Bible Verse of the Day

[Zapranoth]

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."   John 8:7.     Jesus was addressing the Pharisees -- people who prided themselves on knowing God's laws to a "T."  But they practiced the laws without any heart or compassion for people, and they ran afoul of Jesus rather a lot because of this.  The Pharisees were judging a woman caught in the act of adultery.  Yes, a punishable by death offense. 

So they asked him what his opinion was, what should be done, and he basically ignored them, writing in the dust on the ground.  They kept questioning him and he finally looked up just enough to say the verse above.  At that, they all gradually filed out, "being convicted by their own conscience."   At the last it was just Jesus and the accused woman.  He asked her where all her accusers were?  Was any left to accuse her?   She replied no.  And to that he replied, "Then neither do I condemn you."

The being who made everything by speaking..  The being whose words have very, very much more power than the output of all the stars in the universe!  And all the gravity, and mass, and dark matter, and whatever else we haven't figured out...  Whose words have more power than all of those things, said, "Then neither do I condemn you."  ("Then go, and sin no more.")     He could see all the things she had done, more than any of those men who were set to accuse her.  And *He* said, in so many words, "Off you go, I forgive you.  The highest of all high courts forgives you!  Be a different person, make better choices."

I don't know who you are or what your life is like, Sven, but you sound lost.  I was lost once too, when I was 15, and without God in my life I'm lost again on any given day (doing things that my conscience knows are wrong, one way of looking at what is called sin).  It's pretty normal to be lost, unfortunately.   Every single one of us doesn't live up to God's laws. We either do wrong things, or we think or hope for the wrong things, because that's the curse we live under, from birth on.

If you really don't believe in God but have anger about it, the best advice I can give is to read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.  Of all the people who didn't write the scriptures down, I find his mind to be one of the clearest at just teaching the truth about God in a way that my pea brain can understand.  Read his argument for God's existence, and then see where you're at.   But if you read it, don't skim parts of it to pick it apart.   Actually read it all and ask yourself questions about it.   

But if you're not going to ask yourself questions about it, don't just delude yourself in being in the right by being the one to cast stones at Christians.  You know you're not in the right.

If you take your anger out (your anger against God) on all us here, I understand that.  And for me, I forgive that.  But don't do yourself more harm on our accounts, man, please.  Our forgiveness means nothing at all.   Right?

[Pacman000]

(Haven't read the last page in this thread but posting anyway.)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4%3A15-22&version=NKJV

[ER]

Genesis 1:27  "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. "

[BoyScoutKevin]

And he said: "Naked came I from my mother's womb and naked shall I return. The Lord gave and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21)

Next time: Ecclesiastes

[Svengoolie 3]

Samuel 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek and edevote to destruction1 all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

[ER]

Samuel 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek and edevote to destruction1 all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”

Well gosh, reading this verse I think....I think I've been totally wrong all this time! (You're welcome, Sven. I just felt sorry for you.)

[lester1/2jr]

fun fact: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not in the original NT

[indianasmith]

Not entirely true. 
The passage in John 8 about the woman taken in the act of adultery does not appear in some manuscripts of John.  It does in others, and in one ancient copy of the NT the same story, word for word, shows up in Luke.  But there are several very early references to this story in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (2nd-3rd century), and it was apparently regarded as authentic and authoritative by them.  It MAY not have been part of the original text of John; or some early church leaders may have thought it too controversial and tried excising it.  Interestingly enough, it's in all the Syriac translations of John, and those were made very early on.  I think it may be a story that was part of the original, got dropped for a while, and then re-instated when later Christians realized it was authentic.  I'll say this: it is very much in character with the Jesus of the Gospels (more so than with most Gnostic depictions of Jesus), and particularly consistent with the way John depicted Him.  I wrote about this in one of my columns a couple of years ago, and here's what I said:

