Faith; greater and lesser

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by deorro 1, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    Romans 14:1 "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."

    Romans 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."


    Romans 14:20 "For meat destroy not the work of God."



    faith: 4102. pistis

    Definition: faith, faithfulness
    Usage: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.


    Romans 14:2-3 "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."


    4102
    pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith.



    Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
    (non quoted)

    Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith, (of those things which he/she has been persuaded to believe), receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
    (non quoted)


    A person could have been persuaded to come to trust/believe upon many things. One being that - Romans 14:20 "For meat destroy not the work of God."

    Meaning the same as it is referred to in The Qu'ran when it says:

    And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, (J)esus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. - [4:157]


    Meat itself does not destroy the work of God. It is man who uses meat for hunger that destroys that work of God being that animal.


    The same applying to the verse in The Qu'ran. The (J)ews did not kill The Messiah. They handed Him over to the Romans to be killed.



    But if you are persuaded to believe that meat, itself, is not a destroying of a creation of God, then to that one this 'faith' is trusted upon. Maybe not completely true or accurate; maybe not completely in 'love'. Nonetheless, still in faith maybe because of what this person was persuaded to come to believe/trust upon received to have such 'faith'. And if a person is persuaded that the (J)ews were the ones that 'killed' The Messiah, that is their 'faith', or belief/trust, that they have 'faith' in/upon; again with those 'informations' which led them to this 'persuasion' of knowledge/acceptance; 'faith'.


    But Allah says Himself, 'And they did not kill him, for certain.' [4:157]


    So yes, I trust and am persuaded; I have 'faith', that 'they' for certain did not kill The Messiah.


    I'm FIRST persuaded by God. Secondly placing my trust in and upon God. Thirdly, living in that 'faith' which I received of God.


    Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."



    And the Word of God namely being, The Messiah; The Christ; The Christ Messiah, The Only Begotten Son of The LORD... Yet His Name is NOT (J)esus... Nor was it then.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  2. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    One of the greater difficulties to 'receive'; place trust/belief/'faith' upon is something that seems more blatant and trustworthy than 'purity'. And that 'thing' is 'corruption'.

    If purity is a rarity, how is it that corruption would NOT be a majority?


    Although it has ALREADY been declared that it were not 'them', the 'ones' of the Torah/the 'ones' of the Book/The' ones' of the Scriptures; and although this knowledge has also ALREADY been given to the Gentiles, how is it that this knowledge is STILL not believed upon/understood/having 'faith' with and upon in the majority lives of their daily living?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  3. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9

    (J)ohn 1:1

    Word: 3056. logos
    Word: 3056. logos
    God: 2316. theos
    The: 3588. ho, hé, to
    Word: 3056. logos
    God: 2316. theos


    'was'... past tense?
    1510. eimi

    eimi: I exist, I am
    Original Word: εἰμί
    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: eimi
    Phonetic Spelling: (i-mee')
    Definition: I exist, I am
    Usage: I am, exist.


    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


    In the beginning 'I Am' pertaining/with/together Logos,
    and 'pertaining/with/together Logos 'I Am' 'together advantageously towards' 'I Am',
    and pertaining to/with/together 'Logos' 'I Am' 'God'.



    Logos:
    3056. logos
    logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech

    Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
    Usage: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.

    [3056 (lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning "reasoning expressed by words."]


    account (7), account* (1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation* (1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length* (1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what* (1), word (179), words (61).


    (J)ohn 1:6-7 "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe."


    There came a person who with 'logos' spoke as a witness.....


    (J)ohn 1:8 "He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light."


    5457. phós
    phós: light
    Definition: light
    Usage: light, a source of light, radiance.



    (J)ohn 'I Am' -not- 'that Light'. (J)ohn not being that 'I Am', but 'I Am' sent (J)ohn to bear witness, with 'Logos', of that Light.
    5457. phós
    phós: light
    Definition: light
    Usage: light, a source of light, radiance.


    (J)ohn 1:5 "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."


    And that 'light' which shineth 'I Am' even in darkness, the darkness comprehended 'it' not...


    what is that 'light'?

    Love?

    What is 'love'?

    Preference?


    The Christ asked Peter, 'Peter, do you 'prefer' me above all these'?
    Peter replied, 'Lord, You know that I find You a very beloved friend as I do all these.'

    The Christ asked Peter, 'Peter, but do you 'prefer' me before you prefer all these others'?
    Peter replied, 'Lord, we are together. I accept you as I accept all these; the same'.

    The Christ asked Peter, 'Peter, do you accept these as you accept Me'?
    Peter replied, 'Lord, You know that I prefer You'.




    This 'logos', or discourse with reasoning, occurred after the crucifixion and resurrection. And it was during these days of the crucifixion that Peter denied knowing The Christ, 3 times.


