₦airaland Forum

Jolliano:
The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and
later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy
Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 "Let
them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."
In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses,
Ex 25:22 "There I will meet with you, and from above the
mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon
the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you..." God added,
Ex 25:30 "You shall set the bread of the Presence on the
table before me always." Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 "I am with
you always."

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam
21:6 "So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no
bread there but the bread of the Presence." Jesus taught us
that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1-8 "At that time Jesus
went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples
were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to
eat. ... [Jesus] said to them, 'Have you not read what David
did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with
him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of
the Presence ... I tell you, something greater than the temple
is here."

That event was about the sabbath, not who had the right to eat the Bread!

Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19
"He took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it
and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given
for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'"

That was the unleavened bread used for the PASSOVER by all Israelites since Exodus.

Note, many things in the old testament can prefigure one thing in the NT. Apart from the Passover, Consecrated bread, Jesus also showed that Manna was a prefiguring of the Eucharist.

Manna/ Consecrated Bread did not prefigure the Eucharist in ANY way. When did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper/Eucharist?
While we have the proof of the Passover pre-figuring the Lord's Supper in 1Corinthians 5:7, there is NO NT passage that support your claims as regards Consecrated Bread/Manna!
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

The Apostles were the ones who were celibate. The others were not. Remember Paul talking to the Corinthians told them he wished everyone were celibate like him but people are gifted in different ways. The Apostles lived as celibates but the rest of the Church did not.

Paul was celibate hence his statement in 1 Corinth 9:5. The others were not; they led about a wife.

In order words, it is not either everyone marries or everyone is celibate but that some(for the sake of ministry/kingdom of God) were celibate while the rest are married.

But this negates your claim that that was the meaning of Luke 14:26!!! Was that not meant for all disciples of Christ?

chuna1985:
why did Solomon and his mother connive with a chief priest and Military general to deny the true crowned prince of Isreal, Davids first son his rightful throne?

After dispossessing him of his birth right, Solomon killed him.


Lalasticlala please help me out here.

Solomon was chosen by God to be the next king by David. The real connivance was by Adonijah and Joab and Solomon's mother had to move to claim the prophecy/promise and insist on its fulfilment

1 Chronicles 22:7-10
7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God:

8 but the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.

10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.





Now to brothers and sisters reading this, learn from how Solomon's mum claimed the promise as an example of claiming promises/redemptive benefits though satan runs amok hither thither; watch David's swift response when she claimed her right! Nathan's role is similar to that played by the Spirit today- showing us what is ours in and through Christ and enabling us to pray as we ought and prevail before the Father:

1 KINGS 1:11-30
Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bath-sheba the mother of Solomon, saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord knoweth it not?
12 Now therefore come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel, that thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son Solomon.
13 Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign?
14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm thy words.

15 And Bath-sheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king. 16 And Bath-sheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?
17 And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by the Lord thy God unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne.
18 And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now, my lord the king, thou knowest it not:

20 And thou, my lord, O king, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, that thou shouldest tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him.
21 Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders.

22 And, lo, while she yet talked with the king, Nathan the prophet also came in.
23 And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet. And when he was come in before the king, he bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground.
24 And Nathan said, My lord, O king, hast thou said, Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne?
25 For he is gone down this day, and hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the host, and Abiathar the priest; and, behold, they eat and drink before him, and say, God save king Adonijah.
26 But me, even me thy servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy servant Solomon, hath he not called.
27 Is this thing done by my lord the king, and thou hast not shewed it unto thy servant, who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?

28 Then king David answered and said, Call me Bath-sheba. And she came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king.
29 And the king sware, and said, As the Lord liveth, that hath redeemed my soul out of all distress,
30 even as I sware unto thee by the Lord God of Israel, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day.


Dont just fold your hands and complain, search the Word let the Spirit lead you into all Truth then PRAY!, Stand on Redemption ground and claim what is yours.

Jolliano:
Because in current times, priests don't marry at all since they won't have sexual relations with a woman. But in the time of the Apostles, majority of the converts were grown people who may have already been married. So for them, even if they lived with their wives, they would stop all sexual relations when they become Apostles/Bishops/Priests.

Does sexual relations with one's wife defile?
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled Hebrews 13:4

This is biblical. Remember that the Levites were allowed to marry because their priesthood was passed down by blood and birth but they would avoid sexual relations before eating or partaking in the eating of the Consecrated Bread(The old testament prefiguring of the Eucharist).

