Is Jesus Enough?

[flyfishing]

This is a loaded question that is answered by you talking apples and me talking oranges. It all depends on how you interpret the question. Since it is an unbiblical question, it seems to require a subjective answer, asking for an opinion. Sort of the question that would be asked on an college English essay test. From your viewpoint you have a point and I feel that from mine I do too. And that’s where it should probably end. Trying to get me to buy into your interpretation of the question is asking me to see things through your eyes (filters) and I am not willing to do that.

It's really a silly question, when you think about it.

\o/

Jim is CHRIST your all in all??? That is what the question asks of me??? Or is that unbiblical???

 

[Jim B]

Jim is CHRIST your all in all??? That is what the question asks of me??? Or is that unbiblical???

It's a silly question, when you think about it.

 

[educk]

Jim

No offense meant. I think the question is clear on it's own.

 

[Jim B]

Jim

No offense meant. I think the question is clear on it's own.

No offense taken, e.

 

[flyfishing]

It's a silly question, when you think about it.

How so grasshopper???

 

[Jim B]

How so grasshopper???

It doesn't say "enough" for what! Before you say everything, which is the politically correct answer, you might have to think that through for a while. It's like saying, "Jesus is the answer!" So, what is the question? It's just the knee-jerk response of unthinking people to questions that may deserve a better answer.

See what I mean?

\o/

 

[Svt4Him]

Well, thanks to Svt4 Him, I have changed my answer to this question. Originally I said, “Yes, Jesus is enough,” but the more I think about it the more I realized that that is not the way God created us. In the beginning, God was enough for Adam but God did not think so. He said, “"It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him,” and he created Eve. Apparently, God did not create Adam so that He would be sufficient for his every need. The fact is, “no man lives to himself and no man dies to himself.” We need each other and that’s the way God made us.

 

[educk]

It doesn't say "enough" for what! Before you say everything, which is the politically correct answer, you might have to think that through for a while. It's like saying, "Jesus is the answer!" So, what is the question? It's just the knee-jerk response of unthinking people to questions that may deserve a better answer.

See what I mean?

\o/

Jim - the question makes perfect sense based on my first post. It seems that you had the knee-jerk reaction, not reading in conext of that. The question does not stand on it's own if you read it in that light. That said, thanks for your comments. I feel my point was already proven by some of the reaction. I said early on, if the shoe doesn't fit, the gladly don't wear it.

 

[Terri]

Yes, Jesus is enough!!!

I use to have those very works "Jesus is enough" in my signature.

I put it there after I was harassed for saying it in a post.

The people that seemed to be offended by the statement at the time were the ones that think that their own good works count toward their salvation rather than their salvation coming from Christ's sacrifice on the cross alone.

 

[flyfishing]

It doesn't say "enough" for what! Before you say everything, which is the politically correct answer, you might have to think that through for a while. It's like saying, "Jesus is the answer!" So, what is the question? It's just the knee-jerk response of unthinking people to questions that may deserve a better answer.

See what I mean?

\o/

No jim i guess i Dont.. I asked you if the question was reworded to is Jesus your all in all and you still thought that foolish.. I understand what you say but not your oblections if that makes sense. If the question was reworded to is CHRIST your all in all what would your response be?? Because honestly brother i sensed a callous heart towards the thought of such..

This was mentioned earlier in this thread but I see Christ in my brothers and sisters,in most of the 5 fold ministry gifts, in most of the 9 gifts of the spirit, but most of all i see CHRIST IN my helpmate...

how can i seperate Gods kids from the love of God? Those kids are in theor proper prioritys and further revelation of the wondeful love of god to me... So yes he is my all in all, and yes jesus is enough. My soul no longer thirsts only for HIM who is coming soon...

 

[Jim B]

flyfish said:

If the question was reworded to is CHRIST your all in all what would your response be??

Is Jesus my all in all? How quaint. I think the politically correct answer to that question would be, Of course I do. But what the does it mean? It sounds like just so much Christian jargon. I think I know what it means. I know what I think it means. But I am not sure what you mean. That’s the problem with Christianese, it varies from one subgroup to another, from one denomination to another, even from one person to another.

It's another silly question, fly.

So there, have I answered your question? Probably not, but it’s the best I can do with the little you have to offer me.

Then you said (and rudely, I might add):

If the question was reworded to is CHRIST your all in all what would your response be?? Because honestly brother i sensed a callous heart towards the thought of such..

That is an insensitive (and inaccurate) judgment call on your part and really not worthy of a response. "Because honestly brother I sensed an arrogant and self-righteous heart towards me." (So, how did that feel?)

