Is it possible to lose salvation?

[RomeSweetHome]

With Origen, there comes much forgery. He was a proto-Arian heretic. I have reconstructed his beliefs based on rumors and what the Arians believed.

No doubt, Origen is a complex figure. But his witness on this is consistent with all the historical data we have (amd another data point to corroborate it). Fast forward a century, and (I think literally) every ECF from across the globe that we have a record of espouses the doctrine, showing how quickly and how universal the belief was.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No doubt, Origen is a complex figure. But his witness on this is consistent with all the historical data we have (amd another data point to corroborate it). Fast forward a century, and (I think literally) every ECF from across the globe that we have a record of espouses the doctrine, showing how quickly and how universal the belief.

If it was chastity, then this would be good; but if it be perpetual virginity, that is silly and quite damming for the ECFs.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

According to you I do, but according to teh experts, I do not.

What? Except to try to ignore it, you haven't responded to any of the historical data thats been provided. And while you've just repeated your talking points about the text ad nauseum and advanced a very garbled attempt at explaining away inconvenient scriptures, you haven't made sense of the whole counsel of Scripture

Now you are twisting the truth. I never implied I was a greek expert. I do know how to navigate through the experts though.

Too many times to count you have berated others on this score. You've certainly pretended to hold yourself out as one. However you want to characterize the hubris you've exhibited ("Wallace needs some work," acting as if you are smarter than he, a literal Greek expert, on a general point about usage; and then following up with barely coherent explanations that make very clear that's not the case), how are you now going to try to argue that English punctuation in translations somehow dictate the meaning of the Greek text (what I have been arguing from from the beginning here)?

Your argument is moot considering your Romanist church puts the comma in the same place. Yes Greek had no commas and in English we have to place them where they belong. I trust God even inspired your Romansit translators when they put the comma where all others have. and for English grammar, if Mary's sister was Mary wife of Cleophas, then the comma would appear after Mary.

And once again a definition of Adelphoi from New TEstament Greek:

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Address *the greek text,* man! Come on, you've mocked others for failing to do just that, and now you're studiously avoiding it.

And again, you make a hash of even English grammar here, as that is where you'd place the comma if "Mary of Clopas" (wife (or possibly daughter) is not in the text but implied and added by translators) was a postpositive adjective phrase modifying sister (as it is here)!

εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή.

Transliteration
adelphē (Key)
Pronunciation
ad-el-fay'

Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ἀδελφός (G80)
Greek Inflections of ἀδελφή [?]
mGNT
26x in 9 unique form(s) TR
24x in 7 unique form(s) LXX
102x in 8 unique form(s)
ἀδελφαὶ — 3x
ἀδελφὰς — 4x
ἀδελφάς — 1x
ἀδελφὴ — 7x
ἀδελφή — 1x
ἀδελφὴν — 5x
ἀδελφῆς — 3x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 1:144,22
KJV Translation Count — Total: 24x
The KJV translates Strong's G79 in the following manner: sister (24x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. a full, own sister
2. 1. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion
   Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
   ἀδελφή adelphḗ, ad-el-fay'; feminine of G80; a sister (naturally or ecclesiastically):—sister.
   Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
   STRONGS G79:
   ἀδελφή, -ῆς, ἡ (see ἀδελφός) (from Aeschylus down), sister;
   1. a full, own sister (i. e. by birth): Matthew 19:29; Luke 10:39; John 11:1, 3, 5; John 19:25; Romans 16:15, etc.; respecting the sisters of Christ, mentioned in Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3, see ἀδελφός, 1.
   2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion: 1 Corinthians 7:15; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Philemon 1:2 L T Tr WH; James 2:15; with a subjective genitive, a Christian woman especially dear to one, Romans 16:1.

And again, see McClintock and Strong. Already provided the link (and the same Strong! So you reciting Strong's concordance over and over to argue "it doesn't say relative" as if that trumps everything else borders on the absurd) who also recognize that sister can be used to speak of relatives beyond biological siblings. "Sister (אָחוֹת, achoth'; ἀδελφή), a term often having, in the style of the Hebrews, equal latitude with brother (q.v.). It is used, not only for a sister by natural relation from the same father and mother, but also for a sister by the same father only, or by the same mother only, or a near relation only." Sister from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia.

