The "Gospel" Of John

yet you still missed the point. jesus saved that woman WITHOUT DYING.

but the bible is just another set human definitions, plural. there is no standard in the bible. it's not very consistent. you can quote a few verses that SAY god is consistent, but the bible is no consistent in its descriptions of him.

Where did you get that interpretaion? And do you know what imanual means?John 8:58-Exodus 3:14
read them together and compare them.
And what joke? They are in a since. They are supose to care for one another as they care for themselves.The truth is there, but you ignore it cause it is not what you want to hear. We do take a part in it by beliveing in jeaus as who he said he was. Nothing exept eterntity in Hell seperated from God. Nothing. Jesus is our free gift. Tehy can if that other person is God. In this case Jesus. Then that is your reson to belive God became a man so that we might be saved. We are seperate from God cause of our sin. When Jesus was crucified God had turned his back on his son and theres where Jesus became seperated from God the Father.
I cal it tamato you call it tumato. it is still the same thingi dont get what your saying in the next one. explain. A word can change its meaning ove time. exp. its cool outside=hey man cool
or lets have a gay old time=Ahhh lets not! The word perfect in the king james version means blameless in todays languge. It dosint mean they havint sined though. Its like your crimanal record. If you have not commited any major crimes or felonys than you are blameless in a since. its like you have sinned but not kept doing it and doing it to spit God and have tried to follow Gods law and do what he wants to the extent of your abilatys. Then what was he a leprachaun! and agin explain. refrences paridise lost. Then who is the devil if it is not lucifer.It was a title before he was kiked out of heaven. isaiah 14:12 and on. Who? Atheists? He is not God i was showing that we would not accept someone who dosent follow there own rules. And if God lied then the whole bible lied and so we would both be folowing false teachings cause the bible says God dosent sin yet you said he does. where?geneologysluke wrrote about marys geneology and its relation to the propecies.

from the text. it's a sign delivered to be delivered to ahaz in specific. yes. do you know what isaiah means?there is no indication in the text that the person bearing this name is anything but that: a person. a form of the name of god being in the person's name means nothing -- almost every prominent name in the bible has some reference to god in it:isaiah, jeremiah, nehemiah, zechariah, hezekiah, josiah, and so all compain the "yah" from "yahweh"israel, immanuel, samuel, daniel, joel, ezekiel, etc, all end in the "el" from "elohym"immanuel DOES mean that god is with us -- but NOT in the person named immanuel. read the next few verses:

quote:

---

Isa 7:16 For before the child [Immanuel] shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

---

see? you've chosen one of multiple ways to read this. what sounds more probable to me is that jesus is refering to god by name, and it got mistranslated (since god's name does mean "i am") uh, no, i'm the one sticking to the bible here. bull. i had nothing to do with. i wasn't there, and even if i was, i don't own a jesus. it happened before i was born, let alone before i sinned. i am not giving up anything by believing. psychologically, and according to law of god, jesus cannot be a sacrifice. i don't feel any better that someone else is bearing my sins -- i feel worse. precisely. not a sacrifice. gift &ne sacrfice. in fact, i'd say it's the opposite. god's giving something to us, not vice versa. but again, why was death neccessary? as i've quoted before, jesus forgave sins before his death. not sure. like i said, crisis of faith. personally, my opinion is that jesus's life was more important. and i don't believe that god became man, ever. we are separate from god because god is separate from us. we are not gods. how does one turn their back on themselves? go practice that for a while.

quote:

---

Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

---

jesus says: repitition doesn't make you right.seriously, go read the book of job. the whole premise is that job has not sinned. if he has, his test is merely punishment. job is called perfect, which has to mean "without sin" in this context. there is no other possibility. i bite my nails. could i still be blameless if i keep biting my nails? how intimately do you think god cares about the standards?i think he cares about intent, and the big things, but is not asking us to be perfect in the modern sense of the word, and certainly not in the godly sense of the word. you. read my posts before you make a fool out of yourself. i do believe i referenced isaiah 14. it is not refering to anyone but the king of babylon. people who read greek. again, bush is not god. nor is any other man. we do not elect our god, and he does not sit in authority because of any social contract. we cannot overthrow or kill our god. our god is god because HE IS. we don't have a choice in the matter, except whether we believe or not.and yes, there ARE a lot of people who do not believe in god precisely because he does not follow his own rules, according to the bible. you may be interested in this old thread: http://EvC Forum: Why I am creationist -->EvC Forum: Why I am creationisti caused quite a stir in it, actually. mike the wiz asserted that people believe in evolution because of their "fear of bibleGod being true." he was being facetious of course, but i, in turn, responded that this is a perfectly valid reason why people shun christianity, and listed a bunch of "crimes" of god. mike got REALLY upset, called me an unbeliever, saying that i was accusing god and saying blasphemy etc.if i spoke blasphemy, then the bible is blasphemous, because nothing i said cannot be found in the bible. here's the list of bible quotes about god doing things outside of our standards of morality: http://EvC Forum: Why I am creationist -->EvC Forum: Why I am creationistgod's law clearly does not apply god: only man. that's nice. what's the name of joseph's father?

