[arcura]

Joe,
Once again you impress me with your understanding of Scripture and how it relates.
Thank you,
Fred

[sndbay]

No it doesn’t mean that he began to speak scripture. Let’s try this thing with Acts 10 one more time.

“He opened his mouth” is a literary form of saying, pay attention, someone important is about to speak. In this case, Peter who is first Apostle among equals is pronouncing something dramatic to the Jew’s who followed Christian sect. JoeT

I disagree with you, and I believe in the power Our Father who is the spirit of truth. It is Our Father that shew all that was spoken by the disciples. This was shown by Christ in all that He spoke was of HIS Father.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come


Example the spirit of the Lord was with Philip:

Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.


What Luke has written is that they are before God, to hear all things that are commanded by God

Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.


Peter is speaking of truth that is percieved (the spirit of truth that is shew to him )

Act 10:34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons

It is written that Peter could not have spoken of these things in which he preached, but amazing enough it was the spirit of truth that shew him these things. That is why I included what was written. To tell you, it is not I that says this but the word of God.

Without the Comforter, they knew nothing! We know nothing without the Comforter. And I shall never deny the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth from the Father within me.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

[gromitt82]

Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:14) The Word was with God and was God from the beginning (John 1:1)

I only suggest that all that was written is spoke by God, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In that we can gain wisdom, and trust to surrender in obedience.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son

John is precisely saying in this paragraph what I am trying to point out less clearly, of course.
We have to abide by THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST, as simple as that.

Gromitt82

[JoeT777]

Sndbay:

The logic presented here is like the logic of putting a screen door on a submarine then floating your conceptual vessel of liberal theology. No matter what’s said, the liquid that’s the essence of commonsense just pours through your arguments. This non-buoyant vessel will never float.

The example of Acts 8 proves the point that he "opened his mouth" is a literary form of accenting the importance of the message and the speaker. The Apostles Philip’s comments were extremely important to the Ethiopian eunuch, and to Christians only by extension of the importance of the lesson. But still, Philip “opened his mouth” to ‘preach’ what was already written in Isaiah and its relationship to Christ; not to write scripture. One degree of importance, another degree of importance of the speaker. However, Peter’s message was universal to all mankind. Both his message and the person making the statement, Peter, were important to the author. Thus Luke draws our attention, Peter “opened his mouth”. You're forcing your own opinion onto the author.


JoeT

[sndbay]

Sndbay:

The logic presented here is like the logic of putting a screen door on a submarine then floating your conceptual vessel of liberal theology. No matter what's said, the liquid that's the essence of commonsense just pours through your arguments. This non-buoyant vessel will never float.

The example of Acts 8 proves the point that he "opened his mouth" is a literary form of accenting the importance of the message and the speaker. The Apostles Philip's comments were extremely important to the Ethiopian eunuch, and to Christians only by extension of the importance of the lesson. But still, Philip “opened his mouth” to 'preach' what was already written in Isaiah and its relationship to Christ; not to write scripture. One degree of importance, another degree of importance of the speaker. However, Peter's message was universal to all mankind. Both his message and the person making the statement, Peter, were important to the author. Thus Luke draws our attention, Peter “opened his mouth”. You're forcing your own opinion onto the author.


JoeT

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Follow man, or follow the word of God Christ Jesus? It is choice.

I rest in Christ the One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

[arcura]

sndbay,
I must agree with Joe and Gromitt82 on this.
Your scriptural logic appears to be faulty.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Maggie 3]

I agree with you sndbay, "In all these things we are more than conquers through Him that loved us." Rom 8:37

[arcura]

It seems that we have different schools of thought on this and it is interesting.
Different people see different things in different ways.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons that there are over 30,000 different denominations that keep we Christians from being united as Jesus wants us to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

By taking the Logos as 'a word' in the verse John 1:14 causes a problem. Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, before taking John 1:14 literal we should first read Galatians 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree),” Reading this in the same literal sense as you read John 1:14, then we've got to ask if Christ is cursed? Is it the intent of Paul to say that God's essence removed its glory and became cursed? Of course not! Rather, he took on the suffering of the curse so that man can be free of the Law. Likewise when “the Word was made “Flesh” God took on the flesh of man to become the Son of man so that we might become children of God.

