Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Development of Doctrine
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I agree.
God knows if we're sorry.
Just like in Protestantism.
No sorrow,
No forgiveness.
The priest can usually tell.
The priest proclaims, God forgives.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hey Jaybo
How are we guided into all truth if there is so much disagreement?
Jeremiah said we won't need a teacher anymore.
He just meant that the law will be in our heart.
Also, Jesus did free us up from The Law,
but He did leaves us His laws to follow.
He told the Apostles to teach all He had taught.
It took Him over 3 years...
Niblo
2024 Supporter
Hello wondering
Concerning the need for confession:
According to the CC – as you may know – there are grades of theological certainty; the highest of which (identified as ‘de fide’): ‘Appertains to the immediately revealed truths (and are) based on the authority of God Revealing; and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that (such a) truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church.’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’).
The Church teaches – as formal dogma, graded ‘de fide’ – a) that it has received from Christ the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism; b) that by the Church’s absolution, sins are truly and immediately remitted; c) that the Church’s power to forgive extends to all sin, without exemption; and d) that the exercise of the Church’s power to forgive sin is a judicial act, akin to the function assigned to the Jewish priesthood under Mosaic law (see Leviticus 13).
You will agree, I’m sure, that the Jewish priesthood was in no position to judge the character of an ailment, unless the afflicted person first showed himself. In like manner, the Church cannot exercise her office in regard to sin, unless the sinner describes exactly what he or she has done. Hence the need for confession.
Jimmy Atkin writes:
‘Are all our sins – past, present, and future – forgiven once and for all when we become Christians? Not according to the Bible, or the early Church Fathers. Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches us to pray for ongoing forgiveness: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Mt 6:12).’ (‘The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church’).
Quoted that same book – under a chapter entitled ‘Confession’ are the following Fathers:
Origen of Alexandria:
‘In addition to these there is also a seventh (remission of sins), but it is hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner washes his pillow in tears (Ps 6:7), when his tears are his nourishment day and night (Ps 41:4), and when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine.’ (‘Homilies on Leviticus 2:4’; c. A.D. 249; my emphasis).
St. Cyprian of Carthage:
‘Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who . . . with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds . . . I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord’ (‘Letters 9:2’; A.D. 250).
St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage:
‘And to you (priests) also, disciples of our illustrious physician, it is fitting that you should not withhold healing from him who needs healing. Whoever shows his wound to you, give him the medicine of penitence; and whoever is ashamed to show his disease, you shall exhort him not to conceal from you, and when he has revealed to you do not publish it, lest by means of it the innocent should be considered as debtors by enemies and those who hate them.’ (‘Demonstrations 7:4’; c. A.D. 340).
St. Basil of Caesarea:
‘It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries has been entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist; but in Acts they confessed to the apostles, by whom also all were baptized.’ (‘Rules Briefly Treated 288’; c. A.D. 375).
St. John Chrysostom:
‘For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority has he given them when he says, “Whose sins you remit they are remitted, and whose sins you retain they are retained?” (Jn 20:23). What authority could be greater than this? “The Father has committed all judgment to the Son?” (Jn 5:22). But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to heaven.’ (‘The Priesthood 3:5’; c. A.D. 388).
St. Jerome:
‘If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him.’ (‘Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11’: c. A.D. 388).
St. Augustine of Hippo:
‘Once for all we have washing in baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, who have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, daily prayer would suffice to blot these out. . . . In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance.’ (‘Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 15, 16’; c. A.D. 395).
Joseph Sylvester Hunter reminds us that the Fathers:
‘Frequently speak of a sinner as a shipwrecked man, who seeks to support himself on a plank, and when the first fails him, grasps a second. The second plank is the Sacrament of Penance, which avails for one who has lost the grace of Baptism, and is again plunged in the abyss of sin.’ (‘Outlines of Dogmatic Theology: Complete in Three Volumes’).
Have a great day, and very best regards.
Concerning the need for confession:
According to the CC – as you may know – there are grades of theological certainty; the highest of which (identified as ‘de fide’): ‘Appertains to the immediately revealed truths (and are) based on the authority of God Revealing; and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that (such a) truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church.’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’).
