Resolution - to read the Bible

[Seeler]

Matthew nine and 10 – I really don't understand all this jumping around in Matthew. However, I will continue to follow the schedule.
These two chapters I the only reading for today.
Chapter 9 begins with Jesus healing a paralyzed man and forgiving his sins. I can see the logic here. At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin. By forgiving the sin, Jesus also took away the punishment and the man was healed. Naturally if a person felt burdened and punished for wrongdoing and received forgiveness he would feel a burden had been lifted and strength returning. This may have been the healing touch that Jesus was able to offer. Nevertheless the Pharisees could criticize him, saying that only God could forgive sins.

Chapter 10 begins with a list of the 12 disciples: Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the zealot, and Judas. Jesus gave these men 30 to drive out impure spirits and to heal. The remainder of the chapter is dedicated to giving them instructions for their journeys and warning them of hardship to come. In my mind, this reads more like the experiences of the early church than of the disciples when they were with Jesus.

 

[unsafe]

Seeler ------your quote ------Chapter 9 begins with Jesus healing a paralyzed man and forgiving his sins. I can see the logic here. At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin. By forgiving the sin, Jesus also took away the punishment and the man was healed. Naturally if a person felt burdened and punished for wrongdoing and received forgiveness he would feel a burden had been lifted and strength returning. This may have been the healing touch that Jesus was able to offer. Nevertheless the Pharisees could criticize him, saying that only God could forgive sins.


unsafe asks ----- What are you meaning here with this statement-------At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin


Are you saying here that God punished this man by paralyzing him for the sins he committed and because Jesus forgave his sins he was healed cause He took away his punishment ?

Just wanting to clarify your meaning here -----

 

[Luce NDs]

Seeler ------your quote ------Chapter 9 begins with Jesus healing a paralyzed man and forgiving his sins. I can see the logic here. At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin. By forgiving the sin, Jesus also took away the punishment and the man was healed. Naturally if a person felt burdened and punished for wrongdoing and received forgiveness he would feel a burden had been lifted and strength returning. This may have been the healing touch that Jesus was able to offer. Nevertheless the Pharisees could criticize him, saying that only God could forgive sins.


unsafe asks ----- What are you meaning here with this statement-------At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin


Are you saying here that God punished this man by paralyzing him for the sins he committed and because Jesus forgave his sins he was healed cause He took away his punishment ?

Just wanting to clarify your meaning here -----

Gods are like that ... having their dark side and a bit fickle once they have you taking them as ideal! There are no ideals in life ... only in the sense of mind ... an abstraction! These may be dark .... dependant on the shadowy nature of mind ... it may come and go ... oscillation as the parts of the clockwork ... be it orange-faced or not ...

Some commentary of the ultimate may be gathered or not ...

 

[Seeler]

Seeler ------your quote ------Chapter 9 begins with Jesus healing a paralyzed man and forgiving his sins. I can see the logic here. At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin. By forgiving the sin, Jesus also took away the punishment and the man was healed. Naturally if a person felt burdened and punished for wrongdoing and received forgiveness he would feel a burden had been lifted and strength returning. This may have been the healing touch that Jesus was able to offer. Nevertheless the Pharisees could criticize him, saying that only God could forgive sins.


unsafe asks ----- What are you meaning here with this statement-------At that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin


Are you saying here that God punished this man by paralyzing him for the sins he committed and because Jesus forgave his sins he was healed cause He took away his punishment ?

Just wanting to clarify your meaning here -----

Unsafe, read carefully. I did not say that God punished this land by paralyzing were the since he committed. Rather I said at that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin...
Actually I think the opposite.

 

[Seeler]

I will get to this later today. I have household chores to do now.