    So proper discourse, with reasoning, is what The Christ Messiah was doing all the time He 'was-(I Am)', walking among 'them'.

    'was'... past tense?
    1510. eimi

    eimi: I exist, I am

    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: eimi
    Phonetic Spelling: (i-mee')
    Definition: I exist, I am
    Usage: I am, exist.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  4. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    So why were 'they' unable to understand His 'logos'?

    In my opinion for the same reasons many do not or can not today.

    Hearts that are 'hardened' are as 'the most deceitful and most desperate wicked 'things' which needs to be, as; 're-fallowed'; as in made into 'good' soil.


    ((J)eremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?)


    bearing fruit:

    Matthew 13:8 "But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold."
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  5. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    And it is for this reason that 'Church' is not ALWAYS necessary for a person to have a 'heart' with 'good' soil bearing fruit; some 30, 60 or 100 fold/times. To this is what The Christ Messiah might have meant when He said, "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." - Revelation 2:4

    Because thou hast left thy first 'love'... Because thou hast left thy first 'preference'.


    1 Corinthians 13:11 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."


    But during these times, even, I knew what that 'greater' love was. That greater 'love' was- (I Am) mom and dad always speaking of what good I should be doing and what 'wrongs' I should be avoiding pertaining to I-AM.


    And that is why doing contrary, even though I knew those to be the greater Love, it is considered 'childish'.



    And herein is the 'catch'.

    Why would their speeches, or 'logos', towards rightful and wrongful 'ways' of my own be accepted as the greater Love? Because it was with their own ways and actions that they 'showed' those greater Loves. Not only in speech; not only in speaking, but also and mainly by 'doing'.

    Not only speakers of the 'word' but doers, also.




    There were 2 homes on the same block. One home had mom and dad and a child.. The other home had mom and dad and a child.

    The first home, although not very social in the neighborhood and although that home was not as well financed as the other home, still maintained within quietness and daily requirement meeting. They maintained daily. The other home, although better financially equipped, lacked those daily quietness times as well as daily 'meetings'. The first family was seen as 'meeting' the requirements needed for the next phase of family living. The second, since they lacked/did not 'meet' to the requirements, could not advance to the next 'level'.


    Mother Teresa of Calcutta said once, Love begins within the family. She continued on.. 'How can anybody say that they love God whom they have not seen when they cannot love their neighbors, whom they do see'... (non quoted).



    But 'mushy'? Does this imply that I should be 'mushy mushy' with my neighbors?

    Love... Preference...


    Love my neighbors. Preference... what about them might I or we, as a family, NOT be agreeing, in Preference, with that can have a proper 'Logos' discussion about to see if what is being 'seen' is really detrimental to the family.. Otherwise, why should there be any 'non preference'?


    If I can 'live' among my neighbors for 'safety' sake, what should or could be the problem?


    Proverbs 3:29 "Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee."


    securely: 983. betach
    confidence (1), safely (1), safety (6), secure (2), securely (21), security (8), unawares (1), unsuspecting (2).



    unawares/unsuspecting also could mean.. non suspiciously ... and not needing to be leery over the environment for any 'devising' reason..




    A person enters into a neighborhood and the whole neighborhood thought he/she was a 'cop' out of uniform. They all became 'leery' over this person's neighborly residence.


    Although he/she could have been a 'cop', although he/she might have been a 'cop', the point would not be that he/she was possibly a 'cop' but rather if he/she was 'scheming/devising' against any of 'them'.



    When these sorts of 'neighborhood' sweeps occur, it is something like 'gentrification' to the elderlies and the 'lower incomed'.



    A neighborhood was planned to be 'bought' out. They all gathered to receive their 'sum' of monies; cash, for their permission and their agreement for the rest of the community to be 'bought' out. However a coin collector in that town received a paper bill for one of the exchanges he did in the coin shop. He being a coin collector thought the paper bill looked as if it might have been an antique type bill. And so he began investigating. He found out that although the bill was very rare and worth much much more than 'face value', it was a counterfeit. Even to this coin collector's own was he surprised at just how finely tuned these counterfeits have become that even the 'old' bill was able to be so finely counterfeited. But all the while the rest of the town was being 'bought' out...


    And then the strangeness began.. How would anyone be able to 'exchange' the true worth of such an old bill even if it was 'authentic'? Who in business would be able to 'exchange' such rare bills as though it were not? And even if the exchange occurred, to where would this business owner take it to exchange it for that much much higher than face value?



    And it is for this reason, one of them at least, that 'love', or preference in the home keeps the home together with each other being 'accounted' for...


    Not to forget to mention/include, 'neighbors'. But it is much more susceptible among 'neighbors' that any 'enter' in 'unawares'.


