Kerry said to be excommunicated

[2ndAmendment]

Alright, 2nd A, it's more than a strongly worded suggestion in much of the Four Gospels, and in the writings of Paul, however, since He and His Father(yes I know they are one, along with the Holy Spirit) gave us free will to choose His path or our own, I get the sense there is still that choice that He's giving us to make.

You're not going to find it in the Bible, but ...

You are correct; we all have free will. That is what makes our love precious to God. He could have created us only able to love Him without choice and our love would be meaningless. It is the choice to love Him that make the love special. It is more than a strongly worded suggestion through out the Bible. The Bible says, love God, fear God, do it His way or suffer the consequences. Period. If you don't find it in the Bible, then don't present it as scripture. You run the risk of making yourself a false teacher; not a good thing.

 

[UrbanPancake]

I was quoting the Children's Bible series, which didn't mention anything about Cain having kids. And yes, when I read the KJV version of Genesis, I was surprised. At the time it didn't seem to make sense. If Adam and Even and Cain and Abel were the first humans on the earth, then where did Cain get his wife?

He made her from one of his ribs.

 

[2ndAmendment]

He made her from one of his ribs.

False teaching. You really like to tempt God don't you?

 

[UrbanPancake]

You are right, it was Bruce Almighty.


I do differ with you on "strongly suggest". The Bible says that there is only one way.



This is the passage where we find that Jesus and the Father are one, not two entities.

How can Jesus be Gods son if he is God? Explain....

 

[Penn]

You are correct; we all have free will. That is what makes our love precious to God. He could have created us only able to love Him without choice and our love would be meaningless. It is the choice to love Him that make the love special. It is more than a strongly worded suggestion through out the Bible. The Bible says, love God, fear God, do it His way or suffer the consequences. Period.

If you don't find it in the Bible, then don't present it as scripture. You run the risk of making yourself a false teacher; not a good thing.

Thank you for the comments in the first paragraph. I agree.

As for the second part, I'll say "Lighten up"! I purposely said as much when I posted the example. Since I had said "You're not going to find it in the Bible", then that definitely would seem to disengage it from scripture.

Meaning: It sure as heck ain't Jesus talking, if it ain't found in the Bible!

* If anyone thinks I was, in fact, making up scripture here in order to make a point about the Lords' teachings, forgive me, that was not the intent.*

Plus, I don't have the smarts or the wits to be prophet!

 

[2ndAmendment]

How can Jesus be Gods son if he is God? Explain....

As I read the Bible, the Father says He is ONE God in the Old Testament, Jesus says there is one God and says He is the Father incarnate, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God; three aspects of the same one God. It is just as you, I, and everyone else have two aspects, physical and spiritual; we lack the power to incarnate ourselves as another human through spiritual means.

You will not find the word trinity anywhere in the Bible. The concept of the trinity did not come about until the 4th century when Emperor Constantine trying to use the Christian church for political reason along with Pope St.Silvester I (314 -335 AD) came up with the beginnings of idea of the trinity at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The actual doctrine of the trinity was not confirmed until the Council of Constantinople in 381 and even then was not widely accepted. This is a matter of history, not opinion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

As for the second part, I'll say "Lighten up"!

I hope I never "lighten up" where God is concerned.

 

[Penn]

I hope I never "lighten up" where God is concerned.

Cute answer 2nd A, but I think you might tend to get down too deep sometimes; take a breath, try to keep it in perspective with what we were discussing.

To UrbanPancake:
You've got a lot of reading to do. I would suggest you take a look at the Gospel of John to start with; it's said to be the most popular book in the entire Bible.

Then go back to the begining: You will need to understand the history of what took place some 2000 years before the coming of Christ.

That means Genesis, I know. Fascinating reading - if not only from the historical and geographical points of view. Imagine the people who this great story unfolded upon. These are some of the reasons I got into Bible study - the who, the why, the when and where, the timing, the outcome, and etc.

Then for me, the Bible took on "a life of it's own", and now for my own part, I find something new I hadn't realised or seen before in a passage, everytime I pick it up and read.

As I said: It's fascinating.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Cute answer 2nd A, but I think you might tend to get down too deep sometimes; take a breath, try to keep it in perspective with what we were discussing.

