StanJ said:
Jesus is the gate which is referred to here, and as such He is the ONLY way to enter the kingdom of heaven. It not a matter of following struct requirements, it is a matter of going through that gate, Jesus, and submitting to His will.
In John 10:9, Jesus is the door. In John 14:6, Jesus is the way. In Rev 3:20, Jesus stands at the door and knocks. And the list goes on, but it can never be exhausted.
Jesus is my all and all. Praise God for giving us Jesus. Bless His holy name.
HearGod said:
Mr StanJ
,
1) Do you have a problem with the above rendering of Luke 13:22-30?
2) Do you think I have rendered it out of its proper context?
Well, I know now for sure that you haven't understood what is "a/the hole of a/the needle"[yet].
What was in Jesus' mind when He made these statements,
nobody knows????
Tsk tsk tsk! Nobody? Well, I know now for sure that you don't know, but I don't know in what capacity you are speaking for all others, unless you don't have faith in the [working/gift of] the holy spirit of God.
so basically it is just supposition on your part????
Supposition because you thought nobody knows? Not even literally? Here is one straightforward example (Please let me know if you need another):
Luke 7:12
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ (pyle) τῆς πόλεως
King James Bible
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city,
Nestle GNT 1904
ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ (pyle) τῆς πόλεως
New American Standard Bible
Now as He approached the gate of the city,
Jerusalem was a city/town that had a gate.
Bottom line is that Jesus is the gate, the narrow way,
the narrow door and
the gate to the sheep pen????
1) If Jesus IS the gate, then who IS the door of verse 25?
2) If Jesus IS the gate, then who IS the Master of the house?
3) Please show me one verse in the Bible that refers to Jesus as any gate?
4) The narrow door? How in the world did you come up with such a "strange" idea?
5) And where in the world did you get the gate to the sheep pen from?
6) Is the narrow way of Matthew 7:13-14
referring to Jesus? We shall soon see:
Well, I know now for sure that you will never be able to understand Matthew 7:13-14
from your regular "strange" Bibles/Babbles (Please check and compare with your personal supposedly translated version that are probably "strangely" influenced/approved by the Roman Church and approved by a certain "strange" Bible Society). I will only reveal to you a few of the dozens of errors in your (another?) Gospel:
Matthew 7:13-14
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
Εἰσέλθετε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα (FEMININE SINGULAR present active Participle verb - leading) εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι' αὐτῆς (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Genitive pronoun - her)· ὅτί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες (finding) αὐτήν (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Accusative pronoun - her)
Nestle GNT 1904
Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα (FEMININE SINGULAR present active Participle verb - leading) εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Genitive pronoun - her)· ὅτι στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the) ἀπάγουσα (FEMININE SINGULAR present active Participle verb - leading) εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες (finding) αὐτήν (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Accusative pronoun - her).
King James Bible
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
New International Version
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
In verse 13,
What happened to this ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the)?
leadeth/leads =
FEMININE SINGULAR verb.
Exactly which one leadeth/leads?
The wide gate? Or the broad way/road? Or the _________(her)??????
What happened to this αὐτῆς (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Genitive pronoun - her)?
In verse 14,
What happened to this ἡ (Nominative FEMININE SINGULAR [definite] article - the)?
leadeth/leads =
FEMININE SINGULAR verb.
Exactly which one leadeth/leads?
The strait/small gate? Or the narrow way/road? Or the _________ (her)??????
What happened to this αὐτήν (3rd person FEMININE SINGULAR Accusative pronoun - her)?
Do all these really look like a/my supposition to you? Just because you thought nobody knows huh?
Btw, if the narrow gate is the metonymy for Jesus, then who should we characterize the wide gate as? Satan?
In John 6:60, many of Jesus' disciples having heard, said, "This word is harsh, who is able to hear concerning it?" I wish my Pastor could preach and expound God's holy word in this same manner. A certain Pastor Steve wrote,
Riff Raff in the Church
[SIZE=13.333333015441895px]Okay, so we know that Jesus hung out with tax collectors, but do we have to go so far as to say he hung out with [/SIZE][SIZE=13.600000381469727px]druggies[/SIZE][SIZE=13.333333015441895px] and child pornographers?[/SIZE]
Oh, yes, these are exactly the kind of folks Jesus hung out with.
He welcomed those whom the Standard Religious Society (SRS, or, if you please,the church) didn’t want to have anything to do with.