    Church, although many say is as 'family' are also as 'neighbors'. And keeping in mind that The Church, singular, is The Body of Christ, also singular, sometimes does not seem nor appears as if it is Singular...
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  6. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    A member of the local 'Church' went in for some Pastoral 'logos'/communing/reasoning. The member began to be applauded for the time invested in that local church and the tithes also invested. A very well upstanding member in that local church. Upon the Pastor's finishing of his accolades to this member, the Pastor asked if anything could be done for the member. The member putting his head down began to speak. He mentioned how the roof of his home was going to tatters and that after having an estimate as to how much the cost would be to repair it, that the member thought it would be more wise if he and his household began looking for another home and maybe getting as much as they could for what the house might have been able to retain in value. The Pastor sighed and was troubled. He gave a few suggestions and few ideas and even asked a few questions. The member upon leaving the congregation met up with another one of his 'fellows'. He and his 'fellow' friend began conversing and the topic of the roof came up. 'Oh, sure', his friend exclaimed out with joy. 'I'll be able to help you with the cost. After all, what can all my dollar bills do for me just sitting there in the bank collecting interest'?

    The member had his roof fixed and returned back to the local church. The Pastor unsure of what occurred asked him and the member explained how a certain 'fellow' friend assisted him being able to remain. The Pastor congratulated him and went away; he and the member, feeling more reassured.



    Sometimes it's difficult to have conversation with the 'Pastor' as one might with their 'fellow' friend or so. I wonder why??


    Would it be in the 'neighborly' side or the 'family' side which might be the 'off' key?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  7. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    Church in 1st century a.d and now..

    House of Chloe was a church.
    The Church that met where Phoebe was a deacon was a church.
    The Church that met in the house of Apphia and Archippus was a church.


    what could be too much different?


    But if these 'homes' were as Churches, where would the evangelists be or where would the pastors be or where would the bishops and the deacons and the ministers and the saints and the apostles and administrations and the others, given by the 'Same' Spirit, be... if these homes were the Churches?


    Ephesians 4:11-16 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."



    Could this mean.... wait.. does this imply that these 'churches' are learning how to care for one another as a household would care for their own in their own home? Taking care of 'one another', 'encouraging one another', 'edifying one another', as one another, and yet in 'love'?


    The main difference between this and another 'household' possibly being this being more centered around The LORD, around God and around The Christ Messiah?


    It would be like a household 'family' saying their prayers together, praising The LORD and praising God and Praising the Holy Spirit and all the Great and Wonderful 'gifts' They give unto the children of men, and much much more, together, with themselves and among themselves; wouldn't it? Like a family that speaks of anything 'together' yet this family doing the same even towards those 'things' of The LORD and God and The Christ Messiah.. Wow.


    It almost sounds 'sacrilegious' to even think such 'families' do not exist. *Yuck!


    Well,, I almost forgot... that is why it is called 'Church'. A different kind of 'sharing'..
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  8. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    And so... there is faith, there is hope and there is charity... Charity being the same as 'love'; the noun and not the verb..

    The verb, 'love', the same as the noun, 'love', occurs before the noun is.


    But yet there are so many hundreds and thousands of 'churches' teaching of 'love'.


    Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said, 'Love starts in the family. It starts within the home'.



    -


    * I was at 'home' one day and an older member came home. He looked around and commented on certain 'things' he observed. Of course those 'things' most definitely could have used 'improving'. I, of course, obliged. But upon doing the task I began to question. I asked this older member, 'I'm sorry to ask this and please don't find or take this offensively, but if you live as a Gentile how is it that you are expecting me to live as a (J)ew'?


    It wasn't for matter of who was right or who was not. I knew that things should be kept at and in certain ways. That was not my concern. Nor was my concern how that other member lived. But my concern was, 'Are you never ever Concerned with anything else besides NOT being concerned about Anything'?


    Because, boy, let me tell you.... I had concerns coming out of my neck and pockets.. Even out of the sides of my inner under garments..


    Was it on the 'neighborly' side or the 'family' side that seemed to be where I might not have been in the 'right' key?



    This can be seen as a parody of sorts but much less than so...

    A person was so filled that when asked to move to another room, he said he was unable being so filled.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  9. deorro 1
    Offline

    deorro 1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    There are several things about angel Michael that I do not 'like'.

    #1. Never once does it say that he gives 'Glory' to God or to The LORD or to The Christ Messiah.
    #2. Although he has his 'own' angels, are they really his 'own', as in to 'own', as in like a T.V or so?
    #3. Who is 'loving' Michael by correcting him with the correction rod of 'love'?
    #4. Has he really been 'let go' for this long?


    That's for Michael.

    The exact same applies to 'his' angels. What of them? Where is that 'love' towards them?


    I mean, the 'Beast' and 'its' angels can admit that they are 'beastly' at times and they need a Savior to always remain near and close; even unto the time of nigh-ing. But at least they can.. What of Michael and 'his' angels?


    Yet never singing 'Holy, Holy, Holy'.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019

Share This Page