82% of Brits think religion does more harm than good

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So you're not a Chrstian if you don't attend church once a week? What about my housebound great aunt who prays at home every day but can't get to church. Is she not a Christian now?

So, only 6.3% of Britons are physically able to attend church?

Answer me- is my great aunt not a Christian because she is only able to pray at home?

I will answer your question - Yes, obviously, you can be saved as a Christian while at the same time be unable to attend church regularly.

Now, kindly return the favor and answer my question - Are only 6.3% of Britons physically able to attend church regularly?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

First, the survey says "regularly", defined as "usually attend church on Sunday", not "every Sunday".

So what? In practice there is very little difference between the two things. Do you think that people who do not attend Church regularly have no right to call themselves Christians?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the Church though? Personally I believe that the Churches people go to on Sundays and on other holy days are creations of humans, not of God, and that the Church is something altogether different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are missing the point here; religious culture in Britain differs from religious culture in America is one fundamental way, namely that religion here is a very personal thing, rather than something more collective (with the interesting exception of singing hymns and the like; something we've always liked).
As such, Church attendence in Britain has always been significantly lower than in the United States; even in the 19th century (when the social pressure of Church going was at it's greatest) only a minority of people could be considered to have been regular Church-goers.

It's significant that the more radical Protestant groups in Britain (going all the way back to the Lollards) always placed great emphasis on Bible reading, individual religious observation and religious observation within groups smaller than conventional Churches.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Actually, the answer to my query lies in another passage, which alos follows that one, but not so immediately, and in what you make of it:

1 Corinthians 13:8 8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

I am not seeking a debate here, just trying to understand your position.

My position is that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge have NOT ceased.  

Yet they are imperfect in that they don’t give us the full picture, and since they paint only a partial picture, they will cease [in the case of prophecy], they will be stilled [in the case of tongues], and it will be done away [in the case of knowledge].

But when will the imperfect picture pass away?  The very next verse states when:

1Cor 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Obviously, once Christ returns, all the imperfection of not seeing the full picture will be removed.

Paul’s point was that Love is the only gift of God that is complete.  But, the completeness of Love does NOT mean that we ignore the gift of prophecy and tongues.  Which is why Paul continued with:

1Cor 14:1-5 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.  

---

EDIT: Not just that, but it seems to me that you're advocating teh continuance of the apostolic office in the modern church. Am I getting your point right?

1Cor 12:28 [God appointed] first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues,  
[/quote]

Apostle (noun) - a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders. (Aside from the Twelve, such a title was also given to Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus.)

Why would I not believe that God still chooses people giving them orders to relay a certain message?

[Bono]

EDIT: Not just that, but it seems to me that you're advocating teh continuance of the apostolic office in the modern church. Am I getting your point right?

1Cor 12:28 [God appointed] first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues, 


Apostle (noun) - a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders. (Aside from the Twelve, such a title was also given to Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus.)

Why would I not believe that God still chooses people giving them orders to relay a certain message?

I'll leave out the other stuff, because as I said, I am not looking for a debate on Charismatism, because it's an area of study with which I am not very aquainted with. The best I can do is recomend you John MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos, at least for a different perspective.

However, I think this warrants exploration. Let's check the qualification for apostleship the Bible presents us:

Acts 1:22-23 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection

Notice two requirements: 1) company with Christ during His earthly ministry until His ascension, and 2) witness of the resurrected Lord. These were the qualifications which had to be met by the new twelfth apostle, who, as it turned out, was Matthias. Clearly, this eliminates any present day apostleship.

It seems that the second qualification is what the New Testament specifically emphasizes. Paul cited it in defense of his own apostleship: "Have I not seen Jesus Christ?" (I Corinthians 9:1). This would also reveal that these requirements apply not only to that elite group of "the twelve," other apostles excepted, as it is sometimes argued. The qualification stands for all who would claim apostleship.

The requirement is clear: no man can be an apostle who has not been a witness to the risen Lord. So unless someone is willing to claim that his age is more than twice that of Methuselah, there is no gift of apostleship today. The qualifications for it simply cannot be met.

The credentials of Christ's apostles also included the ability to perform miracles. Jesus Himself gave this power to the twelve when He commissioned them (Matthew 10:1). Again in defending his apostleship to the Corinthians Paul mentioned this as something which identified him as a true apostle: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" (II Corinthians 12:12).

The apostles were miracle workers who could bear personal witness to the risen Lord.