To UrbanPancake:
You've got a lot of reading to do. I would suggest you take a look at the Gospel of John to start with; it's said to be the most popular book in the entire Bible.

I hope I can get as deep as I can; deeper than I am currently; as great an understanding as God will reveal.

As for the book of John, it is often recommended to non-believers to read first, but it is one of the hardest gospels to understand for non-believers. It was written for people that are already Christians.

 

[Penn]

I hope I can get as deep as I can; deeper than I am currently; as great an understanding as God will reveal.

As for the book of John, it is often recommended to non-believers to read first, but it is one of the hardest gospels to understand for non-believers. It was written for people that are already Christians.

Ok, I don't want to overcook things here.

All I will tell you is that someone suggested John to me; I sat down and read it, found it easy to read, liked what I read, and found it hard to put the book down until I was finished.
I remember sitting in that recliner chair, after the last chapter, the last page, my Bible(NLT) shut closed between my hands, and - feeling mildly stunned over what I had just witnessed, well you know what I mean!

So, it got me to reading the history - that means the Old Testament to me - and then I decided to give Disciple Class a shot, and really got fascinated with the discussion, interpretations and etc., like it all came alive for me and the rest of the class.

I have to admit, even the instructor of our class couldn't come up with the answers we felt we needed to hear, but we went on with the feeling "you just have to believe".

Late in the last chapter of John, J. Vernon McGee gives his take, his coverage, as if he were there, of what had taken place on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, between Jesus and the half dozen or so disciples who were with Him. I don't think I gave you this copy.

As to knowing all the answers:

He says "Here is something interesting. Ignorance, or lack of knowledge is no excuse(my italics) for not serving the Lord. Some people say they they will not serve the Lord( read: believe?) if they cannot get all their questions answered. He goes on to say: " My friend, there are a lot of things that you won't know. There many things you don't need to know. There are things that are not any of your business to know. (At this point in time, they do not concern you.)

"The important thing is to keep your eye on Him, and follow Jesus."

Wow! That in itself answered a whole bunch of questions I had. Earlier in John, he said (but I don't have the quote with me), something to the effect "that you will never find an answer for something not fully explained in the Bible.

Why?

"Because there just isn't any, and when I find that to be true in these interpretations, I will tell you so." The last is almost a direct quote.

What I get from him is that hundreds of scholars in the past and present have scoured every shred of information in and out of the Bible, and there is none to be found. I respect that kind of honesty.

Do you(2nd A) still have those copies of J. Vernon McGees' prologues of each of the Four Gospels?

They were from vol 5, one in a series of books he wrote, basically his take on the reach, the content and merit of each of the 4 Biblical books.

I don't know if you ever got back with me on them, or what you thought of his interpretations of these scriptures.

 

[ceo_pte]

He quoted "faith without works is dead" even though he either didn't know the book, chapter, and verse or choose not to state it (It is James 2:14-26.). The fact is his words say he does not believe in killing unborn babies, but his works say he supports killing unborn babies. His words say he does not believe in homosexuality but his action supports it. Actions speak of our true belief. The belonging to a Christian church, Catholic or otherwise, is a bilateral acceptance of the faith of the church. When a member acts in a manner that is expressly against that faith actually enforcing and rewarding sin, then the church (body of believers) is directed in the Bible to separate themselves from that person; see 2 Timothy 3:1-9 for just one passage.

EGXACTLY>..... If you wanna support abortion, have at it baby, but don't bring down the standards of Catholocism, by claiming to be one.

 

[2ndAmendment]

All I will tell you is that someone suggested John to me; I sat down and read it, found it easy to read, liked what I read, and found it hard to put the book down until I was finished.

You started from a point of belief. That is my point. John is for believers. It is nonsense to non-believers. Glad you like John; so do I.

Do you(2nd A) still have those copies of J. Vernon McGees' prologues of each of the Four Gospels?

No. Sorry. I don't read many commentaries. I would rather read myself and have God reveal what He wants to reveal to me. I did read some at one time and felt many of the commentators had an agenda beyond glorifying God and opening the door to Christ and letting the Holy Spirit do the work. Don't know if this is the case with your guy, but I just don't read them anymore.