 

[unsafe]

Seeler ---your quote ----Rather I said at that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin...

unsafe says ---I would like to know where you got this thought from ----unsafe says ---We need to be careful that we don't put our own spin on what we think the scripture is saying in my view -------cause the scripture tells us why the man was healed and it had nothing to do with his sins ------it has everything to do with the Faith the men had that perused Jesus to bring the paralyzed man who also had Faith that Jesus could heal him -----They had Faith in Jesus -----


unsafe says and posted Greek word ---When we sin we feel guilt and shame ----this brings condemnation ----Greek word here for Condemnation

2631. katakrima ►
Strong's Concordance
katakrima: penalty

Definition: punishment following condemnation, penal servitude, penalty.
HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 2631 katákrima (from 2596 /katá, "down, according to," intensifying 2917 /kríma, "the results of judgment") – properly, the exact sentence of condemnation handed down after due process (establishing guilt).


unsafe says
So it is how we feel after the sin that brings on sickness and disease -------We need to understand that the Law was in place here and no man could keep the law so sickness and disease came under of the curse ------this is still in effect today -----all non born again Christians are today under the law which brought in the Curse for disobedience to God ------no man even today can keep the law ----the only way you can escape the Curse today is by and through receiving Jesus as your Lord and Saviour ---Jesus defeated the Curse and brought in the Blessings for all who receive Him -----The man's sins were forgiven because of his Faith in who Jesus was -----this is the same today ---we have Faith in what Jesus accomplished on the Cross which is ours sins are forgiven and that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus ------


Matthew 9 (EXB)
Jesus Heals a Paralyzed ManA)'>
9 Jesus got into a boat and went back across the ·lake [sea] to his own town. 2 [L And look/T behold] Some people brought to Jesus a man who was paralyzed and lying on a ·mat [cot; bed]. When Jesus saw ·the faith of these people [L their faith], he said to the paralyzed man, “·Be encouraged [Have courage; Take heart], ·young man [son; child]. Your sins are forgiven.”

 

[Luce NDs]

Sin as it is ... being as we see the world view is really sick ... causing a grand sense of distributed shame ...

As Pogo said and suggested are we responsible for the crap that we're in socially as we don;t look after all our parts?

Even the pricks in the barrel need enlightenment ... odd shrapnel in the Canon? It scatters ...

 

[Seeler]

Seeler ---your quote ----Rather I said at that time it was thought that illness or disability was punishment for sin...

unsafe says ---I would like to know where you got this thought from .-

John 9 - Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?

and many more Biblical quotes since the time of Job.

 

[unsafe]

Seeler -----your quote -----John 9 - Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?

unsafe says ----you are picking one scripture Seeler and taking it out of context -----Again the Scripture gives you the answer Seeler -- Jesus tells why the man was born blind ------but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.


Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

 

[Luce NDs]

God is chaos ... very confusing or creating chaos in mortals ... then the man-gods said no healing at this time ... a Shabbat come down ... egos descent? Sacrifice of the pride of a great lyre ...

 

[Seeler]

Unsafe, I think I owe you an apology. I went back and reread some of my posts and I realize that I was not absolutely clear. My excuse is that I am trying out a new computer system and am not comfortable with it yet. I noticed mistakes but my voice dictation made and that I did not proofread well enough. Also I try to be too concise.
I should have made it clearer that I do not believe Jesus thought sickness was the result of sin. However I do believe that many people at that time, including the disciples address some of the sick people, may have believed it. Therefore I stand by the possibility that Jesus used the phrase "forgiving sins"rather than saying something about healing to ease this man's mind and make it possible for him to receive the healing touch.

 

[Seeler]

Today's reading is from Matthew 14, Mark 6, and Luke 9; verses 1 to 17. Again it is difficult to see why these three readings were put together.
Matthew has already told the story of the sending of the disciples of to share the good news. This is covered in the opening verses of Mark and Luke. Next Matthew and Mark and all the shocking story of the death of John the Baptist. Luke covers John the Baptist's death in a single sentence.

All three gospels at the story of the feeding of the 5000 with very little variation. Today's reading from Luke stops here.

Matthew and Mark continue on with the story of Jesus walking on water. Again the accounts are similar except that Mark does not tell of Peter's attempt.
Familiar stories. Probably both Matthew and Luke relying heavily on Mark.

Looking back I realized that I neglected to mention that Mark inserts his version of Jesus being rejected in his hometown, something Matthew and Luke have already covered.