The passover, not the consecrated bread, pre-figures the Lord's supper and the only thing forbidden for the former was leaven/yeast!

Remember that the Early Christians gathered daily for the breaking of bread(The Eucharist which is the body and blood of Christ) and so the Apostles/Bishops/Priests abstained from sexual intercourse because they were the ones who would do the consecration.

Show where this was expressedly or impliedly stated in the NT with respect to the above clarification that the passover , not consecrated or shewbread, pre-figured the Lord's supper/Eucharist!

Also show same for where sexual relations between couples was a hindrance to service to God in the NT.

When in Luke 14:26, Jesus said they must hate their wives, mothers,e.t.c. It is in this light that he means it. His apostles understood this and for three years they were celibate with Him. Why then would they go back to having sex after he left?

That's not correct! When the Spirit inspired Paul saying what he said in 1 Corinth 7:4,5 also Matthew 19:5! And why are believers getting married today? If that is what it means then we all must be celibates to follow Jesus and any church conducting wedding are flagrantly disobeying God!!!
Matthew 10:37 clarifies Luke 14:26
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Firstly, Mary was mentioned many times in the Gospel even at the Crucifixion.

During Christ's ministry she was mentioned sparingly - when she wanted to see Him and it was not possible (reading the scenario, it was clear she was not following Him up and down), at the Cross and at the Upper room.

Secondly, most of the apostles moved out from Jerusalem. The apostles moved out to different parts of the world to fulfill the instruction of Christ to go and teach all Nations.

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except the apostles
Acts 8:1

Acts 15:2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present
Acts 21:15-18

Peter evidently travelled a number of times but returned to Jerusalem afterwards. Afterall he was called to the Apostleship(not papacy)of the Jews.
Acts 9:32-43, Acts 10:32 Acts 11:2, Galatians 2:11.

plaetton:
I love how you guys arrived at what is not true and what is true.

1. At the age of 12, every Jewish male child returns home for his birmitzpha.
It would not be surprising that it must have been an opportunity for the young Jesus to test and showcase his knowledge with the religious and thought leaders of his community.

This was not birmitzpha., it was the yearly passover Luke 2:41. Besides, they went to Jerusalem from Nazareth and returned back there, not Egypt, India or Abuja And considering the points below, which knowledge from where was showcased?

Luke 2:41,51
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them:

2. How do you know, and of what relevance is that ?

Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was
This was followed by:
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? etc


Matthew 2:22,23
And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judæa in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:and he came and dwelt in a city called[b] Nazareth[/b]
(This happened after Herod died around 4BC)

Jolliano:
There is a difference between being single and being celibate(eunuch).
A married man can be celibate or continent.

celibate
ˈsɛlɪbət/Submit
adjective
1.
abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons.
"a celibate priest"
noun
1.
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.
"he's attracted and attractive to women and yet he lives as a celibate"

Please note that it says AND not OR! Why?

Remember, the wives of the apostles were not mentioned in the Gospels. Did they follow the Apostles and follow Jesus or did they only begin to follow the Apostles after the death of Jesus?

They were not mentioned however 1 Corinth 9:5 shows they had wives! Mary was also a disciple but she was only mentioned in Acts 1! Just as we cannot say because the wives of Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Demas, Luke, Titus, etc were not mentioned, it means they were not married!

In fact, Mark 1:29,John 19:27 show that these men had their own houses hence it does not suggest that they were without wives. Besides, When it says lead about a sister, a wife, remember that most of these apostles stayed back at Jerusalem and did not travel as widely as Paul. Hence Paul made his allusion based on what he observed when he went to Jerusalem at the time Peter and the rest were leaders of a burgeoning body of believers!

Therefore, Paul spoke about leading about a wife in the sense of companionship and not following about on missionary journeys!

plaetton:
Was it not Jesus that said " surely as a man soweth, so also shall he reapeth" ?

NO. The principle of sowing and reaping, seed time and harvest was first mentioned in Genesis 8!

plaetton:
You might be shocked that much of Jesus teachings mimic much older oriental philosophies.

Many theological scholars are of the opinion that Jesus most likely journeyed Eastwards to India, Tibet and Ceylon , where he embraced oriental philosophies,.and then coming as an adult to Palestine to reform the primitive goddism of his people.