Thus, my case against the possibility of the continuance of the apostolic office is:
1) The qualifications for the office cannot be met today

2) The nature of their work prohibits their continuance -- they were foundational with a revelatory ministry; the church now is in the superstructure phase of its building, and revelations have ceased

3) The ability to perform sign gifts, the accompanying credentials of the apostles, is absent today

4) Paul was the last apostle.

5) No one today has such absolute authority over the churches. Pastoral authority and leadership is one thing, but apostolic authority is quite another. Furthermore, no one today has the privilege of doctrinal infallibility as did the apostles (the pope's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Quite the contrary, Christians today are simply to measure all teachings by the foundation-standard given by the apostles themselves

6) New Testament examples of successors to the apostles (eg, Timothy and Titus) are never called apostles or regarded with full apostolic authority. They were to carry on the apostle's work as, in a sense, all Christians are, but genuine apostolic succession was never considered; indeed, those first generation Christians themselves recognized the uniqueness of the apostles of Christ.

7) The early church (just after the apostles) recognized their absence.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First, the survey says "regularly", defined as "usually attend church on Sunday", not "every Sunday".

So what? In practice there is very little difference between the two things. Do you think that people who do not attend Church regularly have no right to call themselves Christians?

They have a “right” to call themselves whatever they want.  

The point is rather:  Are they following the will of God by intentionally forsaking the assembly of the body of Christ which is the church?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the Church though? Personally I believe that the Churches people go to on Sundays and on other holy days are creations of humans, not of God, and that the Church is something altogether different.

The church is simply the body of believers:
1Cor 12:27-28 27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers…

Stop playing games.  Just stop.  You can’t be a member of the body unless you are willing to come together to form one body:

1Cor 12:21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"

If you claim to be a Christian, then you are a part of the body of Christ and no part can claim to be self sufficient on its own.  Period!

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are missing the point here; religious culture in Britain differs from religious culture in America is one fundamental way, namely that religion here is a very personal thing, rather than something more collective (with the interesting exception of singing hymns and the like; something we've always liked).

No, you’re the one missing the point.  Set aside completely your ideas of British or American customs…Now, cut off your hand and tell me how long it is able to live without being attached to your body.

---

Also, look at this verse:

1Cor 12:28 In the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers…

Who are the “teachers” teaching if no one shows up to be taught?  

Surely, if God appointed teachers for us, then we are required to seek their instruction.  Unless, of course, you believe God appointed teachers to teach an empty classroom.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I met a Jesus, but he picked fruit out at this farm.  Seemed like a nice guy, didn't really speak a lot of English though.

Can't have been the Jesus as the Jesus speaks English.  Just look in His Authorized Version, and not one of these latter day fake bibles to get the real text though.

So, you mock Jesus Christ based on the illogical assumptions of a few of his followers?

Do you do the same in your workplace?  Do you openly ridicule the owner and quit the company based on the mistakes of a few of its employees?  Do you refuse to become a member of any workplace unless it is proven than every single employee is operating under the correct assumptions?

I bet you don't! It bet in your hypocrisy, you allow human imperfection in every aspect of live, except in the church.

The thing about hypocrisy, Sen. Ernest, it leads to logical inconsistencies - just like the illogical King James followers you are mocking!

Where did I mock Jesus in that post?  I quite clearly was mocking those who hold the KJV as the one true inerrant version of the Bible.  It is a shame that you seem determined to find faults so that you can argue with people.  But perhaps I misascribe your motives.  You have also shown little comprehension in the past for anything that does not involve plain literal text or anything that has the least admixture of humor.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'll leave out the other stuff, because as I said, I am not looking for a debate on Charismatism, because it's an area of study with which I am not very aquainted with. The best I can do is recomend you John MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos, at least for a different perspective.

Without further ado, would you kindly state for the record what aspects of my religious beliefs fall into the category of “Chaos”?!

Does belief in the gifts of tongues fall into that category? 

If so, are you saying that the entire church in Acts 2 was “chaotic” because they believed in the speaking of tongues?

Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Are you saying that Paul was also “chaotic”?

1Cor 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

---

The requirement is clear: no man can be an apostle who has not been a witness to the risen Lord. So unless someone is willing to claim that his age is more than twice that of Methuselah, there is no gift of apostleship today. The qualifications for it simply cannot be met.

If you are using that as a requirement for the definition of the word “Apostle”, then pray tell how Barnabas qualifies for the title, for the bible explicitly refers to him as an “apostle”?

Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this...” (NIV)

Acts 14:14 “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of…” (KJV)

Are you disagreeing with the Bible’s claim that Barnabas was an “apostle”?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Where did I mock Jesus in that post?  I quite clearly was mocking those who hold the KJV as the one true inerrant version of the Bible.  It is a shame that you seem determined to find faults so that you can argue with people.  But perhaps I misascribe your motives.  You have also shown little comprehension in the past for anything that does not involve plain literal text or anything that has the least admixture of humor.

Well, when you bring up the those that believe in the KJV to in order buddy up with someone mocking the ability to meet Jesus Christ, expect that your comments will be interpreted as mocking Christianity in general.

[Bono]

I'll leave out the other stuff, because as I said, I am not looking for a debate on Charismatism, because it's an area of study with which I am not very aquainted with. The best I can do is recomend you John MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos, at least for a different perspective.

Without further ado, would you kindly state for the record what aspects of my religious beliefs fall into the category of “Chaos”?!

Does belief in the gifts of tongues fall into that category? 

If so, are you saying that the entire church in Acts 2 was “chaotic” because they believed in the speaking of tongues?

Acts 1:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Are you saying that Paul was also “chaotic”?

1Cor 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

I didn't title that book, MacArthur or his editor did. The latter, I suspect, since it makes for a fancy alliteration. I am recomending it for its content, not for the title.
As for Acts 2, the "tongues" there were definitely foreign languages, not some "heavenly language", otherwise the foreigners wouldn't have been able to understand the Apostles.
The bok covers many chaotic aspects, such as phony miracle workers, people who claim to recieve new direct revelation from God, etc.

The requirement is clear: no man can be an apostle who has not been a witness to the risen Lord. So unless someone is willing to claim that his age is more than twice that of Methuselah, there is no gift of apostleship today. The qualifications for it simply cannot be met.

If you are using that as a requirement for the definition of the word “Apostle”, then pray tell how Barnabas qualifies for the title, for the bible explicitly refers to him as an “apostle”?

Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this...” (NIV)

Acts 14:14 “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of…” (KJV)

Are you disagreeing with the Bible’s claim that Barnabas was an “apostle”?

No. Are you disagreeing with the Bible when it says that a witness of the living Jesus is necessary for apostleship? This just means that Barnabas must have had some form of witness.

Only fifteen people in the BIble are bestowed with the title of Apostle--the Eleven, Matthias, James, Barnabas and Paul. It is patent that this is a closed-knit group which admited no other company.Others are called apostles (II Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25), but these are church apostles. There is no small difference between one commissioned by and representing a church and one personally commissioned by and representing Jesus Christ! These were the men with the unique honor and authority in the church. There were also apostolic legates, such as Timothy and Titus, who possessed some degree of authority as well, but their authority was invested by the apostle Paul, not by Christ directly. Their authority was not absolute as it was with the apostles. A man today claiming apostleship should carefully consider the implications of such a claim.
Anyways, if not personal wtiness to Christ, which test do you propose for determining apostleship today?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

, MacArthur or his editor did. The latter, I suspect, since it makes for a fancy alliteration. I am recomending it for its content, not for the title.

Again, what was the point in you citing the book?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Are you disagreeing with the Bible when it says that a witness of the living Jesus is necessary for apostleship?  THis just means that Barnabas must have had some form of witness.

Or, this just means you have redefined the Greek word to fit your religious beliefs.

You act as if Christianity coined the Greek word “apostle” (apostolos).  It did NOT.

The Greek word “apostolos” simply means “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders”

Look it up in any Greek Lexicon.  You will find that Christianity did NOT invent the Greek word.

[Bono]

, MacArthur or his editor did. The latter, I suspect, since it makes for a fancy alliteration. I am recomending it for its content, not for the title.

Again, what was the point in you citing the book?

The point was that, given my lack of knowledge in this area, I was pointing you to a knowledgeable source to present you the cessasionist point.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Are you disagreeing with the Bible when it says that a witness of the living Jesus is necessary for apostleship?  THis just means that Barnabas must have had some form of witness.

Or, this just means you have redefined the Greek word to fit your religious beliefs.

You act as if Christianity coined the Greek word “apostle” (apostolos).  It did NOT.

The Greek word “apostolos” simply means “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders”

Look it up in any Greek Lexicon.  You will find that Christianity did NOT invent the Greek word.

I am not redifining anything.

" Apostle"

The term "apostle" (Greek, apostolos) simply means, "a sent one." An apostle is a messenger, an ambassador. The idea is that of representation: an apostle is a personal representative for the one(s) who sent him. He comes in the place of, representing the interests of, and bringing a message from someone else.

