Misquoting Jesus

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

...

There are books in the Bible like Jonah and Esther that are more like children's tales than actual lies, like the three pigs or Robin Hood, ect.

The books are not true but they give a point to children.

Or could it be that God defies being defined by people like you and God preserved Jonah in the belly of a big fish for His purpose. You, like so many that seek but do not find or want their ears tickled, try to put God into your own little box. There's God; look. See.

God cannot be defined by man. Man trying to define God is like a painting trying to define the painter that painted it.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Well I searched it out for myself through many books and other reference over years and I told a couple references in my last post.
...

Trying to judge or discern the Word of God through the use of the word of man is as fruitless and futile as man trying to define God. The work of man when it comes to God should be judged by the Bible. If the work of man is not consistent with the Bible, then it is the work of man that is false, not the other way around.

As usual JPC, you got it backwards.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is again just attacking the messanger to avoid the message.

The same as "Marie" did above by saying some 1645 minister is so worthy that we must believe him above others.

With Jesus Christ they attacked Him the messanger to silence His message.

PsyOps is preaching a convinient truth that keeps the sheep safe and secure but failing to take up a cross.

PsyOps is not attacking the messenger but the message. You tell lies and proclaim them as truth and when someone quotes Bible scripture to refute your position, you contend that it is the Word of God that is incorrect.

Why do I take the Bible over modern works of man? Because the Bible is divinely inspired and the works of man are not. Man, especially modern man, has been trying to prove there is no God for a long time. Why? Because if there is no God there are no consequences and man can do whatever he pleases without any regard to judgment.

The Nicolaitans were in the early church and made a mockery of salvation proclaiming that they could do whatever they wanted because they were saved anyway. They turned salvation into licentiousness. The Bible warns against them and their beliefs.

Revelation 2:12-17

. 12"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: The One who has the sharp two-edged sword says this:

13'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

14'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.

15'So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

16'Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

17'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.'

Seems to me that you proclaim satan's lie that everyone gets saved so you can do whatever you want. That would make you a modern Nicolaitan.

[Marie]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is again just attacking the messanger to avoid the message.

The same as "Marie" did above by saying some 1645 minister is so worthy that we must believe him above others.

With Jesus Christ they attacked Him the messanger to silence His message.

PsyOps is preaching a convinient truth that keeps the sheep safe and secure but failing to take up a cross.

Wo, hold the phone, some Minister from 1646 I think not try again!
The following is the list of names contained in the ordinance by which the Assembly was called; amounting to one hundred and fifty-one in all, namely, ten Lords and twenty Commoners, as lay assessors, and one hundred and twenty-one Divines: —

LORDS.

Algernon, Earl of Northumberland.
William, Earl of Bedford.
Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.
William, Earl of Salisbury.
Henry, Earl of Holland
Edward, Earl of Manchester.
William, Viscount Say and Sele.
Edward, Viscount Conway.
Philip, Lord Wharton.
Edward, Lord Howard of Escrick.

COMMONERS.

John Selden, Esq.
Francis Rouse, Esq.
Edmund Prideaux, Esq.
Sir Henry Vane, Senior.
John Glynn, Esq., Recorder of London.
John Whyte, Esq.
Bulstrode Whitelocke, Esq.
Humphry Salloway, Esq.
Mr. Serjeant Wild.
Oliver St. John, Esq., Solicitor.
Sir Benjamin Rudyard.
John Pym, Esq.
Sir John Clotworthy.
John Maynard, Esq.
Sir Henry Vane, Junior.
William Pierpoint, Esq.
William Wheeler, Esq.
Sir Thomas Barrington.
Sir John Evelyn.
Walter Young, Esq.

DIVINES.