There were the ones that the SRS called “sinners”, but many of them really weren’t, or at least no more than anyone else. The tax collectors were folks who worked for the Romans to collect tolls for their roads. While some tax collectors DID cheat the Romans and others (like Zaccheus in Luke 19), but these toll collectors did no such thing. They didn’t make much, but they didn’t collect enough to cheat the Romans. So they had a job, just a job. But because they worked for the Romans they were automatically rejected by the SRS (i.e. the church).
So Jesus, were he here today, he would hang out with those who were “unacceptable” in the church’s eyes today. He would hang out with the homeless who are often excluded from the church simply because they don’t have good enough hygiene. He would hang out with those who belonged to cult groups like Samaritans (like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Muslims today) and explain to them the heart of God’s truth.
Jesus also hung out with those who really, seriously sinned. People like Zaccheus, but also prostitutes and betrayers. If Jesus were here today, He would hang out with the homosexuals and drunks who are unsure of their reception, even if they repent. He would hang out with the druggies and tell them about the gospel, welcoming them, eating with them, hoping to bring them— or to keep them— in God.
Who are the Riff-Raff?
Jesus targeted three groups that were set outside of the church. He welcomed the ones who were just not good enough to be in a “proper” church— Samaritans, the lame, the blind, women, the Gentiles. All of these groups were people who could be in right standing with God, but they were set out of the Temple for one reason or another. The church, like the Temple of old, has a pretty strict idea of who belongs to it. No, they don’t set up rules for it, but they set boundaries through their subtle but negative reactions to those who are poor, of different beliefs, or of a different culture.
The church today is as cultural as it is spiritual— sometimes it is more culture than Spirit. And those who do not belong to the culture are outcast.
Another group that Jesus targeted is the sinner. Some of these are professional sinners, such as prostitutes and tax collectors— those whose very profession excluded them from good graces in God’s community. Some are sinners by what they did— adultery, theft, rebellion— and they are painted as such for the rest of their life for one sin. These are like those who are in jail or prison for crimes done. While some churches might accept them, they certainly don’t allow them near their children. Again, the welcome is only partial.
The other group Jesus specifically targeted is the judged. These are people who were judged by God or by people and they have the mark of judgment against them. In Jesus’ day they are the demon possessed or the lepers. Today, they may be sufferers of AIDS or those going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol or some other addiction. They may be people who have chronic mental illnesses. At first they might be welcome into today’s church, but then they would be rejected because they are “too difficult” or “cause too many disruptions.”
Should the church welcome the Riff Raff?
Absolutely. If it was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for the church. If God sees sinners repenting as more important than a bunch of people who go to church regularly, then maybe we need to stop growing our churches and getting out on the street.
Jesus didn’t just sit in the temple, looking for the riff raff to come to him. He didn’t just have a seeker’s service. Rather, he went out and established a party in every village he went to, and shared the gospel at the party. He attracted the riff raff with the kind of gathering they liked, in their area, and then spoke a message that wasn’t easy for them to hear, but it was the truth. Not everyone believed, but it was important.
So the church doesn’t just need to welcome the riff raff, they need to go out where they live and give them a party.
Why should we do this? Because these riff raff— even if they’ve been following Jesus for years, they feel that they are second class Christians, or that they have no chance of being right with God at all. They think that their lives are apart from God and there is no acceptance for them. How is this? Because the church has separated themselves from the riff raff. As long as the church will have nothing to do with the riff raff, the riff raff figure that they don’t need God, either. Yet Jesus focused his ministry on the riff raff. Jesus loves the riff raff. And Jesus’ first church was full of the riff raff— more than the “normal” folks.
How are the Riff Raff saved?
This is the easiest question to ask, but the hardest one to live out. We know that everyone is saved by faith in Jesus, by their devotion to God, their repentance from sin and their reliance on the Holy Spirit. That’s how everyone is saved, without exception, forever and ever, amen.
But the church doesn’t act that way.
Rather they act like the homeless are saved by pushing through paperwork to gain homes. They act like the addict is saved by going to some anonymous group and never relapsing. They act like the homosexual is saved by getting married to someone of the opposite sex. They act like the mentally ill person is saved by taking medication.
Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with these things by themselves. But they aren’t the answers for people with these problems. The only way anyone is saved is through Jesus and reliance on the Holy Spirit. And Jesus and the Spirit will lead the outcast person to the things they need for their lives.
Sometimes the answer will be homes, marriage, medication and dishwashers and everything that makes up a middle class life. But for many people, it won’t.
Jesus, in calling the riff raff, chose to be homeless himself. He chose to be rejected. He chose to be without a family. And many of his followers went the same way. Jesus became homeless to welcome the homeless. He became family-less to welcome the family-less. He became penniless to welcome the penniless. He became rejected to welcome the rejected. And so we cannot insist that the outcast— or even the middle class— to be a part of the church must have homes, families, money and acceptance.
