Gospel of Inclusion.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I had not realized that was the error.

The governing "authorities" does not mean persons but the demands of gov are the authorities.

Like President Nixon broke the rules and lost his governing power because the person Nixon like every person (as the text says) is subject to the authority of gov.

It is saying the authority of gov and not the authority of the person in gov.

Hitler was only a person and Hitler abused the authority of gov and Hitler destroyed himself and his Country accordingly.

Because the authority of gov is not the authority of the person in gov authority.

A person in gov must not abuse the authority and when the person does abuse the authority there is repercussions.

That is what Romans 13:1 is talking about.

Wrong again, but what is new.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I had not realized that was the error.

The governing "authorities" does not mean persons but the demands of gov are the authorities.

Like President Nixon broke the rules and lost his governing power because the person Nixon like every person (as the text says) is subject to the authority of gov.

It is saying the authority of gov and not the authority of the person in gov.

Hitler was only a person and Hitler abused the authority of gov and Hitler destroyed himself and his Country accordingly.

Because the authority of gov is not the authority of the person in gov authority.

A person in gov must not abuse the authority and when the person does abuse the authority there is repercussions.

That is what Romans 13:1 is talking about.

God is not a respecter of persons but only the gov that does right, see text below.

Acts 10:34-35.

34) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Link HERE.

Of course God is not a dis-respecter of persons either, but when a gov official abuses their authority then that person will pay the penalty.

And the penalty is here and in their present time and not after death.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is far from what I said, and you are simply doing the all-or-nothing nonsense.

Like if Jonah was not swallowed by a BIG fish then Jesus did not exist, which is foolish.

You said “Revelation does not have much credibility. If one book has no credibility, how can any of them have credibility? What is your measure for credibility? What are you using to come to this conclusion? Your Jonah comparison doesn’t fit because, according to the Bible, Jonah WAS swallowed by the big fish. And Jesus did exist. And Revelations is an explanation of the end of times. It is an all-encompassing book that you can’t just weed out what doesn’t fit into your own personal agenda. You’re constantly accusing us of misinterpreting the Bible while you are the one that is doing just that.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If Revelations is a phony then the whole Bible is worthless - and that is not true.

God is in life / in reality, and God is not the Bible and God is not IN the Bible.

The Bible is an all-inclusive book; from beginning to end. The Bible isn't about God being in it or God being the Bible. The Bible was written as an account of God’s purpose not just through history but also what is to come. You have provided quote after quote from the Bible. Why would you do this if you believe God is not IN the Bible?

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Protestants have made a false idol out of the Bible and Jesus told us to seek out the truth.

I have seem many interpretations of the Bible and “seeking of the truth” but I have never seen an interpretation such as yours.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

When I researched the subject it became really kind of easy to find out the true parts and separating truth from fiction makes the Bible a hundred times more interesting.

I find the small truths to be so very powerful that the large non-truths to be worthless information anyway.

And I have asked you before: Specifically which parts are true and which parts are fictitious. What are your sources for telling you this? You have yet to answer (I mean except for Revelation being a complete fraud).

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If the Bible did not exist and maybe destroyed completely in the first century then the salvation of Jesus would still be true and effective and people today would not be any more uninformed then those that believe our loving Father God would burn people in a Hell.

Ah, but the part you ignore in all this is, this exemplifies the power of God to have kept this WORD alive all these years making it the largest faith on earth.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That false interpretation of God lives in an “infallible book” whiles the true God lives out here in the real world.

Then why do you quote it so much?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And I have asked you before: Specifically which parts are true and which parts are fictitious. What are your sources for telling you this? You have yet to answer (I mean except for Revelation being a complete fraud).

Biblical Criticism link HERE and if you want to learn about it then take the names given in that link to the library St. Mary's County Library, Leonardtown, MD and find the old books.

The Catholic explaination of "Higher Criticism" of the Bible is in the link HERE and particularly go down to the "The Johannine Writings" where the Book of Revelations is called the "Apocalypse" : "The criticism of Apocalypse is still in an immature stage. There is much diversity of view as to its author, the Anglican school inclining to St. John. It has been recently proposed that the book is a Jewish apocalypse retouched by a Christian; so Vischer, Harnack. Nearly all critics acknowledge that there is much apocalyptic element in it, admitting that some of its visions in a veiled manner depict historical situations under the guise of events to come." That Catholic link above does word itself tensely.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Then why do you quote it so much?

The Bible is still a great book with wonderful messages in it and it does tell about God.

To seek the truth means to dig through un-truths.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

:..
To seek the truth means to dig through un-truths.

There are no untruths in the Bible like there are in your posts and the man-made stuff you prefer to God's word.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Biblical Criticism link HERE and if you want to learn about it then take the names given in that link to the library St. Mary's County Library, Leonardtown, MD and find the old books.

