz | 46707 | ||
Almost all the priests I know are married so I presume you are talking about the Roman Catholic church. In Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7) he says that it is good for men not to marry but he is speaking of all men, not overseers and deacons. If you read the following chapters you will find no support for a celibate priesthood. Indeed I am curious as to how the Roman Catholics support this doctrine. 1 Timothy 3 1 Timothy 4 Titus 1 |
||||||
27 | Can we say that all of the scriptures | 2 Tim 3:16 | jawz | 46542 | ||
Remember though that Paul was refering to the Old Testament when he wrote to Timothy. The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist. However I believe that it can also be applied to the New Testament. We must be ever thankful that Paul was in chains and not able to travel to the churches he wrote to, otherwise he would have taught face to face and much of what he said may not have been written down. In our culture of books and audio visual recordings, especially the immediacy of information at our fingertips via the Internet, we have never trained our minds to retain things as people did in Jesus' time. Almost everything then was passed on by word of mouth, without error, from the Apostles to the churches. The church grew and existed for sometime without the bible that we know today but that bible that we hold so dear does not contain a fraction of the things those churches heard and were taught. John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." |
||||||
28 | Why was Satan allowed amon the sons of G | Job | jawz | 46539 | ||
Job was also given the opportunity to grow in even greater faithfulness, obedience and humility. The blessings that Job received afterwards would pale in comparison to those which awaited him in heaven. | ||||||
29 | Is thinking the same as doing? | Matthew | jawz | 46537 | ||
"Search" is your friend. I can't really take credit for the results that http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible/ gave me. God bless. |
||||||
30 | What/who is "the rock" | Matt 16:18 | jawz | 46530 | ||
Ephesians 2:19-22 "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit." Since Christ himself is the cornerstone on which the church is built, Jesus could not have been referring to Peter as that very rock in Matthew 16:18, so it follows that it was Peter's confession of Christ that he was referring to. Jesus never speaks of two cornerstones. This is how it was understood by the Apostles, Peter never took a position of leadership among them, and it is also how it was understood by the early bishops (popes) of the church in Rome who never accepted such a claim and in fact gently rebuked those who held the church in Rome in such high esteem. |
||||||
31 | Is OT still applicable for NT believers | Mark 16:18 | jawz | 46529 | ||
To which I would add; 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Remember that Paul is writing to Timothy at a time when much of what we call the New Testament had not yet been written down. It was primarily an oral tradition at that time. So when Paul refers to "all scripture", he is referring to the Old Testament. We must, however, understand the Old in the context of the New. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |