Take the 8 minutes to listen to Ravi Zaccharias expound SOME of why Jesus is who he said he was.....Please STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!! NO Distractions and rabbit trails which are only distractions to an argument!!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNc7obr-Hwo&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oNc7obr-Hwo&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You tell people to stay on topic and then post this. Yet you know they will not. He said it best in his message that to give the message to those who do not love it, is to give him multiplied reasons to misinterpet. Those who do not believe until they are ready to believe will always have an argument for you.

Thank you for sharing this though.

Jesus Saves!!

67479

You tell people to stay on topic and then post this. Yet you know they will not. He said it best in his message that to give the message to those who do not love it, is to give him multiplied reasons to misinterpet. Those who do not believe until they are ready to believe will always have an argument for you.

Thank you for sharing this though.

The stay on topic is for the usual suspects that hijack a discussion. I agree that a person will not believe til they are ready these types of messages are for the skeptic. I Peter 1:15

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,...

This is giving an answer......:buddies:

The stay on topic is for the usual suspects that hijack a discussion. I agree that a person will not believe til they are ready these types of messages are for the skeptic. I Peter 1:15

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,...

This is giving an answer......:buddies:

Yea, I have tried with these people before. I feel I am called to share what I believe and plant the seed. As long as I share what I believe they have the choice to accept it or not. If they do not it is no longer in my hands or on my heart.

He is:
God in human flesh
The "Christ" (Messiah)
The second person of the Godhead
Jehovah
Yahweh
The Ancient of Days
The Creator and sustainer of all things
The Alpha & Omega
The Lamb of God
The King of kings and Lord of lords
The virgin born, sinless Son of God...

That should hold most folks for now.

He is:
God in human flesh
The "Christ" (Messiah)
The second person of the Godhead
Jehovah
Yahweh
The Ancient of Days
The Creator and sustainer of all things
The Alpha & Omega
The Lamb of God
The King of kings and Lord of lords
The virgin born, sinless Son of God...

That should hold most folks for now.

creepy

creepy
VERY

Aint that a funny statement coming from you :killingme

[QUOTE]I believe Jesus is who those that were closest to him (His family) said he was. A man, possibly a prophet, who felt he needed to spread (his version of) Gods word.

How do you know what his family thought of him or who they thought he was?

Aint that a funny statement coming from you :killingme

I believe Jesus is who those that were closest to him (His family) said he was. A man, possibly a prophet, who felt he needed to spread (his version of) Gods word.

The stories and tales you know of him, are solely based on a Bible that was created, formed, and developed by a comittee of men (council of Nicea) with the intention of creating a Messiah Mythos.

Its interesting that the same "message", if given today, would be decried as heresy by many of those on this very board. But because you are told a story (based on the results of the Bible comittee), that can not be supported or substantiated (remember the comittee met hundreds of years after the fact) you'll throw all logic and reasoning out for a 2000 year old urban legend.

Yet, the teaching in Orthodox Judaism still awaits the appearance of two Jewish Messiahs: Moshiach ben Yosef (son of Joseph) and Moshiach ben David (son of David).

The first Messiah appears and is killed; the second Messiah appears to defeat evil upon the earth and to establish God's Kingdom on earth.

If Jesus is whom He claimed, He is able to fulfill both appearances:

1.) The first appearance as the suffering Servant and sinless Lamb of God whose shed Blood atones for the sins of mankind and Resurrected Saviour to those who accept Him by faith. (Accomplished)

2.) The second appearance is at the end of days when He saves this world from total destruction caused by the antichrist system. According to prophecy, the Second Advent of Jesus will not occur until this world falls under that control of antichrist and a false prophet who establish a One World System of Government & Religion and demand that all people on earth obey its command. Jews and Christians are especially targeted for persecution and beheadings because of their faith and for refusing to go along with the antichrist system. (on its way)

He was a thug, nothing less than a criminal..

