Why water into wine?

[bbyrd009]

They are not different categories. It is a process of recognizing a saint. You have your own process that probably sounds wooden and arbitrary to other people, too

good point.

 

[Stranger]

I answered it. Your question was:
"So, again, do you believe that all those of the race of Adam who are believers, who are saved, are saints?"

You don't know WHO is saved so your question is moot.

I am asking you, not me. As far as me, all Christians are saints. As far as you, what do you say? Or, what does the Roman Church say? You know you're crawfishing.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Jesus was speaking about John and NOBODY else but John.
There is nothing in this verse to indicate that He was talking about anybody else.

Anyway - I've already schooled you about the 7 ASIAN churches of Revelation.

Well, was John a believer? And Peter had no authority over him. Just like Peter had no authority over any other believer.

Yes, concerning the 7 Asian churches you admitted the Roman church had no authority over them. But then again, in Scripture the Roman church has no authority over any churches.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

Kind of hard to refute that Paul addresses some of his letters... "To the saints at Ephesus".... etc.

 

[Stranger]

Kind of hard to refute that Paul addresses some of his letters... "To the saints at Ephesus".... etc.

That is exactly right. Welcome to the forum.

Stranger

 

[perrero]

Just pointing out that jumping to play Numerologist when we think we have found a special number in the Bible can sometimes leave egg on our faces. It is often best to just read the Bible for simply what it says.

So you think I have egg on my face?

Let me see. When Jesus made reference to His resurrection, He chose to compare it with the 3 days of Jonah in the belly of the fish.

The greatest story typifying the death and resurrection is that of Abraham called to sacrifice his only son. From death to resurrection of Isaac, did you notice that the travel to the place of the altar was a 3 days journey?

The good Samaritan, who can also can be a representation of Jesus pulling us out of the ditch after being robbed, beaten and left for dead (John 10:10 -- the devil comes to steal, kill and destroy), was the third (3) person to pass by and bring life to us dead folk.

You may want to read to story of the two men on the road to Emmaus who were joined by a third (3) person, Jesus, who turned their sad and mournful hearts into hearts revived and burning.

Paul in his conversion was blind 3 days time passing from death unto life and then was baptized and received the Holy Spirit.

Did you read about the Israelites, who before entering the promised land (the new life), waited 3 days (resurrection) after the waters of the Jordan were “cut off” (death – Isaiah 53:8 “For he was cut off from the land of the living”)

Now I will not deny that the number three (3) sometimes means nothing and at other times may make reference to the Trinity but I think that the examples above and in others in scripture we can certainly see a reference to the resurrection within the context. God who is the Great Mathematician is certainly capable of weaving these wonderful nuggets to bring a spiritual dimension to what would normally be a simple story.

I suggest you try to stay open to these possible hidden blessings as they can be quite enriching, or you can remain in the dark about these and just read words on a page. However, something I do not suggest is to enter a forum with such a self-righteous statement when you have no idea who I am or where God has taken me in my walk with Him.

 

[Willie T]

So you think I have egg on my face?

Let me see. When Jesus made reference to His resurrection, He chose to compare it with the 3 days of Jonah in the belly of the fish.

The greatest story typifying the death and resurrection is that of Abraham called to sacrifice his only son. From death to resurrection of Isaac, did you notice that the travel to the place of the altar was a 3 days journey?

The good Samaritan, who can also can be a representation of Jesus pulling us out of the ditch after being robbed, beaten and left for dead (John 10:10 -- the devil comes to steal, kill and destroy), was the third (3) person to pass by and bring life to us dead folk.

You may want to read to story of the two men on the road to Emmaus who were joined by a third (3) person, Jesus, who turned their sad and mournful hearts into hearts revived and burning.

Paul in his conversion was blind 3 days time passing from death unto life and then was baptized and received the Holy Spirit.