The Logos is the term used to designate the “Word of God” who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The Logos didn't 'become' flesh or 'become' the word, but rather the essence of God, by conjoining God and Flesh, 'took on' Him in the form of ONE, Jesus Christ. Nothing is added, in “the Word was made flesh”, nothing was destroyed in the union, but rather God's essence infused with flesh. Though we count every word recorded in scripture as spoken by Christ, though we revere and set to memory every verse uttered by Christ, the verse John 1:14, Christ does not become the Bible – what a sacrilege this would be. (Cf. Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 11)

It's funny that the Second Epistle of John should be mentioned in connection the literal reading of John 1:14, because the Second Epistle of John was a Catholic letter meant for all Churches (universal) to warn against Docetic and Gnostic heresies. The Docetics believed that the Logos was an illusion; that Christ only seemed to be a man. The Gnostics believed that salvation was possessed by secretly transmitted knowledge regarding the mysteries of the universe in some kind of magic formula. John was warning against these heresies. In verse 9,”Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” John is simply stating that these heretical doctrines are not doctrine of Christ because they reject the Trinity, either the Father or the Son as being distinct Persons in the one Nature of God. This gets us back to 'orthodoxy' mentioned some posts ago. We keep the purity of our faith in the discipline of the intellect; a discipline of course requires an authority, right reasoning in faith or a purity of faith found in the Catholic Church.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT,
Once again I must agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
'Fred

[sndbay]

It seems that we have different schools of thought on this and it is interesting.
Different people see different things in different ways.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons that there are over 30,000 different denominations that keep we Christians from being united as Jesus wants us to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And I conclude there is no different denominations in those that walk in the Spirit of truth. Because the perfect man (Eph 4:13) that is unity in the fulness of Christ Jesus, follows in ONE Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


The Word of God in Christ Jesus, is the grace and truth. (John 1:14 John 1:17) Christ death on the cross beared record that scripture is true. (John 19:36)

I believe whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

sndbay,
I must agree with Joe and Gromitt82 on this.
Your scriptural logic appears to be faulty.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If you find fault in my belief in Jesus, then you have judge what the Spirit of truth has revealed to me. And I have shown nothing other then my love for Christ Jesus, and for all brotheres and sisters.

Edit: adding this note of scripture (2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise)


1 Peter 2:21-22-23-24 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Does the truth of scripture says we continue to sin and live by unrighteoeusness?

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

~in Christ

[ChildOfGod_1]

I follow Jesus, because He is the only true living God. He did a wonderful thing for all of us, by dying on the cross for all our sins, and we are scott free when we believe in this amazing fact.

Besides, He helps me in my life, He is a shoulder to cry on, He gives me peace, I can trust Him with my life, He is there to carry me no matter what happens, He doesn't accuse me like my dad, He is not clueless like my mom... In all - He is my protector and friend!!

Now how about that?

[gromitt82]

And I conclude there is no different denominations in those that walk in the Spirit of truth. Because the perfect man (Eph 4:13) that is unity in the fulness of Christ Jesus, follows in ONE Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


The Word of God in Christ Jesus, is the grace and truth. (John 1:14 John 1:17) Christ death on the cross beared record that scripture is true. (John 19:36)

I believe whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.





If you find fault in my belief in Jesus, then you have judge what the Spirit of truth has revealed to me. And I have shown nothing other then my love for Christ Jesus, and for all brotheres and sisters.

Edit: adding this note of scripture (2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise)


1 Peter 2:21-22-23-24 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Does the truth of scripture says we continue to sin and live by unrighteoeusness?

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

~in Christ

I believe whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Would it be asking too much that you could write English forgetiing the grammar used in the 18th Century? Some foreigners might find it difficult to grasp the meaning of all these words.
This said, I gather in the above fragment you are saying that those who sin have no GOD or are not entitled to GOD's forgiveness. While those who abide by the doctrine of Christ had both the Father and the Son, and I suppose to Holy Spirit, too. And that by saying they have GOD they must not ever sin, because if they do they are immediately rejected by GOD.
If this what you are trying to say, I'm sorry to disagree.
And instead of quoting any Apostles I will quote Jesus Christ himself, who said in the Cross: Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing

Gromitt82

[sndbay]

Would it be asking too much that you could write English forgetiing the grammar used in the 18th Century? Some foreigners might find it difficult to grasp the meaning of all these words.

Gromitt82

It is scripture.

I believe whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Compare

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. KJV

Most always I do advert back to scripture when I speak , especially in discussion of the Word of God. It is very natural to give heed or attention to the spirit of truth by written scripture. I find no difficulity in grasping the meaning. The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.

[JoeT777]

Sndbay

Maybe it would be helpful to explain what the “doctrine of Christ” is. Catholics look at doctrine as a guide, another word for catechism. Doctrine comes from the Latin meaning teaching. Perhaps it means something different to you?

