Joulre2abba

Wow, that's quite an interesting and versatile line up . Looking at those gives me the idea to search for more lists, and pray for those who like me, lost their way after they'd gotten saved.

Where it asks why I edited a post, I put in there "I wanted to". It seems odd to me that the feature is there because I know why I'm editing so why should I make it public? Why need I remind myself? But maybe it's not just for me? Maybe the person reading has to know that I edited a post after I posted it? I'm confused about why it's there and who it's for. Check it out for yourself. Make a post then push the button so it will open up again, to the far left toward the bottom, you'll see where it asks : Why are you editing? Perhaps I should put "corrective editing" in that answer box from now on.

Forgiving is choosing not to remember the hurt. I can remember the person- to pray for them. I pray that they be comforted of hurts they have experienced. But whenever I remember what they did that hurt me, I quickly remember instead that God said to forgive them. I change what I remember. I exchange the hurt for the forgiving. God loves them, God has forgiven them. So I forgive them too. When I say "I forgive them", God too is saying "I forgive them." "I forgive heavenly Father. I forgive if I have ought against any." I continue it, making it a knee-jerk reaction to any pop up memory of hurt. I do it until I can go a long span of time without remembering being hurt by anyone. It helps me to make good use of my imagination to visualize God putting balm over the hurt in my heart. When I see him do that, I say "I forgive." It works.

I've heard about actors here or there who've made a profession of their faith from time to time but no I couldn't even give an estimated number.

I apologize that I sounded offended. I only meant to convey my support for the Christians of Hollywood. Not that I'm implying that you're not. I struggle with finding the right words, sorry. But, hearing that anyone in the Hollywood business has gotten saved is such a thrilling thing to me. It's good to hear that he follows his Christian convictions.

I think that Stephen is doing very well holding up against his brothers. As to your second sentence: How bout "Where there ain't no interest, create one." The movie is a seed planted that will produce the fruit of more movies for Stephen to do.

Just editing another mistake I saw.

If there's a profit motivation, then think about your promoting the KJB? It could just as easily be flipped around to look like money is a subtle reason behind the focus on it.. like saying "don't waste your money on "any other unworthy version", but spend it on the KJB". The printers who make money off printing the KJB will certainly be appreciating your reasons why you think that the KJB is the only authorized version, and better than all other versions. I don't see that promoting the Elizabethan English is a legitimate reason since you don't even speak it when you converse anywhere and no one else does either. As a matter of fact, if it's the promotion of a pure language, then no one should have translated it all but required everyone to learn the original languages and thereby keep it pure and not downgraded by all inaccurate translations. I speculate that is why the Catholics speak in Latin when they perform their holy services.. they imply that Latin is more pure than English. So the churchgoers don't read their Bible to know the scriptures, and don't pray for themselves. So I see such implication that the KJB is somehow holier than today's English as highly misleading. What's important is that the Bible message is understood and easy to comprehend for the average sinner who only speaks the language of the street. Soul winners have to speak their language, and so does the Bible.

Stephen Baldwin is Christian, I don't know about any of the other actors and actresses. But, I don't see anything wrong with using that kind of story to appeal to secular audiences. They want to be entertained not preached to. It could also be in response to the secular movie of Noah's flood... who knows?

Could you give more detail what you're talking about? Has one of my posts not posted properly or do you refer to something else?

The King James Bible was written for the contemporary reader of the day. It's not a strict translation of the Hebrew or Greek text. Therefore the multiple meanings that are packed into for instance, one Hebrew word is missed without looking at the original text and consulting the original language. The verses in the Psalms and Prophecies can be clunky and puzzling to a great extent.. and therefore more difficult to match the old testament verses with the new testament. The KJB is not 100% accurate. Taking into account that the apostles original writings were lost so all Bible copies have been compiled out of damaged copies. The KJB's translations of the various Hebrew idioms through Latin and Greek to English, are by far, inaccurately done. And there's the matter of deleted or unauthorized additional text. As well as the shortening of sentences from the previous Bibles which the KJB translators thought was verbose. So who's being faithful to the original text, and who isn't? Because of the things I've mentioned there is therefore not anything wrong with any subsequent Bible version (no less authorized).. and actually more appealing in using updated and contemporary English. I'm grateful to my parents who didn't advise us kids to shun the other various Bible versions with such reasons as given in your post.

Over in my area we have gotten a less snow winter. Interesting weather shifts huh?

I'd also add.. "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." There are plenty of sections in the new testament where the apostles addressed many ways that a Christian is likely to sin, and there are many sections that tell believers to love and forgive the brethren in their midst. So what is any Christian doing when they talk about the sins of their fellow brethren.. or who want to publicize them to the outside world? Christians are saved but none are glorified saints yet. Therefore, we are to forgive as we have been forgiven through Christ. And therefore thus fulfill the law of Christ. And the law of God to love Him and to love others. As for our own damaged feelings, we are to go to God and be comforted and put them into the sea of forgetfulness. And we are to pray for those who've done something for which we experience hurt. We are to pray for them that they be comforted by God and thereby be transformed to no more cause offense to others. Even as we each repent of our tresspasses, and pray that we do not offend others.

Not falling in line with such a person as described is what proves this sheep to be listening only to the good Shepherd.

I agree. God's word is legal concerning issues of the spirit realm/kingdom of God. What Jesus said of mercy, grace, faith is the legal that overrules the legalist's traditions of men. So let's not do away with the law. Just do away with the traditions of men that seek to eliminate God's highest law.

I'm a protestant, so thanks for not arguing with me on this issue.