I believe Jesus is who those that were closest to him (His family) said he was. A man, possibly a prophet, who felt he needed to spread (his version of) Gods word.
But because you are told a story (based on the results of the Bible comittee), that can not be supported or substantiated (remember the comittee met hundreds of years after the fact) you'll throw all logic and reasoning out for a 2000 year old urban legend.
How amazing that you think you know more than God.
There's a flaw in your belief system ole buddy. What about his step brother James? He ended up believing in Jesus after a period of unbelief...Hmmm??
Please state your source(s)...
He was a thug, nothing less than a criminal..
You're not under arrest but:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney but on that "Day" none will be available because they will all be busy trying to defend themselves in front of this "thug and criminal" in the highest court in Heaven. :whistle:

How amazing that you think you know more than God.
There's a flaw in your belief system ole buddy. What about his step brother James? He ended up believing in Jesus after a period of unbelief...Hmmm??
Please state your source(s)...

You're not under arrest but:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney but on that "Day" none will be available because they will all be busy trying to defend themselves in front of this "thug and criminal" in the highest court in Heaven. :whistle:

:bigwhoop:

Aint that a funny statement coming from you :killingme

I believe Jesus is who those that were closest to him (His family) said he was. A man, possibly a prophet, who felt he needed to spread (his version of) Gods word.

The stories and tales you know of him, are solely based on a Bible that was created, formed, and developed by a comittee of men (council of Nicea) with the intention of creating a Messiah Mythos.

Its interesting that the same "message", if given today, would be decried as heresy by many of those on this very board. But because you are told a story (based on the results of the Bible comittee), that can not be supported or substantiated (remember the comittee met hundreds of years after the fact) you'll throw all logic and reasoning out for a 2000 year old urban legend.

I think to the intellectually honest who accept him, Jesus is the messiah, the saviour, the path to God and salvation.

To the intellectually honest who do not accept him in that role, Jesus was a prophet, a great man with a huge following and a laudible message.

To the cynical, hard hearted, close minded, void of any decency individuals that can't see either, he's no different than a spaghetti monster god, something to ridicule two thousand years and billions of people with their self-proclaimed (because no one else will) intellectual superiority and modern times maturity.

:bigwhoop:
WEEPY...

WEEPY...

::jesusfreakstuckonhissoapbox::

::jesusfreakstuckonhissoapbox::

SINNER !!!

SINNER !!!

:diva: .....and proud of it!!!

:diva: .....and proud of it!!!

LOL, now let me back in FC please.

::jesusfreakstuckonhissoapbox::
creepy....and proud of it!!!
:diva: .....and proud of it!!!
Hey, we have something in common...

Jesus Saves!!

67479
:killingme

Yet, the teaching in Orthodox Judaism still awaits the appearance of two Jewish Messiahs: Moshiach ben Yosef (son of Joseph) and Moshiach ben David (son of David).

The first Messiah appears and is killed; the second Messiah appears to defeat evil upon the earth and to establish God's Kingdom on earth.

If Jesus is whom He claimed, He is able to fulfill both appearances:

1.) The first appearance as the suffering Servant and sinless Lamb of God whose shed Blood atones for the sins of mankind and Resurrected Saviour to those who accept Him by faith. (Accomplished)

2.) The second appearance is at the end of days when He saves this world from total destruction caused by the antichrist system. According to prophecy, the Second Advent of Jesus will not occur until this world falls under that control of antichrist and a false prophet who establish a One World System of Government & Religion and demand that all people on earth obey its command. Jews and Christians are especially targeted for persecution and beheadings because of their faith and for refusing to go along with the antichrist system. (on its way)
Sounds like the old days of the Vatican if you ask me.

Just a question, why do you suppose that one person would be referred to as both the son of Joseph and the son of David? Why the differentiation in the OT?

Also of note: obviously Jesus is going to generally follow within the lines of the Jewish teachings of the Messiah. If he didn't, nobody ever would have agreed that he matched with the OT and that he truly was what you all believe him to be. Just because there are books that say he fulfilled the prophecies of other books isn't proof that he actually did.

:killingme


Sounds like the old days of the Vatican if you ask me.

Just a question, why do you suppose that one person would be referred to as both the son of Joseph and the son of David? Why the differentiation in the OT?