Herbert Palmer, B. D., of Ashwell.
Oliver Bowles, B. D., of Sutton.
Henry Wilkinson, B. D., of Maddesden.
Thomas Valentine, B. D., of Chalfent Giles.
William Twisse, D. D., of Newbury.
William Reyner, of Egham.
Hannibal Gammon, of Maugan.
Jasper Hicks, of Lawrick.
Joshua Hoyle, D. D., of Dublin.
William Bridge, of Yarmouth.
Thomas Wincop, D. D. of Elesworth.
Thomas Goodwin, D. D., of London.
John Ley, of Budworth.
Thomas Case, of London.
John Pyne, of Bereferrars.
Francis Whidden, of Moreton.
Richard Love, D. D., of Ekington.
William Gouge, D. D., of Blackfriars,
Ralph Brownrigg, D. D., Bishop of Exeter.
Samuel Ward, D. D., Master of Sydney College, Cambridge.
John White, of Dorchester.
Edward Peale, of Compton.
Stephen Marshall, B. D., of Finchingfield.
Lazarus Seaman, B. D., of London.
John Harris, D. D., Warden of Winchester College.
George Morley, D. D., of Minden Hall.
Edward Reynolds, D. D., of Brampton.
Thomas Hill, B. D., of Tickmarsh.
Robert Saunderson, D. D., of Boothby-Parnell.
John Foxcroft, of Gotham.
John Jackson, of Marsac.
William Carter, of London.
Thomas Thoroughgood, of Massingham.
John Arrowsmith, D. D., of Lynn.
Robert Harris, B. D., of Hanwell.
Robert Cross, B. D., of Lincoln College.
James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh.
Matthias Styles, D. D., of Eastcheap, London.
Samuel Gibson, of Burleigh.
Jeremiah Whittaker, of Stretton.
Edmund Staunton, D. D., of Kingston.
Daniel Featly, D. D., of Lambeth.
Francis Coke, of Yoxhall.
John Lightfoot, D. D., of Ashley.
Edward Corbet, of Merton College, Oxford.
Samuel Hildersham, of Fetton.
John Langley, of West-Tuderly, Gloucester.
Christopher Tisdale, of Uphurstbourne.
Thomas Young, of Stowmarket.
John Philips, of Wrentham.
Humphrey Chambers, B. D., of Claverton.
John Conant, B. D., of Lymington.
Henry Hall, B. D., of Norwich.
Henry Hatton.
Henry Scudder, of Colingbourne.
Thomas Bayley, B. D., of Manningford-Bruce.
Benjamin Pickering, of East Hoatly.
Henry Nye, of Clapham.
Arthur Sallaway, of Severn Stoake.
Obadiah Sedgewick, B. D., of Coggeshall.
Thomas Carter, of Oxford.
Peter Clarke, of Carnaby or Kirby.
William Mew, B. D., of Essington.
Richard Capel, of Pitchcombe.
Theodore Backhurst, of Overton Wetsville.
Philip Nye, of Kimbolton.
Brocket Smith, D. D., of Barkway.
Cornelius Burgess, D. D., of Watford.
John Green, of Pencombe.
Stanley Gower, of Brampton.
Francis Taylor, of Yalding.
Thomas Wilson, of Otham.
Anthony Tuckney, D. D., of Boston.
Thomas Coleman, of Bliton.
Charles Herle, of Winwick.
Richard Herrick, of Manchester.
Richard Clayton, of Showell.
George Gipps, of Ayleston.
Calibute Downing, D. D., of Hackney.
Jeremiah Burroughs, of Stepney.
Edmund Calamy, B. D., of Aldermanbury.
George Walker, B. D., of London.
Joseph Caryl, of Lincoln’s Inn, London
Sidrach Simpson, of London,
Anthony Burgess, of Sutton-Coldfield.
Richard Vines, of Calcot.
William Greenhill, of Stepney.
William Moreton, of Newcastle.
Richard Buckley.
Thomas Temple, B. D., of Battersey.
Josias Shute, B. D., Lombard Street.
William Nicholson, D. D., afterwards Bishop of Cloucester.
Thomas Gataker, B. D., of Rotherhithe.
James Welby, of Sylatten.
Christopher Pashly, D. D., of Hawarden.
Henry Tozer, B. D., of Oxford.
William Spurstow, D. D., of Hampden.
Francis Cheynel, D. D., of Petworth.
Edward Ellis, B. D., of Gilsfield.
John Hacket, D. D., of St. Andrew’s London.
Samuel de la Place, — French Congregations.
John de la March, — French Congregations.
Matthew Newcomen, of Dedham.
William Lyford, of Sherbourne.
William Carter, of Dynton.
William Lance, of Harrow.
Thomas Hodges, of Kensington.
Andrew Perne, of Wisby.
Thomas Westfield, D. D., Bishop of Bristol.
Henry Hammond, D. D., of Penshurst.
Nicholas Proffit, of Marlborough.
Peter Sterry, of London.
John Erle, of Bishopston.
John Gibbon of Waltham.
Henry Painter, B. D., of Exeter.
Thomas Micklethwait, of Cherryburton.
John Wincop, D. D., of St. Martin’s in the Fields.
William Price, of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden.
Henry Wilkinson, R. D., of St. Dunstan’s.
Richard Holdsworth, D. D., of Cambridge.
William Dunning, of Godalston.

