Post by BishopPost by StaRPost by BishopPost by StaRPost by StaRPost by BishopPost by StaRPost by Bishop"I, StaR, make NO guarantees..." Go figure - there's a suprise.
Surprise? Basic thinking skills will tell you that there can be NO
GUARANTEES when dealing with a CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING SYNDICATE.
So tell me there dudette, why then would I want to deal with
a "CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING SYNDICATE" then?
(This is hilarious.)
Why do you deal with the "CRIMINALLY INSANE RACKETEERING SYNDICATE" on a
daily basis Bishop?
StaR
P.S. Is it because you're a respecter of persons? (Do you even know what
that means Bishop???).
respecter: A person who respects someone or something; usually used in the
negative.
Did I pass, huh? Did I? Did I?!!!
I'm sorry, I should of known better....the phrase was coined from the
following...
----------
Acts 10:34, Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I
----------
Any idea as to what Peter meant by "God is no respecter of persons"
Bishop???
----------
Act 10: 17 - 35
Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen
should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made
enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were
lodged there.
While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold,
three men seek thee.
Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting
nothing: for I have sent them.
Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from
Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what [is] the cause
wherefore ye are come?
And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that
feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was
warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to
hear words of thee.
Then called he them in, and lodged [them]. And on the morrow Peter
went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited
for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his
feet, and worshipped [him].
And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come
together.
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a
man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;
but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or
unclean.
Therefore came I [unto you] without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent
for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and
at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before
me in bright clothing,
And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in
remembrance in the sight of God.
Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is
Peter; he is lodged in the house of [one] Simon a tanner by the sea
side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that
thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear
all things that are commanded thee of God.
Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that
God is no respecter of persons
:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him
.
----------
As it is written here...
Knowing that Cornelius was a ROMAN ARMY OFFICER from Caesarea, a ROMAN
city that Herod the Great dedicated to Caesar Augustus, what Peter meant
by "God is no respecter of persons" was that God pays no mind to
Cornelius's STATUS or RANK as a ROMAN PERSON, it means NOTHING to God,
God accepts Cornelius into his kingdom because he is a God fearing MAN.
Indeed Cornelius was the first Gentile converted to Christianity, along
with his household.
And what was a Roman PERSON AT THAT TIME?
----------
Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion
PERSON: in Roman law a person was a legal entity or party to a
contract while in Roman theater a person described the mask worn by
the actor to play a specific role. Neither usage identifies a person
as a self-conscious being.
----------
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either
side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition,
PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the
legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or
only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal
sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically
ignorant of the biological status of its subjects." - Peter
French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American Philosophical
Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
----------
Post by BishopThe Bible quotation that is the title of this article is language used in
the King James Version of Acts 10:34. There, Luke records, "Then Peter
opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter
of persons." KJV). Modern translations would use the phrase that God
“shows no partiality” (NKJV) or “is not one to show partiality” (NASB).
Just for clarity’s sake, understand that the modern translations more
accurately state the premise.
And so we're about to be told what the "modern translation" is....
Post by BishopSome have misunderstood the ancient language
to mean that God has no respect for mankind
BULLSHIT!!!!
The same version CLEARLY states that God had RESPECT for MAN (mankind).
----------
Genesis 4:4, And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock
and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to
his offering:
----------
Exodus 2:25, And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had
respect unto them.
----------
Leviticus 26:9, For I will have respect unto you, and make you
fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.
----------
2 Kings 13:23, And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion
on them, and had respect unto them, because of his
covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them,
neither cast he them from his presence as yet.
----------
Psalm 138:6, Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the
lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.
----------
Post by Bishopindicating some disdain for
man. Nothing could be further from the truth. God sent His only begotten
Son to the earth in order to save man. God so loved the world, not
disdained it.
I make no statement to the contrary.
Post by BishopThat initial point dealt with, let us now look into what Peter said and
why. The situation in Acts 10 is the record of the conversion of the first
Gentile to the gospel of Christ in the person of Cornelius, a Caesarean
army officer, a centurion. This was a man of a good reputation as well as
powerful military rank. For verification of these details, please see and
read Acts 10 and 11 in their entirety. The significance of the events
recorded in these two chapters is seen in that up to this point in time
the apostles and the initial converts maintained their Jewish bias against
all Gentiles and considered them unworthy of a relationship with God, and
certainly not with themselves, as the Jews were the chosen people of God.
This bias was misapplied, but God had a plan to overcome their prejudice
and show them a better way. Peter, a servant of God, an apostle of Jesus
Christ as well as a devout Jew, was a tough nut to crack. This would not
be the only time he had a problem with prejudice against Gentiles (See
Galatians 2, beginning at verse 11). God had a way of dealing with tough
nuts, too.
Through a series of events involving God, His Spirit, and certain of His
angels, Cornelius, this Gentile, called for Peter, this devout Jew, to
come to the house of Cornelius in order that Peter could speak to
Cornelius along with his invited gathering of family and friends about God
and the matter of salvation from their sins. Peter had it in his mind that
going to the house of a Gentile was unlawful before God. Under a different
law and in a different time, it had been, but under the law of Christ,
such a prohibition had been lifted. Peter and the rest of the Jewish
Christians not only had permission to go to the Gentiles, but were being
commanded to do so. God, through a vision, had shown Peter that no longer
were Gentiles to be considered unclean. Peter thus did exactly what he had
been called to Caesarea to do, and that was to preach the gospel. The
household of Cornelius, having heard the good news of a risen Savior,
received that news with faith and obeyed the command of water baptism for
the remission of their sins so as to be saved.