 

[unsafe]

Seeler ---no apology is necessary ----Keep Writing

My concern was with sending out wrong messages to others as to what the scripture is really saying and meaning --Scripture will always answer scripture ----in just doing a summery of each chapter sometimes we can't get the real meaning of what the scripture is suppose to be saying and we can easily put our own spin on what is being said without thinking what we are doing ---The Holy Spirit will never direct a person away from the Spiritual truth of the Word or guide them to their own opinion ----- The Holy Spirit will always direct us to the Spiritual meaning of the scripture and The Holy Spirit will give us wisdom and revelation about Jesus Christ ----


unsafe says -----Knowing the audience that Matthew --Mark and Luke are speaking to will give some insight into Why the difference in variation of the same account ----

Matthew is directed to the Jews ----

Mark is directed to the Gentiles --

Luke is directed to the Hellenistic Jews --

 

[Seeler]

Today's reading is from the Gospel of John Chapter 6. It begins with his version of the feeding of the 5000. Interesting John's Gospel is the only one that mentions the small boy with a lunch. Interesting too that John's Gospel is the only one that says Jesus sent for knowledge of what would happen and was questioning the disciples to test them.
Next John tells of Jesus walking on water; and of the crowd following him to the other side of the lake and demanding another miracle or sign. Jesus responds with a long dissertation on bread, manna in the way the wilderness. I am the bread of life, Jesus claims, and that explains the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Although John does not use the word transubstantiation this is the basis for some people believing in it rather than that the bread and wine and communion is symbolic.
Many of Jesus followers left him at this time saying this teaching is too difficult but his disciples assured him that they would follow him.
Not mentioned here that I understand that one of the accusations made against the early Christians was that they practice cannibalism. Would it be connected with with Jesus on words?

 

[Seeler]

The Gospel of John with my latest parcel to be written and included in the Canon. It is much different from the other Gospels, and it can be difficult to understand.

 

[Seeler]

Today's reading is from Matthew 15 to Mark 7.
Matthew and Mark are pretty much parallel in today's reading. They begin with the Pharisees challenging Jesus about eating with unclean hands. Jesus answers them explaining that what goes into their bodies cannot defile but what comes out can. Quoting Isaiah Jesus emphasizes the importance of what is in their heart when they worship.
Matthew and Mark next report of Jesus and his disciples going into Gentile territory where a Canaanite begs Jesus to heal her daughter. This is one of my favourite stories. It shows Jesus is growing in his understanding of God's love for all his children.
Next Mark tells us that after healing the child Jesus and the disciples moved on in Gentile territory and healed a deaf man.
Matthew also tells of Jesus remaining for a while in Gentile territory and healing many people who then praise the God of Israel, he goes on to tell the story of Jesus feeding 4000 with seven loaves and a few fish. So Matthew has two stories of the feeding of a multitude – one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles.
.

 

[Mendalla]

So Matthew has two stories of the feeding of a multitude – one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles.

Interesting. I had never clued into that before (admittedly, probably because I've never done a cover to cover reading like this). One of those things that doesn't get talked about much in church.

 

[unsafe]

Seeler ---your quote ----- The Gospel of John with my latest parcel to be written and included in the Canon. It is much different from the other Gospels, and it can be difficult to understand.

unsafe says and posted below -----Knowing that John was the only one who walked with Jesus ---he personally knew who Jesus was ---gives us the clue as to what John is trying to get across -----The Book of John is all about the Divinity of Jesus -----Matthew --Mark and Luke were followers of the disciples

John Summary
John ►
Bible Book Summary
John Summary
by Jay Smith

The book of John is a Gospel that contains Narrative History, Sermons, Parables, and a few Prophetic Oracles. It was written by the Disciple/Apostle John around 85-95 A.D. The key personalities of this book are Jesus Christ, His Twelve Disciples, Mary Magdalene, John the Baptist, Lazarus, his sisters Mary and Martha, Jewish religious leaders, and Pilate.

It was written so that all may believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God who gives eternal life. John’s gospel uses the word “Believe” 98 times and the word “Life” 36 times, in an effort to embed the importance that one must believe in order to live eternally. John is not one of the three synoptic (common view) gospels, but instead was written with a more theological substance, yet equally as inspired and important as the first three gospels.