Q:  I have always loved the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman, but I heard someone say that it does not belong in the Bible at all, being written later. Is this true?
A:  Well, to use a Facebook catchphrase, "It's complicated."  The story of the woman taken in adultery and brought to Jesus by the Pharisees is a beautiful and inspiring tale of forgiveness in the face of vindictive hypocrisy that has been a treasured part of the narrative life of Jesus for many generations.  However, there is a pretty good chance that the story, while almost certainly authentic, was not originally part of John's Gospel.  Found in John 7:53 to 8: 11, this passage is omitted from many early copies of John - in fact, some of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include it.  All told, there are 1762 Greek manuscripts of John's Gospel.  Of those, 1,495 include the story and some 257 do not - while a few Greek manuscripts relocated this same story, word for word, to the Gospel of Luke!
   Early support for the authenticity of this story can be found in St. Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin around 400 AD and included it, St. Augustine, who preached extensively on this passage and argued for its authenticity, and Leo the Great, one of the early Popes (440-61 AD).  Papias, who lived from around 75-150 AD, referred to this story - or a similar tale, at any rate - as being associated with "the Gospel to the Hebrews," an early Gnostic document.  However, his account comes to us second-hand through Eusebius, who lived 200 years later, and is somewhat vague.  A Syriac devotional book from the mid-200's AD called the Didascalia Apostolorum quotes the passage word for word, showing that the story was in wide circulation by that point and believed to be authoritative.
   Among modern scholars, a majority hold this passage to be a later composition that was grafted into John's Gospel, perhaps sometime in the Second Century.  However, a large minority still defend the passage as being both authentic and part of John's original work; they say that fearful church leaders censored it in some copies, believing it would create the impression that Jesus was "soft on adultery."   
    It is impossible to say with absolute certainty whether or not this story was originally part of John, however, I think the evidence is quite strong that this story was known and treasured by the early church.  Certainly, the Jesus of this story is absolutely compatible with the Jesus of the Gospels, both in his compassion for the sinner and his scorn for the hypocritical Pharisees.  As one scholar puts it:  "If this is not Jesus, then a greater than Jesus is here!"

[ER]

Daym, check out the brain on our Texan up there! 

[Svengoolie 3]

I know a little bible history too.

The council of Nicea was originally going to put "the apocalypse of Peter" as the last book of their stare crafted religion hand picked from the countless stories related to Christianity in existence at the time of Nicea.

The apocalypse of peter told of jesus returning to earth and meeting peter, who essentially gave peter a tour of heaven.  They finally came to the edge of hell and peter,  commendably,  had the guts to say that hell was so terrible it just seemed wrong to leave anyone in it forever. He actually criticized the divine plan as being too cruel for him to be comfortable with.

Jesus then in the apocalypse of peter told peter that hell would not last forever and eventually almost everyone would be freed from it.

The council of nicea wanted to end the bible on a more positive note with the apocalypse of Peter but charlamange override them,  preferring the eternal suffering ending for those that rejected authority. Such a message would suit charlamangecs political aims better by making the consequences of not submitting utterly to authority, such as the empire and emperor, infinitely horrific.

There were  hundreds of stories related to the bibly at the time of charlamange, most written decades after the supposed time of jesus. Charlamange wanted an official stare religion that would essentially make utter and un questioning obedience a virtue and any dissent worthy of infinite punishment. Thus is was left out of the official stare approved religion as it didnct suit charlamange's political needs.

For the curious,  here's  the wiki on the apocalypse of peter. It's  just one of dozens of contemporay texts left out of the official bible as they didn't suit the political will behind it's creation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

[ER]

I know a little bible history too.

The council of Nicea was originally going to put "the apocalypse of Peter" as the last book of their stare crafted religion hand picked from the countless stories related to Christianity in existence at the time of Nicea.

The apocalypse of peter told of jesus returning to earth and meeting peter, who essentially gave peter a tour of heaven.  They finally came to the edge of hell and peter,  commendably,  had the guts to say that hell was so terrible it just seemed wrong to leave anyone in it forever. He actually criticized the divine plan as being too cruel for him to be comfortable with.

Jesus then in the apocalypse of peter told peter that hell would not last forever and eventually almost everyone would be freed from it.

The council of nicea wanted to end the bible on a more positive note with the apocalypse of Peter but charlamange override them,  preferring the eternal suffering ending for those that rejected authority. Such a message would suit charlamangecs political aims better by making the consequences of not submitting utterly to authority, such as the empire and emperor, infinitely horrific.