Did you read about the Israelites, who before entering the promised land (the new life), waited 3 days (resurrection) after the waters of the Jordan were “cut off” (death – Isaiah 53:8 “For he was cut off from the land of the living”)

Now I will not deny that the number three (3) sometimes means nothing and at other times may make reference to the Trinity but I think that the examples above and in others in scripture we can certainly see a reference to the resurrection within the context. God who is the Great Mathematician is certainly capable of weaving these wonderful nuggets to bring a spiritual dimension to what would normally be a simple story.

I suggest you try to stay open to these possible hidden blessings as they can be quite enriching, or you can remain in the dark about these and just read words on a page. However, something I do not suggest is to enter a forum with such a self-righteous statement when you have no idea who I am or where God has taken me in my walk with Him.

In your rush to defend your wounded pride, you seem to have missed the entire point of my post. And that was, if you flip back to the previous chapter (remember those "books" were never broken into chapters and verses), you will find that the time period probably was NOT three (3) days, but, instead, four (4) days.

In other words, you have run, full steam ahead, to try and develop a case for a number of (3) days... that the Bible seems to testify was not three days, at all, but rather, (4) days.

I doubt anyone would deny the importance of a reference to three days.... but, a statement of those days has to exist first. And that does not seem to be the case here.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, was John a believer? And Peter had no authority over him. Just like Peter had no authority over any other believer.

Yes, concerning the 7 Asian churches you admitted the Roman church had no authority over them. But then again, in Scripture the Roman church has no authority over any churches.

Stranger

No - I never admitted to any of that.
Lying is like an addiction with you.

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the 7 Churches in Revelation 1 were from ASIA. Rome is in EUROPE.
I can suggest a good world atlas site, if you're interested . . .

 

[Stranger]

No - I never admitted to any of that.
Lying is like an addiction with you.

You can't seem to grasp the fact that the 7 Churches in Revelation 1 were from ASIA. Rome is in EUROPE.
I can suggest a good world atlas site, if you're interested . . .

You're not paying attention. In my reply I distinctly said the 7 Asian churches. So, why do you say I don't know they were in Asia.

The point is they are not under the Roman church or Peter or any pope. And, the chain of command goes from God the Father, to God the Son, to John then to the angels or leaders of each local church, and then to the individual believer himself. Jesus Christ addressing each individual believer when He says 'He who overcomes'.

No Peter, No pope, No Mary, no Roman Church. Just Jesus Christ speaking directly to the believer.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You're not paying attention. In my reply I distinctly said the 7 Asian churches. So, why do you say I don't know they were in Asia.

The point is they are not under the Roman church or Peter or any pope. And, the chain of command goes from God the Father, to God the Son, to John then to the angels or leaders of each local church, and then to the individual believer himself. Jesus Christ addressing each individual believer when He says 'He who overcomes'.

No Peter, No pope, No Mary, no Roman Church. Just Jesus Christ speaking directly to the believer.

Stranger

Besides being a completely impotent post with absolutely ZERO Scriptural evidence to back it up - there are holes in your position big enough to drop a Buick trough . . .

Jesus ONLY speaks directly to the individual, huh?
What do you call the letters to the 7 Churches of Rev. 1??

In Matt. 18:15-18 - Jesus tells his followers that if they have a matter that cannot be resolved - that they need to take it to the CHURCH for a final ruling. If you and your Baptist friend have an issue - where do YOU go to resolve it?? How about you and a Calvinist friend? How about you and a Methodist friend??

In the final analysis - it's not ME you're arguing with and rejecting anyway.
You're rejecting Christ's Church - so you're rejecting Christ Himself.

 

[Stranger]

Besides being a completely impotent post with absolutely ZERO Scriptural evidence to back it up - there are holes in your position big enough to drop a Buick trough . . .

Jesus ONLY speaks directly to the individual, huh?
What do you call the letters to the 7 Churches of Rev. 1??

In Matt. 18:15-18 - Jesus tells his followers that if they have a matter that cannot be resolved - that they need to take it to the CHURCH for a final ruling. If you and your Baptist friend have an issue - where do YOU go to resolve it?? How about you and a Calvinist friend? How about you and a Methodist friend??