The conclusion that Peter had to reach within himself so as to go to the
home of a Gentile with a clear conscience is that indeed God is no
respecter of persons.
God paid no respect to Cornelius's STATUS or RANK as a ROMAN PERSON, he
accepted him as a man.
Now let's not forget what a person was in the roman AT THAT TIME...
----------
Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion
PERSON: in Roman law a person was a legal entity or party to a
contract while in Roman theater a person described the mask worn by
the actor to play a specific role. Neither usage identifies a person
as a self-conscious being.
----------
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either
side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition,
PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the
legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or
only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal
sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically
ignorant of the biological status of its subjects." - Peter
French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American Philosophical
Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
----------
Post by BishopWhat are some applications we can draw from this
truth?
Racial prejudice is sin. The social ramifications of Peter entering the
home of Cornelius were at that time revolutionary. Acts chapter 11 is the
record of Peter having to answer to people in Jerusalem for his actions in
Caesarea in regard to Cornelius. Only the direct operation of the Holy
Spirit was sufficient to convince Peter and his company that God endorsed
their being present in that home and the preaching of the gospel to
Gentiles. With that divine endorsement, Peter continued. God is indeed no
respecter of persons. The kids’ song is right. “Jesus loves the little
children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white,
they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the
world.” Of course His love does not change at all when they grow up into
responsible adults. God had decreed that the children of Israel maintain
their lineage pure for the perfection of the genealogy of the Messiah.
Once Messiah had come, died, been raised from the dead and ascended to
Heaven, there was no need for the maintenance of that old provision.
Likewise, there is no need for there to be racial prejudice today. It is a
problem in our society and a problem in our world. For Christians to
maintain any hatred based on race is absolutely sinful. For Christians to
show partiality based on race is likewise sinful. Jesus taught in John
7:24; "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous
judgment." (NASB). "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in
sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by
their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from
thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad
tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad
tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their
fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20; NASB). We know people by their fruits, not by
their appearance.
God has not revealed different truths. The Bible is the complete and final
revelation of God to man. I have lived my life defending this position. 2
Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3; 2 John 9-11; James 1:25; 1
Corinthians 13:8-10 et. al. all support this position concerning the Bible
being total and complete. Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 15:8 that “last of
all” Christ was seen by him. Jesus has not appeared to Oral Roberts, or
Joseph Smith, or any other so called latter day prophet to tell them
something more, less or different than the Bible. Nor has God imparted to
any so-called believer some good feeling about salvation outside of the
truth of the Bible. Intelligent and otherwise rational people can read the
Bible and understand it. They can understand its teaching about the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ. They can read and understand its
teaching about morality. They can read und understand from the Bible the
necessity of faith, repentance and the confession of faith in order for
men to be saved. Yet, when it comes to the Bible command to be baptized
into Christ in order to have our sins forgiven, these intelligent and
otherwise rational people lose all sense of reason opting to rely then on
their feelings that they were saved before their baptism. Why is that? It
makes no sense whatsoever.
God does not exempt some from His law. When Peter announced that God was
no respecter of persons, he also said, “but in every nation the man who
fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:35; NASB).
God paid no respect to Cornelius's STATUS or RANK as a ROMAN PERSON, he
accepted him as a man.
Now let's not forget what a person was in the roman AT THAT TIME...
----------
Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion
PERSON: in Roman law a person was a legal entity or party to a
contract while in Roman theater a person described the mask worn by
the actor to play a specific role. Neither usage identifies a person
as a self-conscious being.
----------
"Following many writers on jurisprudence, a juristic person may be
defined as an entity that is subject to a right. There are good
etymological grounds for such an inclusive neutral definition. The
Latin "PERSONA" originally referred to DRAMATIS PERSONAE, and in Roman
Law the term was adapted to refer to anything that could act on either
side of a legal dispute... In effect, in Roman legal tradition,
PERSONS are creations, artifacts, of the law itself, i.e., of the
legislature that enacts the law, and are not considered to have, or
only have incidentally, existence of any kind outside of the legal
sphere. The law, on the Roman interpretation, is systematically
ignorant of the biological status of its subjects." - Peter
French in THE CORPORATION AS A MORAL PERSON, 16 American Philosophical
Quarterly 207, at 215 (1979).
----------
Post by BishopIt matters not if you are a white, middle-class businessman in the ‘Bible
belt’ of the United States or a jungle dweller in Africa or South America,
or a veiled Arabian woman in Kuwait, the principle of Acts 10:35 applies.
The command of Mark 16:15 to go into all the world and preach the gospel
to every creature is still enjoined on God’s people. The principle of the
parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) that every man is our neighbor
still demands that we treat all people alike and that all people are
subject to the law of God. "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And
let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17;
KJV). “Whosoever will” says that the gospel is for all mankind. Its
benefits are available to all. Its commands are applicable to all. Whoever
wants to live forever in God’s house will live by God’s rules. As it is in
your house, so, too, is it true in God’s house.
God is not one to show partiality. He does not play favorites. There are
no “teacher’s pets” with God. "'Therefore let all the house of Israel know
assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and
Christ.' Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to
Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'
Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your
children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will
call.'" (Acts 2:36-39; NKJV). For over 2,000 years now, the Lord has been
calling people by the same gospel as Peter here preached and as he
preached in the house of Cornelius. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He and
He alone has the right to direct our lives. He is Lord. He is Christ,
God’s own anointed. Based on who He is, and what He has done, we owe our
allegiance to Him in all things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool huh?
Yes, it's too bad you don't understand what you cut and pasted.
StaR