Jump to content

Would you give your life for your errant brother?


Srecko Sostar
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
25 minutes ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Jesus was not causing his apostles to stumble, but giving them a life lesson.

James said, When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 

Well, if neither Jesus nor JHVH tempted Peter with putting a sword in his hand, but only gave him a lesson with some simple command or imperative and obligated sentence addressed to Peter and other in group,  "to buy and  carry a sword", would it be the same that God or Jesus tell to disciple to go to whorehouse with him and after when some of his disciple have happy time with some of the women there, Jesus told to those who experienced fun time, "You see my friends, it is not good to do this what you have done. I brought you here to give you this important lesson."  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2k
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I understand everything you say. Don't get me wrong, I was never agreeing with this video, in fact I think it's one of the worst videos WT has ever made. What I was doing was refuting what someone sai

As Jesus said we should treat disfellowshipped ones as "man of the nations and as a tax collector", then I'l leave you to work out the conscientious application of the principles of his Good Samaritan

@Srecko Sostar I agree. Period. I'd also add this situation mention in an old Awake magazine: *** g81 10/22 p. 6 “I Survived the Sinking of the Titanic” *** “The last lifeboat was be

Posted Images

  • Member
4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

SM please be more careful about putting your ideas and words in my mouth about what i told or not told. Our conversation about money was in different context. I never said how i don't or didn't believe in "carried a purse". SM, SM :)))))))))   

It's in regards to a previous discussion of which that exact verse was brought up, Srecko Sostar, it is not of my own design, check the Strong's and maybe you will learn something for I addressed this to you before when you didn't believe the disciples carried money on them. Plus I only referenced it since we are, once again, discussing this passage.

Here, this time I am holding your hand and directing you to the Greek Strong's 905 moneybag/money belt [a purse]: https://biblehub.com/greek/905.htm

The irony here is the website you pulled the verse from even tells you:

Bur wait, there's more. Check it for yourself on Biblehub, notes point to moneybag, money belt, a purse: https://biblehub.com/luke/22-36.htm

If you are thinking women purses, then my friend, you fall upon man's understanding again and not the Strongs.

That being said, nowhere in any review of this passage it is shown there was temptation involved when the cross-references gives you the answer and the very fact Jesus was showing the Disciples a lesson, a vital one that is to be learned, and it applies to us today, hence why I references the verses from Matthew and John.

The big question now is where are you drawing temptation from in regards to the whole passage itself in this chapter? No cross-references to the passage alludes to temptation at all.

Also if I may add, you are misusing the verse in James in regards to the passage for the wrong reasons. mainly when you have this verse referenced to Genesis 22:1, Matthew 4:7, James 1:14. Has nothing to do with Jesus and the lesson he was teaching his disciples in that particular situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Why would it have been wrong for Peter to use a sword on that occasion?

Somehow he is coming up with temptation. If anything, Peter himself sees the situation as a complete injustice against Jesus, only then Jesus taught him and the other a vital lesson.

But in Srecko's eyes, Peter seeing injustice is somehow temptation - of which still remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

"The big question now is where are you drawing temptation from in regards to the whole passage itself in this chapter? No cross-references to the passage alludes to temptation at all."  ......Space Merchant ask me, and answer is; 

Dear readers of this issue, here is the origin, source of the word TEMPTATION mentioned for the very first time.  And we see who first who put this word in circulation of our discussion. :))

On 9/17/2018 at 3:05 PM, AllenSmith34 said:

Srecko

Srecko, if you read Luke correctly, you will find 2 things about the sword. Peter’s denial, and Jesus praying in mount olive for his apostles not to enter into temptation. What did Peter do with the sword that Jesus had to correct? Therefore, what did Jesus tell Peter to do with that sword?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Therefore, the sword became a symbolic item, not a literal one as you wish it to be.

Symbolic or not, sword cut down the ear of one man. Or do you suggest that the ear also became symbolic item?  

 

17 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

As for Jesus entering a house of ill repute. It wouldn’t have been in his nature as a rabbi.