In Orthodox Judaism, they are two separate Messiahs. The first one (ben Yosef) rises to prominance and military power but is killed and then the world goes into total chaos. Jews will be on the brink of destruction but before total devastation is when Moshiach ben David appears. This will be the main Messiah that Judaism awaits to be the answer for establishing God's Kingdom on earth, total peace throughout the planet and will rule from Jerusalem.

In the New Testament (NT) teachings, Jesus proclaimed that He was the Messiah but that His mission was to come to earth to die as an Atonement for the sins of mankind and after His crucifixion He resurrected in an eternal bodily form promising that He would return again at God's appointed time.
This is how Jesus could be one in the same. The Jews of His day knew Him to be the son of Joseph (Mary and Joseph) , thus, His fulfillment of the Orthodox Moshaich ben Yosef. Albeit the Jewish leaders at that time refused to accept Him partly because he did not take up military leadership to fight the enemies of Israel and also because He claimed to be The Son of God - which constitutes blasphemy in Judaism. That's what gave the Jewish leaders the justification to have Him crucified as Torah Law mandates. However, this was in God's plan for it to be so. Thus, in Jesus' final words He prays, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

The irony is that when Jewish leaders accept the next "apparent Messiah" he will actually be the antichrist as prophesied in the NT.


Also of note: obviously Jesus is going to generally follow within the lines of the Jewish teachings of the Messiah. If he didn't, nobody ever would have agreed that he matched with the OT and that he truly was what you all believe him to be. Just because there are books that say he fulfilled the prophecies of other books isn't proof that he actually did.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies pertinent to the OT teachings of The Suffering Servant and the circumstances regarding Moshiach ben Yosef.

Many discredit Jesus because He did not restore total peace on earth and establish global reign from Jerusalem at that time but that was not His purpose for that period of history. It is only when Jesus returns as Moshiach ben David that the world will see God's True Peace on earth for a Millennial Reign from Jerusalem. That is when the prophetic fulfillment of swords being turned into plowshares and the wolf and lamb lying down together and peace and harmony among all mankind takes place. However, as mentioned earlier in the posts, antichrist needs to appear first to establish a One World/One Religion system before the Second Advent of Christ occurs.

The irony is that when Jewish leaders accept the next "apparent Messiah" he will actually be the antichrist as prophesied in the NT.


It would also be ironic if Christianity had it wrong and when they turn down the next "apparent Messiah" because they feel he's the antichrist, that he actually turns out to be the Messiah. :coffee:

Or better yet, even if Judaism had it wrong but then Jews accept the next correct Messiah and the Christians dub him the antichrist, then the Jews end up having the last laugh as they get saved and the Christians go to hell for next accepting the Messiah. :whistle:

It would also be ironic if Christianity had it wrong and when they turn down the next "apparent Messiah" because they feel he's the antichrist, that he actually turns out to be the Messiah. :coffee:

The next "apparent Messiah" whose army goes about persecuting and beheading Jews for being Jews and persecuting and beheading Christians for their faith in Jesus. is actually described in Islamic prophecy and is known as the alMahdi (the Muslim messiah).

Research (http://www.Starman3000.com)


Or better yet, even if Judaism had it wrong but then Jews accept the next correct Messiah and the Christians dub him the antichrist, then the Jews end up having the last laugh as they get saved and the Christians go to hell for next accepting the Messiah. :whistle:

There Is Only One Truth regarding the New Testament Jesus and it is up to each person to take time to consider which decision to make. Jesus proclaimed that He is the Way, the Truth and The Life and that no one can come to the Father except through Him. (John 14:6)

Either Jesus was whom He claimed to be: The Divine Son of God, Lamb of God, Resurrected Lord and Saviour of mankind for those who place faith in Him, and the True Messiah who has been prophesied, or, He was a liar and a fraud.

You think numbers support you ? More people do not believe in Jesus than do.Did I somehow come across as suggesting it was a vote on who was right? :confused:

You infer a lot that is never implied :lol:

Jesus/Yeshu own brother didnt believe he was the Messiah.