Obviously, fly, you are no prophet.

\o/

 

[flyfishing]

flyfish said:

Is Jesus my all in all? How quaint. I think the politically correct answer to that question would be, Of course I do. But what the does it mean? It sounds like just so much Christian jargon. I think I know what it means. I know what I think it means. But I am not sure what you mean. That’s the problem with Christianese, it varies from one subgroup to another, from one denomination to another, even from one person to another.

It's another silly question, fly.

So there, have I answered your question? Probably not, but it’s the best I can do with the little you have to offer me.

Then you said (and rudely, I might add):

That is an insensitive (and inaccurate) judgment call on your part and really not worthy of a response. "Because honestly brother I sensed an arrogant and self-righteous heart towards me." (So, how did that feel?)

Obviously, fly, you are no prophet.

\o/

So Is he or isnt he???

I am sorry you choose to insult me.. I apologize that you took my rebuke in the wrong spirit.

 

[Jim B]

So Is he or isnt he???

I am sorry you choose to insult me.. I apologize that you took my rebuke in the wrong spirit.

 

[flyfishing]

That is an insensitive (and inaccurate) judgment call on your part and really not worthy of a response. "Because honestly brother I sensed an arrogant and self-righteous heart towards me." (So, how did that feel?)


I feel fine friend. i call them as i see them. i did not share that as a way to insult you because you did not interpert things the way i did..

I do take offense to one thing though. I dont understand why that someone who is a pastor can dismiss the idea of christ being your all in all as a silly idea. .. I will pray that you come to see JESUS... That you will love the fATHER...

LORD please reveal to jim you are all sufficient in Christs name amen..

 

[Jim B]

I feel fine friend. i call them as i see them. i did not share that as a way to insult you because you did not interpert things the way i did..

I do take offense to one thing though. I dont understand why that someone who is a pastor can dismiss the idea of christ being your all in all as a silly idea. .. I will pray that you come to see JESUS... That you will love the fATHER...

LORD please reveal to jim you are all sufficient in Christs name amen..

You calls them likes you sees them, huh? You might need to get your eyes checked, fly. You are extremely nearsighted.

But I will play your silly game (you are very persistent). Yes, I believe Jesus is my all in all. Yes, Jesus is enough.

Satisfied?

Now, what the heck does all that mean? You have persisted in getting me to answer you, even to the point of passing judgment on my character, and by offering a self-righteous "prayer" designed, I think, to embarrass me - but you have yet to explain what you mean when you use terms like "all in all." I do not speak your language, fly (nor do I want to). As for your hypocritical prayer, you sounded a lot like the Pharisee in Luke 18 who prayed “to himself.” I do not believe my heavenly Father would hear a prayer designed to embarass one of His children.

In my circles we call these inane spiritual-sounding phrases - like the one in question - Christianese. Christianity is a quaint second language to many people and I am in the process of compiling an English/Christianese Dictionary to help unchurched people understand Church-Talk and have decided to add “Jesus my all in all” (a very charming expression) to the list. But, I just can’t figure out exactly what it means. I know it means a lot to you (apparently!) but I don’t have a clue what you mean when you say it and have asked for a definition of terms. If you can possibly supply a definition I will credit you. If you can't, will you please get off my case.

\o/

 

[flyfishing]

No jim i guess i Dont.. I asked you if the question was reworded to is Jesus your all in all and you still thought that foolish.. I understand what you say but not your oblections if that makes sense. If the question was reworded to is CHRIST your all in all what would your response be?? Because honestly brother i sensed a callous heart towards the thought of such..

This was mentioned earlier in this thread but I see Christ in my brothers and sisters,in most of the 5 fold ministry gifts, in most of the 9 gifts of the spirit, but most of all i see CHRIST IN my helpmate...

how can i seperate Gods kids from the love of God? Those kids are in theor proper prioritys and further revelation of the wondeful love of god to me... So yes he is my all in all, and yes jesus is enough. My soul no longer thirsts only for HIM who is coming soon...

This is what having christ to be all in al means to me, whatever i am doing he preoccupies my thoughts. while watching the rare secular how i am worshipping christ in my heart and often praying in the holy spirit..

Jim i wont comment on anything else than that. i will say however my prayer was genuinely motivated to inspire thee to lovest my LORD deeper.. I dont play the insult game.. And all you have said negatively towards me, i know my heart is clean and whose i am...

 

[Jim B]

Then, fly, if I have misjudged you, I apologize. But please do not worry about my spiritual welfare. That is my concern. And, really, there is no need to be concerned about my relationship with my Lord. I just may love Him as much as you do although I am sure I could love Him more.

