Feed my Lambs (moral standards)

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This explains why regardless of ones political standing there are two types of standards that people follow and thus exhibit. Only two "ways" of life that people inherently decide from. One way leads to life and the other to death. So you can see if a person finds themselves on the way of death they may not be having a very good day around you. The may exhibit negative energy.

John 21:15-19

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Comment: One must study the Greek manuscripts of the Bible to understand what Jesus is "really" meaning and saying here.

When Jesus asks Peter the first time if he loved him, Jesus used the word "agape" He said, Peter do you "agape" me? Peter replied, sure, lord, I "phileo" you... Peter did not say I agape you lord. He used the word phileo instead.

Phileo love is human love. Human love is not infused (within) by the holy spirit. You are either plugged into God's electric supply or you are not.

Greek words agape and phileo

Agape is Gods love and Christ's love within us in action.

Phileo is human love (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.)

Here it is folks, two different standards that people live by. The left or right, which one is right? Do we walk by the sprit or by the flesh? By rules alone or ALSO by the love of God?

Jesus asked again and said Peter do you agape me? Again Peter said, I phileo you lord, The third time Jesus came down to Peter's level and asked, Peter do you phileo me? Meaning, do you even really like me? And Peter says, I told you that I like you lord. Then Jesus replies, "feed my lambs".

It was not available for Peter to love with agape yet. Only Jesus could love with agape at the time. Jesus was teaching Peter and he came down to his level It was not until the love of Christ was given to the world as a gift that we now can love with this same capacity and standard of life. Agape can only come from God. It is not because we have more rules. It is because what is guiding and teaching us is not what is on the outside written in books and distant but what is alive within us now. A holy gift, a winning power within, a new life that is eternal. This life within now guides what we do each moment of our life. We have switched energy sources. We were once tethered to this world and the courses of it's ways. Suddenly we are guided by our own inner person created in the image of Christ Jesus. Pride in God exceeds that of a non believer who has only themselves and others as a resource of pride. The Christian has themselves, others AND GOD..

Then Jesus goes on to say,

John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Comment: It is immaturity to ignore the spiritual kingdom. So how can there be justice and righteous perception of another person's "spirit" when it is not clearly defined what is guiding their intensions?

Peter could not agape Jesus because agape had not been born yet within him. Agape is not only Jesus' love but ultimately it is the love and perfect will of the true God also.

Agape is the love of God, through Christ, through us and in action. Can the love of GOD be bad or evil or an unwise thing?

I have a rule anything that insults God is simply wrong or errant. So if it is something that I read out of the Bible and it seems to insult God then I figure my perception of the whole story must be wrong in some way. For how could the one true God, that is the "real" God who created the world "real" enough as "proof" of existence. Then God is without fault. The real God who is actually perfect. This is the God I know.

All other ideas about God have to flow out of or build upon the first consideration that, MY GOD IS PERFECT! If something logical from the Bible or any other consideration comes to mind that seems to cast "my God" into a bad light then I take the issue and I pray to God I say, God I know you are showing me something here now and I am willing and able to understand. Then I begin to think bout things very hard. I keep my mind focused on the question and possible solutions. I study every possible source of literature and ancient artifacts other fields like astronomy and many things can come into play. But the main consideration is "unlocking a particular biblical conundrum". We do not just figure oh well someone else will have to figure it out the eventually toss God in the minestrone soup. NO we apply love and the same thing that God applies to our human state. Love is unlimited and selfless. When one looks at all of the other passages of the Bible and tries to "really understand", the answers DO come. Once you understand a few then suddenly you see patterns in how the Bible works. Then you are answering enigmas that have taken some whole lifetimes to discover. Then you know the way of the "holy" sprit. We can stand within God knowing the majesty of the hidden spiritual kingdoms of heaven and earth. The holy spirit is the connection between God, Christ and us. We learn through his connection things that cannot be otherwise known. What we learn energizes our lives and invigorates us to the point where agape is present. Even in the presence of Christ, Peter could not Agape Jesus. One must the reflect on the magnitude of the problem and certitude of the spiritual deposit of God. If something seems intolerant than it may have a hidden meaning and is ultimately trying to say something else. OR perhaps it is God in parts of the Bible from a human perspective rather than God's own perspective.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Comment: The sprit is agape and it cannot be corrupted. Our bodies decay but the sprit is incorruptible. This is the "hope". Yet the world is full of corruption. And if one is clinging to an only construct drawn from the world, well, actually they cannot Agape Agape is giving "beyond" measure.