SCOTTISH MEMBERS.

Lay Assessors or Elders.
John, Lord Maitland.
Sir Archibald Johnston, of Warriston.

Ministers.
Alexander Henderson, of Edinburgh.
George Gillespie, of Edinburgh.
Samuel Rutherford, of St. Andrews.
Robert Baillie, of Glasgow.

SCRIBES OR CLERKS.

Henry Roborough.
Adoniram Byfield.
John Wallis.

Of this list, about twenty-five never appeared at the Assembly, one or two having died about the time of the meeting of the Assembly, and others fearing the displeasure of the king, or having a preference for the prelatic system. In order to supply the deficiency thus caused, and also occasional diminution caused by death during the protracted sittings of the Assembly, the Parliament summoned about twenty-one additional members, who were termed the superadded divines. The following is a list of their names, as far as is known: —

Mr. John Bond.
Mr. Boutlton.
Richard Byfield.
Philip Delme.
William Goad.
Humphrey Hardwick.
Christopher Love.
William Massam.
Daniel Cawdrey, of Great Billing.
Mr. Johnson.
Thos. Dillingham, of Dean.
John Maynard.
William Newscore.
John Strickland, B. D. of New Sarum.
Mr. Strong, of Westminster.
John Ward.
Thomas Ford.
John Drury.
William Rathband, of Highgate.
Simeon Ashe, of St. Bride’s.
Mr. Moore.

JPC I dont mean to be mean, but there isnt a synoptic gospel problem, if you study the word, it vaildates itself. Its amazing, mans not clever enough to produce anything like it or disprove it.
1 Corinthians1-18
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
20
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

If you find the message of the cross offensive please examine your heart, is your pride or bitterness keeping you from bending the knee?

Maybe your just not ready maybe you never will be to recieve Gods grace but if you ever change your mind though I be happy to talk with you one on one. I know alot of people are praying for you!
Are you really willing to trust in your own ideas, your own image of God, the idol that you created in your own mind to comfort yourself? When it comes to eternity?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I am culminating an entire pattern of behavior to explain why you think the way you do. It’s not an attack so much as it’s an observation.

I understand but I do not approve of the assumptions that go into such calculating.

I do not do that to you or to anyone else and I can not accept that such deductions could ever be correct.

I study psychology (study of the mind) and we know very much of what people think but we can not read the mind of others.

My own thinking is far more based on my religion than on my experiences.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Let me ask you this… Who is Jesus Christ?

Jesus is the Christ (the anointed one) and the son of man, link HERE.

The term "Christ" is not Jesus' last name and it is not his second name.

I am sure you mean some thing more specific but when one does not ask specifically then I do not volunteer it unless it suits me.

The question is very complicated to one such as myself because the words have different meanings then accepted Orthodoxy.

Like the person of Jesus' real name was "Yesu" (short version of Yeshua) which also means : "Yahweh saves" in the Hebrew language.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

Trying to judge or discern the Word of God through the use of the word of man is as fruitless and futile as man trying to define God. The work of man when it comes to God should be judged by the Bible. If the work of man is not consistent with the Bible, then it is the work of man that is false, not the other way around.

