Bible Questions?

Nah.... Me and my need to dig out a cuppla ingrown toenails tonight.

Now that's a topic robbery...


-

 

In John 21:7 what is meant by peter's outer coat?

7That disciple, therefore, whom Jesus was loving saith to Peter, `The Lord it is!' Simon Peter, therefore, having heard that it is the Lord, did gird on the outer coat, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea;

 

We basically did it because our friend was reading it and we thought it would be funny.

 

Various Biblical translations offer different meanings for this outer coat:

I'd say from that it's likely it was a type of fisherman's coat, but either way, just a coat or warm clothing to keep Peter warm.

 

hows gambling bad again?

 

I know you don't toss them aside, you just choose to ignore them when it comes to the living oif your life.

Psalm

58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Leveticus

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus

24:13-16And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:13-16

 

Why would the Gospel even mention a fisherman's coat and why would Peter be out fishing naked? The passage seems to be hinting a deeper meaning.

Some iterperet the coat as the imperishable garment that Paul mentions....and when Peter jumps into the water it's symbolizing baptism. I was just wondering if there were any other interpretations.

I used Young's literal for the translation I posted btw.

 

Greed?

 

Actually that's your forte.

As for these, it has already been pointed out to you many times that Christians are no long under the Mosaic Law.

So although, I understand the principles behind them, I am not under any obligation to "kill" anyone and in fact under the law of the Christ it would be wrong to "kill" anyone.

 

Why also would Mark mention that a young man (possibly Mark?) was stripped by the Temple guards in Mark's Gospel when Jesus is arrested?

Why does Peter always seem to put his foot in his mouth? Why would the gospels recount Peter denying Jesus 3 times?

Sometimes embarrassing things happen.

At one point Mark writes "they were hungry, and needed food" (a little redundant, no?)

Sometimes the gospel writers just write stuff that is just plain weird that doesn't have any deeper meaning (Jesus curses the fig tree in Mark because it didn't have fruit, he was hungry, but it wasn't the season for fruits)...

 

Put yourself in Paul's place; One, he was fishing for fish instead of obeying Jesus and fishing for men and Two, he had stripped to his skivvies because it was hot and he was doing heavy work. He sees Jesus and is doubly embarrassed so he quickly puts on his outer garment.

 

What about the number of fish as 153? Doesn't that stand out to you?

You mention Peter denying Peter 3 times and before Jesus was arrested he returns to his disciples 3 times also, but they fail to stay awake.

There a lot of weird things in this gospel that stand out to me and I've always wondered about.

 

I dont feel greedy.

 

This reminds me when Noah's two other son's covered their father Noah's nakedness; so like you say, it was probably done to cover his embarrassment.

 

As I said, the church eventually casts aside the more ridicules portions of the bible as the current attitude to wards rational thought and critical thinking changes.

(Now that the practitioners of such religion no longer are able to murder and torture there enemies that is, at least in the United States of course don't get me started on the middle east)

My question would be why not take it a step further and stop taking any portion of the bible as literal or divine when if it can be so easily altered and as a consequence betrays it's ridicules claim to divinity?

 

Peter was insane?

 

There is no reason other than it would challenge the prevailing belief. Those who choose belief can only argue because they do not know the truth. The why of it is simply that they have vested interest to protect. They are "rich men".

 

Why did it take the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days?

Amos

2:10 Also I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.

 

No one has cast aside anything. The principles are still sound and can still be helpful in guiding one's life. As for the Mosaic Law it was in effect for a specific reason and for a specific length of time. The Gentiles were never under it and Christians were never under it.

True Christians were never allowed to murder and torture their enemies, in fact Christians were from the beginning to love their enemies and if they did not they were "Christians" in name only.

The Bible and it's principles have never been altered, so what you say is meaningless.

 

God took them on the scenic route.