I have found that cherries make the best wine. Cherry wine tastes really good. And you can then also distill it with a New Zealand still and get cherry schnapps.
Reference the Nazarite vow to abstain from all grape products, fruit of the vine. 1. Leviticus 10:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: That is one prohibition that has not expired, the noted exception being communion, however, non alcoholic grape juice is acceptable for blessings, brucha in both Judaism and church communion. 2. John 2:1-10 King James Version (KJV) 2 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 3. ◄ 1 Timothy 5:23 ► King James Version Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Yes - "is" can take on different meanings. In the case of Clinton, his comments had to do with the fact that the law had defined "sexual relations" as having a very specific meaning. And, that meaning was not the meaning used by most of the US population. So, in the context of the investigation there became two very different answers based on which definition of "is" was being used. Unfortunately for Clinton, he was asked to give ONE answer that was required to be accurate under BOTH definitions! lol! So YES! We have the "is" dichotomy - even outside the realm of religion!! And, we have the blindness to that dichotomy as well!! On top of that, you get to call those who don't believe as you do "blind". That's standard religious argument. "You don't share my religion? Well, that's because you are blind!" (Not that it is particularly persuasive as an argument, of course.)
I do not see anything in my summary that orthodox catholics would object to. Do you have an example? I've already conceded that there are 'add ons', that are ambiguous to orthodoxy, and as far as I'm concerned, are unnecessary. Full immersion vs sprinkling Pray to saints Literal sacraments Apostolic succession Bishops, popes, elders, deacons, priests, ministers, cardinals, and any other institutional organization. Pre vs post trib, rapture Wine vs grape juice I have none of these in my summary, and do not see them in most historical creeds or statements of faith. I have studied the early church fathers and apologists, and while occasionally attention is given to some offbeat notion, most of their efforts went into defending the core beliefs about Christ, His work and nature, man, sin, and redemption. I see the Living God as being very open to variety, in this world.. not at all like man, with his narrow bigoted views. There ARE essentials, but they are minimal. I do not consider my summary, here, to be a 'statement of faith,' that one must assent to for salvation. I am merely defining historical Christianity. Believing everything here is NOT necessary for salvation, imo. It is merely a framework for Christian orthodoxy. There are essentials, which can either define one as 'Christian', or exempt you. But that is not the topic or goal, here.
John 1:1-14 King James Version (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. And the Jews acknowledge Jesus by default since they believe in one G-d.
Context matters: The first problem with the belief that Jesus was "The Father" is that it is not disputed by respectable theologians and Biblical Scholars that Jesus never refers to himself as 'God - The Father. He says "worship God" but never says worship me. If we look to the gospel of Mark - the first Gospel and the one with the most direct link to the disciples (Mark was reputed to have been an interpreter of Peter) - Jesus always refers to God as someone other than himself. The narrative in Mark begins with Jesus becoming divine at his baptism. God says "you are my son". Then in the confrontation with Satan ... It is absurd that Satan would ask God to worship him. When Jesus says to pray he does not say "Pray to me". He says pray to the Father. When Jesus prays to the Father - he asks God " Father - everything is possible for you - Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will but what you will ". It is absurd that someone who believed that Jesus was "the Father" would write this ... and more absurd that Jesus would say this. Why would Jesus need to pray to himself ? Why would Jesus need to ask permission from himself. Why would Jesus say .. not what I will but what you will ? When Jesus is on the cross his last words are "My God My God ... why have you forsaken me". Again it is preposterous nonsense to suggest that Jesus is calling to himself... claiming that he has forsaken himself ... that Jesus has gone mad in some masochistic delerium and forgotten that he is God - The Father. If you are a Christian at the time of the writing of Mark (~65AD)... and all you have is Mark to go on. Jesus is not God (The Father). The same is true of Matt which is written a few decades later (80-100AD). The author of Matt uses almost all of Mark and adds a few things. Again we have Jesus last words (why have you forsaken me). We do have an advance in the divinity of Jesus. In Matt Jesus is divine at Birth.. rather than at Baptism. The author of Matt also adds adds stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh after death - (the smoking gun for the resurrection promise of Jesus). When Jesus is talking about the end times in Matt he says: Matt 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. If Jesus is "The Father" .. how can he not know that the Father knows ? Again .. if all one has is Matt/Mark Jesus is not The Father. The author of John (90-120 AD) introduces a new term ... one not used previously. Jesus is now "The Logos" (Mistranslated as the word in modern bibles - while the Greek term Logos can mean "word" - in a religious context it meant the emissary between God and Man) Christianity is evolving and with it the notion of the divinity of Jesus. In John Jesus is depicted as being pre-existent - rather than divine at birth or at baptism. The author uses terminology familiar to Greek speaking people (Gentiles - Pauline Christians). Everyone knew the concept of the Logos. This depiction of Jesus however conflicts with previous notions. Jesus stating that God has forsaken him does not well fit into the "Logos" concept. In John the last words of Jesus are "It is finished". This is problematic as obviously the Author of John would have known the last words of Jesus as per the two previous Gospels. We need to keep in mind that the masses are not reading scripture directly - they are hearing it from religious leaders and so this little change is no big deal. This kind of "Pious fraud" was acceptable back in the day. Justified on the basis of bringing people to the faith - saving their souls - and so on. Matt engages in this as well. Matt uses almost the entirety of Mark but, omits a few passages - all of which are derogatory towards Jesus and/or the disciples. So now to your passage ... "In context" Again we have Jesus referring to the Father as someone other than himself. If Jesus is the Father then he would not say "I do not speak on my own Authority". Obviously the Author is distinguishing between Jesus and "The Father". This passage can be easily understood in context. Jesus is "The Logos" The emissary between Man and God. Jesus speaks Gods word via the Holy Spirit. Jesus word is then "Gods Word" Jesus is in fact the Word of God. The Father then shows himself to man through his the Son .. The Father is in Jesus .. and Jesus is in the Father because Jesus is the word of the Father. If one claims "NO NO NO" Jesus is saying that he IS the Father then this person must deny Matt and Mark. There is no way around it. The only way to not deny Matt and Mark is to interpret John in the context of the "Logos" concept. - and forgive the Author of John for a bit of pious fraud in relation to the last words of Jesus.