In the final analysis - it's not ME you're arguing with and rejecting anyway.
You're rejecting Christ's Church - so you're rejecting Christ Himself.

Why emphasize 'only' when I didn't ever say 'only'. Somewhat deceptive of you.

The 7 churches of (Rev. 1) was what I was talking about. How did you miss that?

As I showed, there is a chain of command in the Church. It just doesn't involve the local church being subordinate to Rome or the pope.

No, I don't reject the Church of Christ. I reject Romes usurping power over the Church of Christ.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why emphasize 'only' when I didn't ever say 'only'. Somewhat deceptive of you.

You said:
"Just Jesus Christ speaking directly to the believer", which is the same as saying ONLY Jesus speaking to the believer.
Your silly word games won't get you out of this one . . .

The 7 churches of (Rev. 1) was what I was talking about. How did you miss that?

No - you said that it all boils down to "JUST" Jesus speaking to the individual - which is nonsense.

As I showed, there is a chain of command in the Church. It just doesn't involve the local church being subordinate to Rome or the pope.
No, I don't reject the Church of Christ. I reject Romes usurping power over the Church of Christ.
Stranger

When did you "show" the chain of command??
Can you point me to the post where you showed this??

 

[perrero]

In your rush to defend your wounded pride, you seem to have missed the entire point of my post. And that was, if you flip back to the previous chapter (remember those "books" were never broken into chapters and verses), you will find that the time period probably was NOT three (3) days, but, instead, four (4) days.

In other words, you have run, full steam ahead, to try and develop a case for a number of (3) days... that the Bible seems to testify was not three days, at all, but rather, (4) days.

I doubt anyone would deny the importance of a reference to three days.... but, a statement of those days has to exist first. And that does not seem to be the case here.

Actually, I think your point was to school me on the use of numerology which in some cases could result in egg on my face, and according to your calculation my availing myself of such numerology did produce just that, a facial omelet.

I am well aware that Scripture was not divided into chapters and verses but I am also aware that the chronology of events written by John also do not chain one into another. If this were so, we could conclude that the gospel of John took place in less than a month.

The fact is that there is nothing in chapter 1 of John that should lead us to believe that it should follow through to chapter 2 and chain into the wedding of Cana, nor does Chapter 3 (witness to Nicodemus) immediately follow the wedding of Cana since Nicodemus was part of the Sanhedrin and Jesus' encounter with him would have more than likely been back in Jerusalem 70 miles away from Cana.
John the Baptist was baptizing in the area Bethany, 2 miles from Jerusalem, when Jesus appeared one day and the next. We can establish that the Baptism account of J the B does fall over a period of minimum 4 days. (1:29) "The next day = 2, (1:35) "The next day" = 3, (1:42) "the next day" = 4. Chapter 2 begins in Cana of Galilee some 70 miles away from Bethany (a 3-5 day journey). Did the Lord teleport Himself out there, with family and disciples, so as to reverse the time back to 3 so that the Holy Spirit in breathing this account to John would be able to write on the third day. Or maybe the Holy Spirit just didn't keep track of time and therefore chose "on the third day" just for the fun of it.

Your statement that; "I doubt anyone would deny the importance of a reference to three days.... but, a statement of those days has to exist first. And that does not seem to be the case here " is a false predicate. Is this a new rule of interpretation? There are 57 "Third day" references in the KJV bible, only 4 of these have a clear reference the 2 previous days before the third. I suspect the Holy Spirit is not following that rule. And I also suspect that you are wrong in your assertion on this particular occurrence and you are incapable of admitting it.
2 days must exist before the Spirit can state [on the third day] , not likely. All scripture is inspired by Him and therefore the "Third day" is there for a reason. If not to allude to the resurrection, then what? And if the third day means nothing, then why 3 and not 2, 4, 12, 157 or no mention at all?

I suggest that instead of trying to school or catch someone in error, perhaps you should take the time and meditate on such a tidbit of information and you might see the beauty in it. You would see that my conclusion of the "third day" fits well within the context of the story.