Sometimes, brother's have a tendency to be skeptical, competitive, envious and even scornful of another brother. Happens all the time - even Jesus knew that:

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (Matthew 10:36)

And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
(Matthew 13:57)

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. (Mark 6:4)

Jesus' half-brother, James, ultimately became a believer. Remember that even some of Christ's disciples didn't believe that He had resurrected from the dead until Jesus appeared unto them in His Resurrected form. Then - they believed!

So his brother (per the Bible) became a believer, yet the sect he founded (that didnt believe Jesus was the messiah) continued on after James' stoning?

You would think the founder of a belief would be able to influence the believers.

Hey ya'll I know I started this belief system, that believed my Brother was nothing more than a prophet, but i was wrong let's all go break bread with John Jude and Paul!

I don't know whether or not he could influence believers in what he found, but I'll say this much...nobody can herd in sheep like the Vatican. :yay:

So his brother (per the Bible) became a believer, yet the sect he founded (that didnt believe Jesus was the messiah) continued on after James' stoning?

You would think the founder of a belief would be able to influence the believers.

Hey ya'll I know I started this belief system, that believed my Brother was nothing more than a prophet, but i was wrong let's all go break bread with John Jude and Paul!

There are accounts of some religious sects whose founder did an about-face but the "charter members" continued on in their original belief because that is what they preferred to believe.

I saw him dressed as a bag of leaves.

I would think the brother of the Messiah would have a little more influence than Jim & Tammy Faye Baker.

LOL

The fact is that James and company still followed the basic Jewish beliefs and traditions with anticipation of a Messiah. His group would also have known about Jesus' teachings, some of which they could agree with and some which they would highly question. No doubt, they all had a great understanding of the teachings that spoke of the appearance of a Jewish Messiah but to try to comprehend that Messiah was living in the there and then of their lifetime was a bit "too much" for them to believe.

When the Truth is revealed to James, that his older half-brother actually is whom He claimed, it remains hard to convince any of the others. They simply must have believed that James went off the deep end - just like other Orthodox followers believed, thus they rejected the thought that Jesus was the Messiah.

What are your sources for James belief?
Jesus' brother James, was head of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem until he was also executed by the Romans. The Nazarenes observed Jewish laws.
Jesus/Yeshu own brother didnt believe he was the Messiah.
Sorry for the long delay but I just got back from a week at OC.
James is mentioned many times in the books of Acts, Luke, Galatians and John and he even wrote a NT letter bearing his name that perfectly co-incides with biblical teachings; so much so that it was included in the Canon of Scripture.
Now, I know you don't believe all that is written in the Bible but that's irrelevant here because what we each believe doesn't change the Bible truths in any way. I feel that there is enough proof in the words of others (Paul, Luke, John, etc.) to make what they say valid, (You know, the 2 or 3 witnesses thing?)
And you still haven't told me your sources...

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1qrS8-PIjLI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1qrS8-PIjLI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies pertinent to the OT teachings of The Suffering Servant and the circumstances regarding Moshiach ben Yosef.



No he didn't, not even half of them, and then they wrote the NEW Testament and that was written as fiction..

Basically evidence to support Jesus, talking about prophesies of Christ written AFTER the fact.

That would be like me telling you I have these GREAT powers, and for $50,000 I'll tell you the winning lottery numbers...



From two weeks ago.

The Old Testament talked of what was coming in the future, and what needed to happen, and what would happen.. MOST of which has NOT happened yet.

The New Testament tells a story, and a not very accurate story, of what happened 400 years prior.

Now try to imagine.. If you could pick out ONE person to write about from the 1600's how many facts could you access about the ONE particular person.. with today's technology.. about every minute of their life on earth.. from where they were born, what circumstances he was born.. his parents, and their fidelity.. etc.. etc..

Now assume it's 400AD, and you tried to do the same.. Which would be more accurate, and which do you think would HAVE to filled with total fiction just to make a complete story.

Remember, at the time he was alive, he wasn't a King, he wasn't royalty, he was a man, that most thought a criminal. His followers, all but a few, didn't write down a single thing about him, though supposedly people amassed in the THOUSANDS to follow him.. teachers, lawyers, doctors.. not one saved one written word about him.

