ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Many Right Ways

It helps me to believe "there are many right ways to do a thing." Now I need a Bible verse that supports that, please.

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Christian Living Quiz
 ---Geraldine on 5/24/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



You're quite right, kathr. God sees things differently from how you do.

In Galatians, St. Paul says that the "Jerusalem that now is"--that is, physical, geographical Jerusalem--is in bondage with her children (who might they be, do you think?) and are allegorically children of the bondwoman Hagar.

He goes on to say, "Drive out the bondwoman and her son."

You can read the rest of the passage and if your eyes are open, you will be surprised.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/16

Seriously Cluny, THIS is the verse the RCC or anyone uses to justify murder? You have no idea what that verse means.....

And Monk, dont tell me, tell God, as He laughs in your face.
---kathr4453 on 6/14/16


Do you know what is so ignorant about your interpretation of Galatians Cluny? #1 the analogy is Law verses Grace, not telling Christian Gentiles to help ROME murder and persecute unsaved Jews in Jerusalem. There were also Christian Jews in Jerusalem as we see the Council of James was from Jerusalem. #2, you have no supporting scripture of Paul, who was an Apostle to the Gentiles ever telling Gentiles to go to war against ANYONE, much lest his brethren, whom he said he would lay down his own life for, Romans 10.

Your comment is WHY the RCC and ORTHODOXY are anti-Semitic. Thank you for PROVING it through your interpretation of scripture you butchered.
---kathr453 on 6/14/16


Kathr said, "Monk, did you not know the promise was to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And did you not know GOD gave them the land?"

Kathr, imagine this: You own a house. The house has been in your family for a couple of centuries. Then some army comes along and seizes your house, and the land, and you are homeless. Until such time as someone bigger and stronger takes the land and your house away from the army that took it from you, and gives it back to you. Technically, the land is still yours. But you will never find a way to enjoy your land again.

Palestine was in foreign hands for centuries--millennia, before Israel was able to use it again.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/13/16


\\ Had people known these truths during the dark ages, and believed them, and obeyed them, the Crusades may never have happened. \\

The Crusades happened in the MIDDLE Ages, not the Dark Ages.

Or did you know they are different?

Orthodoxy never underwent anything like the Dark Ages.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/16


///...the Muslims, who invented crucifixion in Persia..."

...Mohammad...was born in 570 A.D...after the death of Jesus on the CROSS!

If Muslims invented it, how did Jesus die on something that hadn't been invented? ...---Monk_Brendan on 6/12/16///

Okay Monkman. Don't get your shorts in a bunch: I should've said THE PERSIAN ANCESTORS of 11th century "Persian" Muslims invented crucifixion circa 519 BEFORE CHRIST under Persian King Darius I.

By the time Catholic Pope Urban II started the "11th century" Crusades, Persians (conquered by Saudi Mohammedans) had been Muslims for centuries.
---Leon on 6/13/16




You're quite right, kathr. God sees things differently from how you do.

In Galatians, St. Paul says that the "Jerusalem that now is"--that is, physical, geographical Jerusalem--is in bondage with her children (who might they be, do you think?) and are allegorically children of the bondwoman Hagar.

He goes on to say, "Drive out the bondwoman and her son."

You can read the rest of the passage and if your eyes are open, you will be surprised.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/13/16


You see Monk, all,the reasons and comments you and Cluny put down here are the very reasons Christians see the RCC and Orthodox as being Against the KNOWN will of God when it comes to Israel, and Jerusalem. It wasn't yours in the first crusade, the second, the third, or any crusades for that matter, and it won't be yours in the end. Why? Because that land belongs to God, and He never gave it to the RCC. I know you will never admit to it, but find someway to scoff at prophecy as that has ALWAYS been there. Had people known these truths during the dark ages, and believed them, and obeyed them, the Crusades may never have happened. When you continue to teach against these truths, those who know scripture see you as anti-Christ for a reason.
---kathr4453 on 6/13/16


Isaiah 14:1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: -----3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
-----
7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

Sorry Monk, but God sees it differently. As we see in verse 7....this is yet to come. Verse 1 God still sees it as Israel's land.
---kathr4453 on 6/12/16


Exodus 6:8And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.