How can someone give beyond measure and still make a profit? Assurances God gives us assurances. Without these assurances we would be lost and as powerless as those without God's love.

They are lost in the storms of the waters and not standing on the shores of hope. They will display a different kind of moral character. One that is falling into corruption rather than one that is a super conqueror of all fears.

This shows a person's character. It is a litmus test. Do you believe you have a perfect sprit? What justifies your right to believe that? Well, it is evident by way one walks in their life. If people live in a constant state of fear and anxiety it is evident they are tied mostly to this world. If people live in a state of acceptance and well, "love" then you are then more mentally focused upon the spiritual reality of life.

This is what Jesus is saying. You will display on the outside the way you have chosen to go on the inside.

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Comment: This world has only death and a fine burial tombstone to offer. The sprit is a way to "life".

Feed my lambs

Follow me

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,034 • Replies: 49

No top replies

Welcome back, Rex.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Welcome back, Rex.

...as in, back against the wall. Smile

(Sorry about the typos, my eyes were getting tired)

0 Replies

Re: Feed my Lambs (moral standards)

RexRed wrote:

Comment: One must study the Greek manuscripts of the Bible to understand what Jesus is "really" meaning and saying here.

When Jesus asks Peter the first time if he loved him, Jesus used the word "agape" He said, Peter do you "agape" me? Peter replied, sure, lord, I "phileo" you... Peter did not say I agape you lord. He used the word phileo instead.

Phileo love is human love. Human love is not infused (within) by the holy spirit. You are either plugged into God's electric supply or you are not.

Greek words agape and phileo

Agape is Gods love and Christ's love within us in action.

Phileo is human love (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.)

I disagree with your interpretation, not least because you are using a different definition of agape from what the Greeks used.

Firstly, I think you mean φιλία (philia), not phileo. Secondly, philia means the sort of love between friends. It is not human love. It is a kind of human love, the other, of course, being eros.

ἀγάπη (agape), however, was used by the Greeks to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity.

However, I will concede that early Christians defined it in a different way from what Greek philosophers such as Plato would have normally used. But surely, their definition was not that different, especially if you consider God to be father.

If you consider God to be father, then it is only natural for God to show agape because agape is love of a spouse or family. He is the Father. Fathers do charitable things for their family. It is what fathers do. Family members show kindness to other family members. They show each other agape.

Jesus therefore was asking Simon, "do you love me as you would a brother" or even as a father? Either the intricacies of Aramaic meant that his question was not as explicit as that, and therefore that Simon misunderstood Jesus... or that Simon was reluctant to go that far with his love of Jesus.

The interpretation of the passage therefore, would be that Jesus was attempting to instill the notion of brotherhood amongst men.

agape by definition, does not only come from God. It can come from fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandfathers, nieces, nephews and so on. To say that agape can only come from God is preposterous, not least because atheists (e.g. Buddhists and your common garden variety atheist) and people of other religions that do not worship your God can show a kind of agape that is equal to Christian charity.

I would say that agape does not come solely from God but that God can only show agape, because he would not love us sexually (ἔρως; eros) and he cannot show us philia because that would imply we are equals.

You can ignore the second part that follows this sentence, if you wish, because it is the comments about agape that I have the most issue with.

Quote:

I have a rule anything that insults God is simply wrong or errant. So if it is something that I read out of the Bible and it seems to insult God then I figure my perception of the whole story must be wrong in some way.