The work of mankind and the words of mankind is all we really have and all else is faith.

Jesus came as a man to demonstrate the value of mankind.

The Bible is published by people and the english language is man-made and so is the Greek language, the aramaic and Hebrew are all the words and works of people.

2A and Christians try to claim that we people are too insignificant for the job of understanding God but that is so very far from correct or true.

The Creator God is our Father in Heaven and all scripture is for mankind to disect and to dig for the truth because we are the children of God and it is our birth right to judge God and his word by what is right and wrong.

God gave us a brain and expects us to use it and not to accept nor pretend to be ignorant sheep.

Parts of the Bible are false and untrue and the other parts are the scripture.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Marie

Wo, hold the phone, some Minister from 1646 I think not try again!
The following is the list of names contained in the ordinance by which the Assembly was called; amounting to one hundred and fifty-one in all, namely, ten Lords and twenty Commoners, as lay assessors, and one hundred and twenty-one Divines: —

Not one of those many names are superior to you or me or anyone else in understanding the Bible.

You must remember that when Christ spoke many people degraded Him as only the son of a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 link HERE.

We must not do that mistake today of claiming some one is superior and others unqualified to talk with God.

When you read the Bible then it is God with His daughter so I can not see that which you His daughter can until you tell me and first you must go there.

I would prefer your perspective over that of a long dead preacher, but I still consider the long dead preachers too.

Originally Posted by Marie

Are you really willing to trust in your own ideas, your own image of God, the idol that you created in your own mind to comfort yourself? When it comes to eternity?

Yes, indeed I am willing to trust myself and my personal relationship with God.

A personal relationship really means the one-on-one and not a group relationship.

If you do not trust your own self, and your own "personal" Marie-to-God relationship then you are lost.

Be saved on Judgement Day like everyone else but lost for now in the present.

Other people can tell us what the scriptures mean but we must personally decide if we believe that or not.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Jesus is the Christ (the anointed one) and the son of man, link HERE.

The term "Christ" is not Jesus' last name and it is not his second name.

I am sure you mean some thing more specific but when one does not ask specifically then I do not volunteer it unless it suits me.

The question is very complicated to one such as myself because the words have different meanings then accepted Orthodoxy.

Like the person of Jesus' real name was "Yesu" (short version of Yeshua) which also means : "Yahweh saves" in the Hebrew language.

The fact you couldn’t give just a simple answer, but you had to try to cover nearly all grounds to make your answer as right as it could be tells me you don’t really know who He (Jesus) is. I don’t think the question is all that complicated. Jesus, the Christ, is our savior from our sins.

John 3:16 - 18

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Saying simply that he is the Christ or the Annointed One doesn't say anything.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The fact you couldn’t give just a simple answer, but you had to try to cover nearly all grounds to make your answer as right as it could be tells me you don’t really know who He (Jesus) is. I don’t think the question is all that complicated. Jesus, the Christ, is our savior from our sins.

John 3:16 - 18

Saying simply that he is the Christ or the Annointed One doesn't say anything.

I have no dispute with that.

Peace.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Not one of those many names are superior to you or me or anyone else in understanding the Bible.

You must remember that when Christ spoke many people degraded Him as only the son of a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 link HERE.

We must not do that mistake today of claiming some one is superior and others unqualified to talk with God.

When you read the Bible then it is God with His daughter so I can not see that which you His daughter can until you tell me and first you must go there.

I would prefer your perspective over that of a long dead preacher, but I still consider the long dead preachers too. Yes, indeed I am willing to trust myself and my personal relationship with God.

A personal relationship really means the one-on-one and not a group relationship.

If you do not trust your own self, and your own "personal" Marie-to-God relationship then you are lost.

Be saved on Judgement Day like everyone else but lost for now in the present.

Other people can tell us what the scriptures mean but we must personally decide if we believe that or not.

I see the liquor store was open late again..............shut up and leave.