 

[Penn]

You started from a point of belief. That is my point. John is for believers. It is nonsense to non-believers. Glad you like John; so do I.

Allow me to quote this man further, and if you do not want to give me your take on him, that's fine;

ceo_pte, I would apreciate your comments, as well:

Prologue to John, chapt 21:

"Chapter 21 is an epilogue, I believe that after John had written his gospel, he added the prologue and the epilogue.

There are three main incidents in this chapter. There is the fishing at the Sea of Galilee(also known as the Sea of Tiberias). It shows the Lord Jesus as the Lord of our wills, and He directs our service. The second incident is the breakfast on the seashore. This shows the Lord Jesus as the Lord of our hearts and presents our love for Him as the motive of service.
The third incident is Jesus announcing the death of Simon Peter. It shows the Lord Jesus as the Lord of our minds and teaches that lack of knowledge or variation of circumstance is no excuse from service. The entire chapter reveals to us that the resurrected Jesus is still God."

Whaddya think?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Allow me to quote this man further, and if you do not want to give me your take on him, that's fine;

ceo_pte, I would apreciate your comments, as well:

Prologue to John, chapt 21:

"Chapter 21 is an epilogue, I believe that after John had written his gospel, he added the prologue and the epilogue.

There are three main incidents in this chapter. There is the fishing at the Sea of Galilee(also known as the Sea of Tiberias). It shows the Lord Jesus as the Lord of our wills, and He directs our service. The second incident is the breakfast on the seashore. This shows the Lord Jesus as the Lord of our hearts and presents our love for Him as the motive of service.
The third incident is Jesus announcing the death of Simon Peter. It shows the Lord Jesus as the Lord of our minds and teaches that lack of knowledge or variation of circumstance is no excuse from service. The entire chapter reveals to us that the resurrected Jesus is still God."

Whaddya think?

Based on this, I think he has missed the real meaning. The purpose of the fishing incident was to make the disheartened disciples recognize Him as being their Master and that He indeed was resurrected from the dead. The breakfast was to prove that He was not just a spirit but was a physical being needing and consuming sustenance after His resurrection. The verse with Peter indicated what kind of life Peter would suffer before his death; imprisonment and crucifixion. Sorry, I don't buy your guy. Talk about trying to get too deep. He gets so deep he passes the point.

 

[Penn]

Based on this, I think he has missed the real meaning. The purpose of the fishing incident was to make the disheartened disciples recognize Him as being their Master and that He indeed was resurrected from the dead. The breakfast was to prove that He was not just a spirit but was a physical being needing and consuming sustenance after His resurrection. The verse with Peter indicated what kind of life Peter would suffer before his death; imprisonment and crucifixion. Sorry, I don't buy your guy. Talk about trying to get too deep. He gets so deep he passes the point.

Interesting. Respectfully, I might say that you don't have the entire chapter (21) as I have here in front of me, as interpreted by him as I do, but it might be interesting to go over the entire chapter together, with a Bible of your choice and see where he is so far off. To you he dosen't seem to catch the cogent moments of this chapter, but yet to me, it's much clearer than when I read it alone before.
I can't say for sure, but I think he used( he's quite dead now, about 14 years, I think) a KJV, because of the language usage; the prologue is a straight quote from him, however, he quotes about 3 or 4 verses from the Bible chapter, and then tries to set the moment for you, and then tells you what he feels really went on.

Sorry you didn't see it that way.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Interesting. Respectfully, I might say that you don't have the entire chapter (21) as I have here in front of me, as interpreted by him as I do,

My point exactly is don't take your interpretation from me or him or anyone else. Read the scripture. It was inspired by God to be read by mankind for instruction and encouragement. Too many theologists read between the lines. I say read the lines, not between them. If you are not sure about something, pray about it, wait for an answer. If it doesn't come, OK, it is not to be revealed to you at that moment; if it does, OK, you have your answer. I didn't originate that; the Bible did.

James 1:4-6
4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.

God does not have a secret society of theologians. The Bible was written for you, me, and everyone to read. May God give you enlightenment.