That is not true!

1.He at the age of twelve questioned the doctors and elders at Jerusalem. (Luke 2:42-52)
2.Jesus was under 7 when Joseph and Mary settled at Nazareth!
3. He must have been there a long time hence the people He grew up with could say:
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things

Jolliano:
There is a "PERHAPS". You want to isolate bible verses and interpret them as you feel or think. The Bible is to be interpreted as a whole not by singling out verses.

Sure but I dont find 'perhaps' in verse 4,5! If you dont mind, what version are you using?

So the letter to Timothy applies also as a letter to John and Peter?

The Spirit-inspired commands & principles of life and ministry therein applies to all believers of all time!

Just as all the apostles were. They were gifted for their ministry sake.

there you go again! The verses I quoted, and one of the traditions you quoted say otherwise!

From Luke
8:1 Soon afterwards he went on through cities and
villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of
the kingdom of God. , 8:2 as
well as some women who had been cured of evil
spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from
whom seven demons had gone out, 8:3 and Joanna,
the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and
many others, who provided for them out of their
resources.

From Mark
15:40 There were also women looking on from a
distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,
and Salome. 15:41 These used to follow him and
provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there
were many other women who had come up with him
to Jerusalem.

Do you notice that some women are mentioned in Luke and not in Mark and vice versa?
They ministered not just to Jesus but also the Apostles that followed Jesus. There is no mention of any wife of any apostle including Peter!

Did you notice there were MANY and their main role was ministering from wealth/resources not as consorts or companions in lieu of wife!

And that Paul could not have been referring to such assistance in 1 Corinth 9:5 because
1) he laboured with his hands thus meeting his needs hence he was not claiming a right
2) there was no single sister uniquely led about by either Jesus or Paul.
3) neither Jesus nor Paul was married and Both got helps from many sisters hence 1 corinth 9:5 referred to something beyond those passages referred to in Mark and Luke.

Because there was no point in mentioning the names of females following him while they were still with him. Does any other writer mention any female assistant or follower?

Romans 16 -Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Julia etc
Others are Lydia, apphia, etc

There are some mentioned in other epistles.
In any case let's keep to the point.

Jolliano:
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it
is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot
exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to
marry than to be aflame with passion" -- 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Paul says it should be brief if they cannot live in continency.

I dont find an IF in vs 4,5 which we are considering! Besides Vs 4,5 was addressed to married couples not singles.

Besides,the letter was not directed to the Apostles but to ordinary members of the Church.

The Spirit inspired letter applies to ALL believers irrespective of title! None is above the Word.

St. Paul who is an Apostle is CELIBATE.

He chose to be because he was thus gifted!

So Jesus being celibate and having women assist in his ministry puts a question mark on his integrity?

Luke 8:1-4 tells us there were many (not one as consort) women whom Jesus had healed who (perhaps as a mark of gratitude) ministered strictly of their substance (wealth). As to his close assistant/ helper, it was the 12 disciples. The disciples went to buy food (john 4); prepared for the passover, kept the bag where the money (some of which came from the women) etc

Also, it seems you don't know about St. Thecla who accompanied St. Paul.

Do let's keep to the names in Scripture. Paul sometimes gave a long list of brethren but Thecla was never mentioned!

Jolliano:
It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because
of the temptation to immorality, each man should have
his own wife and each woman her own husband. The
husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does
not rule over her own body, but the husband does;
likewise the husband does not rule over his own body,
but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except
perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may
devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together
again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish
that all were as I myself am. But each has his own
special gift from God, one of one kind and one of
another. -- (1 Cor. 7:1-7).

They can be continent for as long as they want provided that they agree.

Which the text implies to be brief lest either be tempted as a result of incontinence.

He didn't say all were not married. At least Peter was married but the others were either celibate(eununchs)
or continent(abstaining from sexual intercourse).

But Paul's mention of Cephas and other apostles leading about a sister, a wife contradicts the claims of Tertullian and yours here?
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas
1 Corinth 9:5
Since you accept that Peter (who you call the first pope but Bible reveals he was Apostle to the Jews Galatians 2:7, had a wife, why change that verse as regards to other apostles?

Please point out the contradiction. Also, Tradition does not change.

Tertullian: Peter had a wife but just like the other apostles, led about a sister as a helper. Other apostles were not married but had sister-helpers. (the very suggestion places a question mark on their integrity).