Sincerely, I apologize for any offense I may have given you.

Jim
\o/

 

[flyfishing]

Is Jesus enough?

Good question and a good article. You've given me a theme for next Sunday.

\o/

Somehow during this thread you went from this post to calling it a "silly question".. Still preaching on it from a positive perspective i hope. I do worry about everyones salvation, mine first. Thats the one area i exempt from seeking the wellbeing of others first.

I did read your apology friend. I will comment on it only in the hope that you dont apolgize in that manner to those you offend. An aplogy does not carry insults...


Jim you authored a thread calling for manners yet you choose to poke fun at peoples spelling,grammar, and then totally insult me even while seemingly apologizing..I still love you with His love, and hope you indeed do love him more than i...

My thoughts have been quite clear,although perhaps concise. no i dont speak christianese. i speak bible truth. it is plain and simple and does not waver with every wind of doctrine or wave of the sea..

 

[Jim B]

Somehow during this thread you went from this post to calling it a "silly question".. Still preaching on it from a positive perspective i hope. I do worry about everyones salvation, mine first. Thats the one area i exempt from seeking the wellbeing of others first.

I did read your apology friend. I will comment on it only in the hope that you dont apolgize in that manner to those you offend. An aplogy does not carry insults...


Jim you authored a thread calling for manners yet you choose to poke fun at peoples spelling,grammar, and then totally insult me even while seemingly apologizing..I still love you with His love, and hope you indeed do love him more than i...

My thoughts have been quite clear,although perhaps concise. no i dont speak christianese. i speak bible truth. it is plain and simple and does not waver with every wind of doctrine or wave of the sea..

Flyfishing, I do apologize (and sincerely, I hope) for my apparent over-sensitivity in what you have been trying to say to me. I may have interpreted your remarks as prejudging the devotion of my heart and my love for my Lord Jesus Christ and over-reacted. If I have, indeed, wrongly interpreted your posts, I certainly owe you an apology and offer it gladly. I will admit that sometimes I may read into posts things that are not there and wind up making charges I later regret. I think this could be one of those instances. Please accept my apology for being oversensitive.

The poking fun at people who misspell words was only that – poking fun. I misspell (or is it mispell?) words, too. Maybe I should have put the appropriate emoticon in the post .

\o/

 

[onionring]

onionring you've read it from your own perspective, which is all any of us can do, there is no objective way to interpret any piece of writing, ...

Actually I read it from both sides and found it lacking. "Duplicity of mind, consistency of heart". And since I did look at it objectively (from both prominent sides and considerations), I found the article to be full of unclear double talk. My posting was a warning to that effect. But I can see (as is human nature), everyone seems to be taking some of what was said (not all) and gleaning off what they like (or dislike) and "running with it". My proposition was to drop the article altogether in the understanding that truth and un-truth can not exist together. Either truth exist alone or becomes tainted (distorted) by the lie. And since this article was wrong as much as it was right...I thought wisdom would say, not to argue an unclear point.

...unless of course you are the author, svt, is every bit as subjective as you or i, he made some good points.

Some good points...some incorrect points. I'm not implying he was tried to directly lie, rather perhaps he was trying to convey some, yet lacked the ability to communicate clearly (perhaps). Or perhaps he was not clear about his own points to start with (more likely). You know... He was exited to convey some "truth", yet in his communication, it got lost in his own opinions and secondary thoughts.

...I can only presume you read this article as a critque on the state of Christianity, perhaps svt does too. No-one else here reads it as this, they read it as a personal reflection, it's more a state of the union speech, than a manifesto.

If "majority rules" dictates reality in your world...I apologize, and I don't expect you to comprehend what I'm saying. I see that people are taking it as a "state of the union", hence why I dislike the article. The author ("chip") uses his "state of the union address" (article) to state generalizations (true in some case; implied to all cases) as facts. In much the same way the State of the Union should only declare facts, this article should also. People use the State of the Union as a tool for reflection of their country and themselves (as part of that country). This article affect people the same way. Since they see it as a "State of Christianity"(Christianity); they thereby take it in reflection of themselves (as Christians: part of Christianity). Staying away from political issues of today, if the president lied throughout the State of the Union, it wouldn't matter what truth he stated. All of it would logically be considered fallible and not a report of facts (as "the SotU" should be).

To that affect, I see people plainly disregarding the author's mistakes. They are to busy "gobbling" up the tasty tid-bits of truth (that he threw in for flavor). And in doing so, they "gobble up" everything else that goes along with it. Funny thing is...they don't realize it ... and even go so far as to say, "No I didn't!".

Really? Then why's the bowl empty?