" Apostle of the Church"

An apostle of a church, then, is one sent by a particular church to represent that church's interests and/or deliver its message. Paul mentions that Epaphroditus was the apostle from the church at Philippi: "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants" (Philippians 2:25). The Greek word here translated "messenger" is apostolos. The relationship between Paul and the Philippian church was a close one, and this is one indication of it: they sent a messenger to assist Paul in his labors for Christ. He (Epaphroditus) was their apostle; he represented the church at Philippi to the apostle Paul. II Corinthians 8:23 also mentions such church apostles ("messengers," Greek, apostoloi).

" Apostle of Christ"

The gift of apostleship, however, refers to that carefully select group of men who were the personal representatives of Jesus Christ Himself. "Apostle of Christ" is a much more specific and technical use of the term "apostle." In a sense, all Christians are to be apostles for Jesus Christ, but this gift of apostleship belonged only to a very few. An apostle of Christ was a personal messenger of Jesus Christ, sent by the Lord Himself. He was a vicar of Christ (if you will pardon the expression!). He was one who represented the interests of Jesus Christ to men.

Now answer my question. How do you propose to determine apostolic claims today?

[Joe Republic]

Any "Christian" that thinks religion does more harm than good, has obviously never met Jesus Christ.

I don't think anybody alive on this planet has actually met Jesus Christ.

Rev 3:20 "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

So when did that happen for you?  I'd have probably informed the press or somebody that the Son of God had stopped by for coffee and bagels, but maybe that's just me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trying to argue whether Barnabas was an "Apostle" as opposed to an "apostle" based on the text in Acts is rather ludicrous.  Indeed, one of the differences between the Roman and Orthodox Churches is over where to apply the epithet "Apostle".  The Orthodox Church counts those sent out by Jesus in Luke 10 as the Seventy Apostles rather than the Seventy(-Two) Disciples of the Western tradition.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There were also apostolic legates, such as Timothy and Titus, who possessed some degree of authority as well, but their authority was invested by the apostle Paul, not by Christ directly.

What?!

So, Christ can speak directly to me in my apartment giving me a mission to perform…yet Christ did not directly give authority to Timothy and Titus?  

Huh?

Contrary to your assertion, God singled out Timothy directly and had previously provided prophecies concerning Timothy’s future leadership role:

1Tim 1:18 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight.

---

Their authority was not absolute as it was with the apostles.

]

The apostles had absolute authority?!  Then why did the Apostle Paul direct the Galatians churches to disregard any other Gospel, even if it was preached by angels or the apostles?

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Seems to me that Paul only believed in one authority – God.  In addition, Paul stated that treating mere men as having supreme authority leads to division and Paul gave the recipe to avoid following the word of men:

1Cor 3:3-4:6 Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?  5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe… 4:6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

---

A man today claiming apostleship should carefully consider the implications of such a claim.

Apostle - a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.

Seems pretty generic and straight forward to me.

---

Even, Jesus himself is referred to as an “apostle”:

Heb 3:1 “Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.”

And why was Jesus referred to as an “apostle”?  Was it because he witnessed his own resurrection as if to make the application of the term self-redundant?

John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.”

No, rather Jesus is called an “apostle” because he was sent by God to testify about God:

Heb 1:1-1  In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.

John 8:38 “I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence.”

---

Anyways, if not personal witness to Christ, which test do you propose for determining apostleship today?

Well, that’s simple!  By using the exact same test through which I confirm any other supposed message from God:  does the message from the messenger agree with the scripture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Any "Christian" that thinks religion does more harm than good, has obviously never met Jesus Christ.

I don't think anybody alive on this planet has actually met Jesus Christ.

Rev 3:20 "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

So when did that happen for you? 

in late Oct 1992

[Joe Republic]

Any "Christian" that thinks religion does more harm than good, has obviously never met Jesus Christ.

I don't think anybody alive on this planet has actually met Jesus Christ.

Rev 3:20 "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

So when did that happen for you?

in late Oct 1992

So what did you guys eat?  The poor guy must have been starving, having not eaten in nigh-on two thousand years.  I'm interested to know just in case Jesus comes a'knocking at my door too.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point was that, given my lack of knowledge in this area, I was pointing you to a knowledgeable source to present you the cessasionist point.

Yet the cessationist point can be defeated by the very verse it uses to argue for such a cessation:

1Cor 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

If tongues ceased, then knowledge ceased along with it…which is obviously not the case.