Pope St. Clement: They had wives and took their wives with them (permanently denying them of conjugal relations while converting them back to just sisters!)


Besides, why would Paul single out a sister? Afterall in Romans 16 for example many assisting saints were mentioned (not just one 'consort') and even a couple, Aquilla and Priscilla). When they embarked on a missionary journey, the only helper was John Mark then why the emphasis on a sister helper if that was all that was involved?

Moreover, in 1Corinth 7 Paul clearly stated that he was a celibate which I believe explains 1 Corinth 9:5! - he was not leading about a wife like other apostles did because he was a celibate, a eunuch for the kingdom's sake being a path he chose for himself!

Jolliano:
Nope. The Apostles who were already married did not have conjugal relationships with their wives after Jesus called them. If and if at all they travelled with their wives, it was for assistance and not as wives for sexual intercourse sake.

That is what the early church fathers who were disciples of those apostles teach.

Besides, the Early Church also say that Peter's wife died before Peter became an apostle. It is why the mother-in-law is mentioned and the wife is not even hinted at.

Those claims are not verifiable! Besides, Paul, inspired by the Spirit said to couples not to defraud one another in conjugal relations.1 Corinth 7:4,5 they were married and that was it. If they suddenly became continent, were their wives same too?

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
1 Corinth 7:3-5

Jolliano:
In his On Monogamy, Tertullian explains 1 Cor 9:3-6, saying that the wives and female companions of the apostles were merely ministers to them, not sex partners:
The rest [of the Twelve], while I do not find them married I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name— however, there is a name proper to wives— shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" But when he subjoins those (expressions) which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking?" he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the same way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord.

The highlighted said they were not married but were eunuchs.

Jolliano:
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his
consort. The only reason why he did not take her about
with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for
his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a
right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the
other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their
particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching
without any distraction, and took their wives with them not
as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as
sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing
with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s
teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any
scandal being aroused.

this tradition contradicts the highlighted above and underscores the hazard inherent in adding to or following extra-biblical sources. they represent views of man and change just as man does.

Jolliano:
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Pope St. Clement of Alexandria
Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his
consort. The only reason why he did not take her about
with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for
his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a
right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the
other apostles?” But the latter, in accordance with their
particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching
without any distraction, and took their wives with them not
as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as
sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing
with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s
teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any
scandal being aroused.

in summary, they had wives! (Paul clearly stated he was gifted (not mandated) to be celibate.1 Corinth 7:7

Jolliano:
Firstly,The early Church Fathers teach that sister woman is correct.
St Jerome(the one who translated the Hebrew and Greek scriptures into latin) wrote that "It is clear that (they) must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as
women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods" ( Ad.
Jovinian I, 26).

St Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the
women were not the wives of the apostles but were female
assistants who could enter the homes of women and could
teach them there ( Stromata III, 6).

Mark 1:30 tells us:
But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever...

Now will Simon separate from his lawfully wedded wife and keep/lead about other sisters as companion/helpers?! Is that proper?

When Jesus clearly said that,''...what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder'' Matthew 19:6b

Jolliano:
All correct Greek scripture don't contain commas in case you don't know.

But here's one example:

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/56/90001/99999/ch/749a46090156cc39bc9e98e66eec07b7/

Good!

Now will you explain what Paul was trying to achieve afterall there are no 'brother woman'! Why say 'sister woman' then? And why did he not repeat the same when he spoke of those who were helpers to him and the rest in Romans 16?

I submit that he had to bring in gynaika because he was going to make a distinction between those who helped and the special woman -wife as Strong's concordance points out.

Besides, if he had wanted to refer to helpers, then he should have said sisters afterall there was more than one mentioned in Roman 16!

Moreover, Romans 16:1 mentions one such sister, why did he not use gynaika to show that she was a woman? Would Paul use such a strong word to describe mere helpers? What message would that be passing to his audience? That they had 'apostolic rights' to use such helpers as wife if they so desired!? Is that purity

winner01:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."2 Peter 3:3-4

Nice one; you will soon notice that the local/little known ones will soon come to claim superiority above them all!

Jolliano:
So "sister wife" is better than "sister woman"?

Even the early church fathers knew it was woman not wife.