 

[BetteTheRed]

-Knowing that John was the only one who walked with Jesus ---he personally knew who Jesus was

unsafe, biblical scholarship does not support this statement. Accepted scholarship attributes NONE of the gospels to eyewitnesses and dates the gospels as follows:
Mark - 66-70 (a really important date around this writing is the date of the sack of Jerusalem in 70 - was Mark written before or after this date?)
Matthew and Luke - 85-90
John - 90-110 (which explains the much higher Christology)

 

[unsafe]

BetteTheRed -----believe as you will -----

unsafe says --John and Matthew were both apostles of Christ ---so my bad for saying John was the only one -----

John
John Boanerges, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of James, the Apostle. He was known as the Beloved Disciple. A fisherman who lived in Bethsaida, Capernaum and Jerusalem, he was a member of the Inner Circle. He wrote the Gospel of John, I John, II John, III John and Revelation. He preached among the churches of Asia Minor. Banished to the isle of Patmos, he was later freed and died a natural death. John was one of the prominent Apostles. He is mentioned in many places in the New Testament. He was a man of action; he was very ambitious; and a man with an explosive temper and an intolerant heart. His second name was Boanerges, which means son of Thunder. He and his brother, James, came from a more well-to-do family than the rest of the 12 Apostles. Since his father had hired servants in his fishing business (Mark 1:20) he may have felt himself above the rest. He was close to Peter. They were acting together in the ministry. Peter, however, was always the spokesman for the band.

John mellowed with time. At the latter part of his life, he had forgotten everything, including his ambition and explosive temper, except his Lord's command of love.

It is said that an attempt was made on his life by giving him a chalice of poison from which God spared him. He died of natural causes. A chalice with a snake in it is his symbol.


Matthew or Levi
Matthew, or Levi, son of Alpheus, lived in Capernaum. He was a publican or tax collector. He wrote the Gospel that bears his name. He died a martyr in Ethiopia.

The call of Matthew to the apostolic band is mentioned in Mark 2:14, Matthew 9:9 and Luke 5:27-28. From these passages, we learn that Matthew also was called Levi. It was a common custom in the Middle East at the time of Christ for men to have two names. Matthew's names mean "a gift of God." The name Levi could have been given to him by Jesus. It is likely that James the lesser, who was one of the twelve Apostles, was Matthew's brother, also the son of Alpheus. Although we know little about Matthew personally, the outstanding fact about him is that he was a tax collector. The King James Version calls him a publican, which in Latin is Publicanus, meaning engaged in public service, a man who handled public money, or a tax gatherer.

Of all the nations in the world, the Jews were the most vigorous haters of tax gatherers. To the devout Jew, God was the only one to whom it was right to pay tribute in taxes. To pay it to anyone else was to infringe on the rights of God. The tax collectors were hated not on religious grounds only but because most of them were notoriously unjust.

In the minds of many honest, Jewish men, these tax collectors were regarded as criminals. In New Testament times they were classified with harlots, Gentiles and sinners (Matthew 18:17; Matthew 21:31, 33; Matthew 9;10; Mark 2:15,16; Luke 5:30). Tax collectors had been known to assess duty payable at impossible sums and then offer to lend the money to travelers at a high rate of interest. Such was Matthew. Yet, Jesus chose a man all men hated and made him one of His men. It took Jesus Christ to see the potential in the tax collector of Capernaum.

Matthew was unlike the other Apostles, who were mostly fishermen. He could use a pen, and by his pen he became the first man to present to the world, in the Hebrew language, an account of the teaching of Jesus. It is clearly impossible to estimate the debt that Christianity owes to this despised tax gatherer. The average man would have thought it impossible to reform Matthew, but to God all things are possible. Matthew became the first man to write down the teachings of Jesus. He was a missionary of the Gospel, who laid down his life for the faith of his Master. The apostolic symbol of Matthew is three money bags which reminds us that he was a tax collector before Jesus called him.


Luke
The New Testament mentions Luke briefly a few times, and the Pauline epistle to the Colossians refers to him as a physician (from Greek for 'one who heals'); thus he is thought to have been both a physician and a disciple of Paul. Christians since the faith's early years have regarded him as a saint.


Mark

s, Mark – a follower of Peter and so an "apostolic man,"