This discussion is tiresome when all you do is move goalposts, ignore piles of inconvenient facts, make nonsensical (sometimes literally, your responses are incoherent) arguments, repeat the same points that have been answered and went unrebutted, and otherwise argue in bad faith. But you've repeatedly slandered the teaching of the Body of Christ, and maybe just maybe if someone holds you accountable long enough through all of that slop, you'll stop running from the truth (you'll find it sets you free!). Not sure I myself can hang on much longer through the nonsense, but I'll try.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

If it was chastity, then this would be good; but if it be perpetual virginity, that is silly and quite damming for the ECFs.

Again, I believe you're on in partu virginity, which is related but distinct for present purposes, and in everything I'm saying I am bracketing that point for the time being.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

No, it is very much the point.

Yes in the OT brother was used more broadly trhan in the New as I have showed you from the varied experet Koine Greek NT sources. One has to be careful going from old to new for there are nuances when transliterating, as I showed you in teh two examples provided previosuly.

What? Try again.

You previously addressed genesis and exodus. You yourself ignore their nuances (certainly the Genesis one), where Abraham is obviously referring to his non-biological sibling relative as a "brother" (even if he is also sweeping in the others referred to in the text; but he's probably not, the "we" makes most sense as a reference to Abraham and Lot in context, given they are the focus of the text): εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ τῷ Λωτ μὴ ἔστω μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν).

And you're also missing the point entirely of my prior comment and so remarkably thinking it helps you when it undercuts you. If Matthew was Hebrew or Aramaic original, then the word for brother that would've been transliterated as "adelphos" *without question* would've had a much broader semantic range than biological sibling and included relatives besides biological siblings. And even if we aren't talking about a transliteration, the Semitic range of the term would've likely influenced the Semitic authors of the NT in their choice of the word "brother."

Also, you havent addressed 1 Chronicles or Tobit (the other two examples that just I previously raised).

You also haven't responded to the point that LXX usage would've influenced NT usage.

 

[Christian Soldier]

‘So to you “the world” refers to Gentiles and Jews?

"The world" can mean a 100 different things, depending on the context that it is used. We need to remove our denominational lens, when we consider what the scriptures are actually saying.

I appreciate it's difficult to take God at His Word, human nature always wants to have it's way in everything and that gets in the way. My Pastor made a profound comment in passing, he said "if you give the bible to 10 different people and ask them to interpret the scriptures, you will get 10 different interpretations.

God specifically had His people write the bible, in such a way that it would only make sense to those who have the gift of His Holy Spirit. And it is foolishness to the rest of mankind, it's actual impossible for them to receive His Word, and this is no accident. God deliberately hides the truth from them.

• Proverbs 1:28-30 “Then they will call on Me, but I will not answer; They will seek Me diligently, but they will not find Me. Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD, They would have none of my counsel And despised my every rebuke”.
• Matthew 13:13-15 “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand... For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them”.
• John 7:34 “You will seek Me and not find Me, and where I am, you cannot come”.

 

[Wrangler]

How can you LOSE eternal life?

It's like you have no idea what Judgment Day is all about.

 

[Wrangler]

this justification is eternal (called eternal life)

If this were true, there is no point to Jesus telling us to abide in him and to endure to the end.

 

[Wrangler]

One of my favorite passages concerning this topic is the one you alluded to, that He has sealed us unto the day of redemption. He's paid for us, and put His seal of ownership on us, sealed to show we are His property, to preserve His right of possession until the day He comes to retrieve His purchased possession.

Yet, this passage does not concern this topic one little bit as it says nothing to undermine the implications of salt losing it's flavor will be thrown away (and we are the salt), branches that do not produce fruit will be burned (and we are the branches), etc.

IF we remain in him is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of unconditional consequence.

 

[ProDeo]

It's like you have no idea what Judgment Day is all about.

Welcome back, for the record, EG hasn't been around for about a month.