Monk, did you not know the promise was to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And did you not know GOD gave them the land? Also Isaiah 14 was well known when Jesus walked on earth. Judas betrayed Jesus over this very promise. Jesus didn't overthrow Rome then , but FIRST went to the Cross. The Apostles asked in Acts 1:6-11 , will you at THIS TIME restore the kingdom to Israel, and Jesus answered , Only the Father knows when that time will be. Only at His second coming will there be peace on earth, and Jesus will reign and rule from Jerusalem. Zechariah 12-14.
---kathr453 on 6/12/16


Kathr said, "It was all given to Israel through the promise of the Land in promised to Abraham..."

Dear child, Israel was given to Abraham. However, before Joshua conquered it, it belonged to someone else. Then, after Solomon died, Israel split in two. Which was the True Israel?

Then Assyrian, Babylonian,Persian and Macedonian empires controlled it. Finally, the Hasmoneans ruled, until the Romans conquered. It matters not to whom God has given something. The country with boots on the ground is the "owner."
---Monk_Brendan on 6/12/16




Loonie raved, ": The Crusaders went to war against the Muslims wearing the symbol of horrendous death, the cross, on their shields, etc. For the Muslims, who invented crucifixion in Persia..."

When did Mohammad live? He was born in 570 A.D. That is after the death of Jesus on the CROSS!

If Muslims invented it, how did Jesus die on something that hadn't been invented?

That's like telling me that President Lincoln was run over by a Lincoln Continental driven by John Wilkes Booth
---Monk_Brendan on 6/12/16


Who did you think owned Jerusalem?

The Jews?

It was CAPTURED through war by David who wanted it for his capital.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/6/16

Cluny, everyone who reads the Bible knows that. It was all given to Israel through the promise of the Land in promised to Abraham. It was given by God to Israel through a Covenant Promise. Now Israel out of disobedience was scattered, losing control, however God never made a covenant with anyone else GIVING them Israel or Jerusalem. Not even to the CHURCH. Isaiah 14:1 proves that point. Jacob represents earthly Israel.
---kathr4453 on 6/12/16


\\ Monk can you name other LANDS owned by Christians? And exactly how did it come to be thought Christians OWNED Jerusalem? How exactly did Christians come to OWN Jerusalem? Did they pay for the land, or conquer the land through war? \\

Who did you think owned Jerusalem?

The Jews?

It was CAPTURED through war by David who wanted it for his capital.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/6/16


Kathr said, "...exactly how did it come to be thought Christians OWNED Jerusalem? How exactly did Christians come to OWN Jerusalem? Did they pay for the land, or conquer the land through war? Please explain."

I did not say that Christians ruled LANDS (although they did). What I was trying to say is that by the end of the 5th Century, the western part of the Roman Empire had collapsed and Romans were gone from Jerusalem. With no Jews there either, that meant that Jerusalem was mostly inhabited by Christians.

"Oh, and should I also stay away from RCC web sites?"

If you are looking for solid Roman Catholic doctrine and teaching, confine yourself to the Vatican's website
---Monk_Brendan on 6/6/16


Monk can you name other LANDS owned by Christians? And exactly how did it come to be thought Christians OWNED Jerusalem? How exactly did Christians come to OWN Jerusalem? Did they pay for the land, or conquer the land through war? Please explain.

Now don't get me wrong, Christians can and do own land. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh, and should I also stay away from RCC web sites?
---kathr4453 on 6/6/16


///...the [RCC] has never set out to conquer anything...[you're] thinking about those bad papist Crusaders. I... agree...they went overboard [to say the least], but mostly,... were trying to defend lands belonging to Christians [???!!!] against...Muslim warriors...
---Monk_Brendan on 6/5/16///

Consider this "Monk": The Crusaders went to war against the Muslims wearing the symbol of horrendous death, the cross, on their shields, etc. For the Muslims, who invented crucifixion in Persia, this was definitely an antagonistic display of the Crusader's hostile intentions. The cross symbol to them would've been seen no differently than people hoisting a middle finger at other people in 2016.
---Leon on 6/6/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Kathr said, "So where is God's directive that Christians were to go to war to conquer any lands?"