The Catholic explaination of "Higher Criticism" of the Bible is in the link HERE and particularly go down to the "The Johannine Writings" where the Book of Revelations is called the "Apocalypse" : "The criticism of Apocalypse is still in an immature stage. There is much diversity of view as to its author, the Anglican school inclining to St. John. It has been recently proposed that the book is a Jewish apocalypse retouched by a Christian; so Vischer, Harnack. Nearly all critics acknowledge that there is much apocalyptic element in it, admitting that some of its visions in a veiled manner depict historical situations under the guise of events to come." That Catholic link above does word itself tensely. The Bible is still a great book with wonderful messages in it and it does tell about God.

To seek the truth means to dig through un-truths.

You are the type that wants to find fault in everything; something to criticize. You will go to great lengths to prove that, on a bright sunny day, the sky is not blue. Some things just are. I have learned to accept that in God’s Word. You have not. This contrarianism isn’t just within these religious discussions. This is your way within everything.

And the arrogance in all this is that you seem to have found yourself believing you know more of the truth than God; that somehow you are going to disprove God as the ultimate truth; that there are flaws in his Word. You have convinced yourself that not even God is able to inspire His own Word through others and bring that truth to us.

There is only one truth. You either accept it or you don’t.

You don’t.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You are the type that wants to find fault in everything; something to criticize. You will go to great lengths to prove that, on a bright sunny day, the sky is not blue. Some things just are. I have learned to accept that in God’s Word. You have not. This contrarianism isn’t just within these religious discussions. This is your way within everything.

And the arrogance in all this is that you seem to have found yourself believing you know more of the truth than God; that somehow you are going to disprove God as the ultimate truth; that there are flaws in his Word. You have convinced yourself that not even God is able to inspire His own Word through others and bring that truth to us.

There is only one truth. You either accept it or you don’t.

You don’t.

Well I take criticism too, and I even like criticism, and criticizing is both negative and positive and I like both ways because I want the hard truths and not just the comfortable pretty words.

The Bible can take criticism too, so can God, and Jesus takes criticizing, and in fact we all dish it out too.

I criticize when I feel it is called for, and the Bible has its own words of criticism, as does God and Jesus criticize others in both positive and in negative ways.

Those that built their foundation on sand takes great effort to keep their houses from falling down.

But for those seeking the fuller truths then there is never just one truth because that way one gets stuck.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

But for those seeking the fuller truths then there is never just one truth because that way one gets stuck.

This sentence proves you are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in the "truth" that you are able to define for yourself. You are attempting to go beyond the truth and redefine it as something else. In this case "the FULLER TRUTH". What the heck is the "fuller truth"? The truth is simply that; "THE TRUTH". It can’t be fuller than what it already is?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

This sentence proves you are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in the "truth" that you are able to define for yourself. You are attempting to go beyond the truth and redefine it as something else. In this case "the FULLER TRUTH". What the heck is the "fuller truth"? The truth is simply that; "THE TRUTH". It can’t be fuller than what it already is?

It deffinately is best when one can define the truth(s) them-self.

The fact is that some people (like PsyOps, and 2A) claim they know the "truth" and they shut out any corrections.

Many people and Churches teach about Jesus but do not teach the message that Jesus taught.

Jesus did NOT give the simple message to believe in Himself and be saved and the Bible was not even written at that time.

The message that Jesus brought and not a message about Jesus.

A new book called the "Scandalous Gospel of Jesus" is telling about that same message the Jesus taught link HERE.

The answer to "what is the fuller truth?" is that is the truth discovered after one moves out of their rut.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It deffinately is best when one can define the truth(s) them-self.

The fact is that some people (like PsyOps, and 2A) claim they know the "truth" and they shut out any corrections.

Many people and Churches teach about Jesus but do not teach the message that Jesus taught.

And you CLAIM to know the truth too. Problem is you have everyone telling you that you have it wrong, yet you remain in denial. Your perception is EVERYONE out there is wrong and JPC is right.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Jesus did NOT give the simple message to believe in Himself and be saved and the Bible was not even written at that time.

This shows you can’t even make sense out of it yourself. I can’t even make sense out of this statement. Are you claiming that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write their Gospels? Are you claiming they were not actually there with Jesus? Are you claiming that, because they did not write their witness of Christ, at the time He was alive, that it’s not valid? What is your point here, other than to disclaim the Bible (the same Bible you conveniently quote over and over)?

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The message that Jesus brought and not a message about Jesus.

A new book called the "Scandalous Gospel of Jesus" is telling about that same message the Jesus taught

What the heck have we been talking about in this thread? We have been discussing salvation. Not Jesus, THE MAN, but the salvation he brought. THAT is His message. THAT is the message you are not getting. When I go to church I hear that same message. I don’t hear the preacher talking about how tall Jesus was, and whether he had a beard or if his breath stunk or whether he was attracted to women or not. I hear the message of His salvation. Man you have things so twisted around. And so does this Peter J. Gomes.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The answer to "what is the fuller truth?" is that is the truth discovered after one moves out of their rut.

Well, it doesn’t seem to be working for you. If you want to know “the fuller truth” you have to know the simple truth first.