This of course is based on a primary assumption, which may be wrong. God may not be perfect.

This statement is also based on another assumption, the Bible is perfect, which is clearly wrong.

Lots of archaeological and anthropological evidence shows that the Bible is clearly not perfect. There are plenty of examples e.g. the number of the Beast used to be 616, the city of Jericho didn't have walls when the Israelites were known to be around that region, the existence of Moses and the wandering tribe is highly dubious, the existence of Noah's Ark is not only highly dubious but logistically impossible etc.

God may be perfect, but the Bible is clearly not, so it may not be just your interpretation that is at fault. Conversely, God may not be perfect, but the Bible will not be able to prove that, because the evidence clearly shows that it is imperfect.

Therefore the assumption that your God is perfect is merely a statement of faith.

Quote:

If something logical from the Bible or any other consideration comes to mind that seems to cast "my God" into a bad light then I take the issue and I pray to God I say, God I know you are showing me something here now and I am willing and able to understand. Then I begin to think bout things very hard.

Covered this in the previous paragraphs. You may not need to pray to God at all about this.

0 Replies

Of course, the bible makes the claim that it is perfect. (2Timothy 3:16)

The bible refers to 3 types of love - Pared down definitions provided:

Storge: Familial love

Philia: Friendship

Agape: Principled love, sometimes translated 'charity'

A fourth Greek word, eros, is not mentioned in the bible.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Of course, the bible makes the claim that it is perfect. (2Timothy 3:16)

Ah, yes, but if the evidence clearly shows that the Bible is not perfect, any claims it makes to being perfect are irrelevant.

It would seem to me that storge is very similar to agape and that I was wrong about agape being of family. It is specific to one's children or to one's spouse... or even to a good meal, apparently.

Which doesn't change one bit of my comment, that agape can also come from a human being.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

neologist wrote:
Of course, the bible makes the claim that it is perfect. (2Timothy 3:16)

Ah, yes, but if the evidence clearly shows that the Bible is not perfect, any claims it makes to being perfect are irrelevant.

It would seem to me that storge is very similar to agape and that I was wrong about agape being of family. It is specific to one's children or to one's spouse... or even to a good meal, apparently.

Which doesn't change one bit of my comment, that agape can also come from a human being.

Agreed that humans can show agape, and, in fact, are commanded to.

You are also right that if any part of the original scriptures were proved spurious, it would cast doubt on the entire work. One should not base his faith on hope for reward or license.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Agreed that humans can show agape, and, in fact, are commanded to.

I never said the latter. Although it is possible that the latter part of the sentence is your personal opinion based on your interpretation of the Bible, but your sentence does not make this clear.

0 Replies

I have read your questions.

Rather than address them specifically by quoting your questions I will just type my reply.

If my reply does not seem to answer your questions then please re-ask the question.

I do not disagree that Phileo encompasses the love between friends or "brothers".

There is also paternal and maternal love. Phileo is also the root word of philanthropy. Which is charity for the world (not just friends) or human love. Human love is not the same as God's capacity to love.

Brotherly love is not godly love.

Agape is Godly love or the love of God.

For many years the words "the love of God" did not click in my perception fully. It is like when you see a picture and there are two pictures with the same image and you only see one of them. Well it was like that for me concerning the love of God. I thought the love of God only meant the love that people show toward God. Then... I learned from the Bible that the love of God is not especially referring to our capacity to love God but it refers to God's capacity to love us.

The love of God is God's capacity to love in us. The same also goes for the love of Christ.

The love of Christ is not our capacity to love Christ Jesus but his capacity to love us. We have this love within also.

This is to imply that our own "human" capacity to love is not full or complete.

The same logic can be applied to "the faith of Jesus Christ". This is Jesus' capacity to believe not our capacity to believe in him. We have Jesus' capacity to believe which surpasses our own. The faith of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3:23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Comment: Before faith came? Didn't Noah have faith didn't Abraham and Sarah... have faith? By faith Noah, by faith Sarah...