There is no Scripture that says Go and Conquer. And the Roman Catholic Church has never set out to conquer anything. I know your thinking about those bad papist Crusaders. I will agree that they went overboard, but mostly, the were trying to defend lands belonging to Christians against the Muslim warriors.

They are the ones that have the word Jihad in their satanic books
---Monk_Brendan on 6/5/16


True Cluny

But the point about the Crusades to free the Holy Land is correct.

Extra History has a great set of 10 minute shows on the Crusades and how horrible they were.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/5/16


\\Rome controlled Palestine until it fell in 479. When it fell, the Christians continued to do their thing until the Muslims took over in the 7th century. \\

Actually, that part of the world was in the EASTERN Roman Empire, which didn't fall until 1054--over a millennium later.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/5/16


Ok Monk, but again that is not what I Asked. We see from approx 700 BC on, Jerusalem was captured by the Persians , then this one and that, then Rome, and then back to the Persians , and in 1967 the Jews.

So where is God's directive that Christians were to go to war to conquer any lands? It's because of that, that Christianity was given a bad name. When they saw the cross they associate it with murder and violence. Not the Gospel message God wanted sent.
---kathr4453 on 6/5/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Kathr said, "...WHO then controlled Jerusalem?"

I'll try again. From 33 A.D. or so, Christians were living in the Middle East. Unlike the Jews, whom the Romans killed or ejected from Jerusalem, Christians in Palestine continued leading people to Christ. At that time, there was ONE Church, which became both Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Rome controlled Palestine until it fell in 479. When it fell, the Christians continued to do their thing until the Muslims took over in the 7th century.

When those nasty Papist Crusaders came in and started killing people, it was in response to the Muslim threat, not to throw out Rome for the Catholic Church.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/4/16


\\ Ok, let me ask this way.....when did the control of Jerusalem transfer from ROME to the RCC? \\

I never said it did.

You don't think the RCC was the first church, do you?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/4/16


Cluny even in 135ad, much worse than 70ad ROME was still in control of Jerusalem. But that is not what I asked.

You said Christians.....WRONG. Ok, let me ask this way.....when did the control of Jerusalem transfer from ROME to the RCC? Did the RCC ever go to battle with ROME over Jerusalem? OR Was the transfer a smooth one, and no time to speak of between that transition. If there was time between, WHO then controlled Jerusalem?

Please help us to see the RCC is not ROME in drag. If it's NOT, then tell us where God instructed the CHURCH to go to battle to gain control of Jerusalem.
---kathr4453 on 6/4/16


------
You really don't know much about history, do you, kathr?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/3/16

It appears you don't know history Cluny. Jews were still in Jerusalem in 135ad. And Christians did not control Jerusalem from 79ad on. There is no history a great influx of Christian GENTILES poured into Jerusalem from 79ad or showing it was occupied by Christians. ROME still controlled Jerusalem in 135ad.
---kathr453 on 6/4/16


Send a Free Friendship Ecard


Inspired by Urbans call to arms and intent on earning salvation, tens of thousands of Europeans set out for Jerusalem. In the First Crusade alone, Catholic crusaders slaughtered some 70,000 Jews and Arabs in pursuit of their goal to pry Jerusalem from the infidel. Its sad isnt it? The First Crusade was followed a few decades later by another, then another, then another each an attempt to purge the Holy Land of Muslims of course and Jews as well. History is clear the Vatican has never supported Muslim control of Jerusalem! So why is it doing so now?

Is this not where the end times battle will take place? And LOOK who will be right in the middle? The RCC.
---kathr4454 on 6/4/16


\\ Who was in control of Jerusalem at that time? \\

Christians had been for several centuries, since Jews had been expelled by the pre-Christian Roman Empire in 79 or so.