No he didn't, not even half of them, and then they wrote the NEW Testament and that was written as fiction..
Basically evidence to support Jesus, talking about prophesies of Christ written AFTER the fact.
Remember, at the time he was alive, he wasn't a King, he wasn't royalty, he was a man, that most thought a criminal. His followers, all but a few, didn't write down a single thing about him, though supposedly people amassed in the THOUSANDS to follow him.. teachers, lawyers, doctors.. not one saved one written word about him.
:nono: :nono: :nono:
Hey Bob did you know that the Bible actually speaks about you? This might shed some light on your condition:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..."(1 John 5v1)
The converse is also true which would be: everyone who does NOT believe that Jesus is the Christ is NOT born of God.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..."(1 Corinthians 1v18)
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Corinthians 1v20)
"...their minds were made dull...because only in Christ is it (the veil) taken away...But whenever anyone turns to the Lord the veil is taken away." (2 Corinthians 3v14-16).
"But I tell you that men will have to give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12v36)
Sorry Bob but you or anyone who speaks against Christ is an antichrist and that's deadly. I really hope that you discard your sources of false information and stop those dangerous words of yours because you are speaking judgment on yourself.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you don't believe it but that doesn't negate the truth. You're free to say what you want but I'd be less that a Christian if I didn't warn you and the others. :shrug:

Jesus is the hispanic dude that mows grass. How bout that lightning this morning.

Oops, did I veer off topic? Oh well. :coffee:

Jesus is the hispanic dude that mows grass. How bout that lightning this morning.

Oops, did I veer off topic? Oh well. :coffee:

:lmao:

Italian, you said,

What about his step brother James



and Starman follows with

James, that his older half-brother

Why, oh why, do you call James the step and/or half brother of Jesus? Is he called "step" or "half" brother in the word of God? Or, is he just called "brother of the Lord"?

Italian, you said,

and Starman follows with


Why, oh why, do you call James the step and/or half brother of Jesus? Is he called "step" or "half" brother in the word of God? Or, is he just called "brother of the Lord"?

Hi libby,

Technically, Jesus and James shared the same biological mother - but not the same Father.

This makes James a half-brother to Jesus.

Can still call James a "brother of The Lord" if you want but the technicality is that they are not complete biological brothers in the sense of sharing the same parents (Mother and Father) I think you could agree on this.

Same applies in any family relationship where siblings who share one parent but not the other are called half-brother/half-sister.

Italian, you said, step brother and Starman follows with half brother.
Why, oh why, do you call James the step and/or half brother of Jesus? Is he called "step" or "half" brother in the word of God? Or, is he just called "brother of the Lord"?
Starman answered it perfectly fine. I do it for clarity and ease of understanding.
I've seen a family of really dark haired people and one other female member who was very fair skinned with blonde hair AND YET this person was referred to as their sister/daughter. I was curious and they told me that she was their half sister (step sister). I would have preferred to know that up front.
So, for clarification purposes, I use step brother or the modern term for James.
Some verses in the Bible don't use the modern terminology to describe family members, but I do. Instead of "father's wife" in Leviticus, I say step mom. Instead of father's sister I say Aunt, etc.

You are adding to Scripture what is not there to suit your understanding. The Bible, the inerrant word of God, says "brother". Who are you to say otherwise?
Naturally, you two are not subject to the same rules that you force on my beliefs, are you?
IT is closer to the Truth by saying "step" brother, no blood relation. But, perhaps it is just IT's poisoning that he received at the hands of Catholics as he was growing up.
The double standards are amazing!

You are adding to Scripture what is not there to suit your understanding. The Bible, the inerrant word of God, says "brother". Who are you to say otherwise?
Naturally, you two are not subject to the same rules that you force on my beliefs, are you?
IT is closer to the Truth by saying "step" brother, no blood relation. But, perhaps it is just IT's poisoning that he received at the hands of Catholics as he was growing up.
The double standards are amazing!

Jesus was born by the intervention of the Holy Spirit and through the virgin Mary.

James was born from the marital consummation between Joseph and Mary who also had more children. The Bible states brothers and sisters.

As mentioned, the technicality is still correct that James and the other siblings would be half-brothers/sisters to Jesus because they do not have the same father. In the case of Jesus, His Father is God while in the case of the others their father is Joseph - according to the Holy Bible.
Yes, James is called a "brother" of Jesus in the sense of family but again you should be able to agree that they have a different "Father". Yes?