5 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Mark 2

10Later, as Jesus was dining at Matthew’shouse, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with Him and His disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”…Mat 9

34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, andyou say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of sinners!’ Luke 7

 

18 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

But Jesus did make a point of a woman back then, people called her a prostitute for her adulteress behavior. What was Jesus being tested for, and what life lesson did Jesus give? John 8:7. Therefore, he compared everyone to sin, and that was his prophecy to become the ransom sacrifice for all. So, he didn’t just martyr himself for just that one woman. What did Jesus tell the woman? John 8:10

In WT revised Bible chapter 8 beginning with verse 12. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/books/john/8/

So i have to ask, what kind of gospel from chapter 8 you talking about? :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"The big question now is where are you drawing temptation from in regards to the whole passage itself in this chapter? No cross-references to the passage alludes to temptation at all."  ......Space Merchant ask me, and answer is; 

Dear readers of this issue, here is the origin, source of the word TEMPTATION mentioned for the very first time.  And we see who first who put this word in circulation of our discussion. :))

Stay focused, you are being asked right now. Everyone knows what temptation is and when and where such things take place in the Bible, for instance, Eve, Joseph, David, etc with examples being negative and or positive, Jesus himself had been tempted by the Devil, but the Son of the true God prevailed, even uttering the Law of what is written.

That being said, what you have stated still does not answer the question.

If you are going about the word itself and or anything regarding Temptation, why bring up Luke 22:36-38 in the first place and or Peter? The verse and references even tells you that

  • [1] An act of injustice has been done
  • [2] the Disciples themselves knows of the injustice when they came to take Jesus away, Peter included
  • [3] Before anything could be done prior to the arrest of Jesus, he taught the disciples a vital lesson.

I'll ask you again, in simple terms, where are you drawing temptation from?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Symbolic or not, sword cut down the ear of one man. Or do you suggest that the ear also became symbolic item?  

Symbolic in terms of lesson professed by Jesus, however the action done by Peter is also literal. Peter himself did what he did because he himself knew what was being done was an act of injustice. For instance, I can lie to the police and say you are a thief, as well as a violent person, anything to get you arrested when such is  untrue, the police goes to your home and apprehends you, and any relative of yours will say and or do something to prevent what is going on, but what is done is done until real justice is done, since I brought up the lie, I will be held accountable in this example.

Back to the passage at hand. The disciples saw and was in direct line of sight of the angry mob who came to take Jesus away, and they suggested and asked if they should fight, better didn't wait around to find out and took action, he acted. With a sword in hand, he took aim at one of the people among the mob and the result was the cutting off one man’s ear with a single sword stroke, Peter's intent was to do some real damage (mind you, he's a fisherman who is capable of basic swordplay), but he was stopped, reproved by Jesus, he [Jesus] said to him "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Unlike the others, Peter had soon abandoned Jesus, he thereafter followed the mob from a distance, apparently torn between fear for his own life and his deep concern as to what would happen to friend and teacher, Jesus.

As we can see, nothing regarding temptation was at play here.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

5 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Mark 2

10Later, as Jesus was dining at Matthew’shouse, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with Him and His disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”…Mat 9

34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, andyou say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of sinners!’ Luke 7

I believe you have been corrected on this before and even given some examples, other than that, it has nothing to the passage in question, let alone nothing to do with temptation regarding the arresting of Jesus.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In WT revised Bible chapter 8 beginning with verse 12. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/books/john/8/

This is correct. The Jehovah's Witnesses, as do may have omitted the verses from the Bible and yet people attack anyone with a revised version that omits such verses are often attacked and or ridiculed. Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students use to use the KJV Bible, but never have they made use of the spurious text. Other Christians as well as Muslims, who take Bible Hermeneutics seriously, also avoid using spurious text.

Also Biblehub and Gateway are websites that you can checkout to see what is omitted and what is not.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So i have to ask, what kind of gospel from chapter 8 you talking about? :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The King James Version (KJV and or NKJV) of the Bible, and or anything in regards to Textus Receptus and or the TR 1245. Surprisingly one of the few things I agree with you on - a bit rare compared to your friend who has no idea what difference is there in the interlinear Bibles, of which he/she has been corrected on.

I myself, personally, do not like the changes and or spurious text from the KJV, hence why I do not use it otherwise it would cause confusion. If anything some draw example from some verses and or passages.