You didn't think JEWS controlled Jerusalem before the mahometans moved in, did you?

And at this point, Rome was in communion with the Eastern Churches.

You really don't know much about history, do you, kathr?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/3/16


Who was in control of Jerusalem at that time? And where did God ever give Jerusalem to an earthly church called ROME? Why doesn't ROME step in today? Because ROME no longer has an army? It's funny Judas turned on Jesus because Jesus wouldn't overthrow Rome, Jesus saying MY KINGDOM is not of this world. And no where does Jesus instruct Peter or anyone to TAKE BACK Jerusalem....so where did the idea come from that in any of the crusades Jerusalem belonged to ROME or the RCC? Many innocent people died at the hands of Constantine. He even murdered his son and mother. Do we see Christian army's gathering together after Paul.and Peter were murdered or should I say martyred? Or instruction to avenge ...or is God the avenger?
---kathr4453 on 6/2/16


Christianity ..that is CHRISTIANS did not end up on the murdering side of History until Constantine...where he thought the Sword meant to literally murder. So once again we see WRONG actions based on human wisdom and not the Wisdom that is in Christ Jesus.
---kathr4453 on 6/1/16

Ok, Monk replied....NERO bla bla bla. So HOW did Nero even get into the conversation??? MONK.....because MONK can't read, and somehow seemed to think Nero belonged in the conversation ABOUT Christians murdering. People SEE what they want to Monk and MIcha.

There were many crusades Monk. Also Constantine murdered those who did not believe in the Trinity. Doesn't sound like self defense to me.
---kathr4453 on 6/2/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


\\...we did not start the fight. The Muslims were killing Christians, killing Catholic priests, and making the survivors pay the jizya tax.\\

Just like what happens today in mahometan countries to Christians.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/2/16


Wyclif and friends translated the Bible from Latin to what we now know as Middle English. The vast majority of people living in England at that time were illiterate, unable to read either English or Latin. So his translation was not for the common people but rather for the educated.
---john1944 on 6/1/16

John, I showed the definition of common people according to what the RCC classified as common people. Not all common people according to the definition given, were illiterate. What is wrong with you people? Wycliffe would have been classified as "common people" by the RCC.
---kathr453 on 6/2/16


You are partially correct Monk Brendan. The Crusades against the Muslims is what your are talking about. No argument there.

But there were also Crusades against the Cathars and war was made on the Waldensians.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/2/16


Kathr said, "Christians did not go around MURDERING ANYONE, until Constantine. And look where it lead down through history....the Crusades. Please don't justify the crusades Monk. 99% of your vicious responses here is because none of you can read, but rather TWIST, and then go off on these tangents."

Whoa! What a load of lies you have swallowed! But first of all, I do read every post, carefully. The last time I misquoted somebody was in April, and I apologized as soon as I saw the mistake.

Second, the Crusades was an all out fight to the death against the Muslims. Regrettably, we did not start the fight. The Muslims were killing Christians, killing Catholic priests, and making the survivors pay the jizya tax.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/2/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Kathr, I did not say the common people did not speak Middle English. I said they did not read it.
---john1944 on 6/2/16


/And did someone here say Nero was a Christian killing other Christians?
WOW and no one caught that....not even you Micha?\-kathr4453 on 6/2/16
-I didn't catch it because no one said it.
-Another error on your part, Kathr.
---micha9344 on 6/2/16


\\And did someone here say Nero was a Christian killing other Christians? \\

Nope.

Nobody did.

However, I have noticed you don't always understand what is posted here.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/2/16


Kathr said, "And did someone here say Nero was a Christian killing other Christians?"

I did not say that. The only god that Nero worshiped was himself. What I said was Nero was killing Christians centuries before Constantine (a Christian) legalized Christianity.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/2/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Middle English (ME) refers to the varieties of the English language spoken after the Norman Conquest (1066) until the late 15th century, scholarly opinion varies but the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500.