 

[JLB]

"The world" can mean a 100 different things,

The world in John 3:16 refers to people; unsaved people. People that need salvation.


And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:14-17


World in this context is referring to the world of unsaved people that Jesus Christ was sent to provide salvation for.

 

[PinSeeker]

You are conlfating baptism with circumcision and that is not so.

Not conflating, but baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Conflation is a merging of two different concepts, and replacement is a discontinuation of one for the other. You know that. If something is replaced, it is impossible to conflate those two things, because the one does not exist anymore.

House holders were those considered adult members and that was aound 12-13 years old as the cite I showed you.

You showed me your opinion, Ronald. Which is fair enough, but still only your opinion. No, in Jewish culture, a patriarch's household consisted of all human beings associated with that household, which included all blood relatives, certainly, but even servants and slaves.

There is a difference between how 21st century and 1st century considered members of a household.

Sure, but we should hear all Scripture as the original hearers heard it and apply it to our lives today. And we can do that. Yes, housekeepers and such would not be considered part of a household today, only immediate family. But that's just a societal structure difference, even an American difference. Still, though, what people knew and understood 2000 years ago can be synthesized and applied in our lives today.

So do you buy the Mormons getting baptized for all people.

Mormons believe as you do regarding baptism, Ronald, at least to some extent. Now, I don't know if you believe this or not, but they believe that infants are born without sin and do not require baptism. But they do believe that they should be baptized when they are eight years old, as that is what they deem to be the age of accountability. They are wrong on both counts...

According to your premise, all people then will get saved for they are doing it in faith.

No, the believing parents of infants are trusting, in faith, that God will work at some point in the child's heart and, again, bring them, through faith, to belief in Jesus. But He may not... Now that may be hard to accept, but this is His purpose of election... God is God, and He does what He does, for His own glory. The juxtaposition of this is also true, that He may choose at some point to work in the heart of persons who were born to unbelievers, giving them new birth in the Spirit and, through their faith, bring them to belief. Again, God is God, and He does what He does, for His own glory. He has mercy and compassion on whom He chooses. As Peter says, "the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself."

Baptism is for one who believes.

Well, yes, but also for children of believers, even infants, who may not yet believe but have parents who believe that God will one day work in the hearts of their children and draw those children to Himself and then will then believe, because they are children of the promise. Just as Isaac was to Abraham and Sarah thousands of years ago. Neither Old Testament circumcision nor New Testament baptism are actual conferring of salvation or salvific. Only God can do that... by baptism by the Spirit, which occurs at the time of new birth of the Spirit. Only the latter is effectual unto salvation.

All these show one has to believe first! and that comes with age.

They show that if one believes, then he or she should be baptized... as an outward sign to all of his or her belief and faith in the Lord... if he or she has not been baptized up to that point. That you agree with, but this baptism is also for his or her entire household and not to be denied or withheld from anyone or any reason, even age or ability to believe. Think of this outward sign this way, that this water baptism, though it is not conferring of salvation on that person (baby), God is writing a "check," if you will, to the parents ~ this is His "promissory note" ~ that He will "cash" at some point in the future and therefore justify that person in his or her sin and give him or her, in His mercy and compassion, new birth of the Spirit (Romans 8, Romans 9, Ephesians 2, 1 Peter 1), at which point that person will be born repent and believe in Christ Jesus. Again, though, He may or may not do that... according to His purpose of election; He may or may not have... "chosen that person from before the foundation of the world... according to the purpose of His will" (Ephesians 1).

You cannot find aqn explicit verse like these that says babies are to be baptized (not sprinkled).

Now who's making an argument from silence? <smile> But again, I will say that much more of a case can be made, Biblically, for sprinkling as opposed to immersion, but I will also say the mode of baptism ~ immersion or sprinkling or anywhere in between ~ is not of great import, but only doing it... or having it done. Either way, it is an outward sign and seal of the covenant... just like circumcision was in Old Testament times, as I have said.

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

 

[MonoBiblical]

God specifically had His people write the bible, in such a way that it would only make sense to those who have the gift of His Holy Spirit.

Delusional.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The world in John 3:16 refers to people; unsaved people. People that need salvation.