 

[Stranger]

You said:
"Just Jesus Christ speaking directly to the believer", which is the same as saying ONLY Jesus speaking to the believer.
Your silly word games won't get you out of this one . . .

No - you said that it all boils down to "JUST" Jesus speaking to the individual - which is nonsense.

When did you "show" the chain of command??
Can you point me to the post where you showed this??

You are still quite the wordsmith.

Read all post #1209 again. Then read post #1096. Read (Rev. 1:1-4). Read (Rev. 2:1, 2:7)

The chain of command goes from God, Jesus Christ, John, leader of each church, then to the individual. No Peter, or pope, or papacy, or Roman Church involved. You know why? Because they had no authority over the individual churches.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

The chain of command goes from God, Jesus Christ, John, leader of each church, then to the individual. No Peter, or pope, or papacy, or Roman Church involved. You know why? Because they had no authority over the individual churches.

These days doesnt even go that far,

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

and

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

So we all have that without the church leaders.

 

[Stranger]

These days doesnt even go that far,

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

and

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

So we all have that without the church leaders.

The verses you give here say nothing about church leadership. No one denies every individual believer has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Just because we have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ doesn't mean there are no church leaders who we are to answer to. My contention in this thread is that the Roman Church does not have authority over the local churches. I am not saying there is not authority in the churches. Which you can readily see with the 7 churches in the book of (Revelation).

(Acts 13:1-4) "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers;...As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where unto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost...."

(1 Thess. 5:12-13) "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves."

(Heb. 13:17) "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

As you can see, whether or not you recognize the importance of the leaders in the Church, God does. And he holds them accountable for watch over the souls of the people in that church. And they will answer to Him for it now and in that day. And if such authority is indeed given by God to these leaders, what do you think His attitude will be to you who mock such authority.

Every believer needs to find a local group of believers and meet with them. It is hard to find sometimes, but it is important.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

who we are to answer to

We answer to Christ Alone, in the end of it all, its between you and Him no excuses, no one will ever be able to say, " but they told me"...., well they will have to answer for all they send astray. I am not afraid of Jesus, and He has no problems with me. Why christians wont go to Him I really dont know. We love Him they shout, as long as hes 200ft from us.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are still quite the wordsmith.

Read all post #1209 again. Then read post #1096. Read (Rev. 1:1-4). Read (Rev. 2:1, 2:7)

The chain of command goes from God, Jesus Christ, John, leader of each church, then to the individual. No Peter, or pope, or papacy, or Roman Church involved. You know why? Because they had no authority over the individual churches.

Stranger

And only a denier of history would believe such nonsense.

In the Epistle of Clement (A.D. 80)- we read where the Church at Corinth was having a problem that needed to be settled. Where did they go??
They went to the Bishop of ROME - Pope Clement, who settled the matter. This was written BEFORE the Book of Revelation.

John the Apostle was STILL alive - so why didn't they go to him for a ruling??
Why didn't they settle the matter locally??
Why go to the Bishop of Rome??

 

[Stranger]

And only a denier of history would believe such nonsense.

In the Epistle of Clement (A.D. 80)- we read where the Church at Corinth was having a problem that needed to be settled. Where did they go??
They went to the Bishop of ROME - Pope Clement, who settled the matter. This was written BEFORE the Book of Revelation.

John the Apostle was STILL alive - so why didn't they go to him for a ruling??
Why didn't they settle the matter locally??
Why go to the Bishop of Rome??

John was no pope either. The chain of command I gave you included John due to the Revelation given him to the 7 churches. It doesn't mean he was in that chain of command with all churches. But this was how this Revelation came.

If the church at Corinth went to Clement of Rome, that is their mistake. I can't help that. They didn't need to.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

John was no pope either. The chain of command I gave you included John due to the Revelation given him to the 7 churches. It doesn't mean he was in that chain of command with all churches. But this was this Revelation came.

If the church at Corinth went to Clement of Rome, that is their mistake. I can't help that. They didn't need to.

Stranger

Wrong.
They went to him because He was the earthly head of the Church.

Why didn't the Bishop in Corinth settle the matter??