I would like to read your argument.I would say that the ego, the deliberate conceptual functioning of our organism, imagines it is a separate entity, and hence separate from the world, the universe, and God. But there being no actual entity there is no separation only the illusion of separation.lfen

Dpardo,
It took me over 5 years of prayer and research to come to terms with and understand the reality of the Bible. My spirituality has matured beyond dogma and tradition.You have shown displeasure in the past concerning the frankness of my answers, but then you ask me:

quote:

---

Reason with me.
If what you say is true concerning Isaiah, why did Jesus say the scripture is fulfilled in their hearing?

---

I will answer your question to the best of my ability and understanding, but you must realize that what I say may cause you some spiritual discomfort. Just remember that your trust should be in God and not the book, its authors, or me. Find the reality.Also if you wish to continue this line of discussion, you need to open a new thread, since this thread is on the Book of John.The quote: Commentaries state that what Jesus read was from the Septuagint, so I included that translation also. Remember we are at the mercy of dead languages and translators.
Dare to compare! The Gospel of Luke was probably written about 80-130CE. You would need to research that on your own and see what you believe.As you can see the quote in Luke is not exact, even to the Septuagint. Bind up the brokenhearted is not written in Luke.Now look at the line recovery of sight to the blind. The NIV version of Isaiah doesn’t have it and the Tanakh sounds more like spiritual blindness, than physical blindness. Of course you could say that recovery of sight to the blind could also concern spiritual blindness.Did Jesus actually read the written passage from the scroll? IMO, doubtful.Now what does the author mean by fulfilled in your hearing?As I understand it, when the Jewish say that you have fulfilled Torah, it means that you have interpreted it correctly. (to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be)If we define fulfill as to bring to realization, we have to ask: were all these things accomplished at the time of the reading?Were captives released?
Were prisoners set free?
Did Jesus proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor?
Did all of the situations mentioned happen during his ministry?IMO the point of the author’s story was to present Jesus as an anointed prophet.I can’t tell you that my impression is the correct impression, but then neither can the clergy. You have to investigate the information yourself and remember that the people in the Bible were real people.Try to understand both sides of the coin. The authors of the Bible presented their religious and political views of their culture within their lifetime. Some of the stories have political and religious agendas and others teach lessons.Remember the authors may or may not have had control over how their writings were eventually used or changed.Now since this discussion is about the Book of John, this story does not show that regular people were thrown out of the synagogues for acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, which is what you were trying to show me concerning the story in John 9:22.Enjoy the journey!

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Although Jesus did forgive sins during his ministry, his death serves as a perpetual atonement for sin.Hebrews 7:11: Emphasis mine.

This is just what we need- a Christian posting alleged contradictions.As if it wasn't enough to try and answer the infinite alleged contradictions of non-Christians.Please post a new thread and I will address all of your "contradictions".What strikes me, sometimes, is how people (not referring to you) are able to "google" alleged contradictions but can't seem to "google" answers to their alleged contradictions which takes the same amount of time.

Joseph's biological father's name is Heli.Matthew's genealogy traces successive heirs to the throne of David.Luke's genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph.Note how the genealogy's diverge after David.Although Solomon and Nathan are both sons of David, only one is heir to the throne.Edit: Grammar.This message has been edited by dpardo, 12-11-2004 01:30 PM

quote:

---

Although Jesus did forgive sins during his ministry, his death serves as a perpetual atonement for sin.

---

There is a thread in Faith and Belief concerning this topic. You might want to go there and tangle with Arach.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Who is Arachnophilia that I should take his word over the clear teaching of scripture?

Are you Arachnophilia's disciple?

Prove it! That means they wont be there when it happens. Good job. but yet you say its harasy.good luck with that. Ok. you give him your soul. work for you. probbly not. prove it HOW! He said he was God. and its in the bible. What you said.
Ill let people draw there own conclusions. i meant to say seperated. sorry typo. I was tiered. It also seems he is talking about someone else besides the king since the king has never fallen from heaven caus no human has came from heaven. You put human limitaions on God. . good job. and i didnt mean he leteraly turned his back on Jesus. ya in the KJV! Stay focused! do you read greek? Jacob. Today we have son in laws. back then tho when they married into that famly they just called him son. Joseph was Heli's son in law.

Why to you react so harshly to a simple note that shows you there is a thread concerning the off topic discussion you are engaging in?Since there is a limit to the number of posts in a thread, I feel it is inconsiderate to continue an off topic discussion or waste posts such as Message 101 and Message 102.I wouldn't want this thread to end before you get a chance to show me that regular Jews were expelled from the synagogues for acknowledging that Jesus was the Messiah.The story in John 9 doesn't really deal with anyone claiming that Jesus is the Messiah. The Pharisees were upset because Jesus had made mud and restored a man's sight on the Sabbath. They were trying to discern if the was a man of God or not. The blind man told them Jesus was a prophet.There is nothing in the story that says the blind man or his parents considered Jesus to be the Messiah.The man was thrown out of the temple because he dared to lecture the Pharisees and Jesus didn't reveal his status to the man until after he was thrown out.I haven't found anything in the synoptics that suggests that regular people were thrown out of the synagogues for verbally acknowledging that Jesus was the Messiah. It is questionable that anyone knew outside of the 12, which oddly enough is where our thread discussing the supposed "offer" made to the Jews has settled.People following Jesus or knowing that he was the Messiah didn't change how they behaved in the synagogues. As far as we can tell they worshipped the same as always.The one organized effort I know of to separate the Nazarene sect from the rest of Judaism was the rewritten 12th petition. Those who wouldn't read the curse were thrown out. This was about 80-90CE.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

ooh. i'll think about that one.