Again we need to understand that under these English words are Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words that have other characteristics that unlock their puzzles. Rather than look only on the surface we find the truth deep within. Often reality is not everything seen but a subset of all things observable.

Before faith came? So there must be a new improved "faith" also.

One that is not simply human ability to believe and follow laws but a faith that follows the spirit.

This faith is a "fruit of the sprit" and so is love (agape).

So it appears that agape was only available within the heart of God before Christ Jesus came . (I may need more thought on this)

"Before faith came" there could be no agape. Faith, hope and charity.

Hope is not only our hope in Christ but it includes Christ's hope in God and God's hope in humanity.

None of this synergy can take place without the presence of God residing within the seat of the will.

The Bible is inherently, inerrant and perfect, that is, within. On the surface it requires study as do most worthwhile things in life. Some stories are figurative and some are literal for God is the greatest poet. Many stories are filled with enigmas and subtle conclusions that are based on the times that are unique to ancient tribal cultures.

God does not change but we see a part of God changes. Jesus came down to Peter's level. At first he asked Peter if he agape'd him and the third time Jesus asked Peter if he even did phileo him.

So God as the creator never changes but the part of God that is within creation often comes down to meet us on our level to raise us up to a higher calling.

Peace with God

0 Replies

I didn't ask any questions. I made statements. There isn't a single question mark in my entire post. I disagree with your position and I stated exactly why I disagreed with your position, based on the fact that you are giving the Greek word an extra meaning where it has none.

Granted, you weren't the first to start doing this. Early Christian authors also did this, but it is rather presumptious of them to start redefining words and then have the nerve to say that only agape can come from God when Greeks have been practising it for years.

Also, I disagree with you that the Bible is inerrant and perfect. It is a manmade text and therefore cannot be inerrant and perfect, by definition. The text may be inspired by God, but it doesn't change the fact that man wrote it, man set the words and man decided which parts got included and which parts got removed.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I didn't ask any questions. I made statements. There isn't a single question mark in my entire post. I disagree with your position and I stated exactly why I disagreed with your position, based on the fact that you are giving the Greek word an extra meaning where it has none.

Granted, you weren't the first to start doing this. Early Christian authors also did this, but it is rather presumptious of them to start redefining words and then have the nerve to say that only agape can come from God when Greeks have been practising it for years.

Also, I disagree with you that the Bible is inerrant and perfect. It is a manmade text and therefore cannot be inerrant and perfect, by definition. The text may be inspired by God, but it doesn't change the fact that man wrote it, man set the words and man decided which parts got included and which parts got removed.

Quote:
When Greeks have been practising it for years...

Comment:
Can you back this up?

Then why couldn't Peter agape Jesus?

Any what is the purpose of Jesus if the love of God was already revealed.

It also appears by your knowledge of the scripture that you have handled the Bible haphazardly. Given this it is no wonder you don't trust it.

"When that which is perfect has come."

You seem to have ignored whole sections of the Bible.

2Corinthians 5:14
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

Comment: Also, a disagreement or a contradiction is a masked question whether if you realize that or not.

0 Replies

The most obvious objection to this nonsense is that there is no good reason to assume that your boy Jesus spoke Greek at all. The lingua franca of the middle east was Aramaic, and the earliest discovered fragmentary texts written in Aramaic, and not in Greek, of four books of the "old testament" demonstrate that it was sufficiently widely used to have been the language of literate people in Palestine. So to argue about what Jesus meant in saying agape is simply an exercise in stupidity, given that there is on good reason to assume that, if he even existed at all, the putative Jesus would have used the word.

Furthermore, as Wolf has pointed out, the early christian writers, writing well after the putative Jesus is alleged to have lived, altered the meaning of the word agape. From the Wikipedia article on Greek words for "love":

Quote:

However, the word "agape" is not always used in the New Testament in a positive sense. II Timothy 4:10 uses the word in a negative sense. The Apostle Paul writes,"For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved (agapo) this present world...." Thus the word "agape" is not always used of a divine love or the love of God. Christian commentators have expanded the original Greek definition to encompass a total commitment or self-sacrificial love for the thing loved. Because of its frequency of use in the New Testament, Christian writers have developed a significant amount of theology based solely on the interpretation of this word.