Celebrating Christmas is in recognition of the birth of Jesus the Savior and the wise men who gave gifts to him. Like the saying says "Jesus is the reason for the season." Bringing a tree into one's home and decorating it and putting presents under it is not a pagan practice. Christians are not practicing a pagan thing by doing that. Anymore than a Christian has indoor plants in their house all year round. The pine tree is selected because it's leaves remain green the year round. Any pagan comparison has nothing to do with it. Or shall we all stop using everything that pagans might use? Like clothing, vehicles, or such. After all, in accordance with the religious theory, when pagans use them it's therefore a pagan practice that Christians should avoid or be considered doing wrong or evil. So when taken to it's extreme, Christians buy "holy underwear" from factories owned by Christians. The lines are distinctly drawn yet some religious beliefs seek to mingle the lines, muddy the water, create a grey area where there is none. Cause doubt or uncertainty and thereby convert the non-pagan practicing Christian away from a distinctly Christian celebration. (who can find a pagan use of the palm branch?.. well the unsaved Hawiians use it.. well then according to the religious theory, I guess that means that the Jews should never have used it then for their worship and praise of God because that just pollutes an otherwise sincere practice). The use of a scripture from the old testament about pagans who decorate a tree is not even what it said or implied. But it's still erroneously applied to the Christmas tree. That scripture states that the tree itself is worshiped as a deity by the pagans. It states that from that tree is carved their deity. So the tree is actually a wooden carving that looks like a man or animal or a hybrid that is decorated with silver necklace and earrings and dressed in the finest of clothing. In stark contrast: Christians don't worship or bow down before or pray to the Christmas tree. They don't carve it into a representation of the God of the Bible. The first of the ten commandments prohibit such a thing. Although that is what the descendants of Israel fresh out of Egypt where idolatry was prevalent- did while Moses was in the mountain talking to God. But they didn't worship a similarity of the Christian Christmas tree. There is a distinct difference there. So the purpose of the tree is based on the beliefs of the person. The tree itself and what is done to it is neutral. Therefore Christians do not engage in pagan practices. Therefore the festivities of Christmas are Christ-centered. The belief that they are not godly in celebration, is due to a misapplication of scripture and therefore a misunderstanding of what is Christ-centered and what isn't.

Perhaps you have read what the apostle Paul wrote to Christians to "cast down every vain imagination and unrighteous thought that seeks to exalt itself against the knowledge of God." So even though you have knowledge of God you still have to cast down opposing thoughts. And Jesus taught that when the sower sows the word satan comes immediately to take away the word that was sown. Therefore the more of the word of God you get, the more you have to resist the devil who will be active to steal it. However, the intention of the teachings was to encourage the believer that we can overcome through Jesus Christ. These and the other verses I've already mentioned gives evidence that it's not contrary at all.

The verse is in Job.

That's an interesting observation. My first thought as a reason why is.. different translators who wrote different sections of the NT. It's interesting that it's consistent between the gospels and the revelation verses. It isn't dropping any bricks on someone to indicate whether the difference in plural or singular is intended to mean anything profound. But then I'm just taking a stab in the dark.

We are not controlled by the devil if we are ever on guard because satan as a lion walks about seeking whom he may devour. That is addressed to those in Christ. The admonishment then is that we resist him in/by/with our faith in God's Word. It was Peter who wrote that. He thought he'd said a right and good thing, but Jesus indicated that the thought had come from the devil. We only need resist as long as the testing lasts. When we endure by the love of God and the steadfastness of Christ, the devil flees.

We are told in the Bible that the devil has access to heaven to go before God. So what makes anyone think that the devil can't access all of our thoughts. If he doesn't see the good thoughts then how is that he ruins and destroys them? Even during our devotions, he can subtly point us in the wrong direction. Or is it supposed that Jesus was thinking bad thoughts and that is how the devil could tempt him? Peter had a thought that Jesus said came from the devil, but Peter didn't know that it was from the devil. It sounded right and good to him. "God forbid that you are martyred!" Peter must of thought that Jesus had gotten discouraged or something and sought to encourage him. We must be as sure as we can be that our thoughts are truly right and good. By thinking on things that the Bible says is good.

I didn't take the time to read the link because I'm here to comment on what I currently know and maybe later read an article online. I guess that's a longer way to say that I couldn't be bothered to go and read it before I comment. Such a question might come from those Christians who strive to be legalists, or consider that all Christians should be so extremely converted by accepting the Jewish roots and in all but natural birth be Jewish. However, the Methodist upbringing that I have been raised under didn't hear of such things from the pulpit. In the new testament the apostle Paul distinctly stated that all things to eat are permissible. Because he was talking to gentile Christians under grace. Even Paul a messianic Jew, was by grace- free to eat non kosher foods. The only stipulation that he put on it was to refrain from exercising your freedom when sitting next to a kosher believing believer who was eating kosher food during the church meals. Same reason why wine or beer drinkers don't drink sitting next to teetotalers. Or, maybe the rude one's do. So in true methodist fashion, eat what you like, and don't eat what you don't like. It's advisable not to eat what would not be very healthy. For instance my mother fixed ham plenty of times, and I've always cooked ham for the holidays. I know, any Jew that heard that, the thought of them doing it, they would die of shock on the spot then roll over in their grave. Well anyway, I thought that as long as I drowned it with pineapple juice and smothered it with brown sugar.. such delicious flavor would make it ridiculous not to eat it. But then I read on the internet how unhealthy it is no matter how it's cooked. I have considered that the person was using extreme hyperbole (if there is such a thing) just to convince others to stop eating it because they don't eat it. But in my autumn years I have cut down on fixing it for the holidays. Or maybe it was just because I didn't have a decent crockpot for those years. But since I now have another crockpot I've been considering again to fixing a ham in it

Can I? There are some threads that I'm not allowed to make a post yet but I'd like to comment, so I could either marathon post till I get over 100, or, I thought if I could have a blog.. I could make my comments there.