Sorry John, nothing about Middle English not being for the common people but for the time in history it was spoken.
And yes, because Wycliffe lived in the Middle Ages 1300's he spoke and translated into Middle English.

And did someone here say Nero was a Christian killing other Christians?

WOW and no one caught that....not even you Micha?
---kathr4453 on 6/2/16


Christianity ..that is CHRISTIANS did not end up on the murdering side of History until Constantine...where he thought the Sword meant to literally murder. So once again we see WRONG actions based on human wisdom and not the Wisdom that is in Christ Jesus.
---kathr4453 on 6/1/16

Please learn to read Monk.

Christians did not go around MURDERING ANYONE, until Constantine. And look where it lead down through history....the Crusades. Please don't justify the crusades Monk. 99% of your vicious responses here is because none of you can read, but rather TWIST, and then go off on these tangents.
---kathr453 on 6/2/16


The Roman Catholic Church taught that the common man could not understand the Bible, and that the only ones who could understand and interpret the Bible were the priests, bishops and the Pope. To the average man, the Bible was a CLOSED BOOK and he had no access to it. As a result, most of the people were totally IGNORANT of what the Bible really taught. In 1229 A.D. the Church Council of Toulouse actually forbade the use of the Bible to laymen (the mass of common people, those who were not priests or bishops). Thus for centuries the Roman Catholic church did not want to put the Bible into the hands of the common people.

HERE is the definition of "common people".

I have NOTHING to apologize for.
---kathr4454 on 6/2/16


Wyclif and friends translated the Bible from Latin to what we now know as Middle English. The vast majority of people living in England at that time were illiterate, unable to read either English or Latin. So his translation was not for the common people but rather for the educated.
---john1944 on 6/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


You are wrong on both accounts Kathr.
Best to research this and either provide evidence supporting your statements, or find out the Truth and apologize.
Another path is to believe what people have told you, to not search for the truth, and be willfully ignorant of it to suit your own agenda.
---micha9344 on 6/1/16


Kathr said, "But even if you say it did have all the bells and whistles and very expensive, is only a condemnation to the RCC even more so..."

I did some research, and found that a Wycliffe Bible cost about 2 pounds sterling in 1395, and that the cost of 1 pound in 1395 is about 1,325 pounds sterling today, then a full Wycliffe Bible would have cost (in today's US$) $1908.00.

When peasants was alive in 1395, they lived on meager diets, suffered terribly from disease, and worked very hard only to turn over much of what they produced for the support of the lords household. The also had to pay taxes and a tithe to the church. They most likely did not earn one British Pound Sterling in their entire life.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/1/16


Kathr said, "History says it was against the law of the RCC to have a bible in any language but Latin...funny since the original was in Hebrew and Greek."

I have not found one LAW that forbade the reading of an English translation. Please state it clearly, in modern English, without the anti-Catholic rthetoric.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/1/16


\\History says it was against the law of the RCC to have a bible in any language but Latin\\

Can you quote the precise laws, and in what legal code they are to be found, kathr?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 6/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Kathr said, "It will also attest to,the fact that Christianity ..that is CHRISTIANS did not end up on the murdering side of History until Constantine...where he thought the Sword meant to literally murder. So once again we see WRONG actions based on human wisdom and not the Wisdom that is in Christ Jesus."

Dear one, do some research and you will find that Nero (the Roman Emperor) was killing Christians a couple of centuries before Constantine. Constantine did not kill Christians. He was Christian.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/1/16


Monk, you can say WRONG all you want, but History with many witnesses will attest you are WRONG.

It will also attest to,the fact that Christianity ..that is CHRISTIANS did not end up on the murdering side of History until Constantine...where he thought the Sword meant to literally murder. So once again we see WRONG actions based on human wisdom and not the Wisdom that is in Christ Jesus.
---kathr4453 on 6/1/16


Kathr said, "Wow...sounds vicious to me. All because Wycliffe translated the bible into English and gave to the common people. History says it was against the law of the RCC to have a bible in any language but Latin........funny since the original was in Hebrew and Greek. "

WRONG!
---Monk_Brendan on 5/31/16


\\1428 Pope Martin V orders John Wyclif's bones exhumed and burned.\\

And this was about a CENTURY after the time of Wycliffe.

