Originally posted by black beetle Sermons are boring;
I have no time for TV;
I know you pray for every being and thankful I remain. May you be always happy!
I am fully aware of your spiritual thesis, but I fail to evaluate it as tenable. This is not problematic to me because in my opinion there are as many realities as many are the sentient beings. We are reading differently the "sam ore you when I will become unable to learn fom you; even Paul suffered big time in the Agora😵
Originally posted by jaywill Welcome to the universe.
No, you did not ASK to be here. Neither did I.
None of us existed to be able to request that we exist. But we are here.
The universe is a great place. But you'll find that it does have its problems to.
But one thing you should be cognizant. This existance does have its Governor. There is Authroity over this creation. A God Who died and rose from the dead.
One act to redeem all sinners unto eternal life.
" For God SO LOVED the world that He gave His onely begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be sabved through Him."
These two sentences came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. They are perhaps some of the most known words spoken on earth. None of us had the wisdom to utter them or to imagine them. These words came from the lips of that Son of God Who died and rose from the dead.
Actually it makes much more sense that the above verses were commentary made by the writer of John rather than a quote of Jesus. They are much more consistent with the words of the writer of John rather than the words of Jesus. If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [quote][b]" For God SO LOVED the world that He gave His onely begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be sabved through Him."
These two sentences came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. They are perhaps ...[text shortened]... Jesus. If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely.[/b]
I disagree, the speaker is saying something very important beyond what John
could have known on his own. God did something for this reason! Jesus would
know, John would have had to been told.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay I disagree, the speaker is saying something very important beyond what John
could have known on his own. God did something for this reason! Jesus would
know, John would have had to been told.
Kelly
Not sure what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase it?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [quote][b]" For God SO LOVED the world that He gave His onely begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be sabved through Him."
These two sentences came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. They are perhaps ...[text shortened]... Jesus. If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely.[/b]
Commentary perhaps, but entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [quote][b]" For God SO LOVED the world that He gave His onely begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be sabved through Him."
These two sentences came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. They are perhaps ...[text shortened]... Jesus. If you are able to be objective about this, you'll see that this is much more likely.[/b]
Don't you think John was influenced by Jesus? If John thought very much
of Jesus to write about Him in this Manner, why then, would John put his
own words in the mouth of Jesus? It doen't make sense to me.
Originally posted by josephw Commentary perhaps, but entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself.
Hardly "entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself". For example, so far as I know, Jesus did not declare that He was God's "only begotten Son". However the writer of John did so in several places.
Originally posted by RJHinds Don't you think John was influenced by Jesus? If John thought very much
of Jesus to write about Him in this Manner, why then, would John put his
own words in the mouth of Jesus? It doen't make sense to me.
No one said that "John put his own words in the mouth of Jesus". Rather that it makes much more sense that "the ...verses were commentary made by the writer of John rather than a quote of Jesus". While some translations of the Bible place the words "in the mouth of Jesus", the KJV and others (including the original text) do not.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Hardly "entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself". For example, so far as I know, Jesus did not declare that He was God's "only begotten Son". However the writer of John did so in several places.
Well, I have to hand it to ya. You said one thing I can agree with. "As far as you know". 😉
But you really are splitting hairs here. You know that Jesus said that God was His Father. Right? So obviously that makes Jesus God's Son. No?
But the point you are missing is that John was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that Jesus was God's "only begotten Son". And what is even more important is that you have no idea what the word "begotten" is there for. I would explain it to you, but it would be best for you to go look it up for yourself.
Originally posted by josephw Well, I have to hand it to ya. You said one thing I can agree with. "As far as you know". 😉
But you really are splitting hairs here. You know that Jesus said that God was His Father. Right? So obviously that makes Jesus God's Son. No?
But the point you are missing is that John was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that Jesus was God's "only begotte ...[text shortened]... . I would explain it to you, but it would be best for you to go look it up for yourself.
Since you seem to be side-stepping the point, I'll spell it out for you even more plainly.
You said, "Commentary perhaps, but entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself", which is false so far as I know, therefore it is NOT entirely consistent. If you believe that Jesus declared Himself to be God's "only begotten Son" then by all means, provide the verses. Or do you not understand the difference between declaring oneself the "Son of God" and the "only begotten Son" of God?
Or perhaps you've lost sight of the point of my response to JW. If so, then maybe you should go back and reread from my response forward.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Since you seem to be side-stepping the point, I'll spell it out for you even more plainly.
You said, "Commentary perhaps, but entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself", which is false so far as I know, therefore it is NOT entirely consistent. If you believe that Jesus declared Himself to be God's "only begotten Son" then by ...[text shortened]... nse to JW. If so, then maybe you should go back and reread from my response forward.
While a religion allows the slaughter of innocent animals, it only pays lip service to statements of God being righteous, merciful, good, kind, loving and the rest.
Any religion supporting cruelty to its lower creatures is false, and it matters not the many times you speak of love and mercy from God for this God would not condone animal cruelty.
The religions of the world that care not for their lower creatures are false.
So no more talk of righteousness and love and mercy if you cannot live by it. ( you have to walk the talk)
Welcome to the Universe
23 Jul '11 09:08
Back to Top