ST Augustine said people who read "wives" are
misled:
This thing some not understanding, have
interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,”
when he said, “Have we not power to lead about
a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They
were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word,
because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed
in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the
Apostle has so put this that they ought not to
have made this mistake; for that he neither says
“a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor
“to take” (as in marriage), but “to take
about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other
interpreters have not been misled by this
ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman”
not “wife.”.."--St Augustine, Treatise 137:5

Kindly present your source of the original greek where that comma between sister and wife was not placed. (At least I gave mine!)

Jolliano:
If you actually know Greek, you wouldn't be saying this. What does gunaikairon mean?
What does gune mean?
What then does gunaika actually mean?


Is it wife or woman? Check your Greek.

Check the Strong's Concordance if you need.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
wife, woman.
Probably from the base of ginomai; a woman; specially, a wife -- wife, woman.

http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/1135.htm




Bro, would this make sense:

" do we not have power to lead about a sister woman as all the apostles and Cephas"

That is what you are trying to achieve which only mocks that scripture. The contextual usage there points clearly to a wife.

BodyKiss:
What's wrong with the law of the old testament? Is it not from the same unchangable God?

From an unchangeable God whose programme for man unfolds with time hence Bible tells us :

4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Galatians 4:4
Understanding this will help you understand why Christians don not sacrifice animals again like the OT commands.

The op is the ceremonial aspect that is not applicable to those who believe on Him that was sent. Or how many times did Jesus emphasize that aspect (ceremonial) of the law?

johnw74:
You can search for all the wrongly translated verses of John 1:1 that you want to, to suit your satanic teaching that the Word is not God.
I agree with the translations that correctly say the Word was God.

If only the authors of those quotes had, with an open mind, gone a bit further, they would have seen this: John 1:18

18 2316 [e]
18 Theon
18 Θεὸν
18 God
18 N-AMS
3762 [e]
oudeis
οὐδεὶς
no one
Adj-NMS
3708 [e]
heōraken
ἑώρακεν
has seen
V-RIA-3S
4455 [e]
pōpote
πώποτε ;
ever yet
Adv
3439 [e]
monogenēs
μονογενὴς
[the] only-begotten
Adj-NMS
2316 [e]
Theos
Θεὸς ,
God
N-NMS
3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
the [one]
Art-NMS
1510 [e]
ōn
ὢν
being
V-PPA-NMS
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
in
Prep
3588 [e]
ton
τὸν
the
Art-AMS
2859 [e]
kolpon
κόλπον
bosom
N-AMS
3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS
3962 [e]
Patros
Πατρὸς ,
Father
N-GMS
1565 [e]
ekeinos
ἐκεῖνος
he
DPro-NMS
1834 [e]
exēgēsato
ἐξηγήσατο .
has made [him] known
V-AIM-3S
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-18.htm

Read the ones in blue to get the sentence in English

Here the Father and the Son are called GOD in the same verse. Does this not overturn their manipulations?

dolphinheart:
I do not believe the highlighted cus the highlighted is an adulteration/ a mistranslation/a scribal error/ a false statement that has been inserted into the scriptures. The Greek word for God is not present in that verse.



To show you that he was not 100% god while on earth.



He was obedient when he was in heaven, he was obedient when he came to earth, he was obedient when he went back to the father as a spirit.
When all authority has been giving to him, he was still obedient to the one who gave him such authority. He never claimed equality with his father.

false translation.


That was a request that was granted when he went back to heaven, he was exhaulted by his god and given a position beside his god, his father. He was beside his god .That was the vision Stephen saw when he was about to be killed.


Jesus acknowledged that his glory comes from the father, these same glory some christians will partake in, it does not make them god or equal to god after sharing in the divine nature.

You quoted me, saw the points I brought out and the things I said jesus said, but you did not comment on them.

It's okay.

Jessicha:
That show you are just a confuse person .

Thanks a lot. God bless.

Jolliano:
Actually I'm not removing or forging anything.

Gynaika means wife but mainly woman.
It's simply that makes it refer to wife used in this format ( Jacob's woman = Jacob's wife). Before you argue, read in Greek and English, read Luke 7:44,50, Luke 14:26.

Actually I'm not removing or forging anything.

Gynaika means wife but mainly woman.
It's simply that makes it refer to wife used in this format ( Jacob's woman = Jacob's wife). Before you argue, read in Greek and English, read Luke 7:44,50, Luke 14:26.