There were  hundreds of stories related to the bibly at the time of charlamange, most written decades after the supposed time of jesus. Charlamange wanted an official stare religion that would essentially make utter and un questioning obedience a virtue and any dissent worthy of infinite punishment. Thus is was left out of the official stare approved religion as it didnct suit charlamange's political needs.

For the curious,  here's  the wiki on the apocalypse of peter. It's  just one of dozens of contemporay texts left out of the official bible as they didn't suit the political will behind it's creation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

It's late and I'll correct you tomorrow.

[indianasmith]

I know a little bible history too.

The council of Nicea was originally going to put "the apocalypse of Peter" as the last book of their stare crafted religion hand picked from the countless stories related to Christianity in existence at the time of Nicea.

The apocalypse of peter told of jesus returning to earth and meeting peter, who essentially gave peter a tour of heaven.  They finally came to the edge of hell and peter,  commendably,  had the guts to say that hell was so terrible it just seemed wrong to leave anyone in it forever. He actually criticized the divine plan as being too cruel for him to be comfortable with.

Jesus then in the apocalypse of peter told peter that hell would not last forever and eventually almost everyone would be freed from it.

The council of nicea wanted to end the bible on a more positive note with the apocalypse of Peter but charlamange override them,  preferring the eternal suffering ending for those that rejected authority. Such a message would suit charlamangecs political aims better by making the consequences of not submitting utterly to authority, such as the empire and emperor, infinitely horrific.

There were  hundreds of stories related to the bibly at the time of charlamange, most written decades after the supposed time of jesus. Charlamange wanted an official stare religion that would essentially make utter and un questioning obedience a virtue and any dissent worthy of infinite punishment. Thus is was left out of the official stare approved religion as it didnct suit charlamange's political needs.

For the curious,  here's  the wiki on the apocalypse of peter. It's  just one of dozens of contemporay texts left out of the official bible as they didn't suit the political will behind it's creation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

Wow, Sven, your history is so misinformed it's laughable.
First of all, the Council of Nicea was in 316 AD, Charlemagne wasn't even born till after 700 AD.
Secondly, the "Apocalypse of Peter" was written in the late 2nd/early 3rd century and was NEVER accepted by the mainstream church as it was far too late to be Apostolic in origin.  The books that do make up the New Testament were all written in the First Century AD, most of them before AD 70, at a time when some of the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life were still very much alive.
Third, the Council of Nicea did NOT decide the New Testament canon.  The 27 books that make up our NT were already widely regarded as authoritative and inspired by the broader Christian community. What Constantine (NOT Charlemagne) did ask the Council to do was three things:
1.  Rule whether or not Arianism was a legitimate Christian teaching or heresy (it was heresy)
2.  Come up with a statement of faith outlining Christian doctrines (the Nicene Creed, which was an expansion of the early 2nd century "Apostle's Creed"
3.  Produce fifty copies of the Christian Scriptures  to be disseminated throughout the Roman Empire.

One thing that was noticed as those copies were made and transmitted was that there were a handful of writings whose status was uncertain - mostly the shorter epistles that were not as widely circulated, plus two much beloved Christian texts (the "Didache" and the "Shepherd of Hermas") that some wanted to be included in the Scriptures.  So a later council was called, the Council of Hippo, around 400 AD.  They agreed to include the four shorter letters (II and III John, II Peter, and Jude) since there was evidence they dated to the First Century and were linked to the Apostles; the other two were rejected as Scripture but still copied and preserved as useful Christian teaching - just not on the same level as the works of the Apostles.

[ER]

I don't say this with any meanness, Sven, but don't you begin to see that you are simply wrong about so much concerning Christians and Christianity, and that your negative ideas are, frankly, rooted in bigotry?

[justme2013]

I don't say this with any meanness, Sven, but don't you begin to see that you are simply wrong about so much concerning Christians and Christianity, and that your negative ideas are, frankly, rooted in bigotry?

I'd say it's more a point of ego and pride that has caught Sven. He's so wrapped up in his own self that he cannot understand or accept that others have beliefs that are different from his and that he comes across as unbending, intolerant and uneducated. He also cannot understand that his world view is biased and narrow.

[Alex]

Not something from the bible, but it seems appropriate. Why be thought of as an idiot when you can open your mouth and remove all doubt.