It was actually the people of Rome who did so, and NOT by orders of Pope Martin.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/30/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Kathr please stop reading online. The bibles were in Greek first until the common man spoke Latin. To adjust the RCC order Latin.

Now it's whatever language that is spoken by the people.

I still don't know how you take care of those who can't read?

Send them to the RCC so they can hear full chapters from the OT and NT especially the GOSPELS read out loud to them.
In 3 years they would have heard 90% of the bible.
---Nicole_Lacey on 5/30/16


Kathr, NO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS takes care of the Poor via feeding them, housing them, or educating them than the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH!

No other Religious institutions or non religious institutions.

NOT ANY GOVERNMENT OR COUNTRY INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So please don't try to criticize the RCC on the treatment of the Poor UNTIL your religion institution out does the RCC.

PLEASE JOIN US IN CARING FOR THEM.

There's plenty of Poor people to go around.
Surpass us, don't criticize us.
---Nicole_Lacey on 5/30/16


1428 Pope Martin V orders John Wyclif's bones exhumed and burned.

Wow...sounds vicious to me. All because Wycliffe translated the bible into English and gave to the common people. History says it was against the law of the RCC to have a bible in any language but Latin........funny since the original was in Hebrew and Greek.
---kathr4453 on 5/30/16


\\Yes, the RCC did keep the Bible out of the common people's hands, and made it illegal for it to be in anything except high Latin\\

Wrong again, kathr, as in almost everything you say.

The Latin Bible, or Vulgate was NOT translated into "high Latin" but into the common vernacular Latin--VULGATA--of its day.

St. Jerome had made some initial drafts in the literary ('high' to you) Latin, but after spiritual advice (some say from an angel) deliberately used the common form so that it COULD be understood by ordinary people.

And what pope was furious at Wycliffe's translation? Can you give his name?

Bet you can't!

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/30/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


In response to Wycliffe, the original papers distributed to the common folks were not the entire bible, but pages hand transcribed from the RCC Latin. It wasn't until they were able to get the original Greek and Hebrew that they saw so much corruption in the Latin.

But even if you say it did have all the bells and whistles and very expensive, is only a condemnation to the RCC even more so, because the RCC then must have been so tight fisted with the money they took from the poor not giving anything back. If Wycliffe absorbed the expense BRAVO! Shame shame shame on the RCC. Wycliffe did it THE RIGHT WAY.
---kathr4453 on 5/30/16


Talk of prepositions reminded me,
little, more common things (words)may be overlooked, not given much thought, such as of and by. I have used them at times interchangeably

Ex:"of" in reference to the Father: "There is but one God, the Father,of whom are all things"

Of: preposition used to indicate distance or direction from. Indicates origin, derivation, cause, motive, occasion, reason

Whereas "by": near to, next to, over the surface of, through the medium of, along, or using as a route

Ex: "and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,the man Christ Jesus,"
---Chria9396 on 5/30/16


Using a different preposition is the weakest argument I have ever heard.

If something is FROM God, then it obviously is OF God too.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/28/16

And what we do know for a FACT is Jesus, who is God and cannot lie
said" salvation Is OF the Jews. If you continue to have a problem with that, then I suggest you pray about it and take it up with the Lord. Why badger me over something God said? Ans....because correctly spelling a word doesn't give definition. You do know how to spell. BRAVO! But concept and definitions are not your strong suit.

I actually would explain it to you, but since you are acting like a donkey's hind end you will try to start another argument there too.
---kathr4453 on 5/29/16


OF and FROM are two of the most common prepositions in English. They are used in a wide variety of situations, but are also often confused. The next paragraph explains the main cause for confusion and is followed by a step by step explanation of the use of both OF and FROM in English.

Many English learners have difficulties understanding the difference between of and from in English. This comes from the fact that a number of languages, including romance languages such as Italian and French, as well as German, use the same preposition for both of and from.
.

