Replies

******It was a public rebuke against the Jewish authorities, nothing more or less. If one does not comprehend Scripture (which is normal for personal interpretation), then one cannot be a Christian.

The Jewish authorities had no authority than what they were given by the powers that be from Rome.

*** That has nothing to do with this subject. It was still a public rebuke of the Jewish authorities, if one reads the entire passage, and not a single verse.

Really, were the Herodians under the Jewish authorities? Christ spoke to all represented ‘religious’ authorities and it was a timeless rebuke for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

*** Religiously, they were. Jesus specifically names the scribes and the Pharisees. It is still a public rebuke of them and does not translate to Roman or Greek religious authorities.

You could not be more wrong. Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Matthew 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all things be fulfilled.

Matthew 24 is where Christ say what events would take place before He would return, then he injects a instruction, Now learn a parable of the fig tree: When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

That parable only fits at a particular time and establishes when this generation that Christ kept referencing, is going to be here walking here on this earth, in flesh when all these thing will be fulfilled. Is it that summer yet?

***Christ doesn’t. Men do. Remember that the entire OT was God trying to get the Jew’s attention for more than a day at a time and failing. Even the mission of the early Christians to the Jews failed and it took Paul (and Peter and Thomas) going to the Gentiles to save the fledgling Church.

Paul says the entire OT is our script as to what would be again, our warning, to bring an end to this flesh age.

*** If we act as the Jewish people did, then we would be doomed to repeat the OT style happenings over and over again. Remember that all of the Apostles believed that Jesus would come back in their lifetimes, and much of their early thought was to that end. That is one (certainly not only) of the reasons that John’s Gospel, written as late as it was, is very different than the other three. Another difference is the identification of Jesus as divine. The Synoptic Gospels and Paul do not identify Jesus as divine.

It does not matter what any one flesh being believes, Christ said I have foretold you all things, and He personally selected his disciples and through them we have His instruction.

Paul did not say 'act' like anyone. He said These things happened unto them for ensamples (examples): and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.

Paul did not say/write anything new. Solomon says the same thing in Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See this is new? it hath been already of *OLD* time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after...

Of course in a gravity bound flesh body there is NO remembrance, but Paul said what happened to them is our script for what would be again for to WARN us. And even Peter used the same language IIPeter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour; (Note Peter did not address any of the writers, or himself as 'Father' Anybody, so Peter did not bind that claim, that came from traditions of men.)

***Christ at His death already went to those that returned to the Maker that sent them and offered them salvation ***

Can you elaborate on exactly what you mean here? I sense that your understanding differs from the Church and would like to understand if there is any.

I am not sure exactly what you are asking me to elaborate? We are told the soul returns to the Maker that sent it. Luke tells us about the gulf that separated the rich man from Lazarus who was in the bosom of Abraham. Now how is it possible to have Abraham in heaven having repented if he had not had opportunity to accept Christ? Which is why Peter says that Christ went to the 'spirits' held in prison until Chirst in the tomb went and offered them salvation to set them free.

Now just to be clear here I have NOT quoted specific scripture but you know where to find Luke's own description and I have already quoted Peter's words.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He That came down from heaven, even the Son of man Which is in heaven.

The soul/spirit is place in the flesh at conception and when the flesh dies the soul returns to the Maker that sent that soul. Luke describes when the point in time, Emmanuel -God with us- came to dwell in flesh at the conception of Mary.

***Not as such. He created the foundation and pillar of Truth - the Church.

But we commoners have the whole book, the WORD, to test the fruit of ‘TRUTH’ whether there is Christ still in any church.

*** If you do not have a Catholic Bible, you do not have the whole book. And, if you read the introductory verses of John, you will realize that the WORD is Jesus; the word is Scripture. A very big difference especially when one realizes that the words (except for the claim of Moses), are the words of men who were inspired by God and not dictated by Him.

I think there is a Catholic Bible around here someplace, I married into a very liberal Catholic family and they talk religion just like you do. The difference I find is that these Catholic members literally believe there is a 'social gospel' and liberal politicians quote from that gospel so they always vote for liberal politicians. It will take an overt act from the Heavenly Father to convince them otherwise. And they have Catholic Bibles, and they go to church on a regular basis.

John said John 1:1 In the beginning (that means Genesis) was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the Word was God.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Jesus was there as Moses penned in Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the *tree of life* also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil..

Christ is the *tree of life* but that 'life' would not be offered to any soul until Christ paid the price. Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil;

Verse 2 of Genesis 1 infers the reaction to the pride of the evil one but no elaboration is given here, but planted else where Jeremiah and Peter speak about that world (age) that was. NO evil had yet been recorded as having happened but there he was symbolized as a tree with the knowledge of good and evil, in the garden also as recorded by Ezekiel 28:13.

Moses penned the first prophecy, Genesis 3:15 and only half of that prophecy has take place.

Christ gave Moses all the credibility any one can possibly give. And every time Christ quoted the prophets He made them one and the same of Him saying I have foretold you all things. Which is why Peter and Paul referenced the writings of the prophets as being where the warnings of what would be again could be found.

******

Peter gets used as having been given keys, but I can’t find those who claim to now possess Peter’s keys as being what Peter bound from his own writings.

*** Does that mean that if Peter didn’t write it, that it didn’t happen? How did an illiterate fisherman learn how to write anyway? He didn’t tell us. Does that mean that he really didn’t write anything and that other people wrote it for him?

These are your words, I certainly would never call Peter an illiterate fisherman.

Is this your church’s teaching? Dissing Peter?

** Of course not. Your claim appeared to be that if Peter didn’t expressly write it, then it didn’t happen or had validity. My point is that Peter started out as an illiterate fisherman and wound up writing some of Scripture. Therefore not all of Scripture contains all of God’s instructions that He would have us know. For example, you claimed that Jesus went to visit those who returned to the Maker that sent them. The verses that you quote do not quite support this. Where else are you getting information from?

Hopefully, you got the answer from above.

And this business of a day? Thousands of years ago, the ‘day’ which was the earth’s turning period was closer to 25 hours than 24 - a fact proven by putting humans in a totally dark environment for weeks and letting them sleep naturally until they would normally wake up. Without exception they established a normal schedule of nearly 25 hours. If the 25 hours was normal early on in man’s development, let’s extrapolate back millions of years - the earth’s revolution about the sun which is supposedly relatively constant - and we find that a ‘day’ was millions of years. Therefore a ‘day’ has no meaning to your prior post in relation to the ‘day’ of now.

Peter did not get into the particulars of how many hours there are in a day. Time as per the length of a day began at sunset to sunset was counted for a day. NOT how many hours were/are in any given day. Peter was telling us how the Heavenly Father marks time and one of our so called 24 hour days would hardly be much more than a twinkling of the eye on the Heavenly Fathers time chart. I keep hearing the claim of some church being the oldest church, 2,000 years old, but Peter says that is only a couple of days on the Heavenly Father's calendar.

A Catholic dissing Peter? That made my day. Thanks.

Calling Peter an illiterate fisherman was a bit of a shocker to my eyes. Obviously Christ did not consider him an illiterate fisherman and when I read what Peter penned there is nothing illiterate about what he said.