But the attributes that will cease and the timing of the cessation are clearly defined:

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

I don’t know how to make that any clearer, but I will attempt to paraphrase:

“Love is the greatest of the spiritual gifts.  It is complete and never fails and will meet all your needs.  It is the fruit of your walk with Christ.  Love is not a gift that gives partially.  In contrast, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are all gifts that only allow you to see the tip of the iceberg. Prophecy only gives us partial knowledge of the future, tongues only gives us partial edification, knowledge only gives us until partial knowledge.  Only when we are made perfect at the resurrection, will we understand all prophecy and gain all knowledge of God, and at that time we will know God as fully as he knows us.  The gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge can not make you complete in this life, but the gift of love can.   Therefore, follow the way of love, even as you aspire other spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and knowledge.”

---

 

“Apostle"

The term "apostle" (Greek, apostolos) simply means, "a sent one."

Agreed!

" Apostle of the Church"

An apostle of a church, then, is one sent by a particular church to represent that church's interests and/or deliver its message.

Agreed!  “of the church” if a noun phrase modifying the word “apostle” in order to clarify who sent the messenger (apostle).  In this case, it is a messenger sent by the church.

" Apostle of Christ"

The gift of apostleship, however, refers to that carefully select group of men who were the personal representatives of Jesus Christ Himself. "Apostle of Christ" is a much more specific and technical use of the term "apostle."

This is where you jump the track.  

“of Christ” is simple a noun phrase modifying the word “apostle” in order to clarify who sent the messenger (apostle). In this case, it is “a messenger sent by Christ”.  That is all it means.

“of Christ” doesn’t do anything more to the word “apostle” than it does to the word “disciple”…you and I are both “disciples of Christ” in the generic sense because we are trying to follow the teachings of Christ; but when we use the term “The Disciples of Christ”, we understand each other to be referring to biblical characters.

In the generic sense, an “apostle of Christ” is anyone who has been given a direct message from Christ to transmit to someone else.  But when we use the term “The Apostles of Christ” we understand it to refer to the biblical characters.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So when did that happen for you?

in late Oct 1992

So what did you guys eat?  The poor guy must have been starving, having not eaten in nigh-on two thousand years.  I'm interested to know just in case Jesus comes a'knocking at my door too.

We dined on the water and the bread of life:

John 4:13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

[KEmperor]

So when did that happen for you?

in late Oct 1992

So what did you guys eat?  The poor guy must have been starving, having not eaten in nigh-on two thousand years.  I'm interested to know just in case Jesus comes a'knocking at my door too.

We dined on the water and the bread of life:

John 4:13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Jesus stops by and you only give him some bread and water?

Such a cheapskate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So when did that happen for you?

in late Oct 1992

So what did you guys eat?  The poor guy must have been starving, having not eaten in nigh-on two thousand years.  I'm interested to know just in case Jesus comes a'knocking at my door too.

We dined on the water and the bread of life:

John 4:13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Jesus stops by and you only give him some bread and water?

Such a cheapskate.

actually, you are a poor reader, for the verses state that Jesus is the one who provides the bread and water.

[Joe Republic]

So you didn't even give him anything at all?  Wow, you really are a cheapskate.

If the Son of God made his Second Coming and turned up at my door, I'd have put on a full banquet for him, as well as for the inevitable press entourage.

[KEmperor]

So when did that happen for you?

in late Oct 1992

So what did you guys eat?  The poor guy must have been starving, having not eaten in nigh-on two thousand years.  I'm interested to know just in case Jesus comes a'knocking at my door too.

We dined on the water and the bread of life:

John 4:13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Jesus stops by and you only give him some bread and water?

Such a cheapskate.

actually, you are a poor reader, for the verses state that Jesus is the one who provides the bread and water.

That's even worse man.  You made the guest pay for the food?  When you have someone over, it's your job to be a good host.  Very rude.

I had no idea those bible verses were written in 1992, either.  Impressive, getting yourself in there.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

actually, you are a poor reader, for the verses state that Jesus is the one who provides the bread and water.

That's even worse man.  You made the guest pay for the food? 

The price was too high for me to pay, but he purchased the food himself with his blood that was shed on the cross.

---

When you have someone over, it's your job to be a good host.  Very rude.

I know what you mean, Marta felt the same way:

Luke 10:38-42 Jesus came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. 40But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"
 41"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, 42but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

[afleitch]

Or, this just means you have redefined the Greek word to fit your religious beliefs.

Something you know about...or rather you didn't until I told you

Actually this thread has veered way off course- unless it gets back to what is relevant then I'm going to close it.

[KEmperor]

Actually this thread has veered way off course- unless it gets back to what is relevant then I'm going to close it.

You might as well.  It's devolved into another Bono-Jmfsct quote battle, with the addition of some crazy dinner delusions from 1992.