1 Timothy 4:13, 16 NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 1 Timothy 4
1 Timothy 5:17 NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 1 Timothy 5
2 Timothy 4:2 NEW ADVENT BIBLE: 2 Timothy 4

JoeT

[elscarta]

The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.

So are you saying that it is God's will that there are so many different and contradictory interpretations of scripture? Surely there is but One Truth.

For example, is transubstantiation true ? Does the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

There are Christians who say yes and there are those who say no. Both believe that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. So who is correct and how can you decide?

[arcura]

Sndbay,
I am not judging your faith.
ONLY God can do that.
You believe as you do and I do believe as I do.
I see some Scripture differently than you do.
That's nothing new. It has gone on for many years particularly since the Protestants came into being.
For me I must go along with the authority of God in His Word and His Church that Jesus founded of the Rock called Peter.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[gromitt82]

Gromitt82

It is scripture.



Compare

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. KJV

Most always I do advert back to scripture when I speak , especially in discussion of the Word of God. It is very natural to give heed or attention to the spirit of truth by written scripture. I find no difficulity in grasping the meaning. The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.

Sndbay,

“Whoever transgresses[a] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9)
NEW KING JAMES VERSION.
I daresay that this is Scripture too and, certainly, adapted to the language spoken right now.
You may not find “any difficulty in grasping the meaning of the 1ST KING JAMES VERSION. Your mother language is probably English.
I find no difficulty in grasping the meaning of the NUEVA VERSIÓN INTERNACIONAL, in Spanish or of LA BIBLE DU SEMEUR, in French, or O LIVRO, in Portuguese, or LA PAROLA È VITA, in Italian. I also grasp most of the 1ST KING JAMES VERSION... ALL THE PRECEDING TEXTS ARE BIBLES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, AND THEREFORE VALID AND LEGITIMATE “SCRIPTURES”.
But you seem to forget that the original Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and later on, on Latin.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in English, and the Gospels – according to most scholars – were basically written in Greek. So I do not see why we should consider the kind of English used in the original KINF JAMES version of the Bible any BETTER than any other translation whether older or more modern.
I DO NOT BELIEVE the will of GOD has anything to do here.
GOD allowed Mankind to have and use many languages, and these languages have been undergoing modifications and corrections in accordance with the language spoken in the different epochs.
The KING JAMES VERSION was finished in 1611 (17th century) but that DOES NOT make it the ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED BY THE WILL OF GOD. It is just ANOTHER TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL BOOKS. and certainly is no better or truer than THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, FINISHED IN 1982.

As Elscarta has already pointed out the original text of the Scriptures was just one.That is, if Moses was the author (as many believe) of the Genesis he certainly did not write several versions. He wrote only one, surely inspired by GOD, and it is that very version the one that have suffered a number of translations, until our days.

This is just to say that if the O.T. was basically inspired by GOD and the N.T. is the collection or gathering of Jesus’ Message, it is highly unlikely that there have been many ORIGINAL versions. What has happened is that some men decided long ago that a certain translation was the right one while others determined the tru one was theirs. And this turned out to be the reason that justifies the existence of 8 Primary versions and of several hundreds of 2nd versions, each one pretending to be the exact translation of the original one, which is, of course, impossible.

So you are entitled to believe as you please, but please do not try to impose upon others your own beliefs as you were the only one in possession of the truth.

Gromitt82

[sndbay]

So are you saying that it is God's will that there are so many different and contradictory interpretations of scripture? Surely there is but One Truth.

For example, is transubstantiation true ? Does the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

There are Christians who say yes and there are those who say no. Both believe that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit. So who is correct and how can you decide?

This is a different thread discussion entirely. But I will say that it is all according to what your heart is willing to believe. That is why the heart is search by Christ. Men that follow man's doctrine as example in the teaching of scripture, are also exampled that God permitting the delusion of their ways or choice.

It brings attention to Christ saying to follow Him and deny thyself. What is the willingness of heart ?

[elscarta]

Men that follow man's doctrine as example in the teaching of scripture, are also exampled that God permitting the delusion of their ways or choice.

But this contradicts your previous post

The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.

How can you argue that men follow man's doctrine? There is no such thing if all interpretation is given from the Holy Spirit and is the will of God!

And if all interpretation is the will of God then you are saying that it is the will of God that some men hold false beliefs (delusion). God is the God of Truth not falsehood, it is Satan that is the father of all falsehood!