:)

Jesus was born by the intervention of the Holy Spirit and through the virgin Mary.

James was born from the marital consummation between Joseph and Mary who also had more children. The Bible states brothers and sisters.

As mentioned, the technicality is still correct that James and the other siblings would be half-brothers/sisters to Jesus because they do not have the same father. In the case of Jesus, His Father is God while in the case of the others their father is Joseph - according to the Holy Bible.
Yes, James is called a "brother" of Jesus in the sense of family but again you should be able to agree that they have a different "Father". Yes?

:)

So you say, but the Bible says otherwise. You cannot condemn my alternative explanation of the "brothers and sisters" passages, yet then call your own maneuverings of the passages acceptable. Just like in the politics forums, the liberals are all hot under the collar when someone caricatures Obama, but not a word out of them when Bush was maligned. Same hypocrisy, different subject matter.

So you say, but the Bible says otherwise. You cannot condemn my alternative explanation of the "brothers and sisters" passages, yet then call your own maneuverings of the passages acceptable. Just like in the politics forums, the liberals are all hot under the collar when someone caricatures Obama, but not a word out of them when Bush was maligned. Same hypocrisy, different subject matter.


libby -
The Bible states otherwise because it is derived from Greek translations. So, yes, the Bible states James is the "brother" of Jesus rather than half-brother.
The Bible also calls the Lord "Jesus" when His real Aramaic name is Yeshua and by which name others would have called Him during His lifetime.

If you want to correct me on the accurate reference of James being a half-brother of Jesus perhaps you should also contend to correct the writers of the Holy Bible in regard to The Lord's Name really being Yeshua.

Just a though my dear libby. And I still love you as a friend. :)

You are adding to Scripture what is not there to suit your understanding. The Bible, the inerrant word of God, says "brother". Who are you to say otherwise?
Naturally, you two are not subject to the same rules that you force on my beliefs, are you?
IT is closer to the Truth by saying "step" brother, no blood relation. But, perhaps it is just IT's poisoning that he received at the hands of Catholics as he was growing up.
The double standards are amazing!
Awww come on Libby. "Legalism does not become you.." :lmao:
You need to get over that stumbling block of adding things to the Bible. God really doesn't care how we explain His Word as long as we don't change it's meaning...and we're not.
Apparently you don't realize that MANY words were added and removed when the Bible was translated from the manuscripts because one cannot go from Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek directly into English, ok dear heart?
By the same token I'll ask you this: Where does your church get off adding names to their clergy that aren't in the Bible??? Monsignor, abbot, cardinal, purgatory, etc?? Ok? See how it works?? Love you too... :whistle:

Awww come on Libby. "Legalism does not become you.." :lmao:
You need to get over that stumbling block of adding things to the Bible. God really doesn't care how we explain His Word as long as we don't change it's meaning...and we're not.
Apparently you don't realize that MANY words were added and removed from the manuscript copies when the Bible was translated because one cannot go from Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek directly into English, ok dear heart?
By the same token I'll ask you this: Where does your church get off adding names to their clergy that aren't in the Bible??? Monsignor, abbot, cardinal, purgatory, etc?? Ok? See how it works?? Love you too... :whistle:

You forget, I don't have the problem with understanding the Scriptures through such methods. I'm merely calling you on using the same tactic that you so roundly condemn for me.
That's all, no need to get into it, I just can't let you guys get away with it.

You forget, I don't have the problem with understanding the Scriptures through such methods. I'm merely calling you on using the same tactic that you so roundly condemn for me.
That's all, no need to get into it, I just can't let you guys get away with it.

Group Hug! :love: :love:

You forget, I don't have the problem with understanding the Scriptures through such methods. I'm merely calling you on using the same tactic that you so roundly condemn for me.
That's all, no need to get into it, I just can't let you guys get away with it.
:confused: Through what "such methods"?
Darling, I never condemn you for adding words, I contend with you for the far out meanings you read into the verses. Now, what about those abbots and them red birds??? J/K...