And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:14-17


World in this context is referring to the world of unsaved people that Jesus Christ was sent to provide salvation for.

It refers to an area which may or may not be Israel. The Hebrews has no concept of globe, though they knew by astronomy that the planet or the altogether was round. There is no expanse or vault in the sky. There was a massive rock covering future flood waters. How was Israel rescued or saved then? It wasn't with Bar Kochba.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It proves you were selective and inaccurate. Animals have uioi but they don't always follow each other or even depend on each other.

WOW.
What part of “MANY meanings” did you NOT understand??

As I have explained ad nauseam a single word can have multiple meanings.
a) in a RESTRICTED sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)

In a WIDER sense, . . .
a) generally used of the offspring of men
b) term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality
c) rarely used for the young of animals
d) a descendant, the children of Israel, sons of Abraham
e) used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
f) a PUPIL

Adelphos (brother) is another such word. I can be used for brother of the same mother, step-brother, half-brother, cousin, relative, fellow-believer, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc.

If you’re going to attempt to discuss a linguistic matter, do your homework, Einstein . . .

 

[MonoBiblical]

What part of “MANY meanings” did you NOT understand??

There is no such thing in Greek. It is very inflected and not English.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Maybe this will make sense when I get to the end of this thread, and maybe you will have responded to the points I made that have gone unanswered about the "quite common" use of present active indicative (according to an evangelical Greek scholar) to refer to states of being intended to be continued in the future (which is the only way to make sense of Mary's response to a future tense message delivered to her; otherwise, you make her and the author of the text incoherent), but let me just pause to observe how, incoherently, you simultaneously recognize that Luke 1:34 is present active indicative and then, in trying to convey what that means, you turn it into a perfect tense construction ("have not had"), the tense you say it would need to be in (combined with the subjunctive mood) to prove the doctrine. Perplexing.

Well I will see your scholar and raise you three.

In Koine Greek, the present active indicative verb form indicates that the action is ongoing and is performed by the subject. It shows that the action occurs in the present time and is a true statement. The verb can change in person and number, and the inflection occurs by adding personal endings to the stem. For example, the verb "λύω" (to untie) translates to "I am untying" in English, indicating a continuous action.

See the present means it is continuing in teh present. So Mary said, I am not knowing a man.

While the perfect active participle would play out as , I have not known a man, I am not now knowing a man (present indicative by itself) and I will not know a man. Sorry but you are misreading this guy. It is not a continuing action ongoing through continuous future time.

Please, marshall the evidence that contradicts Wallace's point. I am addding screenshots of the pages of his text. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (specifically, pp. 521-22), to help you in this endeavor.

This isn't an appeal to authority - it's to point out that you, with your supposed one year of Greek and Hebrew, respond ("Wallace needs some work") as if you know better than one of your own guys who literally wrote the book on Greek grammar (which whoever taught you Greek probably studied from, depending on when you supposedly studied it)! It's to highlight the incoherent hubris you display over and over again as we get deeper into the discussion.

Does the present active indicative mean never ending action?​

The present active indicative does not imply that an action is never ending. It indicates that the action is occurring in the present time and is a true statement. The verb can change in person and number, and the inflection occurs by adding personal endings to the stem. The aspect of the verb can be continuous (progressive), indicating an ongoing action, or a state of completion, indicating a completed action that is still remaining at present. The present active indicative can be translated as simple "I write" or continuous "I am writing," depending on the context.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=cb92...zZW50LWFjdGl2ZS1pbmRpY2F0aXZlLXZlcmJzLw&ntb=1
GREEK FOR ALL
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=cb92...zZW50LWFjdGl2ZS1pbmRpY2F0aXZlLXZlcmJzLw&ntb=1
See you have totally misunderstood Wallace. Mary would have needed to say her staement in either perfect active indicative or perfect active participle.

Your comment wasn't coherent - literally a copy paste that cut off mid sentence. So Im still not sure what you were trying to say, but your point still butchers the text - why would Mary respond to a future tense message (you will conceive) with perplexity as to how that could happen, because she had not previously known a man, even though she was about to some point soon (how you read the passage)? Her response in context *only makes sense* if her statement carries not just past and present but also future tense significance (i.e., if she is saying that she "do[es] not know man" as a matter of habit/practice, meaning not only that she has not in the past or currently "known man" but also that she has no plans to "know man" in the future).