The Church teaches – as formal dogma, graded ‘de fide’ – a) that it has received from Christ the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism; b) that by the Church’s absolution, sins are truly and immediately remitted; c) that the Church’s power to forgive extends to all sin, without exemption; and d) that the exercise of the Church’s power to forgive sin is a judicial act, akin to the function assigned to the Jewish priesthood under Mosaic law (see Leviticus 13).
You will agree, I’m sure, that the Jewish priesthood was in no position to judge the character of an ailment, unless the afflicted person first showed himself. In like manner, the Church cannot exercise her office in regard to sin, unless the sinner describes exactly what he or she has done. Hence the need for confession.
Jimmy Atkin writes:
‘Are all our sins – past, present, and future – forgiven once and for all when we become Christians? Not according to the Bible, or the early Church Fathers. Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches us to pray for ongoing forgiveness: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Mt 6:12).’ (‘The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church’).
Quoted that same book – under a chapter entitled ‘Confession’ are the following Fathers:
Origen of Alexandria:
‘In addition to these there is also a seventh (remission of sins), but it is hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner washes his pillow in tears (Ps 6:7), when his tears are his nourishment day and night (Ps 41:4), and when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine.’ (‘Homilies on Leviticus 2:4’; c. A.D. 249; my emphasis).
St. Cyprian of Carthage:
‘Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who . . . with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds . . . I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord’ (‘Letters 9:2’; A.D. 250).
St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage:
‘And to you (priests) also, disciples of our illustrious physician, it is fitting that you should not withhold healing from him who needs healing. Whoever shows his wound to you, give him the medicine of penitence; and whoever is ashamed to show his disease, you shall exhort him not to conceal from you, and when he has revealed to you do not publish it, lest by means of it the innocent should be considered as debtors by enemies and those who hate them.’ (‘Demonstrations 7:4’; c. A.D. 340).
St. Basil of Caesarea:
‘It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries has been entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist; but in Acts they confessed to the apostles, by whom also all were baptized.’ (‘Rules Briefly Treated 288’; c. A.D. 375).
St. John Chrysostom:
‘For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority has he given them when he says, “Whose sins you remit they are remitted, and whose sins you retain they are retained?” (Jn 20:23). What authority could be greater than this? “The Father has committed all judgment to the Son?” (Jn 5:22). But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to heaven.’ (‘The Priesthood 3:5’; c. A.D. 388).
St. Jerome:
‘If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him.’ (‘Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11’: c. A.D. 388).
St. Augustine of Hippo:
‘Once for all we have washing in baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, who have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, daily prayer would suffice to blot these out. . . . In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance.’ (‘Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 15, 16’; c. A.D. 395).
Joseph Sylvester Hunter reminds us that the Fathers:
‘Frequently speak of a sinner as a shipwrecked man, who seeks to support himself on a plank, and when the first fails him, grasps a second. The second plank is the Sacrament of Penance, which avails for one who has lost the grace of Baptism, and is again plunged in the abyss of sin.’ (‘Outlines of Dogmatic Theology: Complete in Three Volumes’).
Have a great day, and very best regards.
It would take many words to write my thoughts on this subject. However...
We are guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. That means that, as born-again people, we have an "inner voice" to show us what is right, according to God, and what is not. We are either guided by the Spirit or by the carnal nature. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the Spirit's guidance and our mind.
The teachings of Jesus are God's pure thoughts. But since we are still "in the flesh" we don't understand them perfectly in our minds. That is why Jesus taught many things in parables! God has given some people the ability to understand spiritually what He wants us to "know", but nobody has perfect understanding. So we disagree with each other.
I always judge people by their intent as well as their words.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I have the feeling Anglicans can't decide if they're Catholic or Protestant.
The pub. Yes.
I used to think persons went there to eat.
Come to find out they go to attain different degrees of checking out.
I only know about my local Anglican Church, I think there may be other 'flavours' as well. They joined with the local Baptist Church, so there are two pastors. There is a large student congregation, owing to there being three universities in Sheffield. They love to praise the Lord, the Gospel is preached and there is a very good community spirit. Amen.
.
John 14:15-17, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you."
John 16:13, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come."
Everyone who has been born human has a mind and most use it as well as they can. However, only Christians have received the Holy Spirit and they -- we -- are guided by Him. It is a developed skill to "listen" to the Holy Spirit's guidance and to think and act according to His direction. Many if not most of us are (unfortunately) not very good at that, so we often behave according to the natural, sinful nature, with which we were born. I personally fail all the time and (re)act according to my "natural man" instead of acting according to the Holy Spirit.