Jane is a friend OF mine.
Jane is a friend FROM mine. A friend from mine WHAT????
Not saying the same thing.

Get it?
---kathr453 on 5/29/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


In another blog, (now closed) Kathr said to me, "BUT YOU paraphrased something here yourself..stating "Salvation is of God not the Jews." So by saying that, you did not and still do not understand what Jesus meant. Of coarse Salvation is a Gift from God. There is a difference between the word FROM and OF in the context of what Jesus was saying. So salvation is not FROM the Jews, but OF the Jews."

Using a different preposition is the weakest argument I have ever heard.

If something is FROM God, then it obviously is OF God too.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/28/16


///Leon, who jumped in on the Finish it here threats with AH HA MONK...LOOK AT ME....I REALLY GOT HER NOW? none other than you Leon. I don't behave in such childish stalking ways.[???!]

If defending scripture you mutilate is stalking...OK. Guilty as charged. But i see nowhere you defend your mutilated scripture with anything but insults.---kathr453 on 5/27/16///

Kat: Really???! Who made you the scripture police? Scripture supports itself very well without you.

Has anyone ever told you, you talk too much? When people see you coming, do they go the other way to avoid conflict? It's quite apparent you have some serious issues, but maybe you're just not aware of it or else you're in denial. You need help.
---Leon on 5/29/16


\\There are several verses Monk stating man thinking he is right in his own eyes\\

Like you, Kathr?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/29/16


Monk, anyone can read the history of the DARK AGES. Yes, the RCC did keep the Bible out of the common people's hands, and made it illegal for it to be in anything except high Latin, which of coarse the common people could not read anyway. Funny, the original scriptures were in Greek and Hebrew...not Latin. When Wycliffe translated into English, Rome and the Pope were furious.

People should read the history of how the Bible came to be in the hands of the common people. And how it came to be in English.

If the history itself is an embarrassment to you Monk, that's not my problem. You want to make it personal, when I'm just reminding you of history. Isn't that why it was called the DARK AGES?
---kathr4453 on 5/29/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

There are several verses Monk stating man thinking he is right in his own eyes. So your verse is one out of many. Yet you think THAT IS THE ONE TRUE VERSE and only that one. That was a foolish misconception. Also there are over what, 100+ versions which state the same verse 100 different ways...and YOU looked up each one? I'm impressed.

Actually let me rephrase...there are SEVERAL verses where man thinks he is right in his own eyes. But there is no verse that says " there are several verses that say man thinks he is right in his own eyes". Please know the difference between quoting a verse, and paraphrasing.
---kathr4453 on 5/28/16


Kathr said, "Ever since I said something about the RCC, you have been trying to start a fight, and trying to bait ME."

Wrong! You have been picking at the Catholic Church since I came along.

"I simply won't take your bait Monk..."You don't think at all. I mentioned twice that a handwritten Bible was way out of the range of the Common Man, and you keep telling me that the Church kept the Bible away from people.

"I think that you know that..."

I have a Bible or two around, and I can look up things online. But your inaccuracies of Scripture require me to comment, so that the innocent person reading will not get the wrong idea
---Monk_Brendan on 5/28/16


Monk, you are free to read my last posts and see that there is no ranting and raving, cursing of anyone...but simply discussion and debate on the subject matter. Ever since I said something about the RCC, you have been trying to start a fight, and trying to bait ME. I simply won't take your bait Monk. I find your approach rather childish, and your conversation dull and very shallow on subjects. I think that you know that, and don't like the deeper questions I ask you, or the scriptures to back up what God says. And like all cultists, you personally attack the person, rather than staying on the subject matter.

Are you really a Monk? And exactly what is the purpose of a Monk?
---kathr4453 on 5/27/16


Leon, who jumped in on the Finish it here threats with AH HA MONK...LOOK AT ME....I REALLY GOT HER NOW? none other than you Leon. I don't behave in such childish stalking ways.