Simple if she wished to tell the angel she was going to stay a virgin- it would have been in the perfect. The present simply indicated an action that is occuring and ongoing for either a defined or undfined duration, but not permanently.

Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 224: "the perfect indicates a completed action whose effects are felt in the speaker's present."

Wallace, Beyond the Basics, p. 573: "The force of the present tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time . . . ." (You've now thrown subjunctive into the mix, so not precisely applicable, but still sharing given where we started).

Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, p. 41, calls the "future" use of the perfect tense a "rare usage."

It may be rare but it is still used.
Mounce and Wallace are saying what I have said. Mary said " I have beedn a virgin and am still being a virgin. However the present tense says nothing about duration in to the future.

And I corrected the use of the subjunctive

There is an idea implicit in your arguments here that we need to bring to the surface before we can make any headway. You seem to think that there is only one way to express an idea in Greek grammar and that the authors functioned like mathematicians, selecting precisely based on the exclusive functions (or something like that). Both notions are wrong; crack open any Greek grammar worth its salt, and you will see explanations for the wide and overlapping range of functions various grammatical constructs can have and the wide range of uses apparent in the NT. Which makes your "God would have inspired" point nonsensical - God inspired what he inspired, and it's our job to make sense of it in context and in light of the grammar and usage of the day, not (in your case) superimpose our own notions of what God should have said/would have said based on half a year (or one year?) of Greek language study!

Yes various grammatical constructs hav varied uses, but precise constructs have precise meanings. Without precise meanings we cannot communicate.

See I look at the Greek in light of how it was used in the day! I have taught that for decades . The fact you doubt god oversees the translating of His word for one language to another is very telling.

Let's go back to Luke 18, which you seem to be trying to address but don't quite. The pharisee says "I fast" and "I tithe." Present active indicative in both instances. Are you really denying what is smack-you-in-the-face obvious from the text in context? That he is bragging about his past, present, and future practices? I.e. he is saying "I have fasted twice a week in the past, that is still my practice presently, and that is my intended practice going forward, which is why I am so righteous." Ditto for tithing.

Sorry but if He wishes to brag about his future practice he would use the future tense of the perfect tense with the participle. Present active indiciative simply shows that He has been tithing and is still tithing. It says nothing about future intent or action.

Why don't you simply google the question" Does the present active indicative" mean non stop future attion and see for yourself. Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin. You are either misreading or intentionally reinterpreting Wallace and Mounce.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Exercises in missing the point.

Whoever is the beloved disciple, the point remains--Jesus wouldn't have needed to give his mother a new, adopted son, if she had another son (one who quickly became a believer after the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:7). And historically speaking, he likely wouldn't have, if she had another son.

In any event, I'll spot you that, standing alone, this doesn't dictate itself one way or the other absolutely (but I stand by it because, at minimum, it is certainly more consistent with the perpetual virginity than it is with the evangelical protestant view (apparent by your speculation in your comments on this thus far), as Christians throughout history have had no trouble recognizing). And the dogma is made unmistakable by Luke 1 and the overwhelming history. So we can focus on those other points for now.

There is a difference between needing and doing. Jesus as the head of the estate had the sole authority to pass on teh care of His mom to whoever.

What? Except to try to ignore it, you haven't responded to any of the historical data thats been provided. And while you've just repeated your talking points about the text ad nauseum and advanced a very garbled attempt at explaining away inconvenient scriptures, you haven't made sense of the whole counsel of Scripture

Well you do make it an appeal to authority outside of Scripture. And you haven't yet addressed the incongruity of Mt. 12:

Matthew 12:46-50

King James Version

​

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

If we follow the Romanist line of thinking and eisegesis, we have to substitute Cousin for every instance in this passage. Sorry but Jesus has no spiritual cousins.

What? Try again.