If the Riff Raff aren’t in the church, the church isn’t of Jesus
Thank you, Pastor. Now I understand my life…
Janet Isabel Smith
Wormwood said:
First, the reason "man" is not in the Greek but supplied in the English is because other words imply the masculine noun. Unlike English, Greek verbs, definite articles, etc. have different endings which imply whether or not they refer to a man, woman or plural group. The Greek word memathekos is singular and masculine, and thus, "this one" hutos, is understood in the context to refer to "this man."
HearGod is right. There are hundreds of Greek singular masculine nouns on top of "man." These are but just a few of them:- god, person, human, evangelist, messenger, apostle, prophet, worker, starter, priest, architect, ruler, baptist, helper, master, teacher, judger, heir, witness. Regardless, it is wrong to add any word into Scripture without highlighting it in
italic type or ellipsis.
Wormwood said:
Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."
HearGod is right again. Be it a translation of Greek to English or vice versa, you may sometimes (not always though) treat or use an adjective as a noun, but it is completely wrong to translate an adjective into a noun when the adjective form is available, regardless. Jewish may not necessary mean Jew(s), British may not necessary mean Britain and Indian does not mean India.
Wormwood said:
Second, the adjective translated "Jews" is an adjective that functions as a noun. This is common in Greek. Often the word "saints" is translated from the adjective ἅγιος. The adjective means "holy" and it is without a noun. Thus, the ending implies the noun and lets us know that Paul is speaking to "holy ones" or "saints."
From HearHim's comment, I am sure he knew about this too. The adjective hagios should always be translated as holy or sanctified. The English word "saint" derived from the Latin sanctus in origin a term in indigenous tradition connected to the name of the god Sancus...
Excerpts from [link removed]
The origin of the English word ‘saint’.
Regarding the word “saint”, its origin and meaning – it came into use in the English language around the 1100s, as an adjective used of those whom the Catholic Church had “beatified” and “canonised”. At that time, the meaning of the word “saint” was “holy”, corresponding to the Latin adjective sanctus which meant “holy”, “sacred” (related to the verb sancio, “to consecrate”). So, in the 1100s, “saint Eligius” simply meant “holy Eligius”. Later, in the 1300s or so, the word “saint” began to be used even as a noun, “a saint”, but it still referred to the Catholic “saints” and was not used of living persons.
From the 1500s and onward, the English word “saint” began to be used also of (living) persons of “extraordinary holiness”, and then even of church members and so on.
Even the words “saintdom” and “sainthood” were originally Catholic concepts, referring to those whom the Catholic Church had “beatified” and “canonised”. A note: The words “sainthood” and “saintdom” do not appear in any of the most common bible-translations.
This is how the English word “saint” came into being:
- The Greek text of the New Testament has hagios. The makers of the Catholic Vulgate version translated that into Latin as sanctus.
- Wycliffe, whose 1395 English translation was mostly based on a Latin text and not on the Greek, did not translate the Latin sanctus but used it, in the transcribed form “seyntis”.
- Later, the spelling was changed further, to “sainctes” (Tyndale, 1525), “sayntes” (Coverdale, 1535), “saintes” (Geneva bible, 1560) and finally “saints” (Geneva bible, 1587).
Excerpt from...[link removed]
Wormwood said:
HearGod,
I know Greek. You do not. Please let me know if you have ever taken a formal class on Koine Greek...but I think we both know the answer to this. You know nothing about how endings work on verbs, adjectives, and definite articles. You are looking up words in an online dictionary with no real knowledge of how Greek grammar works. It would be like you taking up a Spanish-English dictionary and trying to lecture a native Spanish speaker how improperly they translate. Its laughable. You are trying to make yourself look like an authority by using Greek words, but your explanations reveal you do not have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Leave translating to those who have spend their lives learning the language.
"learning" is the translation of the phrase grammata oiden. The phrase is a Greek idiom consisting of the words "letters" and "to know" which is understood to mean "learning." Because scholars actually study hundreds of thousands of early Greek literature documents and understand idioms, phrases, and grammar constructs which indicate how something should be interpreted. For instance, I might say in English, "I'm riding shotgun." This means "Im riding in the front passenger seat." Its a idiom that carries a common English meaning. However, you would be arguing that it literally means "to ride on a shotgun" with your ridiculous word for word online dictionary techniques. Lol. You are too funny.
Sir, with all due respect and the admiration that is owed, I think if only you had known just a little bitty of biblical Greek, you would have done everything possible not to lose HearHim and "his" thread, Sir.