If defending scripture you mutilate is stalking...OK. Guilty as charged. But i see nowhere you defend your mutilated scripture with anything but insults.
---kathr453 on 5/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Kathr, you've got it all wrong. Far from stalking (stalking--such an ugly word) you around the blogs, you are one of the worst in a bad lot of people that always attack, always rant, and always get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you on anything.

What I have been doing is trying to point out to you that your emotional "feelings" about the contents of the Bible are completely inaccurate. Your hate-filled comments about the Catholic Churches come from Satan himself, and have no basis in reality.

Do try to at least try to do some research from non-biased websites.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/27/16


///Monk, I've noticed you have been purposely stalking me around the threads, in hopes to insult or start an argument... A perfect example of being unchristlike, and thinking it is a righteous act from God...Thank you...for giving us a living example of how making something personal is not God's will.---kathr4453 on 5/26/16///

Kat: You should talk, the way you "stalk" me & others, & then drop yuuuuge piles of garbage on CN blogs! The finger pointing you just did to Monk actually, & more accurately, points right back at you! It's always the severely crude & rude people, like you, who think the problem is with everybody else & not themselves. smh

Let the barking begin!
---Leon on 5/27/16


Here are some verses that come to mind when dealing with decisions.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1Co 10:23 ...but all things edify not.
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
-It's not in what you do or the way you do it, but why you do what you do.
1Co 10:31
---micha9344 on 5/27/16


Monk, I've noticed you have been purposely stalking me around the threads, in hopes to insult or start an argument. Obviously you felt it was right in your own eyes to do so...correct? A perfect example of being unchristlike, and thinking it is a righteous act from God. And then being your own judge and jury as to ones motives or leading. I know what you just did here you believed was right....in your own eyes...but would you stake your life that it was what you should say in God's eyes.

Thank you Monk for giving us a living example of how making something personal is not God's will.
---kathr4453 on 5/26/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Kathr said, "There is a verse that says, every man thinks he is right in his own eyes."

Prov 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (KJV)

That is probably what you are thinking about. But put this verse in action toward yourself.
---Monk_Brendan on 5/26/16


I believe Geraldine has a legitimate question. It would be nice if we had the power to order up a perfect life, like in the movie" Pleasantville" but that's not realistic.

As long as we take what we think is right, and see if it's the same as God's right, which never comes out of a single verse, but a transformed mind, we learn there is a time when to hold um, a time when to fold um, a time when to walk away, and a time when to run. There is a verse that says, every man thinks he is right in his own eyes. That's where the danger comes in. Often to do what is right in Gods eyes, or His will, might be asking for a sacrifice on your part, persecution, hatred. So you first have to be willing to endure those things.
---kathr4453 on 5/26/16


///Which is worse Cluny? To be too scrupulous or too careless? Or is there an in-between?---Geraldine on 5/24/16///

Geraldine: If you'll allow me to say, what's best is to be "Bible focused & balanced". Never try & fit Scripture into the mold of your life circumstances. Rather, our lives should be guided by what the Bible says. Stay off the funky Broadway, "many right ways" path. Instead, follow the straight & "narrow" path to victory in Christ. (Matt. 7:13-14)

God bless!!!
---Leon on 5/25/16


\\Which is worse Cluny? To be too scrupulous or too careless? \\

They are equal and opposite errors.

\\Or is there an in-between?\\

Yes.

Now relax, OK?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/25/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Geraldine,
I can't or won't quote you a scripture verse but I will say this so that if you follow your heart and you truly have the Holy Spirit In You whatever you say or do in life he'll let you know. for each person is different.
---Lee on 5/24/16


Which is worse Cluny? To be too scrupulous or too careless? Or is there an in-between?
---Geraldine on 5/24/16


"Josef: It helps me to believe there are many right ways to do a thing. Things like disagreeing with another person, choosing whether to give a gift, warning another person."
Geraldine "Three things will last forever, faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love. So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. So do not throw away this confident trust in the Lord. Remember the great reward it brings you!"
---josef on 5/24/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.