Read the 1 Corinthians 9 from verse 1, Paul is defending his right to move about with the sisters you have mentioned. He is saying that if others have sisters that accompany and help them, why can't he?

And who was he trying to confuse by inserting gynaika? Was he implying that they could assume that sisters were all their wives? it's not good to twist something so clear!! Why did Paul not say sisters (afterall the ones in Romans were more than one)? Nothing was said about helping there but leading about a WIFE.

Paul was highlighting the fact that though he had a right to do these things yet he didnt. You still will have that passage read and gynaika be omitted! Now see 1 Corinth 9:15
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me:

Jolliano:
No they didn't. They had women who assisted them in their ministry just as Jesus had. The women were not wives.

Now you want to remove gynaika all of a sudden after accepting that it was there!!!

When you edit the scriptures like this you forge a contradiction of the same Scriptures:
As to sisters who help the saints:

Romans 16:6,12
6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. 9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. 10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ household. 11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord. 12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord

Wouldnt it be a lie to say they received no help (like you are claiming) while this was written elsewhere by Paul?

The Apostles,Peter included, led about a WIFE.

Jolliano:
The Greek is "adelphaen gunaika" not "adelphaen,gunaika".

The first one means SISTER. When you add a comma, you now turn it to two words "SISTER, WIFE".


Even the grammar shows this, adelphi means sister. So if Paul wanted to write sister separately from wife, why didn't he use adelphi which is a noun, rather than adelphaen which is an adjective.

In summary the apostles ,Peter included, led about a sister (among the brethren) who was their wife.

Jolliano:
The Greek is "adelphaen gunaika" not "adelphaen,gunaika".


The first one means SISTER. When you add a comma, you note turn to

I am sure you have a source for your claims; post it let's see! The one I used has the comma there. and what does gynaika mean? Remember that Songs of Solomon used the same, " my sister, my spouse"?!

dolphinheart:
Trinitarians generally look to analyze statements in the scriptures, with the view of using those analysis to support their beliefs. but most times when those analysis are reviewed, it does not surpport their beliefs(whichever version they come up with).
Jesus is a god, the scriptures tells us that. But it also tells us that jesus has a god that he has always been subjected to, always obeyed and has always been loyal , doing that ones will. That that god is the almighty god, the supreme lord.
That is why it is said that he never thought of grasping that opportunity to claim equality cus he knows that that god is superior to him.
When he came to earth, he made no direct statement that he is equal to that god and he even made sure that his disciples know who he is in relation to that god. He made them know that that god commanded him to come to earth, that everything he does, has learnt and the glory of his activity belongs to that god, so that all may know that that god, the father sent him and that the father is the only true god.

Even after his ressurection when he said that all authority has been given to him, he made sure that his disciples know that he still has a god . On ascension to heaven and in the presence of that god sitted on a throne, he was told to sit at the right hand of his god, he was given a name , he was made better than his companions, but he was not made equal to his god, cus even after everything was made subject to him, he was still subject to that god that made everything subject to him.

Many people had tried to formulate different reasons and formular on why jesus is equal to god, some even went as far as trying to mistranslate the scriptures or alter the scrolls when making copies. But jehovah keep showing there works out .

John 17: 1-3
These words spake Jesus, and
lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father,(his god) the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify theejesus is gods son) 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh,(the power jesus had over humans was giving to him, at a time he did not have such power) that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they(humans, you and me) might know thee(father) the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.(jesus was sent by someone superior to him).

When you read the Gospels, appreciate the fact that when Paul said:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [size=13pt]God was manifest in the flesh[/size], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16

DO YOU BELIEVE THE HIGHLIGHTED!

but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
Philipians 2:7,8

he(Paul) meant every word.

When God was manifested in the flesh, the aspects of God and Man relationships should be evident!

Now considering your text, let's go a little further in vs 5:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was

He did not say the, "glory which I had FROM Thee" but "WITH Thee".

Jolliano:
Peter was still married because divorce is a sin.
Peter ceased to live with her as an husband, in other
words, there was no sexual intercourse between
them. As Jesus said, Some to whom it has been
given, will make themselves celibate for the sake of
the Kingdom.

But Paul said they led about their wives! Just like some pastors are followed by their wives to events today!