I read the Bible daily and feel "energized" by the Holy Spirit. Something comes alive in me and gives me energy to live as well as I can according to His will and guidance. As anyone who reads my post knows, I often fail at doing that but at least I keep trying.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
When you say the gospel is preached,
What exactly is the gospel.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Very nice post.
I just want yo say that the Holy Spirit Guides us.
I also wonder if maybe His message to us, or His help might be personalized to our needs?
Any opinion?
I think it is since we are all so different.
Basically the gospel message, this is the Sunday evening service, there are prayer meetings, Bible study, Communion service and a group called 'natter' where they just sit and chat, but on the Sunday evening service it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, come unto me and be saved, very similar to the teaching of Jesus. Goodness only knows where the evangelical pastors get their inspiration from, not to repeat themselves every few weeks, but they do. It must be the Holy Spirit speaking through them.
Mungo
Member
All that was said to the apostles, the leaders of his Church, at the Last Supper.
He promised the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, not every believer.
It's this sort of misapplication that has led to 40,000+ Protestant denominations, sects, cults and one pastor churches all believing the Holy Spirit has led them into different and contradictory truths.
Jesus never promised that.
Moreover he prayed that his Church would be one (Jn 17:11& 21) not the continual splintering of Protestantism.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
We had Sunday Service and Wednesday evening bible study.
In the Catholic tradition, there can be a Mass every morning, or not...
Even every evening at about 6pm, or not...
The norm is Saturday evening and Sunday morning and evening,,,but only one would be attended.
Communion is served at every Mass which I like better than the Protestant church I used to attend which was once a month. Jesus said whenever we gather to do "this" in memory of Me.
Something that has changed in the CC from many years ago is that one had to go to confession before receiving communion. Now confession is only necessary for serious sin, what the bible calls a sin unto death, a mortal sin, and
everyone seems to be up and at the altar receiving communion - in the old days many sat it out.
There is a lot of preaching about Jesus and also how our lives should conform to what He taught.
In this regard, I'd say that the church has changed, or the doctrine developed as Mungo would say.
Maybe the doctrine was always the same but traditions have changed....small "t".
It is really tragic that you think -- or rather not think -- the way that you do. By your reasoning, what is written in the Bible was meant only for the original readers/hearers.
To show you how absurd this is, many people received the Holy Spirit after the "last supper", after Jesus' death, and after His resurrection. So clearly, when Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit, it was not for just those in attendance (including Judas?), but for everyone who believes.
I know that since you think that all believers must be like unthinking sheep, listening to whatever their clergy dreams up (as you Catholics do), you are taught not to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but by men. That is an unScriptural tragedy of the highest order.
Your criticism of Protestantism is bizarre. You of course leave out the Orthodox denomination and other denominations, all of which come from the same root, There is one church, the body of Christ, which has many members.
You Gentiles are "Johnny-come-latelies", yet you boast as though you are the one true church, which was started by the Jews. Romans 11:13-21, "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first portion of the dough offered is holy, then the whole batch is holy, and if the root is holy, so too are the branches.
Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root, do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear! For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you."
Here is something that your clergy doesn't teach you, but to which you should pay careful attention. Luke 18:9-14, " Jesus also told this parable to some who were confident that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else. “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee [one with your attitude!] and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: [sound familiar???] extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I get.’ The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’ [notice this is not to Mary, but to God!] I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
You will have to answer to God for your false Catholic attitude! Repent of your divisive arrogance before it is too late!!
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I believe a doctrine is just anything that a church teaches.
The CC teaches not to eat an hour before communion.
Is that a doctrine?
I think so...
Maybe not.
Amen.
So many call it a contract.
Since God is present, it becomes an oath.
Have to read the Council of Toledo again: post 124
Another point - some of the issue is around those who contract a civil marriage, or just live together, but not a sacramental one.
In the early days of the church a man with a concubine was accepted as long the relationship was exclusive and permanent.
The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (for ecclesiastical regulations on this head with regard to clerics see CELIBACY): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: "But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine"
(Catholic Encyclopedia)
The above negates and diminishes the sacrament of marriage.
I've never heard of this.
It gives license to those living together...Pope Francis also said these persons (couples) are to be considered.
Jesus taught that one had to be married.