This is an excellent example of how obscure the exegesis of the allegedly divinely inspired and inerrant scripture is become. Huge theological arguments are based on the meaning of words in Koine Greek (the Greek used in the first two centuries of the current era, and the immediate ancestor of modern Greek), when there is not even any good reason to assume that Jesus, if he ever existed, ever spoke a single word of Greek.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The most obvious objection to this nonsense is that there is no good reason to assume that your boy Jesus spoke Greek at all. The lingua franca of the middle east was Aramaic, and the earliest discovered fragmentary texts written in Aramaic, and not in Greek, of four books of the "old testament" demonstrate that it was sufficiently widely used to have been the language of literate people in Palestine. So to argue about what Jesus meant in saying agape is simply an exercise in stupidity, given that there is on good reason to assume that, if he even existed at all, the putative Jesus would have used the word at all.

Furthermore, as Wolf has pointed out, the early christian writers, writing well after the putative Jesus is alleged to have lived, altered the meaning of the word agape. From the Wikipedia article on Greek words for "love":

Quote:
However, the word "agape" is not always used in the New Testament in a positive sense. II Timothy 4:10 uses the word in a negative sense. The Apostle Paul writes,"For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved (agapo) this present world...." Thus the word "agape" is not always used of a divine love or the love of God. Christian commentators have expanded the original Greek definition to encompass a total commitment or self-sacrificial love for the thing loved. Because of its frequency of use in the New Testament, Christian writers have developed a significant amount of theology based solely on the interpretation of this word.

This is an excellent example of how obscure the exegesis of the allegedly divinely inspired and inerrant scripture is become. Huge theological arguments are based on the meaning of words in Koine Greek (the Greek used in the first two centuries of the current era, and the immediate ancestor of modern Greek), when there is not even any good reason to assume that Jesus, if he ever existed, ever spoke a single word of Greek.

Umm, the apostles some of them natively spoke Greek and saw to the translation themselves. Is that too hard to figure out? The same men who wrote/recorded it translated it to Greek. The first century church was full of many Greek believers.

Are you also saying that "Jesus" a Greek name and perhaps well traveled a carpenters son (merchant) did not know the languages of his day?

Set, are you trying to "wipe Jesus off the face of the map"?

Napoleon did not exist either. (Cynical)

0 Replies

Now we get to the crux of the dispute - - -

0 Replies

1Corinthians 13:13
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity [Agape].

0 Replies

There are at least seven Greek copies of the NT.

These copies all vary in word selection in various places.

So the fact that Agape was used erroneous in some place does not account for the multitude of scriptures which teach of the coming holy spirit guide fifty days after the ascension and it's benefits to humanity.

The Bible has checks and balances built within it to keep it's doctrine on track.

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Comment: Fifty days later in Jerusalem...

Acts 2:3
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Now we get to the crux of the dispute - - -

I can see by the silence that we have reached the crux of the dispute...

May I continue? Smile

Thus...

There are two sets of standards in the world.

One body of people have chosen the external standards of others and themselves on an inferior human level nearly in a vacuum of all other considerations. Contrarily, some have also considered the standards of God in light of the teachings and the efficacy of the power of God through Christ Jesus.

We may carry this a bit farther. Politically, which party, dems or repubs are more likely to have accepted this higher set of standards?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Umm, the apostles some of them natively spoke Greek and saw to the translation themselves. Is that too hard to figure out? The same men who wrote/recorded it translated it to Greek.