Jolliano:
[


Actually, in the Greek with which it was written. What Paul said was sister not wife. Do your research.

This effort of your mocks that passage!

I did my research though!

5 3361 [e]
5 mē
5 μὴ
5 no
5 Adv
3756 [e]
ouk
οὐκ
not
Adv
2192 [e]
echomen
ἔχομεν
have we
V-PIA-1P
1849 [e]
exousian
ἐξουσίαν
authority
N-AFS
79 [e]
adelphēn
ἀδελφὴν ,
a sister
N-AFS
1135 [e]
gynaika
γυναῖκα ,
a wife
N-AFS
4013 [e]
periagein
περιάγειν ,
to take about
V-PNA
5613 [e]
hōs
ὡς
as
Adv
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
also
Conj
3588 [e]
hoi
οἱ
the
Art-NMP
3062 [e]
loipoi
λοιποὶ
other
Adj-NMP
652 [e]
apostoloi
ἀπόστολοι ,
apostles
N-NMP
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
3588 [e]
hoi
οἱ
the
Art-NMP
80 [e]
adelphoi
ἀδελφοὶ
brothers
N-NMP
3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS
2962 [e]
Kyriou
Κυρίου ,
Lord
N-GMS
2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj
2786 [e]
Kēphas
Κηφᾶς ?
Cephas
N-NMS
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/9-5.htm

Jolliano:
Even Peter who was married, left the wife to follow Jesus and to function as the Bishop of Rome.

As at the time Paul wrote 1Corinthians (between 53-57 AD) , Peter was still married! And he died around AD 67,68

1 Corinthians 9:5
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas

Jozzy4:
The highlighted colored scripture pronounce Jesus as the beginning of THE CREATION of God ? Yes Or No

I wish you first deal with the issues I raised in that post you quoted (just like I did yours). Then an answer would be given to your question with respect to all the passages quoted in my post viz Revelations 3:14a=Colossians 1:15,16

lexiconkabir:
@Maamin, {Mattew19:28-29}
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
As we can see wives was among the promised reward of the hereafter(in heaven) to be given in hundredfold, what do husbands do with with wives? This actually contradicts matt22:29-30 that says no marriage in heaven. interesting cool

Now let's see:
but he shall receive an hundredfold [size=14pt]now in this time[/size], houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; [size=14pt]and in the world to come eternal life[/size].
Mark 10:30

29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30 who shall not receive manifold more [size=13pt]in this present time[/size], and [size=13pt]in the world to come life everlasting[/size].
Luke 18:29,30

mubarakopeyemi:


grin you busted them big time

NOT REALLY.

Jozzy4:
Jesus remains the first BORN OF all CREATION - col 1:15 , that scripture is clear enough

I suppose it was an oversight but that place is Creature not Creation.

who is the image of the invisible God, the [size=13pt]firstborn of every creature[/size][size=14pt]:[/size] 16 for by him were all things created

The colon sign is used, inter alia, to introduce an explanation hence verse 16 was meant to explain the last statement in verse 15.

(Rule 4. A colon ... may be used between independent clauses when the second sentence explains, illustrates, paraphrases, or expands on the first sentence.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp)
Indeed every jot and tittle is important

. He is the first person born of creation

1. Creation gave birth to no one. I am sure you really wish (and are trying hard to make) that passage says "born by creation" but it doesnt because that is erroneous.

2. Adam was described as the son of God in Luke yet nowhere was he called begotten/brought forth! Only Jesus is ever called the Begotten of the Father. Why the switching of words in the Bible - made and brought forth within the same passage (Proverbs 8.)?

3. In fact, that it says First Born and not First created should have laid the matter to rest long ago!!! Show me a place where it expressedly says the Father created/made the Son.

Rev 3:14 supports this , Jesus said he is " the beginning of the creation BY God"

Revelations 3:14 Jesus said He is the Beginning of the Creation OF GOD. Avoid substituting words to suit your purpose. This one you just did now set this passage against Colossians 1:15,16 were Christ is revealed as He by Whom all things were made!

Since you accept the words of Christ in Revelations, then Who alone can say this:

1. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelations 1:8

2. ..Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Revelations 1:17b

3. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Revelations 22:13

ALL SPOKEN BY JESUS

In the mouth of two or three witnesses, every Word shall be established. ^^^There you have 'em.

The Father said same of Himself:
And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
Revelations 21:5,6a