And that marriage was only allowed when adultery existed.
I know that the CC allows for other reason for divorce,
and some for annulment.
Sometimes it could get confusing.
Mungo
Member
As I expected you completely ducked the point I made to indulge in an anti-Catholic diatribe as a diversion
Of course we can, and do, receive the Holy Spirit after we are born again. But the point I made was that the promise Jesus made at the last supper - to the apostles - was the the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. He would lead His Church into all truth.
The Holy Spirit dwelling in us does not guarantee He will lead us into all truth.
The proof of that sort of misapplication that has led to 40,000+ Protestant denominations, sects, cults and one pastor churches all believing the Holy Spirit has led them into different and contradictory truths.
Mungo
Member
I disagree about what doctrine means in Cathoilicism.
It means what the Catholic Church means by it,
You may use it in a wider term.
Don't be misled by the word concubine. In older times it does not mean what it means now.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
However, the meaning conveyed by the term has not always been the same; in the Old Testament, for instance, a legitimate spouse, if of an inferior social grade, or a bondwoman, is often given the appellation of concubine, not to call in question the validity of her marriage, but to indicate that she did not share in her husband's rank or property nor in the administration of the household to the same extent as the principal wife. From Genesis 21:9-14, we see that her dismissal and that of her children was permissible. But in those Scriptural times, when polygamy was permitted or at least tolerated, such a concubine was not the only marriage partner. Thus Lia and Rachel, the first two spouses of Jacob, had the full social standing of wives, while Bala and Zelpha, both bondwomen, were his concubines, married for the purpose of bearing children for Rachel and Lia (Genesis 30:3, 9, 13). Here, therefore, the main difference between the state of legitimate marriage properly so called and that of legitimate concubinage is to be found in the disparity of rank which characterized the latter.
The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife. She was usually of a lower social grade than her husband, and her children, though not considered the equals of those of the legal wife (uxor) were nevertheless termed natural (naturales) to distinguish them from spurious offsprings (spurii). For this legitimate concubinage the Roman law did not require the intention of the two parties to remain together until death as man and wife; the Lex Julia and the Papia Poppæa allowing both temporary and permanent concubinage. The former was always condemned as immoral by the Church, who excluded from the ranks of her catechumens all who adopted this mode of living, unless they abandoned their illicit temporal, or converted it into lawful permanent, wedlock. Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concubinage
The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife
www.newadvent.org
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Thanks .I disagree about what doctrine means in Cathoilicism.
It means what the Catholic Church means by it,
You may use it in a wider term.
Don't be misled by the word concubine. In older times it does not mean what it means now.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
However, the meaning conveyed by the term has not always been the same; in the Old Testament, for instance, a legitimate spouse, if of an inferior social grade, or a bondwoman, is often given the appellation of concubine, not to call in question the validity of her marriage, but to indicate that she did not share in her husband's rank or property nor in the administration of the household to the same extent as the principal wife. From Genesis 21:9-14, we see that her dismissal and that of her children was permissible. But in those Scriptural times, when polygamy was permitted or at least tolerated, such a concubine was not the only marriage partner. Thus Lia and Rachel, the first two spouses of Jacob, had the full social standing of wives, while Bala and Zelpha, both bondwomen, were his concubines, married for the purpose of bearing children for Rachel and Lia (Genesis 30:3, 9, 13). Here, therefore, the main difference between the state of legitimate marriage properly so called and that of legitimate concubinage is to be found in the disparity of rank which characterized the latter.
The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife. She was usually of a lower social grade than her husband, and her children, though not considered the equals of those of the legal wife (uxor) were nevertheless termed natural (naturales) to distinguish them from spurious offsprings (spurii). For this legitimate concubinage the Roman law did not require the intention of the two parties to remain together until death as man and wife; the Lex Julia and the Papia Poppæa allowing both temporary and permanent concubinage. The former was always condemned as immoral by the Church, who excluded from the ranks of her catechumens all who adopted this mode of living, unless they abandoned their illicit temporal, or converted it into lawful permanent, wedlock. Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concubinage
The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife
This clears up a lot.
In your other post it sounded to be legitimate.
Abraham and Hagar came to mind.
Mungo
Member
Also Gen 25
1. Abraham took another wife, whose name was Ketu′rah (who bore him 6 children)
Then in vs 5-6 Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.
So Ketu′rah was described as wife and as concubine.