That being said, I have always been critical of the KJV and or anything in relation with TR1245. Although I have a lot to learn still, this is among the basic things hat people should be aware of. My only great issue is with people who confuse Jesus for God, or saying the Holy Spirit is a separate being, and these same people who back up such doctrine with spurious text and or passages, as well as Bible Canons are are false - such things irks me and I will speak critically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

but i also like very much that missing verses :) John 8:1-11

Unfortunately it is not of any of the older sources, and was never written by John, hence such a passage is not authentic.

This is why God himself said in Deuteronomy 4:2:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

And his Son Jesus stated in John 10:35b:

and Scripture cannot be broken—

The references: Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:5, 6, Revelations 22:18, 19.

Let's put John in modern day. If John was a chef and he made Pizzas with sausage and pepperoni, his signature style. If someone came in and try to emulate and prepare a Pizza similar to John. changing it up and adding on something new, removing what John put, clearly the Pizza isn't of John's design - not the best example, but a slight bit of the point made.

That being said, you can like the passage all you want, but regardless of what you think, opinion and or feeling, it is not authentic and such you cannot say is true when it is spurious. The worse thing you can do is confront an advanced Bible reading Christian/Muslim who is educated on this and say this is an authentic verse, you'll only be met with a powerful critique.

Therefore John 7:53-8:11 is not Bible Canon, the same can be said of Mark 16:9-20.

NOTE: There are two passages (both 12 verses long) that continue to appear in the main text of most of the modern versions, but distinguished in some way from the rest of the text, such as being enclosed in brackets or printed in different typeface or relegated to a footnote. These are passages which are well supported by a wide variety of sources of great antiquity and yet there is strong reason to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels. In the words of Philip Schaff, "According to the judgment of the best critics, these two important sections are additions to the original text from apostolic tradition."

The JWs are also and have been aware of this also: The earliest authoritative manuscripts do not have the passage from Joh 7:53 to 8:11. These 12 verses were obviously added to the original text of John’s Gospel. (See App. A3.) They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), both from the second century C.E., nor are they found in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century C.E. They first appear in a Greek manuscript from the fifth century (Codex Bezae) but are not found in any other Greek manuscripts until the ninth century C.E. They are omitted by most of the early translations into other languages. One group of Greek manuscripts places the added words at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts them after Lu 21:38. That this portion appears at different places in different manuscripts supports the conclusion that it is a spurious text. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that these verses were not part of the original text of John.

The Muslims also gave some info/Da'wah on this also: There are 267 Greek manuscripts, which are the earliest versions, and are considered the most important by textual analysts, and none of those 267 contain this passage. Newer Bibles that were compiled, and wrote after the more ancient manuscripts were discovered, either omit the passage or add a note along with the passage, stating it was not found in the more ancient manuscripts..... Now, should we follow the words of Jesus in Matthew, which has foundation in manuscripts, or do we follow the words of Jesus in verses not found in the ancient manuscripts? Which is the more logical answer? The pericope of the adulteress is easily a corruption invented later and inserted into the Bible.

Any Dawah material regarding the omitted verses are insanely critical, read at your own risk, since you like that passage. I'd also like to mention

Misc:

The CSE community is a mixed bag so you are bound to find something.

As I had spoken to your friend, Witness, a while back who tried to use a typo against me when every thing I say is adhering to Textual Criticism, regardless of what you think, you should be very careful with spurious text and are actual persons who are of the extreme who act upon said spurious text. You being acceptive of such only proves here that may most likely accept all spurious text if you accept this one,  for anyone does are met with those who adhere to Textual Criticism, some far more strict than others - the irony here is you tend to use the JW's Bible and still fail to see this, mind you, that Bible even tells you in the footnotes as in WHY such things are omitted, clearly;[hence what is noted above].

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

agree, violence is not the answer and we must do all we can to calm down some situation.

but respond to violence sometimes asking person to be strong  in both ways.

This is true, but in Peter's case he is witnessing an injustice, and was one among the others who took action. Peter, who had fled immediately after, also goes further than that, to keep watch over those who took Jesus, but he does so at a distance, for who knows what the mob would have done to him if he had been compromised, most likely kill him.

Again, we do not see anything regarding temptation here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.