You previously addressed genesis and exodus. You yourself ignore their nuances (certainly the Genesis one), where Abraham is obviously referring to his non-biological sibling relative as a "brother" (even if he is also sweeping in the others referred to in the text; but he's probably not, the "we" makes most sense as a reference to Abraham and Lot in context, given they are the focus of the text): εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ τῷ Λωτ μὴ ἔστω μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν).

And you're also missing the point entirely of my prior comment and so remarkably thinking it helps you when it undercuts you. If Matthew was Hebrew or Aramaic original, then the word for brother that would've been transliterated as "adelphos" *without question* would've had a much broader semantic range than biological sibling and included relatives besides biological siblings. And even if we aren't talking about a transliteration, the Semitic range of the term would've likely influenced the Semitic authors of the NT in their choice of the word "brother."

Also, you havent addressed 1 Chronicles or Tobit (the other two examples that just I previously raised).

You also haven't responded to the point that LXX usage would've influenced NT usage.

Sorry but the context of Genesis is Abrahm, Lot and the herdsmen. And in Hebrew when a pronoun is used it must refer back to its nearet antecedant that matches in number. And that is herdsmen.

And as Matthew did write originally in Hebrew? Aramaic, brother does have a broader range that it suse in NT Greek usage. But as we have the Greek available and its usage of brother is more limited, we go with that. Once again in teh NT we have no clear usae of Adelphos as cousin except for the Romanist reinterpretation of these verses in question.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What? Try again.

You previously addressed genesis and exodus. You yourself ignore their nuances (certainly the Genesis one), where Abraham is obviously referring to his non-biological sibling relative as a "brother" (even if he is also sweeping in the others referred to in the text; but he's probably not, the "we" makes most sense as a reference to Abraham and Lot in context, given they are the focus of the text): εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ τῷ Λωτ μὴ ἔστω μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν).

And you're also missing the point entirely of my prior comment and so remarkably thinking it helps you when it undercuts you. If Matthew was Hebrew or Aramaic original, then the word for brother that would've been transliterated as "adelphos" *without question* would've had a much broader semantic range than biological sibling and included relatives besides biological siblings. And even if we aren't talking about a transliteration, the Semitic range of the term would've likely influenced the Semitic authors of the NT in their choice of the word "brother."

Also, you havent addressed 1 Chronicles or Tobit (the other two examples that just I previously raised).

You also haven't responded to the point that LXX usage would've influenced NT usage.

Well I have overlooked somehow the 1 Chron. and Tobit reference. I would be grateful if you reposted them.

It doesn't matter how much the LXX influenced NT thought.

From Catholic Answers:

In the New Testament, the Greek word "adelphos" (plural: "adelphoi") primarily means "brother" or "sibling". It is often used to refer to close relatives, including Jesus' brothers, in a literal sense, indicating physical or spiritual kinship. While some interpretations suggest it can also refer to cousins, this is not universally accepted and is based on specific contexts and translations. The term is not explicitly defined as "cousin" in the New Testament, and its usage is more nuanced than that of the term for cousins in other languages.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=fdaa...aWNhdGUtdGhhdC1qZXN1cy1oYWQtYnJvdGhlcnM&ntb=1
Catholic Answers+5
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=fdaa...aWNhdGUtdGhhdC1qZXN1cy1oYWQtYnJvdGhlcnM&ntb=1
This is your own church who steadfastly demand it mean cousin- and that if we do the will of God we are Jesus mother and cousins.https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=fdaa...aWNhdGUtdGhhdC1qZXN1cy1oYWQtYnJvdGhlcnM&ntb=1

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Not conflating, but baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Conflation is a merging of two different concepts, and replacement is a discontinuation of one for the other. You know that. If something is replaced, it is impossible to conflate those two things, because the one does not exist anymore.

Sorry but Baptism has not replaced circumcision.

You showed me your opinion, Ronald. Which is fair enough, but still only your opinion. No, in Jewish culture, a patriarch's household consisted of all human beings associated with that household, which included all blood relatives, certainly, but even servants and slaves.

No I showed you Jewish historians. I can also bring secular historical works that show the same truth.

But as you reject history, have the last word, we have reached the end of this converstaion being useful.