 

[Penn]

My point exactly is don't take your interpretation from me or him or anyone else. Read the scripture. It was inspired by God to be read by mankind for instruction and encouragement. Too many theologists read between the lines. I say read the lines, not between them.

God does not have a secret society of theologians. The Bible was written for you, me, and everyone to read. May God give you enlightenment.

OK, I grasp what it is you're saying. And 2nd A, there's no harm, hence there is no foul, things are cool, OK?

May I offer you this? Have you ever read a document or a text, and then sought the opinion of another scholar(if you've got one on hand ), or friend just to confirm what you think you've read is what was really meant? What you said is true about the Bible being written to be read by mankind, but an opinion can help in determining if you've picked up what was really being said. In a couple of posts back, you disagreed with what the gentleman saw as the three major incidents in John 21, and added what you yourself saw.
I noticed them as well, but I saw the rest of them much clearer after J.V. McGee offered his thoughts.

I may disappoint you here, but, to be honest, I never fully picked up what was meant by the Lord Jesus when He told Peter, in John 18-21 (I think):
"Truly, I tell you, when you were a young man, you clothed yourself, and went wherever you saw fit; but when you grow to old age, you will stretch out your hands and another will dress you and lead you to a place you do not want to go."

I'm paraphrasing that passage, I hope it is close to the actual meaning, because I don't have my Bible here, and I'm playing it through my memory.

What He is actually telling Peter is that he will be a martyr, he will die, and lay down his life for Jesus. Please advise if I got this idea down correctly.

You wonder how you would react to the Lord, looking you in the eyes, telling you what your future holds for you....I did.

When I said earlier that after closing my Bible that night, after finishing the Book of John - and being stunned - that's what I meant.

Whew! That never fully sank in reading the KJV.

PS: I got my NLT Bible a year later from a friend.

Hope I didn't get too deep! Thank You for the discussion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

OK, I grasp what it is you're saying. And 2nd A, there's no harm, hence there is no foul, things are cool, OK?

Never said there was a problem. We all do what we do.

May I offer you this? Have you ever read a document or a text, and then sought the opinion of another scholar(if you've got one on hand ), or friend just to confirm what you think you've read is what was really meant?

Not very often; I don't remember ever, but I am reluctant to claim that.

What you said is true about the Bible being written to be read by mankind, but an opinion can help in determining if you've picked up what was really being said.

Or it could cloud your mind to the True meaning.

In a couple of posts back, you disagreed with what the gentleman saw as the three major incidents in John 21, and added what you yourself saw.
I noticed them as well, but I saw the rest of them much clearer after J.V. McGee offered his thoughts.

I may disappoint you here, but, to be honest, I never fully picked up what was meant by the Lord Jesus when He told Peter, in John 18-21 (I think):
"Truly, I tell you, when you were a young man, you clothed yourself, and went wherever you saw fit; but when you grow to old age, you will stretch out your hands and another will dress you and lead you to a place you do not want to go."

I'm paraphrasing that passage, I hope it is close to the actual meaning, because I don't have my Bible here, and I'm playing it through my memory.

Close enough. Better than I do on memorizing scripture.

What He is actually telling Peter is that he will be a martyr, he will die, and lay down his life for Jesus. Please advise if I got this idea down correctly.

That is what I said.

The verse with Peter indicated what kind of life Peter would suffer before his death; imprisonment and crucifixion.

You wonder how you would react to the Lord, looking you in the eyes, telling you what your future holds for you....I did.

When I said earlier that after closing my Bible that night, after finishing the Book of John - and being stunned - that's what I meant.

Whew! That never fully sank in reading the KJV.

PS: I got my NLT Bible a year later from a friend.

Hope I didn't get too deep! Thank You for the discussion.

Not too deep.

I know I will die. Beyond that is a closed door. I hope it is not a painful death.

The KJV is poetic. The passages flow. They were easy to understand, I suppose, in the days of King James. It is Old English to us. The folks on Smith Island could probably read it just fine. They used to (maybe still) spoke a kind of Old English. They were very isolated for a long time. I prefer the New American Standard although my current is the New King James Version. The NAS is a very accurate translation. The NKJV is in modern English so it is easier to read than the KJV.