Matthew 15:11 King James Version (KJV) 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Barnabus telling folks to "think of Christ as God" does not mean to think that Christ "IS" God. Jesus was the Logos .. the emissary between man and God. The word of Jesus is then the word of God ... Jesus - the Son of God made divine at his Baptism according to the Gospel of Mark - spoke the word of God through the Holy Spirit. Clement expresses the same sentiment ... One God,... One Christ.. One Spirit. Christ and the Spirit are then emanations from the Godhead .. this does not mean that Christ - the Son - Is the Father in the literal sense. Clement made it clear that he believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Ignatius believed Jesus believed in worshiping Jesus as a God .. but not as God the Father ... Jesus was divine ( = he is a God) he was the divine Logos .. the path to God ... the word of God .. but he was not God the Father. This is not what Scripture says nor depicts .... See post 457
1 Corinthians 2 King James Version (KJV) 1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. ***************** The mystery of the Holy Trinity is not to be discerned in the natural sense, only in the spiritual sense.
I knew you'd figure out some way to weasel out of it, which is why I didn't put any more effort into it than I did. Still blows your meme about subordinationisn into the weeds, though, but I am sure you'll make something up.
The Greek version (from which that came) is much more interesting. Of course it may not have been RED. I don't see a way to accept your last sentence as being true.
Nothing in your post blew anything into the weeds. That you fail to address anything in my post .... then turn around and make nonsense claims "You were blown away" ... is ridiculous. How does you saying "You were blown away" and repeating this over and over again ... blow away anything stated in my post ? You have not blow anything away because you did respond to anything I said - other than to say "I blew you away" ? You can lie to me if you like but stop lying to yourself.
In the case of Clinton "is" was an obvious dodge. That's how I purvey those that twist the scripture. We have a God given consience that tells us what is right. We can choose of course to ignore it.
This is really complicated for you because you either refuse to understand the Triune nature of God......or the light just hasn't come on for you yet. The Sun is a definite solar Body......we'll equate that with the Father. The light it gives and represents itself to us we could also equate with Jesus. The heat and energy source it emits equates to the Holy Spirit. Now study scripture in that context and while your at it pay particular attention to Phillipians Chapter 2. Jesus refers often to the Father because that is the state he does not take on the fraility of the human body. Jesus was faithful to His mission and he tried to show us how to live. Now the written Word is our representation and the Holy Spirit empowers us to understand when we submit to His efforts.
In other words I think we can grow to maturity without majoring in the minors..... wouldn't you agree Usfan?
Disagreed. However, under "modern Christianity" I'd be a heretic....which is how we got "modern Christianity", but banishing or executing anyone who disagrees.
While I don't guess I qualify as a layman in this context, if you can explain how Jesus could have, among other things, been tempted, lacked knowledge of the day and hour of His second coming, lacked authority to grant a seat on His right or His left, or had a will apart from that of His Father, if He is God, then I'm all ears. Perhaps that has something to do with the impotence of modern Christianity relative to its expression as recorded in the New Testament.
And if you can explain how the God of the OT is the source of Justice, Love and Joy in this universe, when (according to Samuel ) He authorised the slaughter of the children of the Amalek, I'm all ears. Lots of difficult questions arising from ancient scripture....
Amen. Or, the slaughter of the Midianite people - men (including prisoners), women and children, except for the virgin girls distributed among the generals. Or, the slaughter at Jericho, which served as a threat to other city-states that they should surrender. This would certainly qualify as terrorism by today's standard.
No problem: He knew they all deserved death, so He justly ordered the massacre of the whole backstabbing lot of them, to protect the people He loved, that they might experience the joy of prosperity, and eventually extend it to those gentiles who had not degenerated past the point of no return, as the Amalekites evidently had. You're welcome.
Muslims I know claim the god of the bible is a god of justice. Their argument is that you can't have love until there is justice.