What evidence do you have that the apostles were native speakers of Greek? Do you even understand the implication of saying that someone is a native speaker of the language? Of the Evangelists, only one--John--is alleged to have been a contemporary and companion of Jeebus, and even that is disputed by reputable scholars. The claim that Matthew was a disciple is disclaimed by nearly all modern, reputable scholars. Mark was a companion of Saul of Tarsus (the alleged "Saint" Paul), and neither he nor Paul have ever been claimed to have been companions of Jeebus. Luke was also a companion of Paul, but the majority of modern scholars agree that there were at least two authors to what is now known as the gospel of Luke.

So, you have two people who might have been native speakers of Greek, but neither of whom would have been, nor are claimed to have been, disciples and companions of your boy Hey-Zeus. Since reputable scholars do not accept that Matthew was in fact one of the disciples, nor that he can reliably be identified with the tax collector Levi, you are left solely with John as someone who could have been both a companion and one of the four Evangelists, and even that is in doubt. If the John who is identified as an Evangelist is the same as John the disciple, and therefore a fisherman, it would be almost ludicrous to suggest that he were a native speaker of Koine Greek.

Leaving that aside, your boy John was the only Evangelist who did not produce a synoptic account of the life of Hey-Zeus, and that is one of many reasons that modern reputable scholars doubt the authenticity of the claim that identifies the putative disciple John with the author (or one of the authors) of the documents attributed to John the evangelist.

Quote:

The first century church was full of many Greek believers.

That's no good reason to assume that your boy Jeebus spoke Koine Greek, or would have been stupid enough to address his remarks in Greek to people who didn't speak or understand it.

Quote:

Are you also saying that "Jesus" a Greek name and perhaps well traveled a carpenters son (merchant) did not know the languages of his day?

I didn't happen to say anything of the kind--and the name "Jesus" is a corruption of the Greek version of Joshuah (or, more properly, Yeshuah)--but i would take this opportunity to comment that you're just making **** up when you claim that it is reasonable to assert that carpenters can automatically be identified with merchants. However, the very reason that Aramaic was the lingua france of Palestine at that time was because the Aramaeans were the merchants of the region, and therefore, your silly claim would only reinforce the argument that the native language of your boy Jeebus would have been Aramaic.

Whether or not any of that were true, there would have been no good reason for Yeshuah to have addressed a population of Aramaic-speaking people in Koine Greek, a language which they would not have spoken or understood.

Quote:

Set, are you trying to "wipe Jesus off the face of the map"?

I don't happen to have a dog in the fight, but i would say it's about a 50-50 shot that there ever was truly a Rabbi Yeshuah upon whom the character "Jesus" is based. It is equally as likely that the Rabbi Yeshuah was an avatar of the peripatitic Essene aesthete and teacher. So, maybe he did actually exist, and maybe he didn't. One thing is certain, and that is that there is no contemporary corroborative source for which the story, which has not been in the hands of christians, and therefore subject to corruption or interpolation.

So, given that it is in doubt whether your boy Jeebus was ever on the map in the first place, it isn't reasonable to suggest that i'm trying to wipe the boy off the map.

Quote:

Napoleon did not exist either. (Cynical)

One can fill libraries with the evidence for the existence of Napoleone Buonaparte (Napoleon Bonaparte, as the French would have it) which is contemporary to his life span. There is not a single document contemporary to your boy Jeebus which unambiguously demonstrates his existence.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

There are at least seven Greek copies of the NT.

These copies all vary in word selection in various places.

So the fact that Agape was used erroneous in some place does not account for the multitude of scriptures which teach of the coming holy spirit guide fifty days after the ascension and it's benefits to humanity.

There were a Hell of a lot more than seven--hundreds of them, in fact--which is why the "majority text," or Byzantine text became a standard basis for the "new testament." The Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Germany has more than 500 distinct copies.

But all of that ignores that you're attempting to claim that someone who had no good reason to be a native-speaker of Koine Greek, and every good reason to be a native-speaker of Aramaic, would have spoken to the public in Koine Greek, rather than their mother tongue--Aramaic--knowing that they would not understand a word of it.

0 Replies

I can see by the silence that we have reached the crux of the dispute...

Now we are at ground zero, dude.

0 Replies

Feed my Lambs (moral standards)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know